Saturday, April 23, 2016

Look at the Facts: Sand Hill versus the Integrity of the City Council

​
Look at the Facts: Sand Hill versus the Integrity of the City Council
Whose side was the Cupertino City Council on?
The goal of the Cupertino Citizens' Sensible Growth CCSG Initiative (CCSG Initiative) is to strengthen the existing city General Plan by specifying building densities, heights, lot coverage, setbacks, and other elements to provide for gradual and well-planned city-wide development. Unfortunately, a three-vote majority of the Cupertino City Council chose to side with attorneys representing developer Sand Hill and to ignore the Elections Code requirement for a ballot question to be true, impartial, and not prejudicial. Sand Hill’s claim that the CCSG Initiative would “increase maximum height of residential neighborhoods” a glaring misread of the General Plan and the CCSG Initiative text.
Fact Sheet - Building Heights and Elections Code Violation (Concise).pdf
White Paper Concerning City Actions Concerning the Ballot Question

FACT 1: The CCSG Initiative does not increase building heights in Cupertino. From Page 5 of the 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, which is reused in the CCSG Initiative exactly as it was approved by the Council as part of an amendment to the General Plan on October 20, 2015, shows “Neighborhoods” under a list of special areas and in a box identifying the maximum height in the Neighborhoods as 30 feet. The General Plan amendment approved on October 20, 2015 set maximum building heights in Neighborhoods at 30 feet, which is unchanged by the CCSG Initiative.
Fact Sheet - CCSGI Does Not Increase Building Heights.pdf
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7RMc9DXGhUATEFnWjV2eTB2YUU/view?usp=sharing
The text in the CCSG Initiative is very clear and specific. Sand Hill's attorneys interpreted Policy LU3.0 by removing "shown in the Community Form Diagram (Figure LU-1)" to twist its meaning.

FACT 2: Elections Code 9051 states the 75-word ballot question "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."
Fact Sheet - Ballot Question Violates Elections Code 9051.pdf
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7RMc9DXGhUAUHV0cmJzQzRMWjA/view?usp=sharing
FACT 3: Mr. Hom, the City Attorney and Mr. Perlmutter, outside counsel hired by the City, both recommended against stating that CCSG Initiative "increases" building height in the ballot question. Both said they are more comfortable to say “establish”, citing Elections Code 9051.
FACT 4: Moments before the March 31 Council meeting, Sand Hill's attorneys sent a request to change the ballot question. The City amended the impartial description prepared by the City Attorney to state that CCSG Initiative will "establish" a building height of 45 feet in Neighborhoods, which comes from the Election Code 9212 report, not the CCSG Initiative text.
FACT 5: Councilmembers Barry Chang and Gilbert Wong called the April 5 special meeting to change the ballot question, providing the CCSG Initiative supporters only a 12-hour courtesy notice. During the meeting, a three-vote majority (Chang, Wong, and Rod Sinks) of Council members sided with Sand Hill's attorneys to change the ballot question to state that the CCSG Initiative increases maximum building heights.
FACT 6: The ballot question adopted on April 5 for the CCSG Initiative now includes the false text “increase to 45 feet maximum building height in Neighborhoods”.
The false words “increase to 45 feet maximum building height in the Neighborhoods” was introduced by developer Sand Hill to prejudice the voters against the CCSG Initiative. The events preceding the adoption of the deceptive ballot question prove that the false words of one developer have more power than the truth of the General Plan and the Council’s own voting record for a majority of Council members. (Note: "Neighborhoods" is a specific label in the General Plan, not the normal sense of "neighborhoods".)
The passage of the CCSG Initiative, which will require voter approval for land use decisions affecting building density, is more important than ever to protect Cupertino’s future from being exploited by profit-driven developers.

Related Blogs:
If I am Allowed to Dream... Shopping Mall I Wish for (Nextdoor Post)



Fact Sheet: CCSG Initiative Does Not Increase Building Heights


Home Page: CCSensibleGrowth.org and BetterCupertino.org
Paid for by Committee supporting Cupertino Citizens' Sensible Growth Initiative, PO Box 1132, Cupertino, CA 95015, FPPC# 1381645.

​


Posted by at
Labels:

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)