Exhibit CC 04-19-2016 Oral CommunicationsRESOLUTION NO. 16-032
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
AMENDING THE BALLOT QUESTION FOR THE CUPERTINO CITIZENS'
SENSIBLE GROWTH INITIATIVE AND AMENDING RESOLUTIONS 16-028
AND 16-029
WHEREAS, on March 31, 2016, the City Council accepted a report
prepared pursuant to Elections Code Section 9212 ("9212 Report") on the Cupertino
Citizens' Sensible Growth Initiative entitled, "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" (hereafter "Initiative"); and
WHEREAS, on March 31, 2016, the City Council adopted Resolution 16-
028, Resolution of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Calling and Giving
Notice of the Holding of a General Municipal Election to be Held on November 8,
2016, for the Submittal to the Voters of a Ballot Measure to Limit Redevelopment of
the Valko Shopping District, Limit Building Heights and Lot Coverages Throughout
the City, and Establish New Setbacks and Building Planes on Major Thoroughfares;
and Requesting the Assistance of the County of Santa Clara for the Consolidation of
the Election and to Render Specified Services to the City of Cupertino Relating to the
Conduct of the Election; and
WHEREAS, on March 31, 2016, the City Council adopted Resolution 16-
029, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Providing for
Written Arguments Regarding a City Measure and Directing the City Attorney to
Prepare an Impartial Analysis; and
WHEREAS, both Resolution 16-028 and 16-029 contain the proposed
ballot question for the Initiative as follows:
Resolution No. 16-032
Page3
SECTION 2. That Resolution 16-028 and Resolution 16-029 remain unchanged
in all other respects.
SECTION 3: That Resolution 16-030 relating to the Initiative also adopted on
March 31, 2016, is not changed by this Resolution.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a special meeting of the City Council of the City
of Cupertino this 5th day of April, 2016, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Members of the City Council
Chang, Sinks, Wong
Vaidhyanathan, Paul
None
None
APPROVED:
r-;r/ ( ~
JI;!
Grace Schmidt, City Clerk
c::
California Secretary of State has just published the list of “June 7, 2016
ballot measures in California” which can be seen online at
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/upcoming-elections/june-7-2016-presidential-primary-election/
One can easily find on this list many of these initiatives introduced by
various citizen groups to be very similar to the initiative sponsored by the
Cupertino residents, known as CCSGI .
Yet, our council has flatly rejected the request, on March 1st, to place
CCSGI on the June ballot, based on the recommendation of the city attorney who
took upon himself to swap a key word in the municipal code (Section § 2.04.005)
to form a legal opinion to delay the election date for CCSGI to November 2016.
The mayor expressed his unhappiness that the city has had to spend some tax
dollars to defend this misconstrued recommendation that now turns out to be a
huge LIE !
Next, I would again remind the council that the council and the city staff are
here to serve the public, not actively promote or assist development projects. You
must remain impartial at all times.
Unfortunately, the evidence shows that the Council betrayed the citizens by
changing the “ballot label ” of the Cupertino Citizens Sensible Growth Initiative
(also known as CCSGI ) to mislead voters to comply with the request from the
attorney working for the developer for converting the Vallco site to an office park,
which is Sand Hill Property, at the last minute in a closed meeting, while ignoring
the letter and intent of Elections Code Section 9051(c). The “ballot label ” was
supposed to be a condensed version, in 75 words, of the original 500-word “ballot
title and summary ” issued by the city attorney. The council has no authority to
alter or enhance it according the state election law.
Furthermore, the misleading amendment was done without timely notifying
the CCSGI sponsors as previously requested in writing.
And, the unlawful alteration of the “ballot label ” was done in a special
meeting suggested by Councilman Wong and ordered by Mayor Chang without
sufficient public notice and circumvented the Ralph Brown Act.
Even though the “ballot label ” was inappropriately altered by the city
attorney after he substituted the wording of “ballot title and summary ” with
“ballot label ” in the Elections Code Section 9051(c) as a falsified legal base for
this illicit purpose, the ultimate responsibility of wrongdoing remains with the
council which passed the distorted “ballot label ” despite the objection and advice
of the “CCSGI ” supporters.
This serious violation that would negatively affect the November election
was made by only three votes on the Council. That is exactly why CCSGI was
introduced in the first place because voters should be allowed to have a say about
important issues like this and, of course, the direction of growth in our city.
Mayor Chang has continuously demonstrated his pattern of abusive behavior
and discontent toward the public and other council members. Even when corrected
by other council members and staff members, he persisted in these defamatory
comments without remorse or contrition.
Mayor Chang has failed to fulfill his fiduciary duty to Cupertino citizens. He
started to run for State Assembly only six months after being sworn-in, and used
his position in Cupertino to solicit large campaign contributions from developers,
construction companies and real estate brokers who will benefit from his actions
on the City Council.
It is the right and duty of the voters to recall elected officials when they do
not represent the voters.
It's important for the elected officials to listen to the people and supervise
the staff members, instead of rubber-stamping misguided recommendations made
by incompetent individuals.
With greatest regret and a heavy heart, I hereby represent a group of several
hundred Cupertino residents to announce that we are filing a Notice of Intention
to recall Mayor Chang today.
Mr. Chang you have been officially served.
Thank you for your attention.
Elections Code 9051
Cupertino Citizens’ Sensible
Growth Initiative (CCSGI)
CCSensibleGrowth.org
Paid for by Committee supporting Cupertino Citizens' Sensible Growth Initiative, PO Box 1132, Cupertino, CA 95015, FPPC# 1381 645
CCSGI encourages
developers to follow the law
(General Plan)!
Did the ballot question for CCSGI
follow the law (Elections Code)?
Cupertino Citizens’ Sensible Growth Initiative (CCSGI)
CCSensibleGrowth.org
Cupertino Citizens’ Sensible Growth Initiative (CCSGI)
CCSensibleGrowth.org
Page 5 of the CCSG Initiative states clearly:
“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.”
Page 6 of CCSG Initiative
Community Form
Diagram (Figure LU-1)
Shall an initiative ordinance be adopted amending
Cupertino’s General Plan to limit redevelopment of
the Vallco Shopping District, limit building heights
along major mixed-use corridors, increase to 45
feet maximum building height in the
Neighborhoods, limit lot coverages for large
projects, establish new setbacks and building
planes on major thoroughfares, and require voter
approval for any changes to these provisions?
Version C (false argument, partial, prejudicial )
Cupertino Citizens’ Sensible Growth Initiative (CCSGI)
CCSensibleGrowth.org
The Election Code 9051 states that the 75-word ballot
question (namely "ballot label")
"shall be a condensed version of the ballot title and
summary" and the City Attorney "shall give a true and
impartial statement of the purpose of the measure in
such language that the ballot title and summary shall
neither be an argument, nor be likely to create
prejudice, for or against the proposed measure."
Evolution of Ballot Question for CCSG Initiative
CCSensibleGrowth.org
Version A: City Attorney’s
Ballot Question in March 31
Meeting packet
Sand Hill letter 1 from
Nielsen, Merksamer, Parrinello,
Gross & Leon, LLP.
Version B: Amended Ballot
Question adopted on March 31
with 5-0 vote
Version C: Twice Amended
Ballot Question adopted on
April 5 with 3-2 vote
Sand Hill letter 2 from
Morrison & Forester, LLP.
Mysterious Special Meeting?
Version A (true, impartial, not prejudicial)
CCSensibleGrowth.org
Shall an initiative ordinance be adopted 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?
Shall an initiative ordinance be adopted amending
Cupertino’s General Plan to limit redevelopment of
the Vallco Shopping District, limit building heights
along major mixed-use corridors, increase to 45
feet maximum building height in the
Neighborhoods, limit lot coverages for large
projects, establish new setbacks and building
planes on major thoroughfares, and require voter
approval for any changes to these provisions?
Version C (false argument, partial, prejudicial )
Cupertino Citizens’ Sensible Growth Initiative (CCSGI)
CCSensibleGrowth.org
Your
Conscious Play Fair People’s
Trust
Cupertino Citizens’ Sensible Growth Initiative (CCSGI)
CCSensibleGrowth.org
Adopt
Version A to
comply with
EC 9051
More Information: CCSensibleGrowth.org
Questions: CCSensibleGrowth@gmail.com
Cupertino Citizens’ Sensible Growth Initiative (CCSGI)
GET INVOLVED
Protect Our Quality of Life
Before It’s Too Late.
DONATE