The URL can be used to link to this page

Exhibit CC 03-01-2016 Item #23 Certificate of Sufficiency for Initiative Petition by CupertinoSHUT~ MIHALY Q'-WE IN BERGER LLP 396 HAYES STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 T: (415) 552-7272 F: {415) 552-5816 www.smwlaw.com Via Electronic Mail Only Jason Holder Holder Law Group 1736 Franklin Street, Suite 550 Oakland, CA 94612 E-Mail: jason@holderecolaw.com February 29, 2016 Re: Cupertino Citizens Sensible Growth Initiative Dear Jason: <2~ 311 !1 b ::ft-;l 3 ROBERT "PERL" PERLMUTTER Attorney perlmutter@smwlaw.com As you may know, this firm serves as outside counsel to the City of Cupertino ("City"). At the request of the City Attorney's Office on behalf of the City, this letter responds to the assertions in your letters dated February 24 and 25, 2016, made on behalf of your clients the Committee Supporting Cupertino Citizens Sensible Growth Initiative ("Committee"), regarding the scheduling of the election for this Initiative. We request that you provide a copy of this letter directly to the Committee. You claim that Council "must order that the election for the Initiative take place during the June primary election pursuant to Elections Code, section 1405(b)." You also claim that the Staff Report for the City Council's March 1, 2016, meeting erroneously describes the June primary election as a "special election" date for the City of Cupertino. These assertions are incorrect. In processing initiative petitions, City officials must comply with the mandatory provisions of the Elections Code. While some of these provisions are complex, the City's responsibilities under these provisions are clear. As detailed below, given the number of signatures submitted by the Initiative proponents, the City has neither the obligation nor the authority to place the Initiative on the June ballot. Jason Holder February 29, 2016 Page2 I. Under the Elections Code, the City Council has clear discretion to schedule the Initiative election in November. While your February 24, 2016, letter concludes that the City has a duty to order that the election for the Initiative take place in June, you ultimately acknowledge that Elections Code section 9215 governs the City's process here and that the City has "various options" with respect to the Initiative. As you are aware, the City Council has three options under section 9215. It can: (1) adopt the initiative exactly as proposed, either at the regular meeting at which the certification of the signatures is presented, or within ten days after the certification is presented; (2) submit the initiative exactly as proposed to the voters pursuant to Elections Code section 1405(b); or (3) order a report pursuant to Elections Code section 9212 (or await completion of a previously ordered report), and "when the report is presented" take one of the first two steps. At this time, the City has already undertaken the third option by ordering a Report pursuant to Elections Code section 9212. See City Council Resolution No. 16-_ (Jan. 19, 2016, Agenda #16, File# 15-1281). As your February 25, 2016, letter acknowledges, pursuant to section 9212, the Report must be completed within 30 days after the City Council meeting at which the City Clerk certifies that the Initiative proponents have submitted sufficient signatures to qualify for the ballot. This certification has not yet taken place. Under the Elections Code, the certification cannot lawfully take place until the Council's March 1, 2016, meeting, which is the first regularly scheduled City Council meeting after the County Registrar of Voters completed its verification of the signatures. Elections Code§ 9211; see also§§ 9114 and 9115. Accordingly, if certification occurs on March 1st, the deadline for the 9212 Report is March 31, 2016. This date is nearly three weeks after the March 11th deadline for placing ballot measures on the June ballot. See Elections Code 1405 (last day to place any city measure on the ballot is 88 days before the election). In this regard, the consultants that the City has retained to prepare the Report have confirmed that the full time authorized by the Council is necessary to ensure that the Report is not only comprehensive, but accurate. As you well know, any decision by the Council to alter the due date for that report after-the-fact could give rise to a claim that the City is unfairly changing the rules and short-circuiting the 9212 Report process mid- stream in order to favor the Committee, to the disadvantage of those who may oppose the measure. A rushed or incomplete 9212 Report could likewise be challenged as improperly favoring one side over another. Jason Holder February 29, 2016 Page3 Thus, unless the City Council rescinds its prior authorization and due date for the 9212 Report, the City Council has no power under the Elections Code to order the Initiative placed on the June ballot. Regardless, there is absolutely no support in the law to support the assertion that the City must alter the previously established deadline to accommodate the Committee's request. II. Because the proponents did not submit sufficient signatures to qualify for a "special election"-and because the June primary election is not a regular election for the City of Cupertino-the City Council has no authority to order the Initiative placed on the June ballot. Even if the City Council chose to alter the due date for the 9212 Report and even assuming that an adequate and accurate report could be completed prior to the March 11 deadline for placing a ballot measure on the June 7 primary ballot, the City Council would still lack the authority to place the Initiative on the June ballot. That is because the Initiative proponents did not submit sufficient signatures to qualify for a "special election" pursuant to Elections Code section 9214. Instead, they only submitted sufficient signatures to qualify for a "regular election," pursuant to Elections Code section 9215. As you correctly state, Elections Code section 1405(b) sets forth the requirements for the setting of initiative elections that qualify pursuant to section 9215. That section provides in pertinent part that: "The election for a municipal [ ] initiative that qualifies pursuant to Section 9215 []shall be held at the jurisdiction's next regular election occurring not less than 88 days after the date of the order of election." Elections Code § 1405(b) (emphasis added). Elections Code section 348 defines a "regular election" as "an election, the specific time for the holding of which is prescribed by law." The City Attorney has forwarded to me an email that your clients sent him over the weekend, which contends that the City Clerk "apparently mixed up the two terms 'regular election' and 'general election," and argues that these two terms have different meanings. This is incorrect. As the California Supreme Court long ago explained, a "'[r]egular election' ... is synonymous with [a] 'general election."' People ex rel Webster v. Babcock (1899), 123 Cal. 307, 311-12; see also Blee. Code§ 323 (defining "general election" to mean, among other things, "[a]ny statewide election held on a regular election date as specified in Section 1000"). More importantly, this assertion misses the critical distinction here. The key question is not whether the June election is a "regular" or "general" election for the Jason Holder February 29, 2016 Page4 purposes of the statewide elections. The key question is when is the relevant ''jurisdiction's next regular election." See Blee. Code § 1405(b) (emphasis added). Pursuant to its Municipal Code, the City's regular election dates are held at the November election date of even-numbered years. Cupertino Municipal Code § 2.04.005. This is the only provision governing election dates in the City's Code. Therefore, since the only election dates "the specific time for which is prescribed by law" for the City of Cupertino are the dates established in this section of the City's Code, the next regular election in Cupertino is scheduled for November 8, 2016. The City Council has no discretion to ignore the Election's Code mandate that the election on the Initiative "shall be held at the jurisdiction's next regular election occurring not less than 88" after the order of election. Elections Code§ 1405(b). By contrast, the June 7, 2016 primary election is a "special election" for the City of Cupertino, even though it is a regular election for statewide or County purposes. See Elections Code§ 356 (defining "special election"),§ 1405(b) ("The election for a county initiative that qualifies pursuant to Section 9118 [i.e., for a county regular election] shall be held at the next statewide election occurring not less than 88 days after the order of election."). Your letter essentially argues that the City should apply the statutory provision governing county initiatives to municipal initiatives in the City of Cupertino. However, had the Legislature intended that Cupertino and other cities do so, it would have used the same language for municipal initiatives as it did for county initiatives. The Legislature chose instead to treat municipal initiatives differently and to mandate that such initiatives be placed on the "jurisdiction's [i.e., the City's] next regular election." Just as the City has no power to insert words into the statute to favor the opponents of your client's Initiative, it has no power to do so to favor your clients. People v. Woodhead (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1002, 1010 ("It is [a] ... settled axiom, that when the drafters of a statute have employed a term in one place and omitted it in another, it should not be inferred where it has been excluded."); see also Feb. 26, 2016, Letter from me to Sean P. Welch at 3-4. In a similar vein, you claim that June is the "next regular election" in the City, citing various Elections Code provisions regarding dates for statewide elections. However, these provisions do not apply to municipal elections and are thus irrelevant to determining the City's "next regular election." For example, you rely heavily upon Elections Code sections 1000 and 1001 for the proposition that the June election is a statewide election date. However, Elections Code section 1003 expressly provides that such election dates do not apply to city initiative elections. See Elections Code § Jason Holder February 29, 2016 Page5 1003( e) (stating that sections 1000-1002 "shall not apply to any of the following: ... ( e) County, municipal, etc ... initiative, referendum, or recall elections"). While your letter cites a number of cases in support of your assertions, none of these cases interpret section 1405(b), which is the statute that governs here. Silicon Valley Taxpayers' Assn. v. Garner (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 402, 408-409, concerned a Proposition 218 tax measure for county voters. Neither Proposition 218's requirements nor county election dates are at issue here. Similarly, County of Alameda v. Sweeney (1957) 151Cal.App.2d505, 511-512 addressed an election for a county charter amendment. Charter amendments (for both counties and cities) are governed by entirely different Elections Code provisions and likewise have no applicability here. Finally, while Jeffrey v. Superior Court (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 1, did involve a city election, that case too addressed very specific requirements for a charter amendment to alter the number of elected city council members, which are not at all relevant to the present situation. Id. at 9 (interpreting former Elections Code§ 9255 and Government Code§ 36502). The statutory language governing election dates in each of these cases is markedly different than the provisions of Elections Code sections 9215 and 1405 that apply to city initiative measures. Moreover, in at least two of these cases, the courts expressly rejected an argument, like yours, that the city or county was required to place a measure on an earlier election date. See Jeffrey, 102 Cal.App.4th at 9 (upholding the city council's determination to place a proposed charter amendment on a later ballot, rather than on the earlier ballot requested by the proponents); Silicon Valley, 216 Cal.App.4th at 410 (noting that the county had the discretion to "place the issue on the next statewide primary election in two years," rather than on the earlier ballot date chosen). Please note that we have also confirmed that the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters ("ROV") agrees with our conclusion that the June 7, 2016, primary election is not a "regular election"-within the meaning of the California Elections Code-for the City of Cupertino. Jason Holder February 29, 2016 Page6 In sum, there is no statutory or case authority to support your arguments. The Initiative did not qualify for the June 7, 2016, special election, and the City Council has neither the obligation, nor the authority, to place it on the ballot for that election. Very truly yours, SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP Robert "Perl" Perlmutter cc: Randolph Hom, City Attorney 760951.2 Collen Winchester, Assistant City Attorney David Brandt, City Manager Lauren Sapudar From: Sent: To: Subject: Sensible Growth <ccsensiblegrowth@gmail.com> Tuesday, March 01, 2016 1:42 PM City Clerk; City Attorney's Office; City Council Re: CCSGI Should Qualify for June Election, which is a regular election. Dear Ms. Schmidt and Mr. Hom, The Committee supporting Cupertino Citizens' Sensible Growth Initiative (CCSGI) disagrees with the argument of the city's outside counsel, Attorney Robert "Perl" Perlmutter. The committee asserts that CCSGI qualifies for the next regular election, which is June election. And the committee requests the City to call a special meeting before March 10 to discuss the logistics necessary to put CCSGI on June election. Mr. Perlmutter argues that "general election" is equivalent to "regular election" by referring to a precedent from a 1899 case. However, California Election Code wasn't adopted until 1939. And in California Election Code, Section 324 provides a definition of a "general election," while Section 348 defines a "regular election." It is very clear that in California Election Code, "general election" and "regular election" are two separate terms with different definitions. Cupertino Municipal Code §2.04.005 is only limited to the schedule of "general election," which is City Council election. And the code is properly located within a chapter titled "City Council -Election and Meetings." C.M.C. does not give any schedule for "regular election" in Cupertino. According to California Election Code, CCSGI qualifies for the "municipal's next regular election". Since Cupertino doesn't have any municipal code for regular election, the state law on regular election applies. Thus, both June 2016 election and November 2016 election are regular election for both Cupertino and the state. You owe it to more than 4000 citizens who signed the petition for CCSGI. You owe it to more than 2000 citizens who signed in the last week because the citizens wanted to make it possible to put CCSGI on Cupertino's June election ballot. Many citizens will be upset with the city's arbitrary interpretation of the law and municipal code in mixing up the two terms "general election" with "regular election," which are separately defined under the California Election Code. Please declare that CCSGI qualifies for the June election as it deserves under California Election Code. The CCSGI committee recognizes that the City Council would not adopt CCSGI as it is written, regardless of the content of the 9212 impact report. Therefore, any insistence on waiting for the completion of the 9212 impact report only adds meaningless delay to the democratic process. We are sure that the Council would not want to be a barrier to keep Cupertino citizens from having an open and frank discussion on CCSGI during the period leading up to the June election without distraction from other issues. We respectfully request that the Council call a special meeting before March 10 to discuss the logistics necessary to put CCSGI on June election. 1 Sincerely, Committee supporting Cupertino Citizens' Sensible Growth Initiative On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 12:48 AM, Sensible Growth <ccsensiblegrowth@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Grace and Mr. Hom, According to California Elections Code, Cupertino Citizens' Sensible Growth Initiative (CCSGI) qualifies for "the jurisdiction's next regular election," which should be June election. Both June and November elections are regular elections since "the specific time for the holding of which is prescribed by law" for both of them. In the Staff Report of Item 23, the City Clerk apparently mixed up the two terms "regular election" and "general election". We urge the city to correct the misinterpretation before March 1 Council meeting to avoid any confusion and mistrust by the citizens. More than 4000 voters who have signed the petition for CCSGI are eager to be able to vote on CCSGI as soon as possible. Imagine the reaction of the 4000 voters when they found out that the city insists that CCSGI does not qualify for June election because the City has misinterpreted the Elections Code. Give CCSGI a fair chance, since it deserves to be qualify for the next "regular election", which is June primary election. In the Staff Report of Item 23, prepared by the City Clerk, it indicates that Election Code says CCSGI is qualified for "the jurisdiction's next regular election". The Staff Report ofltem 23 refers to C.M.C. §2.04.005 and mentioned "the City's regular election dates are held at the November election date of even-numbered years". We looked up C.M.C. §2.04.005. It is under Chapter 2.04 "City Council -Election and meetings". And C.M.C. §2.04.005 in fact refers to the "general election", NOT "regular election". The Municipal Code is misquoted. It doesn't apply to "regular election". Since there is no Cupertino Municipal Code specifying the "regular election" for Cupertino, the California Elections Code applies. In the Elections Code, Section 324 provides a definition of a "general election," while Section 348 defines a "regular election." The two definitions are different, and Elections Code Section 1405(b) references a "regular election," not a "general election." So, both the June primary election and the Nov. general election are "regular elections" in Cupertino. June election is a regular election, as Nov. election since the process of putting a measure on June election is the same as the process of putting a measure on Nov. election. None of the election regulation for "special election" applies for June election. It is simply not a "special election". It is apparent that "general election" is a totally different term from "regular election". Nov. election is a general election and June election is NOT a general elect. Yet, both are "regular elections" as defined by the Elections Code. If you still think CCSGI doesn't qualify for June election, would you please give the citizens a response that clearly indicate your legal reasons that June election is not a regular election? And your legal reasons that "general election" is equivalent to "regular election". In the interest of time, the response should be provided before March 1 Council meeting to clarify any confusion and mistrust of the citizens. You owe it to more than 4000 voters who signed the petition for CCSGI. You owe it to more than 2000 voters who signed in the last week because the voters wanted to make it possible to put CCSGI on Cupertino's June election ballot. Without a clear satisfactory explanation why the June primary election is not a "regular election", many voters will be upset with the city's arbitrary interpretation of the law and municipal code in mixing up the two tenns "general election" with "regular election," which are separately defined under the Elections Code. 2 Imagine the reaction of the 4000 voters when they found out that the city insists that CCSGI does not qualify for June election because the City has misinterpreted the Elections Code. Give CCSGI a fair chance, since it deserves to be qualify for the next "regular election", which is June primary election. Sincerely, Committee supporting Cupertino Citizens' Sensible Growth Initiative 3 Lauren Sapudar From: Toni Oasay-Anderson Sent: To: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 11:59 AM City Clerk Subject: FW: put CCSGI on June ballet From: Tong Zheng [mailto:tongzhengtz@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 4:21 PM To: City Council Subject: put CCSGI on June ballet Dear council members and Planning Commissioners, Please put Cupertino Citizens' Sensible Growth Initiative on June ballet as it deserves. Both June election and November election are regular elections, which CCSGI qualifies for. Please don't impede the democratic process. I'd like this correspondence be put on the public record regarding Cupertino Citizens' Sensible Growth Initiative. Sincerely yours, Tong 1 manatt manatt I phelps I phillips . March 1, 2016 Honorable Mayor Barry Chang and Members of the City Council City of Cupertino City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3202 Kristina Lawson Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP Direct Dial: (415) 291-7555 E-mail: Klawson@manatt.com Client-Matter: 46957-032 Re: Initiative Amending Cupertino's General Plan To Limit Redevelopment Of The Vallco Shopping District, Limit Building Heights And Lot Coverages In Areas Throughout The City, Establish New Setbacks And Building Planes On Major Thoroughfares, And Require Voter Approval For Any Changes To These Provisions -Request For Inclusion Of Information In Elections Code Section 9212 Report Dear Honorable Mayor Chang and Members of the City Council: This firm represents Kimco Realty Corp. and Cupertino Village, L.P. in connection with their ownership of the Cupertino Village shopping center in Cupertino. Cupertino Village is located at Homestead Road and. Wolfe Road, and is home to a variety of retailers including well known retailers like 99 Ranch Market, Bank of the West, and Starbucks, and numerous local small businesses. In an effort to adapt to the needs of the Cupertino community, Cupertino Village has been carefully assessing options for redevelopment of the shopping center to modernize the antiquated property and transform it into a premiere destination for the City's, residents and visitors. We understand that this evening the City Council will be receiving a certification of sufficiency for an initiative submitted by the Cupertino Residents for Sensible Zoning Action Committee. This initiative measure will have significant consequences for the entire City of Cupertino, and we appreciate that the City Council previously requested preparation of a report pursuant to section 9212 of the Elections Code to evaluate the various potential impacts of the initiative. We strongly agree with your City staffs recommendation to defer a decision on whether to adopt the initiative or place it on the November 8, 2016, ballot until after the report on the initiative is completed and can be properly reviewed by the public and the City Council. We urge the City Council to adopt staffs recommendation, and to continue preparation of a comprehensive report so that all of the citizens of Cupertino can be objectively informed of the consequences of the initiative. In order to properly inform the electorate of the myriad One Embarcadero Center, 3oth Floor, San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: 415.291.7400 Fax: 415.291.7474 Albany I Los Angeles I New York I Orange County I Palo Alto I Sacramento I San Francisco I Washington, D.C. manatt manatt I phelps I phillips Honorable Mayor Barry Chang and Members of the City Council March 1, 2016 Page 2 intended and unintended consequences of the initiative, we respectfully request the following matters be analyzed in the report: 1. Effect on Cupertino General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Part IV, Section 3, of the initiative amends the Citywide development allocation table included in the General Plan. On its face, the table indicates that only certain future amendments may be processed through the normal General Plan amendment process. Presumably, any other amendments to the development allocation table must be approved by the voters. We request the report evaluate this issue and determine whether the initiative permanently fixes in place the Citywide development allocation table. This section alone could freeze Cupertino in place in 2016, with future changes allowed only with voter approval. In addition, Part IV, Section 3, of the initiative requires.that Figure LU-1 "Community Form Diagram" and the Land Use Map shall be conformed to the requirements established in the initiative. Further, Part IV, Section 1, requires that harmonization of the initiative with the City's adopted General Plan shall also recognize that changes made through the initiative are intended to modify and supersede any section, policy, strategy, table, or diagram that might otherwise conflict with the amendments being made by the initiative. We respectfully request that the report include an analysis of the legal implications of these two sections when read together with Part VIII of the initiative. By superseding all sections, policies, strategies, tables, and diagrams that conflict with the initiative, we read the initiative to mean that any future changes to those sections, policies, strategies, tables, and diagrams (including the entire City of Cupertino Land Use Map and Community Form Diagram) could require voter approval. 2. Effect on the Use of Land In Cupertino Part III of the initiative states that one of the purposes of the initiative is to "control the intensity of new development by setting general citywide limits on building heights, setbacks, building planes and lot coverage in Cupertino that will provide long-term direction." The initiative establishes a variety of new floor area, stepback, height, and building plane requirements. We respectfully request the report evaluate the impact of these new citywide limits, including, but not limited to, the effect of the new citywide limits on the ability of existing uses to be replaced or repaired in the event of a casualty or loss. We urge the City in the repo1i to inform the electorate of the consequences of adoption of citywide development regulations that cannot be modified without voter approval. Other cities in the region have faced similar requirements, resulting in sortie cases in significant blight due to the inability of property owners to redevelop antiquated structures in a rational way. Further, rather than encouraging sound land use planning decisions be made, the types of requirements manatt manatt I phelps I phillips Honorable Mayor Barry Chang and Members of the City Council March 1, 2016 Page 3 that could be imposed by the measure actually encourage ballot box planning which can have significant land use and fiscal impacts for cities. With respect to building planes/step backs, the initiative uses different language to describe how the building plane will be measured. On the one hand, the slope line is to be drawn from the "curb line", and on the other hand, the slope line is to be drawn from the "curb line or lines." We are left unclear as to where the slope line should be measured from. Does curb line mean face of curb or some other location? We respectfully request the report to evaluate this issue and other development standards or requirements that require precise measurements. 3. Effect on Existing Entitlements for Cupertino Village and Uses Citywide Cupertino Village has vested rights pursuant to certain approvals and entitlements granted by the City beginning on March 28, 1966. Similarly, many projects throughout the City have vested rights. We respectfully request that the report include an analysis of the impacts of the initiative on these vested rights, including whether the initiative completely exempts all projects for which vested rights were previously obtained (pursuant to Part V of the initiative) or whether the initiative would require the City to pay just compensation. * * * We greatly appreciate the City's consideration of this letter, and look forward to reviewing the section 9212 report once it is prepared. Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned should you have any questions or require further information. v~~~ ~Lawson KXL:KXL 316583826, I Lauren Sapudar From: Sent: To: Toni Oasay-Anderson Monday, February 29, 2016 8:51 AM City Clerk Subject: FW: June Election eligibility for Cupertino Citizens Sensible Growth Initiative Follow-up Letter to City re Placing Initiative on June Ballot.pdf; ATTOOOOl.htm Attachments: From: Darcy Paul Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2016 6:17 AM To: annedore.kushner@gmail.com; Randolph Hom; David Brandt Cc: Liang Chao; Peggy Griffin; Alan Penn; Xiaowen Wang; Gilbert Wong Subject: Fwd: June Election eligibility for Cupertino Citizens Sensible Growth Initiative Annedore, I'm forwarding your message to the city attorney and the city manager. The issue has been examined, and while I can't speak to the substance of the respective legal positions at this time, I can tell you it seems to me that the concern is being treated with promptness, seriousness, and good faith. We'll get this resolved. -Darcy Paul Councilmember City of Cupertino Sent from an iPhone, designed in Cupertino Begin forwarded message: From: Annedore Kushner <annedore.kushner@gmail.com> Date: February 26, 2016 at 2:06:16 PM PST To: <dpaul@cupertino.org>, <gwong@cupertino.org> Cc: Liang Chao <lfchao@gmail.com>, Peggy Griffin <griffin@compuserve.com>, Alan Penn <alanp usa@yahoo.com>, Xiaowen Wang <xiaowenw@gmail.com> Subject: June Election eligibility for Cupertino Citizens Sensible Growth Initiative Hi Darcy and Gilbert, It was nice to meet you on Wednesday. Thanks for spending time with us and sharing your thoughts and listening to our suggestions. The main concern resulting from our conversation was of course the statement that Council had received guidance from the City Attorney that the initiative would not qualify to be placed on the June ballot. The staff report further supported this assertion. As you could tell from our reaction, we were quite surprised and immediately questioned the veracity of the interpretation of the Election Code. We handed the matter to the group's attorney for review and response. I believe you all received a copy, but here it is again. 1 I'm writing to you to see if you could please follow up with City Staff to make sure this is treated with the kind of urgency that is required, as the March 1 Council meeting agenda would need to be revised by 4:30 pm today. I hate rushing people and telling them how to do their jobs, especially when I'm asking them to make my urgency "their" issue. However, I think we can all imagine the public reaction if the initiative does not make it on the ballot because city staff/attorney might have misread the relevant section of the election code. I'm certain that none of us want to stay until midnight next Tuesday because a bunch of residents are having a collective melt down in front of Council. Any assistance you can provide in facilitating this item to be reviewed and placed on the agenda for next Tuesday, would be much appreciated. Kind regards, Annedore ----------Forwarded Message ----------- Dear Messrs. Brandt and Hom, Please see the attached follow-up letter concerning scheduling the election for the initiative measure referenced above. The original will follow by regular mail. Thank you again for your attention to this matter, -Jason Holder On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 8:36 PM, Jason Holder <jason@holderecolaw.com> wrote: Dear Messrs. Brandt and Hom, Please see the attached letter concerning scheduling the election for the initiative measure referenced above. The original will follow by regular mail. Thank you for your attention to this matter, -Jason Holder 2 Jason W. Holder Holder Law Group Important: This electronic mail message, including any attached files, is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer; it is confidential and it may contain or constitute information protected by the attorney-client and/or the attorney work-product privileges. If the person actually receiving this message, or any other reader of this message, is not the named recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the named recipient, you are not authorized to retain, read, copy or disseminate this communication or any part of it. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify Holder Law Group at (510) 338-3759. Thank you Jason W. Holder Holder Law Group Important: This electronic mail message, including any attached files, is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer; it is confidential and it may contain or constitute information protected by the attorney-client and/or the attorney work-product privileges. If the person actually receiving this message, or any other reader of this message, is not the named recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the named recipient, you are not authorized to retain, read, copy or disseminate this communication or any part of it. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify Holder Law Group at (510) 338-3759. Thank you You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CCSGI-Core" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ccsgi-core+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to ccsgi-core@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ccsgi-core. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ 3 ----------Forwarded Message----------- Dear Messrs. Brandt and Hom, Please see the attached follow-up letter concerning scheduling the election for the initiative measure referenced above. The original will follow by regular mail. Thank you again for your attention to this matter, -Jason Holder On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 8:36 PM, Jason Holder <jason@holderecolaw.com> wrote: Dear Messrs. Brandt and Hom, Please see the attached letter concerning scheduling the election for the initiative measure referenced above. The original will follow by regular mail. Thank you for your attention to this matter, -Jason Holder Jason vV. Holder Holder Law Group Important: This electronic mail message. including any attached files. is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer; it is confidential and it may contain or constitute information protected by the attorney-client and/or the attorney work-product privileges. If the person actually receiving this message, or any other reader of this message, is not the named recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the named recipient, you are not authorized to retain, read, copy or disseminate this communication or any part of it. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify Holder Law Group at (510) 338- 3759. Thank you Jason W. Holder Holder Law Group Important: This electronic mail message, including any attached files, is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer; it is confidential and it may contain or constitute information protected by the attorney-client and/or the attorney work-product privileges. If the person actually receiving this message, or any other reader of this message, is not the named recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the named recipient, you are not authorized to retain, read, copy or disseminate this communication or any part of it. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify Holder Law Group at (510) 338- 3759. 4 February 25, 2016 VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL David Brandt, City Manager DavidB@cupertino.org Randolph Hom, City Attorney CityAttorney@cupertino.org Cupertino City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-4302 Re: Election for Cupertino Citizens Sensible Growth Initiative (CCSGI) Dear Messrs. Brandt and Hom: holderecolaw.com (510) 338-3759 jason@holderecolaw.com This letter follows our letter sent yesterday requesting that City officials reconsider the position that an election on the Cupertino Citizens Sensible Growth Initiative (the "Initiative" or "CCSGI") cannot be placed on the statewide primary election ballot in June 2016. We have reviewed the staff report prepared for the March 1 City Council meeting. The staff report contains the following inaccuracies that should be corrected: 1. The report states that the City's next regular election is the November 2016 statewide general election when in fact the City's next regular election is the June 2016 primary election. The City Municipal Code's definition of municipal elections, set forth in C.M.C. section 2.04.005, applies to the elections of council members, not more broadly to elections for citizen sponsored initiative measures. Further the Municipal Code definition refers to these bi-annual elections as "general" elections, not as "regular" elections. And in any case, the Municipal Code's definition does not trump the definition of "regular" election in the Elections Code, as that term is used in Section 1405{b), but rather the opposite -the Elections Code definition of "regular" election governs. If the legislature intended such initiatives to be voted on only at statewide general elections or at municipal elections it could have used the terms "general" or "municipal" in Section 9215. Instead, the legislature used the term "regular," the plain meaning of which are the regular elections as defined and established in the Elections Code. (See Elections Code,§§ 348, 1000.) 2. The report suggests that the initiative proponents needed to collect signatures from 15% of the City's registered voters in order to qualify for a special election that could City Manager and City Attorney City of Cupertino February 25, 2016 Page 2 be consolidated with the June 2016 primary election when in fact only signatures from 10% of voters is needed to qualify for the next regular election, which is the June 2016 primary election. Thus, the Initiative can and should qualify for the next regular election in June. The Elections Code only provides for a 30-day period for preparing the report authorized by Section 9212. (See Elections Code,§§ 9215(c) [stating report can be ordered at the meeting where the certification pf the initiative petition is presented], 9212 [stating that the report must be prepared within 30 days of the date the initiative is certified].) More than 30 days have already elapsed since the City Council ordered the report. Thus, the report can and should be presented to the Council at its March ist meeting. Delaying presentation of the report until the end of March, an additional month beyond the 30-day period contemplated by the statute, as recommended in the staff report, will unduly interfere with the democratic process for this Initiative. Further, contrary to the assertions in the staff report, the City Council need not wait until the report, requested pursuant to Elections Code, section 9212, is completed before it issues its order of election. We ask that the staff report be amended to correct the above inaccuracies. Please confirm by tomorrow (Friday) morning whether City staff agree to amend the staff report as requested above. cc: (Via email only) Very truly yours, Jason W. Holder Co-counsel for Committee Supporting Cupertino Citizens Sensible Growth Initiative Cupertino City Council: CityCouncil@cupertino.org Cupertino City Clerk: CityClerk@cupertino.org Co-counsel, Stuart Flashman: stu@stuflash.com Client representatives Lauren Sapudar From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear Mayor Chang, ignatius.ding@gmail.com on behalf of Ignatius Ding <Ignatius@sbcglobal.net> Saturday, February 27, 2016 2:08 AM Barry Chang Cupertino City Manager's Office; City Clerk; Randolph Hom; Matt Wilson; Kristi Myllenbeck, Cupertino Courier; Barbara Marshman; Scott Herhold An urgent appeal for your attention to a time sensitive matter to the highest order for the City of Cupertino and all residents This is an urgent appeal for your attention to a time sensitive matter to the highest order for the City of Cupertino and all residents. Upon reviewing the agenda posted online for the Council Meeting to be held on March 1, 2016, I am very disturbed to find a serious administrative error that will most likely jeopardize an important item scheduled to be discussed in the next Council meeting on March 1, 2016 (Tuesday). This is not a matter of misinterpretation of the State Election Code or the Cupertino Municipal Code. It is a case in which (1) a wrong municipal code was used as the basis for the staff recommendation; (2) the content and wording of a critical provision in the Municipal Code was illegally altered to change the the entire meaning of the election law. I have found that the city did not prepare a resolution to consider placing the Cupertino Citizens Sensible Growth Initiative (the "Initiative" or "CCSGI") measure submitted by Cupertino Residents for Sensible Zoning Action Committee on the June 7, 2016 ballot. This action is totally jeopardizing the process to move the measure forward without merit. I have carefully examined the staff report, which was also posted online, to look for the reasons which were based by the city staff to make the recommendation related to CCSGI as stated above. In Paragraph 1 on Page 2 of the Staff Report, it was cited the disqualification of the CCSGI measure for the June ballot was because the "June election" is considered a special election in Cupertino and the petitioners did not have the needed 4,029 valid signatures (15% of the 26,866 registered voters) for a special election as set forth in the Registrar's certification. 1 In Paragraph 2 of Page 2 of the Staff Report, it further explained that "The requirement to submit the measure at a regular-as opposed to a special-election comes from the mandatory language of Elections Code Section 1405(b). This section provides that: 'The election for a municipal or district initiative that qualifies pursuant to Section 9215 or 9311 shall be held at the jurisdiction's next regular election occurring not less than 88 days after the date of the order of election.' Elec. Code § 1405(b) (emphasis added). Pursuant to its Municipal Code, the City's regular election dates are held at the November election date of even-numbered years. C.M.C. §2.04.005; see also Elections Code§ 348 (defining "regular election")." This explanation, consequently, completely rules out to submit any initiative measure in Cupertino on any ballot other than the November ballot of each even-numbered year. However, this part of the Staff Report was quoting a provision in the Cupertino City Municipal Code (C.M.C. §2.04.005) totally out of context since it is from a section for "Council Election and Meetings" and the staff has intentionally altered the words in the Municipal Code -substituting "general municipal election" with "regular election." The alteration of the keywords has then inappropriately used Elections Code § 348 to lump the measure into interpretation of C.M.C. §2.04.005. Thereby, it has changed the Municipal Code provision for a "general municipal election" only for council members to a "regular election" for council members and ballot measures. The quoting out of context in the report obstructs an initiative process. The forging of provision of a municipal legislation is a serious offense. It must be taken into account. The recommendation must be set aside by the Council. Without a legal provision to limit placing measure only on November ballots, the Council must (1) put the CCSGI on June 2016 ballot since it has lawfully met the 10% signature requirements to qualify for the statewide regular election; (2) prepare a resolution to be voted on March 1, 2016 regular council meeting or a special council meeting on or before March 11, 2016 to meet the deadline for the June ballot submission. I strongly urge you to review the matter since any repair of the erroneous text and change of recommendation, if warranted, must be done before or on March 1, 2016. Thank you very much. 2 Ignatius Y. Ding 38-year resident of Cupertino 3 Lauren Sapudar From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Grace and Mr. Hom, Sensible Growth <ccsensiblegrowth@gmail.com> Sunday, February 28, 2016 12:49 AM City Clerk; City Attorney's Office; City Council CCSGI Should Qualify for June Election, which is a regular election. According to California Elections Code, Cupertino Citizens' Sensible Growth Initiative (CCSGI) qualifies for "the jurisdiction's next regular election," which should be June election. Both June and November elections are regular elections since "the specific time for the holding of which is prescribed by law" for both of them. In the Staff Report of Item 23, the City Clerk apparently mixed up the two terms "regular election" and "general election". We urge the city to correct the misinterpretation before March 1 Council meeting to avoid any confusion and mistrust by the citizens. More than 4000 voters who have signed the petition for CCSGI are eager to be able to vote on CCSGI as soon as possible. Imagine the reaction of the 4000 voters when they found out that the city insists that CCSGI does not qualify for June election because the City has misinterpreted the Elections Code. Give CCSGI a fair chance, since it deserves to be qualify for the next "regular election", which is June primary election. In the Staff Report ofltem 23, prepared by the City Clerk, it indicates that Election Code says CCSGI is qualified for "the jurisdiction's next regular election". The Staff Report ofltem 23 refers to C.M.C. §2.04.005 and mentioned "the City's regular election dates are held at the November election date of even-numbered years". We looked up C.M.C. §2.04.005. It is under Chapter 2.04 "City Council -Election and meetings". And C.M.C. §2.04.005 in fact refers to the "general election", NOT "regular election". The Municipal Code is misquoted. It doesn't apply to "regular election". Since there is no Cupertino Municipal Code specifying the "regular election" for Cupertino, the California Elections Code applies. In the Elections Code, Section 324 provides a definition of a "general election," while Section 348 defines a "regular election." The two definitions are different, and Elections Code Section 1405(b) references a "regular election," not a "general election." So, both the June primary election and the Nov. general election are "regular elections" in Cupertino. June election is a regular election, as Nov. election since the process of putting a measure on June election is the same as the process of putting a measure on Nov. election. None of the election regulation for "special election" applies for June election. It is simply not a "special election". It is apparent that "general election" is a totally different term from "regular election". Nov. election is a general election and June election is NOT a general elect. Yet, both are "regular elections" as defined by the Elections Code. If you still think CCSGI doesn't qualify for June election, would you please give the citizens a response that clearly indicate your legal reasons that June election is not a regular election? And your legal reasons that "general election" is equivalent to "regular election". In the interest of time, the response should be provided before March 1 Council meeting to clarify any confusion and mistrust of the citizens. You owe it to more than 4000 voters who signed the petition for CCSGI. You owe it to more than 2000 voters who signed in the last week because the voters wanted to make it possible to put CCSGI on Cupertino's June election ballot. 1 Without a clear satisfactory explanation why the June primary election is not a "regular election", many voters will be upset with the city's arbitrary interpretation of the law and municipal code in mixing up the two terms "general election" with "regular election," which are separately defined under the Elections Code. Imagine the reaction of the 4000 voters when they found out that the city insists that CCSGI does not qualify for June election because the City has misinterpreted the Elections Code. Give CCSGI a fair chance, since it deserves to be qualify for the next "regular election", which is June primary election. Sincerely, Committee supporting Cupertino Citizens' Sensible Growth Initiative 2 Lauren Sapudar From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear council members, Josephine Ding <jiswei@gmail.com> Monday, February 29, 2016 12:11 AM City Council David Brandt; City Clerk CCSGI residents' initiative for June Ballot Please put the Cupertino Citizens for Sensible Growth Initiative (CCSGI -residents' initiative) on June ballot. It is the will of the voters in Cupertino. Josephine C. Ding West Cupertino 1 Lauren Sapudar From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Jon . <jonbobw@hotmail.com> Monday, February 29, 2016 8:07 AM City Council David Brandt; City Clerk CCSGI residents' initiative for June Ballot Dear Cupertino City Gmncil, Please put the Cupertino Citizens for Sensible Growth Initiative (CCSGI -residents' initiative) on the June ballot. It is the will of the voters in Cupertino. Jon Willey Cupertino Resident 1 Lauren Sapudar From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear council members, Please put the Alan Penn <alanp_usa@yahoo.com> Monday, February 29, 2016 8:22 AM City Council City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager's Office CCSGI residents' initiative for June Ballot Cupertino Citizens for Sensible Growth Initiative (CCSGI -residents' initiative) on June ballot. It is the will of the voters in Cupertino. Alan Penn Cupertino Resident Lauren Sapudar From: Sent: To: Subject: Lin Tu <tu_lin@yahoo.com> Monday, February 29, 2016 8:49 AM City Council; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; City Attorney's Office; City Clerk Put CCSGI on June Ballot Dear Council Members and Planning Commissioners, I am a Cupertino resident and writing you about the Agenda item 23 of March 1 City Council meeting. My neighbors and my family members are very concerned about the recent development proposals that requires massive change of the General Plan. We are very glad to see the concerned citizens who share my worries put forward the Cupertino Citizens' Sensible Growth Initiative. Most of my neighbors including myself endorsed this initiative and happy to learn that the initiative has gathered sufficient signatures and submitted for qualification. All developers shall act the same way as our residents. During my past remodeling project, I made so many changes to follow city building code and ordinance. We shall enforce the existing rules and demand our developers to follow our city rules without exceptions. Since the county RoV has certified the initiative has collected enough signatures for a ballot measure, I would like to urge you to put the initiative on the June ballot. I strongly feel that this initiative is about a fair chance for both the residents and developers to shape the development projects and ensure the future of the city. The earlier we can get the initiative be adopted or voted on, the better for both parties. With all the development proposals now on the table, it is much better to resolve the rules of how we deal with the illegal demands from the developers. The initiative set up the process to avoid foreseeable referendums from the residents and individual initiatives from developers. I hope you all can consider put the Cupertino Citizens' Sensible Growth Initiative on this June's primary election or even better adopt it directly as it is. Finally, I would like this correspondence be put on the public record regarding Cupertino Citizens' Sensible Growth Initiative. Sincerely yours, Tu, Lin Lauren Sapudar From: Sent: To: Subject: -----Original Message----- Toni Oasay-Anderson Monday, February 29, 2016 9:05 AM City Clerk FW: March 1st City Council meeting: please put CCSGI residents initiative on June ballot From: Qin Yahoo [mailto:qinpan@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2016 9:25 PM To: City Council Subject: March 1st City Council meeting: please put CCSGI residents initiative on June ballot Dear City Council, Please put the CCSGI residents' initiative on June ballot! It is the will of the voters in Cupertino. Among the register voters I approached, 89% signed the initiative ! Please discuss during March 1st city council meeting and put the initiative on June ballot. Best, Qin Pan 10210 Vicksburg ct Cupertino 1 Lauren Sapudar From: Toni Oasay-Anderson Sent: To: Monday, February 29, 2016 9:05 AM City Clerk Subject: FW: Please put the CCSGI residents' initiative on June ballot!!! From: H Qing [mailto:hqing2001@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2016 10:02 PM To: City Council Subject: Please put the CCSGI residents' initiative on June ballot!!! Dear city council, Please discuss on March 1 and put the CCSGI residents' initiative on June ballot. It is the will of the voters in Cupertino. Will be there at council meeting on March 1. Best regards, Hongrong Qing 1 Lauren Sapudar From: Sent: To: Subject: Toni Oasay-Anderson Monday, February 29, 2016 9:05 AM City Clerk FW: Please put the CCSGI residents' initiative on June ballot! From: Cindy Li [mailto:cindyli_mlc@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2016 10:04 PM To: City Council Subject: Please put the CCSGI residents' initiative on June ballot! Dear city council, Please discuss on March 1 and put the CCSGI residents' initiative on June ballot. It is the will of the voters in Cupertino. Will be there at council meeting on March 1. Best regards, Yi Li 1 Lauren Sapudar From: Toni Oasay-Anderson Sent: To: Monday, February 29, 2016 9:06 AM City Clerk Subject: FW: CCSGI Initiative From: Dicksteinp@aol.com [mailto:Dicksteinp@aol.com] Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 7:46 AM To: City Council Subject: CCSGI Initiative Dear Council Members, Please put the CCSGI residents' initiative on June ballot. It is the will of the voters in Cupertino. Sincerely, Phyllis Dickstein, Cupertino resident 1 Lauren Sapudar From: Toni Oasay-Anderson Sent: To: Monday, February 29, 2016 9:06 AM City Clerk Subject: FW: Regarding March 1st City Council Meeting on CCSGI Initiative From: S. Ren [mailto:sren17@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 7:36 AM To: City Council Subject: Regarding March 1st City Council Meeting on CCSGI Initiative Dear City Council Members, CCSGI Initiative has expressed the will of the voters in Cupertino. Please put the initiative on June ballot. Sincerely, Sherry Ren Cupertino Resident since 1998 1 Lauren Sapudar From: Sent: To: Subject: -----Original Message----- Toni Oasay-Anderson Monday, February 29, 2016 9:06 AM City Clerk FW: Ccsgi From: Victor Zhang [mailto:zhangx.geo@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 8:07 AM To: City Council Subject: Ccsgi Please put the CCSGI residents' initiative on June ballot. It is the will of the voters in Cupertino. Sent from my iPhone 1 Lauren Sapudar From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear council members, Please put the Vickie Chin <vickie_chin@hotmail.com> Monday, February 29, 2016 9:43 AM City Council David Brandt; City Clerk CCSGI residents' initiative for June Ballot Cupertino Citizens for Sensible Growth Initiative (CCSGI -residents' initiative) on June ballot. It is the will of the voters in Cupertino. Vickie Chin Seven Spring Community 1 Lauren Sapudar From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Joan Lawler <joan.lawler@gmail.com> Monday, February 29, 2016 9:56 AM City Council City Clerk; David Brandt CCSGI residents' initiative for June Ballot Dear Cupertino Gty Council members, Please put the Cupertino Gtizens for Sensible Growth Initiative (CCSGI -residents' initiative) on June ballot. It is the will of the voters in Cupertino. Joan Chin Resident of Cupertino 1 Lauren Sapudar From: Toni Oasay-Anderson Sent: To: Monday, February 29, 2016 10:06 AM City Clerk Subject: FW: CCSGI residents' initiative for June Ballot From: Ying shih [mailto:yinghwashih@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 10:06 AM To: City Council Subject: CCSGI residents' initiative for June Ballot Dear council members, Please put the Cupertino Citizens for Sensible Growth Initiative (CCSGI -residents' initiative) on June ballot. It is the will of the voters in Cupertino. Ying Shih Cupertino voter 1 Lauren Sapudar From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: pauline fei <pauline_fei@yahoo.com> Monday, February 29, 2016 10:34 AM City Council; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; City Attorney's Office; City Clerk pauline Fei Please put CCSGI on June election Dear Council Members and Planning Commissioners, I am writing you about the Agenda item 23 of March 1 City Council meeting. As Cupe1iino residents I am very concerned about the recent development proposals that requires massive change of the General Plan. I am very glad to see the concerned citizens who share my worries put forward the Cupertino Citizens' Sensible Growth Initiative. I signed (endorsed) this initiative and happy to learn that the initiative has gathered sufficient signatures and submitted for qualification. Since the county Ro V has certified the initiative has collected enough signatures for a ballot measure, I would like to urge you to put the initiative on the June ballot. I strongly feel that this initiative is about a fair chance for both the residents and developers to shape the development projects and ensure the future of the city. The earlier we can get the initiative be adopted or voted on, the better for both parties. With all the development proposals now on the table, it is much better to resolve the rules of how we deal with the illegal demands from the developers. The initiative set up the process to avoid foreseeable referendums from the residents and individual initiatives from developers. Even though that the city attorney interprets that the June election is not a municipal regular election, I heard some legal opinion suggests otherwise. I hope that city can be diligent and seek other sources before make the decision. Also please release all the corresponding legal documents to the public. Most importantly, please resolve it in a timely manner. I hope you all can consider put the Cupertino Citizens' Sensible Growth Initiative on this June's primary election or even better adopt it directly as it is. Finally, I would like this correspondence be put on the public record regarding Cupertino Citizens' Sensible Growth Initiative. Sincerely yours, YuFei 1 Lauren Sapudar From: Sent: To: June letter Dongmong Yao <dongmingy@gmail.com> Monday, February 29, 2016 11:42 AM City Council; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; City Attorney's Office; City Clerk Email to: citycouncil@cupertino.org, planning@cupertino.org, cityattorney@cupe1iino.org, cityclerk@cupertino.org TITLE: Please put CCSGI on June election Dear Council Members and Planning Commissioners, I am writing you about the Agenda item 23 of March 1 City Council meeting. As Cupertino residents I am very concerned about the recent development proposals that requires massive change of the General Plan. I am very glad to see the concerned citizens who share my worries put forward the Cupertino Citizens' Sensible Growth Initiative. I signed (endorsed) this initiative and happy to learn that the initiative has gathered sufficient signatures and submitted for qualification. Since the county Ro V has certified the initiative has collected enough signatures for a ballot measure, I would like to urge you to put the initiative on the June ballot. I strongly feel that this initiative is about a fair chance for both the residents and developers to shape the development projects and ensure the fuhlfe of the city. The earlier we can get the initiative be adopted or voted on, the better for both parties. With all the development proposals now on the table, it is much better to resolve the rules of how we deal with the illegal demands from the developers. The initiative set up the process to avoid foreseeable referendums from the residents and individual initiatives from developers. Even though that the city attorney interprets that the June election is not a municipal regular election, I heard some legal opinion suggests otherwise. I hope that city can be diligent and seek other sources before make the decision. Also please release all the con-esponding legal documents to the public. Most importantly, please resolve it in a timely manner. I hope you all can consider put the Cupertino Citizens' Sensible Growth Initiative on this June's primary election or even better adopt it directly as it is. Finally, I would like this correspondence be put on the public record regarding Cupertino Citizens' Sensible Growth Initiative. Sincerely yours, Dongining yao Sent from my iPhone 1 Lauren Sapudar From: Sent: To: Subject: yxy yang <yxyxyxy@gmail.com> Monday, February 29, 2016 11:46 AM City Council; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; City Attorney's Office; City Clerk Request CCSGI on June election (March.01 City Council meeting) Dear Council Members and Planning Commissioners, I am writing you about the Agenda item #23 of March.01 City Council meeting. As Cupertino residents and registered voter I am very concerned about the recent development proposals that requires massive change of the General Plan. I am very glad to see the concerned citizens who share my worries put forward the Cupertino Citizens' Sensible Growth Initiative. I signed (endorsed) this initiative and happy to learn that the initiative has gathered sufficient signatures and submitted for qualification. Since the county RoV has certified the initiative has collected enough signatures for a ballot measure, I would like to urge you to put the initiative on the June ballot. I strongly feel that this initiative is about a fair chance for both the residents and developers to shape the development projects and ensure the future of the city. The earlier we can get the initiative be adopted or voted on, the better for both parties. With all the development proposals now on the table, it is much better to resolve the rules of how we deal with the illegal demands from the developers. The initiative set up the process to avoid foreseeable referendums from the residents and individual initiatives from developers. Even though that the city attorney interprets that the June election is not a municipal regular election, I heard some legal opinion suggests otherwise. I hope that city can be diligent and seek other sources before make the decision. Also please release all the corresponding legal documents to the public. Most importantly, please resolve it in a timely manner. I hope you all can consider put the Cupertino Citizens' Sensible Growth Initiative on this June's primary election or even better adopt it directly as it is. Finally, I would like this correspondence be put on the public record regarding Cupertino Citizens' Sensible Growth Initiative. Sincerely yours, X.Y. Yang 1 Lauren Sapudar From: Sent: To: Subject: Zhi Chen <zhi.c.yang@gmail.com> Monday, February 29, 2016 11:52 AM City Council; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; City Attorney's Office; City Clerk Please put CCSGI on June 2016 election! Dear Council Members and Planning Commissioners, I am writing you about the Agenda item 23 of March 1 City Council meeting. As a Cupertino resident, I am very concerned about the recent development proposals that requires massive change of the General Plan. I am very glad to see the concerned citizens who share my worries put forward the Cupertino Citizens' Sensible Growth Initiative (CCSGI). I signed (endorsed) this initiative and happy to learn that the initiative has gathered sufficient signatures and submitted for qualification. Since the county RoV has certified the initiative has collected enough signatures for a ballot measure, I would like to urge you to put the initiative on the June ballot. I strongly feel that this initiative is about a fair chance for both the residents and developers to shape the development projects and ensure the future of the city. The earlier we can get the initiative be adopted or voted on, the better for both parties. The initiative set up the process to avoid foreseeable referendums from the residents and individual initiatives from developers. Even though that the city attorney interprets that the June election is not a municipal regular election, I heard some legal opinion suggests otherwise. I hope that city can be diligent and seek other sources before make the decision. Also please release all the corresponding legal documents to the public. Most importantly, please resolve it in a timely manner. I hope you all can consider put the Cupertino Citizens' Sensible Growth Initiative on this June's primary election or even better adopt it directly as it is. Finally, I would like this correspondence be put on the public record regarding Cupertino Citizens' Sensible Growth Initiative. Sincerely yours, Zhi Chen Cupertino resident and registered voter Lauren Sapudar From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear City Council, Yu Ying <yu.ying06@gmail.com> Monday, February 29, 2016 11:54 AM City Council; City Clerk Request to put CCSG Initiative onto June Ballot I am writing this email to request you consider putting the CCSG Initiative onto June Ballot on tomorrow's council meeting. This initiative is supported by more than 4000 Cupertino voters, who supported you when you got elected as city council. It is time for you to represent them and put efforts to make the initiative on to the next regular election, which is the June election for 2016. I noticed the staff report is trying to postponing the CSSGI into Nov election. This is not the first time city staff tries to play word games to confuse council and the residents. I don't want to argue whom Cupertino Staff are representing, as it is so clear to me they are not for Cupertino Residents. I still have faith in our council's wisdom to make the correct decision at the correct time. PLEASE, put CCSGI into June Ballot before March 11. I request this email be put into the record for issues related to Cupertino City Sensible Growth Initiative. Thanks, Yu (Cupertino Resident) 1 Lauren Sapudar From: Sent: To: Subject: Ping Ding <dingyiyi@hotmail.com> Monday, February 29, 2016 12:21 PM City Council; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; City Attorney's Office; City Clerk Please put the CCSGI residents's initiative on June ballot! Dear Council Members and Planning Commissioners, I live in Cupertino for about 6 years, since last year, the traffic becomes horrible. Please go to N.Blaney Ave to find out · why we all support CCSCI! I am writing you about the Agenda item 23 of March 1 City Council meeting. As Cupertino residents I am very concerned about the recent development proposals that requires massive change of the General Plan. I am very glad to see the concerned citizens who share my worries put forward the Cupertino Citizens' Sensible Growth Initiative. I signed (endorsed) this initiative and happy to learn that the initiative has gathered sufficient signatures and submitted for qualification. Since the county RoV has certified the initiative has collected enough signatures for a ballot measure, I would like to urge you to put the initiative on the June ballot. I strongly feel that this initiative is about a fair chance for both the residents and developers to shape the development projects and ensure the future of the city. The earlier we can get the initiative be adopted or voted on, the better for both parties. With all the development proposals now on the table, it is much better to resolve the rules of how we deal with the illegal demands from the developers. The initiative set up the process to avoid foreseeable referendums from the residents and individual initiatives from developers. Even though that the city attorney interprets that the June election is not a municipal regular election, I heard some legal opinion suggests otherwise. I hope that city can be diligent and seek other sources before make the decision. Also please release all the corresponding legal documents to the public. Most importantly, please resolve it in a timely manner. I hope you all can consider put the Cupertino Citizens' Sensible Growth Initiative on this June's primary election or even better adopt it directly as it is. Finally, I would like this correspondence be put on the public record regarding Cupertino Citizens' Sensible Growth Initiative. Sincerely yours, Ping 1 Lauren Sapudar From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear council members, Please put the Steven Peng <steven_k_peng@yahoo.com> Monday, February 29, 2016 1:26 PM City Council David Brandt; City Clerk CCSGI residents' initiative for June Ballot Cupertino Citizens for Sensible Growth Initiative (CCSGI -residents' initiative) on June ballot. It is the will of the voters in Cupertino. Steven Peng 846 Lily Ave., Cupertino 1 Lauren Sapudar From: Sent: To: Subject: Toni Oasay-Anderson Monday, February 29, 2016 1:24 PM City Clerk FW: CCSGI residents' initiative for June Ballot From: Jennifer Fan [mailto:zhen.j.fan@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 12:47 PM To: City Council Subject: CCSGI residents' initiative for June Ballot Dear council members, Please put the Cupertino Citizens for Sensible Growth Initiative (CCSGI -residents' initiative) on June ballot. It is the will of the voters in Cupertino. Zhen Fan 1 Lauren Sapudar From: Sent: To: Subject: Yan Yu <yanyu2005@gmail.com> Monday, February 29, 2016 1:39 PM City Council; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; City Attorney's Office; City Clerk Please put CCSGI on June election Dear Council Members and Planning Commissioners, I am writing you about the Agenda item 23 of March 1 City Council meeting. As Cupertino residents I am very concerned about the recent development proposals that requires massive change of the General Plan. I am very glad to see the concerned citizens who share my worries put forward the Cupertino Citizens' Sensible Growth Initiative. I signed (endorsed) this initiative and happy to learn that the initiative has gathered sufficient signatures and submitted for qualification. Since the county RoV has certified the initiative has collected enough signatures for a ballot measure, I would like to urge you to put the initiative on the June ballot. I strongly feel that this initiative is about a fair chance for both the residents and developers to shape the development projects and ensure the future of the city. The earlier we can get the initiative be adopted or voted on, the better for both parties. With all the development proposals now on the table, it is much better to resolve the rules of how we deal with the illegal demands from the developers. The initiative set up the process to avoid foreseeable referendums from the residents and individual initiatives from developers. Even though that the city attorney interprets that the June election is not a municipal regular election, I heard some legal opinion suggests otherwise. I hope that city can be diligent and seek other sources before make the decision. Also please release all the corresponding legal documents to the public. Most importantly, please resolve it in a timely manner. I hope you all can consider put the Cupertino Citizens' Sensible Growth Initiative on this June's primary election or even better adopt it directly as it is. Finally, I would like this correspondence be put on the public record regarding Cupertino Citizens' Sensible Growth Initiative. Sincerely yours, yan 1 Lauren Sapudar From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear City Council, Cathy Wang <yuewangl984@yahoo.com> Monday, February 29, 2016 2:02 PM City Council City Clerk Please Put CCSG Initiative onto June Ballot I am writing this email to request you consider putting the CCSG Initiative onto June Ballot on tomon-ow's council meeting. This initiative is supported by more than 4000 Cupertino voters, who supp01ied you when you got elected as city council. It is time for you to represent them and put efforts to make the initiative on to the next regular election, which is the June election for 2016. I noticed the staff report is trying to postponing the CSSGI into Nov election. This i.s not the first time city staff tries to play word games to confuse council and the residents. I don't want to argue whom Cupertino Staff are representing, as it is so clear to me they are not for Cupe1iino Residents. I still have faith in our council's wisdom to make the con-ect decision at the con-ect time. PLEASE, put CCSGI into June Ballot before March 11. I request this email be put into the record for issues related to Cupertino City Sensible Growth Initiative. Best Regards, Yue (Cupertino resident) Lauren Sapudar From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear city council, ruiweiw@yahoo.com Monday, February 29, 2016 2:07 PM City Council City Clerk Please put CCSGI initiative on June Ballot I am a Cupertino resident, as well as a tax payer, voter. I am writing you about the Agenda item 23 of March 1 City Council meeting. As Cupertino residents I am very concerned about the recent development proposals that requires massive change of the General Plan .. I am very glad to see the concerned citizens who share my worries put forward the Cupertino Citizens' Sensible Growth Initiative. I signed (endorsed) this initiative and happy to learn that the initiative has gathered sufficient signatures and submitted for qualification. Since the county RoV has certified the initiative has collected enough signatures for a ballot measure, I would like to urge you to put the initiative on the June ballot. I strongly feel that this initiative is about a fair chance for both the residents and developers to shape the development projects and ensure the future of the city. The earlier we can get the initiative be adopted or voted on, the better for both parties. With all the development proposals now on the table, it is much better to resolve the rules of how we deal with the illegal demands from the developers. Thanks Ruiwei Wang 1 Lauren Sapudar From: Sent: To: Subject: Toni Oasay-Anderson Monday, February 29, 2016 2:39 PM City Clerk FW: CCSGI residents' initiative for June Ballot From: Lieh-Wuu Wang [mailto:lwwang@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 12:02 PM To: City Council Subject: CCSGI residents' initiative for June Ballot Dear council members, Please put the Cupertino Citizens for Sensible Growth Initiative (CCSGI -residents' initiative) onJune ballot. Thanks. Lieh-Wuu Wang Lauren Sapudar From: Sent: To: Subject: Luke Qiao <jyqiao@gmail.com> Monday, February 29, 2016 2:58 PM City Council; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; City Attorney's Office; City Clerk Please put CCSGI on June election Dear Council Members and Planning Commissioners, I am writing you about the Agenda item 23 of March 1 City Council meeting. As Cupertino residents I am very concerned about the recent development proposals that requires massive change of the General Plan. I am very glad to see the concerned citizens who share my worries put forward the Cupertino Citizens' Sensible Growth Initiative. I signed (endorsed) this initiative and happy to learn that the initiative has gathered sufficient signatures and submitted for qualification. Since the county RoV has certified the initiative has collected enough signatures for a ballot measure, I would like to urge you to put the initiative on the June ballot. I strongly feel that this initiative is about a fair chance for both the residents and developers to shape the development projects and ensure the future of the city. The earlier we can get the initiative be adopted or voted on, the better for both parties. With all the development proposals now on the table, it is much better to resolve the rules of how we deal with the illegal demands from the developers. The initiative set up the process to avoid foreseeable referendums from the residents and individual initiatives from developers. Even though that the city attorney interprets that the June election is not a municipal regular election, I heard some legal opinion suggests otherwise. I hope that city can be diligent and seek other sources before make the decision. Also please release all the corresponding legal documents to the public. Most importantly, please resolve it in a timely manner. I hope you all can consider put the Cupertino Citizens' Sensible Growth Initiative on this June's primary election or even better adopt it directly as it is. Finally, I would like this correspondence be put on the public record regarding Cupertino Citizens' Sensible Growth Initiative. Sincerely yours, Jinyuan Lauren Sapudar From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear City Council, Minna <minnaxc99@gmail.com> Monday, February 29, 2016 3:03 PM City Council; City Clerk We hope CCSGI can be put on June ballot I am a Cupertino resident. I am writing this email to request our city council to put the CCSG Initiative onto June Ballot on tomorrow's council meeting. This initiative is supported by more than 4000 Cupertino voters, who supported you when you got elected as city council. It is time for you to represent them and put efforts to make the initiative on to the next regular election, which is the June election for 2016. I noticed the staff report is trying to postponing the CSSGI into November election. This is not the first time city staff tries to play word games to confuse council and the residents. I don't want to argue whom Cupertino Staff are representing, as it is so clear to me they are not for Cupertino Residents. I still have faith in our council's wisdom to make the correct decision at the correct time. PLEASE, put CCSGI into June Ballot before March 11. I request this email be put into the record for issues related to Cupertino City Sensible Growth Initiative. Best regards, Minna Xu 1 Lauren Sapudar From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear City Council, mzhang <myyzhang@yahoo.com> Monday, February 29, 2016 3:17 PM City Council; City Clerk Michael Zhang consider putting the CCSG Initiative onto June Ballot on tomorrow's council meeting I am writing this email to sincerely request you to consider putting the CCSG Initiative onto June Ballot on tomorrow's council meeting. This initiative is supported by more than 4000 Cupertino voters, who supported you when you got elected as city council. It is time for you to represent them and put efforts to make the initiative on to the next regular election, which is the June election for 2016. I have faith in our council's wisdom to make the correct decision for our Cupertino residents. Please put CCSGI into June Ballot before March 11. I request this email to be filed into the record for issues related to Cupertino City Sensible Growth Initiative. Regards, Michael Zhang (Cupertino Resident} 1 Lauren Sapudar From: Sent: To: Subject: Danessa Techmanski <danessa@pacbell.net> Monday, February 29, 2016 3:37 PM City Council; David Brandt; City Clerk Re: CCSGI residents' initiative for June Ballot Dear City Council Members and Officials, Please put the Cupertino Citizens for Sensible Growth Initiative (CCSGI) for resident's on our June Ballot. It is the will of the voters here, and according to election codes, it is our legal right. I hope that you will act as our elected representatives and not succumb to the pressure of big developers. Thank you sincerely, Danessa Techmanski Lauren Sapudar From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear City Council, bchalam@yahoo.com Monday, February 29, 2016 3:38 PM citycouncil@cuperitno.org; City Clerk; CCSGI-Circulator Request to put CCSG Initiative onto June Ballot I am writing this email to request you consider putting the CCSG Initiative onto June Ballot on tomorrow's council meeting. This initiative is supported by more than 4000 Cupertino voters, who supported you when you got elected as city council. It is time for you to represent them and put efforts to make the initiative on to the next regular election, which is the June election for 2016. I noticed the staff report is trying to postponing the CSSGI into Nov election. This is not the first time city staff tries to play word games to confuse council and the residents. I don't want to argue whom Cupertino Staff are representing, as it is so clear to me they are not for Cupertino Residents. I still have faith in our council's wisdom to make the correct decision at the correct time. PLEASE, put CCSGI into June Ballot before March 11. I request this email be put into the record for issues related to Cupertino City Sensible Growth Initiative. Thanks, Balaji Seshachalam( Cupertino Resident) Circulator Resources Landing Page: http://tiny.cc/ccsgi-circ-resource You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CCSGI-Circulator" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ccsgi- circulator+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to ccsgi-circulator@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ccsgi-circulator. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ccsgi-circulator/CANTfAe- xqMZw%3DetV gZGmX99%2BM7D9PGPzBanB2hERWvbbAuyJDw%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. 1 Lauren Sapudar From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear council members, DANIEL CHEUNG <danielcheung@msn.com> Monday, February 29, 2016 3:52 PM City Council DANIEL CHEUNG; David Brandt; City Clerk CCSGI residents' initiative for June Ballot Please put the Cupertino Citizens for Sensible Growth Initiative (CCSGI -residents' initiative) on June ballot. It is the will of the voters in Cupertino. Thanks, Daniel Cheung Cupertino voter. 1 Lauren Sapudar From: Sent: To: Subject: Ping Gao <gaoping@gmail.com> Monday, February 29, 2016 4:49 PM City Council; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; City Attorney's Office; City Clerk Please Put CCSGI on JUNE Election Dear Council Members and Planning Commissioners, I am writing you about the Agenda item 23 of March 1 City Council meeting. As Cupertino residents I am very concerned about the recent development proposals that requires massive change of the General Plan. I am very glad to see the concerned citizens who share my worries put forward the Cupertino Citizens' Sensible Growth Initiative. I signed (endorsed) this initiative and happy to learn that the initiative has gathered sufficient signatures and submitted for qualification. Since the county RoV has certified the initiative has collected enough signatures for a ballot measure, I would like to urge you to put the initiative on the June ballot. I strongly feel that this initiative is about a fair chance for both the residents and developers to shape the development projects and ensure the future of the city. The earlier we can get the initiative be adopted or voted on, the better for both parties. With all the development proposals now on the table, it is much better to resolve the rules of how we deal with the illegal demands from the developers. The initiative set up the process to avoid foreseeable referendums from the residents and individual initiatives from developers. Even though that the city attorney interprets that the June election is not a municipal regular election, I heard some legal opinion suggests otherwise. I hope that city can be diligent and seek other sources before make the decision. Also please release all the corresponding legal documents to the public. Most importantly, please resolve it in a timely manner. I hope you all can consider put the Cupertino Citizens' Sensible Growth Initiative on this June's primary election or even better adopt it directly as it is. Finally, I would like this correspondence be put on the public record regarding Cupertino Citizens' Sensible Growth Initiative. Sincerely yours, Ping Gao 1 Lauren Sapudar From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear council members, Please put the Jennifer Fan <zhenj.fan@gmail.com> Monday, February 29, 2016 4:52 PM City Council David Brandt; City Clerk CCSGI residents' initiative for June Ballot Cupertino Citizens for Sensible Growth Initiative (CCSGr' -residents' initiative) on June ballot. It is the will of the voters in Cupertino. Thanks! Zhen Fan 11587, Copper Spring Court 1 Lauren Sapudar From: Sent: To: Subject: Toni Oasay-Anderson Monday, February 29, 2016 5:14 PM City Clerk FW: CCSGI residents' initiative for June Ballot From: HSu@via-alliance.com [mailto:HSu@via-alliance.com] Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 4:49 PM To: City Council Subject: CCSGI residents' initiative for June Ballot Dear Council members, Please put the Cupertino Citizens for Sensible Growth Initiative (CCSGI -residents' initiative} on June ballot. It is the will of the voters in Cupertino Huei-Mei Su 10357 Westacres Dr Cupertino, CA 95014 Thi:' infonnation transmitted in this e-mail is intended only for the addressee and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any rl:'vie1v. retransmission, dissemination or otha use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error, please 11otifj1 the sender immediate(v, and delete this e-mail and any attachments. Thank you. 1 Lauren Sapudar From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear council members, Please put the Jeff Jiao <jeff jiao@svca.cc> Monday, February 29, 2016 5:40 PM City Council David Brandt; City Clerk CCSGI residents' initiative for June Ballot Cupertino Citizens for Sensible Growth Initiative (CCSGI -residents' initiative) on June ballot. It is the will of the voters in Cupertino. Thanks! Jeff Jiao 21607 Flintshire St. 1 Lauren Sapudar From: Sent: To: Subject: Toni Oasay-Anderson Monday, February 29, 2016 5:43 PM City Clerk FW: CCSGI residents' initiative for June Ballot From: Jackie Zhao [mailto:jackie.zhaoj@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 5:33 PM To: City Council Subject: CCSGI residents' initiative for June Ballot Dear council members, Please put the Cupertino Citizens for Sensible Growth Initiative (CCSGI -residents' initiative) on June ballot. It is the will of the voters in Cupertino. Thanks! Jackie Zhao 11557 Copper Spring Court Cupertino, CA 95012 1 Lauren Sapudar From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear council members, Please put the Joe Chang <jchangSS@yahoo.com> Monday, February 29, 2016 9:29 PM City Council City Clerk; David Brandt CCSGI residents' initiative for June Ballot Cupertino Citizens for Sensible Growth Initiative (CCSGI -residents' initiative) on June ballot. It is the will of the voters in Cupertino. Joe Chang Seven Spring Community 1 Lauren Sapudar From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear council members, Please put the susan liou <susanslliou@yahoo.com> Monday, February 29, 2016 10:39 PM City Council David Brandt; City Clerk CCSGI residents' initiative for June Ballot Cupertino Citizens for Sensible Growth Initiative (CCSGI -residents' initiative) on June ballot. It is the will of the voters in Cupertino. Show-Heng Chen Liou Manita CT, a Cupertino resident Lauren Sapudar From: Sent: To: Subject: Sujuan <caisujuan@gmail.com> Monday, February 29, 2016 11:05 PM City Council; planning@cupertino.orf; City Attorney's Office; City Clerk; citystaff@cupertino.org TITLE: Please put CCSGI on June election Dear Council Members and Planning Commissioners, I am writing you about the Agenda item 23 of March 1 City Council meeting. As a west San Jose resident, I am very concerned about the recent development proposals that requires massive change of the General Plan. I am very glad to see the concerned citizens who share my worries put forward the Cupertino Citizens' Sensible Growth Initiative. I signed (endorsed) this initiative and happy to learn that the initiative has gathered sufficient signatures and submitted for qualification. Since the county RoV has certified the initiative has collected enough signatures for a ballot measure, I would like to urge you to put the initiative on the June ballot. I strongly feel that this initiative is about a fair chance for both the residents and developers to shape the development projects and ensure the future of the city. The earlier we can get the initiative be adopted or voted on, the better for both parties. With all the development proposals now on the table, it is much better to resolve the rules of how we deal with the illegal demands from the developers. The initiative set up the process to avoid foreseeable referendums from the residents and individual initiatives from developers. Even though that the city attorney interprets that the June election is not a municipal regular election, I heard some legal opinion suggests otherwise. I hope that city can be diligent and seek other sources before make the decision. Also please release all the corresponding legal documents to the public. Most importantly, please resolve it in a timely manner. I hope you all can consider put the Cupertino Citizens' Sensible Growth Initiative on this June's primary election or even better adopt it directly as it is. Finally, I would like this correspondence be put on the public record regarding Cupertino Citizens' Sensible Growth Initiative. Sincerely yours, Sujuan Cai Sent from my iPhone 1 Lauren Sapudar From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear council members, Please put the charlene lee <chllOl@hotmail.com> Tuesday, March 01, 2016 7:50 AM City Council; David Brandt; City Clerk; cdolan@washingtontimes.com; letters@washpost.com; national@washpost.com; angela.barnes@washpost.com; martin.baron@washpost.com; forum@worldjournal.com; jakh2010@yahoo.com; shawn@chinesenews.com; chiu@chinesenews.com; steven.yau@chinesenews.com; toddliu@chinesenews.com; assig nmentdesk@kron.com; newsdesk@kpix.com; awong@ktsfnews.com; lyn@newschannelS.com; hr@chinesenews.com; jlorin@bloomberg.net; jbourantas@washingtontimes.com; editorial@nytimes.com; bizday@nytimes.com; john.kell@wsj.com; wsjcontact@wsj.com; letters@mercurynews.com; rsalonga@mercurynews.com; xhsjbxx@xinhuanet.com; sf@epochtimes.com; sf@kanzhongguo.com; audiencerelations@abctv.com; 2020@abc.com; hq.direct@abc.ca.gov; netaud r@abe.com; neatud r@abe.co m; jonathan.reback@cbs.com; even i ng@cbsnews.com; julie.turner@cbs.com; katey.oregan@cbs.com; jonathen.reback@cbs.com; editor@newsforchinese.com Yes. We christian should care about our Community and Taiwan's communities. If Cupertino needs to build so many condos what not build these condos in Saratoga, Woodside or West San Jose. There must be something wrong in Cupertino's vallco rezone. Cupertino Citizens for Sensible Growth Initiative (CCSGI -residents' initiative) on June ballot. It is the will of the voters in Cupertino. Thanks! Charlene Lee 4088967209 chl 10 l@hottnail.com 888 Candlewood Dr, Cupertino, CA95014 1 Lauren Sapudar From: Sent: To: Subject: Toni Oasay-Anderson Tuesday, March 01, 2016 7:56 AM City Clerk FW: CCSGI residents' initiative for June Ballot From: Fanny Wang [mailto:fannywg@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 6:15 PM To: City Council Subject: CCSGI residents' initiative for June Ballot Dear council members, Please put the Cupertino Citizens for Sensible Growth Initiative (CCSGI -residents' initiative) on June ballot. It is the will of the voters in Cupertino. Fen-Hua Wang Lockwood Drive resident 1 Lauren Sapudar From: Sent: To: Subject: -----Original Message----- Toni Oasay-Anderson Tuesday, March 01, 2016 8:13 AM City Clerk FW: 3/1 Council Meeting for CCSGI on June 2016 ballot From: Chi Chao [mailto:chichao25@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 7:31 PM To: City Council Subject: 3/1 Council Meeting for CCSGI on June 2016 ballot Honorable council members, Please put Cupertino Citizens' Sensible Growth Initiative on the June ballot as based on the normal and legal process. Please follow the legal procedure and avoid any potential future confusion or misunderstanding from the citizens on the justice and impartial positions of the Cupertino City Council. Thank you very much! Fred Chia Chi Chao 1 Lauren Sapudar From: Sent: To: Subject: Toni Oasay-Anderson Tuesday, March 01, 2016 8:18 AM City Clerk FW: CCSGI residents' initiative for June Ballot From: Jun Yang [mailto:jyang825@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 8:09 PM To: City Council Subject: CCSGI residents' initiative for June Ballot Dear council members, Please put the Cupertino Citizens for Sensible Growth Initiative (CCSGI -residents' initiative) on June ballot. It is the will of the voters in Cupertino. Thanks! Jun Yang 11587 Copper Spring Court 1 Lauren Sapudar From: Toni Oasay-Anderson Sent: To: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 8:19 AM City Clerk Subject: FW: CCSGI residents' initiative for June Ballot From: Sue Tan [mailto:sookht@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 9:43 PM To: City Council Cc: David Brandt; citycleck@cupertino.org Subject: CCSGI residents' initiative for June Ballot Dear council members, Please put the Cupertino Citizens for Sensible Growth Initiative (CCSGI -residents' initiative) on June ballot. It is the will of the voters in Cupertino. Thanks! Sook Tan 21643 Terrace Dr 1 Lauren Sapudar From: Toni Oasay-Anderson Sent: To: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 9:42 AM City Clerk Subject: FW: June ballot -----Original Message----- From: yinhong chen [mailto:yinhongpa2005@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 9:37 AM To: City Council Subject: June ballot Dear Council Members and planning commissioners, Please put the CCSGI resident's initiative on June ballot.It is the will of the voters in Cupertino. Sincerely Yinhong Chen 1 Lauren Sapudar Subject: FW: Support for Item #23 Staff Recommendation for Deferral of initiative on ballot From: bedord@gmail.com [mailto:bedord@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Jean Bedard Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 9:54 AM To: Grace Schmidt Subject: Support for Item #23 Staff Recommendation for Deferral of initiative on ballot To City Council: As a long time Cupe1iino resident, I am deeply concerned by the implications of the Cupertino Residents for Sensible Zoning Action Committee initiative. It has been heatedly discussed on NextDoor with a large amount of erroneous information. The downside impact of this initiative is too important to rush any decisions. I think important to have a complete 9212 Report before any decision on ballot placement is made. Please make a wise decision in accepting the Staff Recommendation for deferral. Warm regards, JeanBedord Fonner Library Commissioner Content Consultant I www.bedord.com School of Information, Part-time Faculty San Jose State University, CA Author: www.IveGotADomainName.com Phone: 408-257-9221 I 408-252-5220 Email: Jean@bedord.com 1 Lauren Sapudar From: Grace Schmidt Sent: To: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 11:45 AM Lauren Sapudar Subject: FW: Support for staff recommendation on 9212 -----Original Message----- From: Noel Eberhardt [mailto:neberhardt@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 11:41 AM To: Grace Schmidt Subject: Support for staff recommendation on 9212 I support the staff recommendation regarding item 23. Noel 1 March 1, 2016 Dear Council Members, I submit the following in lieu of appearing in person. Item 23 on your agenda tonight As I understand the outcome of the CCSGI petition the sponsors have enough signatures to qualify for the upcoming November Ballot. I support the Staff Recommendation: "Receive the Certification of Sufficiency for the Initiative petition submitted by Cupertino Residents for Sensible Zoning Action Committee and provide direction; defer a decision on whether to place the measure on the November 8, 2016 ballot until after the 9212 Report on the Initiative is completed" I have submitted this letter rather than appearing for Oral Communication on Item 23 due to my health and inability to wait into the long hours of the evening to represent my view on this matter. Disclosure; I have not, nor will I receive any economic benefit from any party-of-interest in this matter as supporters of the CCSGI continue to misrepresent on Nextdoor. These continued false representations are a Lie-by-omission of any fact or truth. Note: "a lie by omission occurs when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception. Lying by omission includes failures to correct pre-existing misconceptions." Gary E. Jones 40 year resident of Cupertino March 1, 2016 Mayor Chang and city council members, Due to recent surgery and complications, I am unable to attend the city council meeting this evening. But I want it known that I do not support the CCSGI petition because of all the unintended consequences of this initiative. I support Staff's recommendation to defer a decision on whether to place the measure on the November 8, 2016 ballot until after the 9212 Report on the Initiative is completed. Disclosure; I have not, nor will I receive any economic benefit from any party-of-interest in this matter. Donna Austin Cupertino Resident and concerned citizen 22283 N. De Anza Circle Disclosure; I have not, nor will I receive any economic benefit from any party-of-interest in this initiative. 408-446-2724 primadonal@comcast.net Lauren Sapudar Subject: FW: Need for thorough review of CCSGI From: Richard Lowenthal [mailto:richard@lowenthal.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 1:24 AM To: City Council Subject: Need for thorough review of CCSGI Mayor Chang and Councilmembers, I think it is quite important that you do a thorough 9212 Impact Report. I'm sure it's an accident, but this language from the initiative raises the building heights in neighborhoods from 30 feet to 45 feet: 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. Building height shall be measured to the highest point of the building, excluding light poles, antennae, minor mechanical boxes or roof vent protrusions which are not easily visible. A below-grade stmcture is not counted towards building height. For any project of over 50,000 sq. ft. of building area, maximum lot coverage shall not exceed 70%. No provision allowing additional height or density, modifying maximum lot coverage, building plane, or minimum setback to relax the standards set in this General Plan, other than those mandated by state law, shall be allowed: Figure LU-1 "Community Form Diagram" and the Land Use Map (shown below in their current form) shall be conformed to the requirements set by Policy LU-3.0, Policy LU-3.2, Policy LU-19.2 and the density changes identified in Footnotes (a) through (c) in the new Table HE 5.5 [previously Appendix B Table 5.5] as shown in Section 3 of this Part IV. 1 Lauren Sapudar From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear City Council, Cailan Shen <shencailan@gmail.com> Tuesday, March 01, 2016 1:02 PM City Council City Attorney's Office; City Clerk Please put CCSGI on June election I am writing this email to request you consider putting the CCSG Initiative onto June Ballot on tommrow's council meeting. This initiative is supported by more than 4000 Cupertino voters, who supported you when you got elected as city council. It is time for you to represent them and put efforts to make the initiative on to the next regular election, which is the June election for 2016. I request this email be put into the public r record regarding Cupertino Citizens' Sensible Growth Initiative. Thanks, Cailan (Cupertino voter) 1 Lauren Sapudar From: Sent: To: Subject: Toni Oasay-Anderson Tuesday, March 01, 2016 2:36 PM City Clerk FW: CCSGI residents' initiative for June Ballot From: Chuang, Benjamin [mailto:Benjamin_Chuang@bmc.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 2:34 PM To: City Council Subject: CCSGI residents' initiative for June Ballot Dear council members, Please put the Cupertino Citizens for Sensible Growth Initiative (CCSGI -residents' initiative) on June ballot. It is the will of the voters in Cupertino. Paicheng Chuang 1 Lauren Sapudar From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear council members, Ling Yu <lingy8834@gmail.com> Tuesday, March 01, 2016 2:25 PM City Council David Brandt; City Clerk CCSGI residents' initiative for June Ballot Please put the Cupertino Citizens for Sensible Growth Initiative (CCSGI -residents' initiative) on June ballot. It is the will of the voters in Cupertino. Thanks! Ling Yu 11643 Forest Spring Ct. 1 Lauren Sapudar From: Sent: To: Cc: May Chuang <mayc888@gmail.com> Tuesday, March 01, 2016 2:20 PM City Council David Brandt; City Clerk Subject: CCSGI residents' initiative for June Ballot Dear council members, Please put the Cupertino Citizens for Sensible Growth Initiative (CCSGI -residents' initiative) on June ballot. It is the will of the voters in Cupertino. May Chuang Poppy Way, a Cupertino resident 1 March 1, 2016 Rt Recology" South Bay WASTE ZERO Mayor Ba.rry Chang and City Council Members City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Ave Cupertino, CA 95014 RE: March 1, 2016 City Council Meeting Agenda item #23- I write this letter as a long time businessman in Cupertino and Chamber Board member in reference to Item #23 on the March 1, 2016 City Council agenda: • This proposed initiative is the wrong path for our community. • I don't believe most of our residents understand that this proposal would require a for- mal vote on any development not encompassed in the General Plan, no matter how large or small or minimal the impact. • Currently, we turn to you as our City Council and the Planning Commission for guidance on this. You hold public hearings, require research and studies, and make time for public comment. • Another great benefit of this process is that you work to build a cohesive, connected vi- sion for our city. • With this proposal, all of this would be gone. And in its place would be excessive public votes, numerous campaigns, no thorough review and a disjointed plan for Cupertino. • While I'm looking forward to seeing something new in place of the dead mall that Vallco has become, I'm not willing to do this at the expense of damaging our entire community or not knowing what the impact ls. • I oppose this proposed initiative and believe you should do the same. Please don't put this proposal before voters until we actually understand it. • I support Staff Recommendation that you take the time to do a thorough study and re- port back to the community before making any final decision to put it on the ballot. I ,J, .· ;\ ; ,. )1-,f; \t • , _, '), March 1, 2016 Dear Cupertino City Council Members: Regarding Item 23 on your agenda tonight, as I understand the outcome of the CCSGI petition, the sponsors have enough signatures to qualify for the upcoming November Ballot. I support the Staff Recommendation: "Receive the Certification of Sufficiency for the Initiative petition submitted by Cupertino Residents for Sensible Zoning Action Committee and provide direction; defer a decision on whether to place the measure on the November 8, 2016 ballot until after the 9212 Report on the Initiative is completed". I submit the following in lieu of appearing in person. My name is Kelli Richards, and as a life long Cupertino resident, Cupertino High School & De Anza College graduate and ten year Apple employee, I am opposed to this proposed initiative. As a longtime resident who lives directly across the street from Vallco, I'm looking forward to the day when I can enjoy Vallco like I did when it first opened. I know that times have changed and I look forward to a new vision for the property as The Hills at Vallco proposes. I do not, however, agree with the blatant overreach into the city planning process that the CCSGI initiative in Item# 23 proposal includes. It's frustrating that a small fraction of our residents who don't feel they can get their way opt to selfishly redesign city processes that have worked for years. The entire point of having a representative government is to have people we choose lead the city. It's not to have the entire population of our community have to weigh in on nearly every proposal that comes up in our city. • I know we are all anxious to revitalize Vallco, but we need to be patient and find a solution that will be successful and viable for today's (and tomorrow's} Cupertino. • It would be short sighted to support an initiative that shoves through a half-baked plan for Vallco --and short sighted to do the same with putting this initiative before voters without fully understanding it. I SUPPORT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR A FULL STUDY AND REPORT TO THE COMMUNITY BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL TAKES ACTION. I have submitted this letter rather than appearing for Oral Communication on Item 23 due to my health and inability to wait into the long hours of the evening to represent my view on this matter. Disclosure; I have not, nor will I receive any economic benefit from any party-of-interest in this matter as supporters of the CCSGI continue to misrepresent on Nextdoor. These continued false representations are a lie-by-omission of any fact or truth. Note: "a lie by omission occurs when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception. Lying by omission includes failures to correct pre-existing misconceptions." Kelli Richards 42 year resident of Cupertino From:Grace Schmidt To:Lauren Sapudar Subject:FW: Comment for 3/1 Council Meeting, Item 23 Date:Tuesday, March 01, 2016 4:39:21 PM From: dfung.filter@gmail.com [mailto:dfung.filter@gmail.com] On Behalf Of David FungSent: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 4:25 PMTo: Barry Chang; Savita Vaidhyanathan; Rod Sinks; Gilbert Wong; Darcy PaulCc: Grace Schmidt; David BrandtSubject: Comment for 3/1 Council Meeting, Item 23 Dear Mayor Chang and Councilmembers: I'm writing to ask you to vote in support of the the recommendation in the Staff Report prepared for Item #23 on the 03/01/2016 Cupertino City Council agenda, "Receive the Certification of Sufficiency for the Initiative petition submitted by Cupertino Residents for Sensible Zoning Action Committee and provide direction". The staff recommendation is to defer the decision to adopt the Initiative or place it on the Nov 8, 2016 ballot pending the completion of a independent 9212 impact report which you ordered on Jan 19, 2016. The Initiative is complicated and controversial. In the interest of good governance, no decision should be made on the Initiative's ultimate dispensation until a thorough and impartial analysis of the impacts on the community is produced and studied by both Council and the community. Although proponents and opponents have no shortage of thoughts and dialog on the Initiative's effects, these are little more than opinions. To truly understand the competing benefits and impacts and make an informed decision, an impartial, professional analysis is badly needed, and should be welcomed by both sides. The staff report calls out a deadline of 3/31/2016 for availability of the 9212. It's worth the 4 weeks wait to make a good decision on policy changes that affect Cupertino permanently. Thank you, David Fung Cupertino Resident (30 years) 1 Lauren Sapudar From:Govind Tatachari <gtc2k7@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 01, 2016 7:57 PM To:City Clerk; City Attorney's Office; City Council Subject:Please qualify CCSGI for June 2016 election Dear Ms. Schmidt, Mr. Hom, Mayor and Council members, As you are aware, we have gathered enough signature to put CCSGI on the ballot. I have signed the Cupertino Citizens' Sensible Growth Initiative to qualify it for the ballot. I request you to please consider qualifying CCSGI for June 2016 election. While there might be technicalities involved, I request you to consider the will of Cupertino citizens who have signed the initiative to qualify it for the earliest ballot possible. Enclosed is a list of many ballot measures in neighbouring cities and counties which have been placed on ballot during June election in the previous years. We hope that Cupertino city and council will take this information into consideration and qualify CCSGI for June 2016 election. Thanking you, Regards, Govind Tatachari Cupertino Resident Encl: List of June ballot measures in previous years June 3, 2014 ballot measures in California Approved Proposition A: City of San Francisco Earthquake Safety and Emergency Response Bond Approved Proposition B: City of San Francisco Voter Approval of Waterfront Construction Exceeding Height Limits Initiative June 5, 2012 ballot measures in California Defeated Proposition A: San Francisco Competitive Bidding Required for Garbage Collection and Disposal Approved Proposition B: San Francisco Limits on Commercial Development at Coit Tower June 8, 2010 ballot measures in California Approved Proposition A: San Francisco Unified School District parcel tax Approved Proposition B: San Francisco Earthquake Safety Bond Defeated Proposition C: San Francisco Film Commission Appointments Approved Proposition D: San Francisco Public Employee Pensions Approved Proposition E: San Francisco Costs of Protecting Dignitaries Defeated Proposition F: San Francisco Rent Increase Hardship Appeals Approved Proposition G: San Francisco Transbay Terminal Advisory Vote June 3, 2008 ballot measures in California Approved Proposition A: SFUSD parcel tax Approved Proposition B: Health and Pension Benefits Approved Proposition C: Criminals Forfeit Retirement Approved Proposition D: Boards and Commission Diversity Approved Proposition E: Public Utilities Commission 2 Defeated Proposition F: Hunter's Point Redevelopment Approved Proposition G: Bayview Jobs and Housing Approved Proposition H: No Campaign Contributions from City Vendors