Loading...
S. Flashman April 5, 2016 letter regarding ballot question Law Offices of Stuart M. Flashman 5626 Ocean View Drive Oakland, CA 94618-1533 (510) 652-5373 (voice & FAX) e-mail: stu@stuflash.com Delivery via electronic mail April 5, 2016 Hon. Barry Chang, Mayor, and Cupertino City Council Cupertino City Hall 10300 Torre Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: Ballot question for CCSG Initiative. Dear Mayor Chang and Council Members, I am writing to you on behalf of my clients, the Cupertino Residents for Sensible Zoning Action Committee and the proponents of the Cupertino Citizens’ Sensible Growth Initiative, in regard to tonight’s special city council meeting and its sole agenda item, a proposal to modify the ballot question for the Cupertino Citizens Sensible Growth Initiative (CCSGI). The meeting has apparently been set to respond to a letter the City received from an attorney representing the backers of a counter-initiative (primarily Vallco Property Owner, LLC [AKA San Hill Property Company]) asserting that the City’s previously-approved ballot language is inaccurate and must be corrected. My clients agree with the developer’s attorney that the previously approved language is inaccurate, but not about the nature of the inaccuracy. The developer’s attorney relies on the report prepared for the City under Elections Code §9212 as showing that the height limit in the City’s Neighborhoods would be increased by the CCSGI. However, that report itself was inaccurate because it ignored the fact that in October of 2015 the City Council revised and amended the general plan. In particular, the October 2015 General Plan Amendment revised Figure LU-1, the Community Form Diagram, and that revised diagram is specifically and explicitly included in the CCSGI at page 6. A copy of that revised figure is attached to this letter as Exhibit A. The revised diagram, like that included in the December 2014 general plan revisions, identifies the various “Special Areas” within the City and identifies key land use standards for those areas. At the lower right corner of the diagram, the diagram legend, like that in the December 2014 General Plan, lists the various Special Areas and shows how they are designated in the diagram. However, the October 2015 General Plan Amendment added, at the bottom of that list (which has the heading “Special Areas”), “Neighborhoods” with a block next to it showing that this Special Area is indicated on the diagram in white. The October 2015 General Plan Amendment also added a box at the bottom of Figure LU-1 that identifies a maximum density (15 units per acre) and a maximum height (30 feet) for the Neighborhoods Special Area. The developer’s attorney’s letter, and the §9212 report on which it is based, assume that the Neighborhoods are not a Special Area, and are therefore covered by the CCSGI’s policy that, “Outside of the Special Areas shown in Figure LU-1, building heights may not exceed 45 feet.” However, as noted, the Neighborhoods are explicitly shown in Figure LU-1 as a Special Area. Therefore, the quoted policy does not apply to the Neighborhoods. In fact, the CCSGI explicitly says, in Policy LU-3.0: Community Form that, “The maximum heights and densities for the Special Areas shown in the Community Form Diagram (Figure LU-1) shall not be exceeded.” Hon. Mayor Chang and City Council - Ballot Question for CCSG Initiative April 5, 2016 Page 2 Since Figure LU-1 shows the maximum height in the Neighborhoods as 30 feet and the maximum density as fifteen units per acre, those limits are re-enacted by the CCSGI. The City’s proposed ballot question must therefore be modified accordingly. My clients also believe that the Elections Code §9212 Report prepared for the City should also be revised to properly reflect the changes that the City Council made to the General Plan in October 2015. A suggested revised ballot question (in both clean and redline form) is attached to this letter as Exhibit B. Most sincerely Stuart M. Flashman Attachments: October 2015 version of General Plan Figure LU-1 – Community Form Diagram Proposed Revised Ballot Question cc: City Manager City Attorney Exhibit A Exhibit B     Shall  an  initiative  ordinance  be  adopted  amending   Cupertino’s  General  Plan  to  limit  redevelopment  of  the   Vallco  Shopping  District,  limit  building  heights  along  major   mixed-­‐‑use  corridors,  establish  a  45  feet  maximum  building   height  in  the  Neighborhoods  maintain  existing  maximum   heights  and  densities  in  all  special  areas,  including  the   Neighborhoods,  limit  lot  coverages  for  large  projects,   establish  new  setbacks  and  building  planes  on  major   thoroughfares,  and  require  voter  approval  for  any  changes   to  these  provisions?     Shall  an  initiative  ordinance  be  adopted  amending   Cupertino’s  General  Plan  to  limit  redevelopment  of  the   Vallco  Shopping  District,  limit  building  heights  along  major   mixed-­‐‑use  corridors,  maintain  existing  maximum  heights   and  densities  in  all  special  areas,  including  the   Neighborhoods,  limit  lot  coverages  for  large  projects,   establish  new  setbacks  and  building  planes  on  major   thoroughfares,  and  require  voter  approval  for  any  changes   to  these  provisions?