Loading...
Exhibit CC 04-05-2016 Special Meeting Following Regular Meeting Item No. 1 Written Communication Grace Schmidt "i e nt- :1 From: Toni Oasay-Anderson Sent: Tuesday,April 05, 2016 4:29 PM To: City Clerk Subject: FW:Special meeting: Support for"increase" in CCSGI ballot question • From: bedord@gmail.com [mailto: On Behalf Of Jean Bedord Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 4:27 PM To: Barry Chang; Savita Vaidhyanathan; Rod Sinks; Gilbert Wong; Darcy Paul Subject: Special meeting: Support for "increase" in CCSGI ballot question Mayor Barry Chang Vice Mayor Savita Vaidhyanathan Council Member Rod Sinks Council Member Gilbert Wong Council Member Darcy Paul Dear Council, I strongly support using the word "increase" for this ballot questions. This change more clearly represents the massive impact of this measure. Please do not cave in to the CCSGI bullying tactics and weaken the language. You have a responsibility to the rest of the community beyond this small, oh=-so-very vocal group. Warm regards Jean Bedord • 1 r 404 Dear Mayor Chang and Council, /April 5, 2016 lfi I want to thank you for the 9212 Report. Many residents are very concerned about CCSGI increasing building heights from 30 to 45 feet in residential neighborhoods. The 9212 Report states in five different sections that the initiative will "increase" the maximum height allowed in residential neighborhoods. Increase is the true clear word that the average every day person understands. Increase is stated on Page 1, Page 2, Page 6, page 34 and page 58 of the 9212 Report. It is recommended by the staff that this word be used to illiminate all misunderstandings with the voters of Cupertino. This is a 50% increase in building heights allowed in residential neighborhoods. The Council voted last week to revise the ballot question inserting the word"establish" instead of "increases." The word "establish" does not appear in any of the five sections mentioned above and misrepresents and omits the fact that the initiative does not "establish" building heights for the first time but actually"increases"or changes residential buildings heights from 30 to 45 feet. This directly affects 3/4ths of the Cupertino community and is a critical fact that the voters have a right to know. As the ballot question is presently written, it is confusing to voters. Please use the word increase to clarify any ambiguity. I urge the Council to revise the ballot questions and delete the word "establish" and replace it with the word "increase" to reflect the fact that CCSGI raises permitted building heights in residential neighborhoods from 30 to 45 feet which will negatively impact 3/4ths of the community. Donna Austin Cupertino Resident Cupertino, CA 95014 Grace Schmidt From: Toni Oasay-Anderson Sent: Tuesday,April 05, 2016 4:44 PM To: City Clerk Subject: FW: Cupertino: Mayor Barry Chang Original Message From: Ray Lancon [mailto: Sent:Tuesday,April 05, 2016 4:35 PM To: Barry Chang Subject: Cupertino: Mayor Barry Chang You have received this link to the Cupertino from: Ray Lancon< http://www.cupertino.oraindex.aspx?page=950 Please have the City Council to correct their error at tonight's special City Council meeting at 9 pm Contrary to the misstatements made in the draft ballot language approved by the City Council, the text of the CCSG Initiative does not increase the existing 30 foot building height limit in Cupertino's neighborhoods. Thanks, Ray Ray Lancon 1 Lauren Sapudar co_ q/e5A fa I-1zm From: Christine Cheng < ` "r - '-Q (eet-ioa- Sent: Tuesday,April 05, 2016 1:21 PM Cc: City Council; City Clerk; City Attorney's Office; David Brandt • Subject: Re:April Sth Special Meeting is a Betrayal to Cupertino Residents Our family and many other Cupertino residents are extremely disappointed with your dirty tricks! Why did we ever vote for you?! You should be ashamed of yourselves for sinking so low with the developers! On Tuesday, April 5, 2016, Xiaowen Wang< wrote: Dear City Councils, I am shocked to learn this morning that there is going to be a Special City Council Meeting to amend Resolution 16- 028 and 16-029 regarding the ballot language of CCSGI. First question, what is the basis to call such special meeting? On March 31 Special Meeting, the same question had been through public hearing, a lot of residents have voiced their opinions both for or against it,had been through lengthy discussion among council members, city attorney, city manager and city's outside counsel, then an agreement had been reached and voted with 5:0 vote that approve the current language. Why only 4 days after we need an special meeting to amend a decision just made? Second question, what is the urgency of the meeting? The ballot language is not due until August, why we have to have a special meeting to discuss this issue tonight? Why can't this agenda item fit into a regular meeting? Especially I consider that we have a regular meeting tonight at 6:45pm. Is this because that to amend the regular meeting agenda tonight, a 72 hour notice is needed while only 24 hour notice is needed for a special meeting? No matter how you call it, tonight's special meeting is in fact a continuation of tonight's regular meeting. Playing such trick can only further enhance the mistrust of citizens toward our city government. Moreover, if it is really necessary(I still wait for the justification) why not put the agenda item to the next regular meeting? What is the hidden agenda behind such move? I have been attending almost all council meetings for the past year. I tried my best to put my good faith into the ; process. I never imagine the city would take such extreme move to suppress public voice. This meeting is most likely ' legal, but do you really think that it is ethical? Best Regards, Xiaowen Wang t Lauren Sapudar • CG HI Sll9 I4CM No. I From: CRSZaction <crszaction@gmail.com> Spec,'`Q i4 A"3 Sent Tuesday, April 05, 2016 3:53 PM To: City Council; David Brandt;City Clerk Subject Time for rebuttal for the Special Meeting tonight Dear Mayor Chang and Mr. Brandt, We would like to request that sufficient time be given to the proponents of CCSG Initiative to make a presentation to argue for the ballot question at tonight's "9pm" special meeting, which actually starts immediately after the regular meeting. Sincerely, CRSZaction Committee 1 Lauren Sapudar G24)51/to �1 C J ) e No. I _ M From: Toni Oasay-Anderson Spm 14012-6/k� Sent: Tuesday,April 05, 2016 3:04 PM To: City Clerk Subject: FW: Change Ballot Question to "Increase" Re: Neighborhood Height Limits From: Rich Abdalah [mailto: Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 2:59 PM To: Barry Chang; Savita Vaidhyanathan; Rod Sinks; Gilbert Wong; Darcy Paul Subject: Change Ballot Question to "Increase" Re: Neighborhood Height Limits Dear Mayor Chang and Council, I am sending you this email to expedite my comments for tonight's meeting. I spoke last week and want to thank you again for a thorough 9212 Report. As I said then and I will say again tonight, many residents are very concerned about CCSGI increasing building heights from 30 to 45 feet in residential neighborhoods. The 9212 Report states in five sections that the initiative will he "increase" the maximum height allowed in residential neighborhoods as follows: CCSGI would "Increase the maximum building height from 30 feet to 45 feet in the City's Neighborhoods (parts of the City that are outside of the General Plan's 'Special Areas') - a 50 percent (%) increase. Neighborhoods represent approximately three quarters of the City's land area". -Page 1 CCSGI would `Increase maximum heights in the City's residential neighborhoods from 30 to 45 feet." - Page 2 CCSGI"Increases the maximum building height in the City's Neighborhoods (parts of the City that are "outside of the Special Areas")from 30 feet to 45 feet- a fifty percent increase"-Page 6 Under the adopted General Plan, the maximum building height for areas outside Special Areas (i.e. Neighborhoods) is 30 feet. Under the Initiative, the maximum building height in areas outside Special Areas (i.e. Neighborhoods) would increase from 30 to 45 feet. Buildings of 45 feet are typically three to four stories tall. The Initiative, therefore, would change the form of future development in Neighborhoods to allow taller buildings. . ."Page 34 "[T]he Initiative would allow height increase from 30 feet to 45 feet (a 50% increase). As Neighborhoods comprise about three-quarters of the City's land area, this could have a dramatic effect on the City's development patterns."-page 58 This is a 50%increase in building heights allowed in residential neighborhoods. The Council voted last week to revise the ballot question inserting the word"establish"instead of"increases." The word"establish" does not appear in any of the five sections mentioned above and misrepresents and omits the fact that the initiative does not"establish"building heights for the first time but actually"increases"i.e. changes residential buildings heights from 30 to 45 feet which directly affects 3/4ths of the Cupertino community. This is a critical fact that the voters have a right to know.As the ballot question is presently written, the voters have no idea that residential height limits will be increased. I urge the Council to revise the ballot question and delete the word "establish" and replace it with the word "increase" to reflect the fact that CCSGI raises permitted building heights in residential neighborhoods from 30 to 45 feet which will negatively impact 3/4ths of the community. Thank you. Rich Abdalah 1 Richard K. Abdalah, Esq. • This email and any attachments are confidential,intended only for the named recipient(s)and may contain information that is privileged attorney-client communications,attorney work product, or exempt from disclosure under applicable law.If you are not the intended recipient(s)you are notified that the dissemination,distribution,or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.Receipt by anyone other than the named recipient(s)is not a waiver of any applicable privilege. 2 Lauren Sapudar CC. '-iiS h (ciMvn /v--c, . From: Toni Oasay-Anderson S U"c4c4"4.9._ FL _4c\ Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 11:14 AM To: City Clerk Subject: FW:I Request the City Council Oppose the CCSG Initiative Original Message From:Lydia E Morales Imailto: Sent:Monday,April 04,2016 10:00 PM To:City Council Subject:I Request the City Council Oppose the CCSG Initiative I've lived in Cupertino since 1985 and though the plan looks wonderful we citizens will be impacted,probably in ways we haven't even imagined. Besides the new problems with traffic,parking,schools,old underground infrastructure,pipes for water,water itself, sewage, too many people in an area, there is no guarantee that this plan for Cupertino will be completed. I look at Sunnyvale and it does not appear to have fully recovered from the demolishing of the downtown,the buildings do not all appear to be filled. Pm uncertain about beginning a project the magnitude of this proposal without believing it will becompleted and will we recover from this action? Thank you, Lydia Morales 1 Lauren Sapudar C. C' 4/s t/1 (9 'km No. From: Christine Cheng < S1Lt4r_ - wtLf' 4 Sent: Tuesday, April OS, 2016 1:21 PM Cc: City Council; City Clerk; City Attorney's Office; David Brandt Subject Re:April 5th Special Meeting is a Betrayal to Cupertino Residents Our family and many other Cupertino residents are extremely disappointed with your dirty'tricks! Why did we ever vote for you?! You should be ashamed of yourselves for sinking so low with the developers! On Tuesday, April 5, 2016, Xiaowen Wang< wrote: Dear City Councils, I am shocked to learn this morning that there is going to be a Special City Council Meeting to amend Resolution 16- 028 and 16-029 regarding the ballot language of CCSGI. 311 First question, what is the basis to call such special meeting? On March 31 Special Meeting, the same question had been through public hearing, a lot of residents have voiced their opinions both for or against it,had beenthrough lengthy discussion among council members, city attorney, city manager and city's outside counsel, then an agreement had been reached and voted with 5:0 vote that approve the current language. Why only 4 days after we need an special meeting to amend a decision just made? Second question, what is the urgency of the meeting? The ballot language is not due until August, why we have to have a special meeting to discuss this issue tonight? Why can't this agenda item fit into a regular meeting? Especially consider that we have a regular meeting tonight at 6:45pm. Is this because that to amend the regular meeting agenda tonight, a 72 hour notice is needed while only 24 hour notice is needed for a special meeting? No matter how you call it, tonight's special meeting is in fact a continuation of tonight's regular meeting. Playing such trick can only further enhance the mistrust of citizens toward our city government. Moreover, if it is really necessary(I still wait for the justification) why not put the agenda item to the next regular meeting? What is the hidden agenda behind such move? I have been attending almost all council meetings for the past year. I tried my best to put my good faith into the process. I never imagine the city would take such extreme move to suppress public voice. This meeting is most likely legal, but do you really think that it is ethical? Best Regards, Xiaowen Wang Lauren Sapudar CC. Li/Si/47 1frAm No-( SpeCt'a- Me-e>r Subject: FW: [Better Cupertino WG] April 5th Special Meeting is a Betrayal to Cupertino Residents From: Lisa Warren [mailto: Sent: Tuesday,April 05,2016 11:20 AM To: better-cupertino-work-group@googlegroups.com; City Council;City Clerk;City Attorney's Office; David Brandt Subject: Re: [Better Cupertino WG]April 5th Special Meeting is a Betrayal to Cupertino Residents great letter. sadly, I don't think you will get a reply. From: Xiaowen Wang < To: City Council <citycouncil(a,cupertino.org>; City Clerk<cityclerk(i7a cupertino.orq>; City Attorney's Office <CityAttorney(a�cupertino.orq>; David Brandt<davidbacupertino.orq> Sent: Tuesday, April 5, 2016 10:57 AM Subject: [Better Cupertino WG]April 5th Special Meeting is a Betrayal to Cupertino Residents Dear City Councils, I am shocked to learn this morning that there is going to be a Special City Council Meeting to amend Resolution 16-028 and 16- 029 regarding the ballot language of CCSGI. First question, what is the basis to call such special meeting? On March 31 Special Meeting, the same question had been through public hearing, a lot of residents have voiced their opinions both for or against it, had been through lengthy discussion among council members, city attorney, city manager and city's outside counsel, then an agreement had been reached and voted with 5:0 vote that approve the current language.Why only 4 days after we need an special meeting to amend a decision just made? Second question, what is the urgency of the meeting? The ballot language is not due until August, why we have to have a special meeting to discuss this issue tonight?Why can't this agenda item fit into a regular meeting? Especially consider that we have a regular meeting tonight at 6:45pm: Is this because that to amend the regular meeting agenda tonight, a 72 hour notice is needed while only 24 hour notice is needed for a special meeting? No matter how you call it, tonight's special meeting is in fact a continuation of tonight's regular meeting. Playing such trick can only further enhance the mistrust of citizens toward our city government. Moreover, if it is really necessary(I still wait for the justification)why not put the agenda item to the next regular meeting?What is the hidden agenda behind such move? I have been attending almost all council meetings for the past year. I tried my best to put my good faith into the process. I never imagine the city would take such extreme move to suppress public voice.This meeting is most likely legal, but do you really think that it is ethical? Best Regards, Xiaowen Wang Visit our Home Page http://www.bettercupertino.orq/ Visit our Blog http://bettercupertino.blogspot.com/ Visit out facebook page https://www.facebook.com/BetterCupertino -RSZaction.org and BetterCupertino.org You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Better Cupertino Work Group"group. fo unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to better-cupertino-work- aroup+unsubscribe©googlegrou ps.com. fo post to this group, send email to better-cupertino-work-group(@,googleqroups.com. ✓isit this group at https://ciroups.qoode.com/oroup/better-cupertino-work-qroup. fo view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/better-cupertino-work-qroup/CADok- G1QVIB4LUbaY6xf-4erpkPd5sVzepp4Os3g19kO%3DSNmQ%4omail.gmail.com?utm medium=email&utm source=footer. :or more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. Lauren Sapudar ('(', '`/IS11 (Q I No . From: Xiaowen Wang < ! SIX0;4_ --E''^g Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 10:58 AM To: City Council; City Clerk; City Attorney's Office; David Brandt Subject: April 5th Special Meeting is a Betrayal to Cupertino Residents Dear City Councils, I am shocked to learn this morning that there is going to be a Special City Council Meeting to amend Resolution 16- 028 and 16-029 regarding the ballot language of CCSGI. First question, what is the basis to call such special meeting? On March 31 Special Meeting, the same question had been through public hearing, a lot of residents have voiced their opinions both for or against it, had been through lengthy discussion among council members, city attorney, city manager and city's outside counsel,then an agreement had been reached and voted with 5:0 vote that approve the current language. Why only 4 days after we need an special meeting to amend a decision just made? Second question, what is the urgency of the meeting? The ballot language is not due until August, why we have to have a special meeting to discuss this issue tonight? Why can't this agenda item fit into a regular meeting? Especially consider that we have a regular meeting tonight at 6:45pm. Is this because that to amend the regular meeting agenda tonight;a 72 hour notice is needed while only 24 hour notice is needed for a special meeting? No matter how you call it, tonight's special meeting is in fact a continuation of tonight's regular meeting. Playing such trick can only further enhance the mistrust of citizens toward our city government. Moreover, if it is really necessary(I still wait for the justification) why not put the agenda item to the next regular meeting? What is the hidden agenda behind such move? I have been attending almost all council meetings for the past year. I tried my best to put my good faith into the process. I never imagine the city would take such extreme move to suppress public voice. This meeting is most likely legal, but do you really think that it is ethical? Best Regards, Kiaowen Wang