Item No. 8 Written CommunicationsCC 12-20-2022
Written Communications
Item No.8
Consider approval of
response to 2022 Civil
Grand Jury of Santa Clara
County
From:Pamela Wu
To:Peggy Griffin
Cc:City Council; City of Cupertino Audit Committee; City Clerk
Subject:RE: Civil Grand Jury Findings - Cupertino
Date:Monday, December 19, 2022 10:16:15 AM
Peggy, the City Council will consider authorizing the City Attorney to provide a response to the Ballot
Measure grand jury report tomorrow. The City Council will consider the second report in January.
Pamela
Pamela Wu
City Manager
City Manager's Office
PamelaW@cupertino.org
(408)777-1322
From: Peggy Griffin <griffin@compuserve.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2022 11:57 PM
To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>
Cc: City Council <CityCouncil@cupertino.org>; City of Cupertino Audit Committee
<AuditCommittee@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>
Subject: Civil Grand Jury Findings - Cupertino
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Manager Wu,
I’m writing to ask if the City Council and Audit Committee’s have been made aware of the two
recently released reports by the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury regarding Cupertino? I’ve
copied the City Council and the Audit Committee in case they are not aware of these reports.
The Civil Grand Jury published their findings on Dec. 14, 2022 for issues involving Cupertino:
1. Misleading ballot measure questions
“If you only Read the Ballot You’re Being Duped”
https://www.scscourt.org/court_divisions/civil/cgj/2022/If%20You%20Only%20Read%20the%20Ball
ot%20You%20Are%20Being%20Duped.pdf
NOTE: On Dec. 20, 2022 City Council Agenda Item #8
2. Failure to produce and submit to City Council a monthly Treasurer’s Report containing specific
required items.
“Show Me the Money: Financial Transparency Needed”
https://www.scscourt.org/court_divisions/civil/cgj/2022/Show%20Me%20the%20Money%20-
%20Financial%20Transparency%20Needed.pdf
I have attended several Audit Committee meetings and saw a great reluctance from some staff
members for the need/requirement for producing a monthly Treasurer’s Report which is required by
law! I would like to commend the Audit Committee and the previous City Council for exercising their
oversight in making sure the city came into compliance quickly. Nice job!
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
From:Liana Crabtree
To:Hung Wei; Sheila Mohan; Liang Chao; J.R Fruen; Kitty Moore; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Cc:City Clerk; City Attorney"s Office
Subject:written communication, 12/20/2022 Council Meeting, Agenda Item 8, Civil Grand Jury report: “If You Are Only
Reading the Ballot, You Are Being Duped”
Date:Tuesday, December 20, 2022 1:12:14 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Honorable Mayor Wei, Vice Mayor Mohan, Council Members Chao, Fruen, and Moore, and
City Manager Wu:
Please include this letter as written communication for the 12/20/2022 Council Meeting,
Agenda Item 8, Civil Grand Jury report: “If You Are Only Reading the Ballot, You Are Being
Duped”.
I am writing to request that City reconsider its draft reply to the 10/7/2022 Civil Grand Jury
report “If You Are Only Reading the Ballot, You Are Being Duped” in light of Cupertino’s
recent history involving the process to draft, edit, and approve the ballot question for Measure
C.
In 2016, after the Cupertino Citizens’ Sensible Growth Initiative (Measure C) qualified for
placement on the November ballot, the then City Attorney drafted the ballot question that was
aligned with the Title and Summary and reasonable to the intent and stated limits of the ballot
measure:
“Shall an initiative ordinance be adopted amending Cupertino’s General Plan to limit
redevelopment of the Vallco Shopping District, limit building heights along major mixed-use
corridors, establish a 45 feet maximum building height in the Neighborhoods, 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?”
However, Council was not satisfied with the City Attorney’s ballot question and sought
guidance from outside legal counsel, including attorneys representing the Cupertino
commercial property owner who then spent millions to defeat Measure C and to launch its
own competing ballot initiative, Measure D. Both ballot measures were defeated by Cupertino
voters in November 2016.
The revised, final ballot question for Measure C included language not supported in the text of
the measure anywhere. The revised, final ballot question appeared to be drafted to subvert the
intent and purpose of Measure C:
“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 the 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?”
It appeared that the then Council’s decision to edit the ballot question was politically
motivated and was intended to prejudice voters against Measure C.
Ballot questions must be drafted by the City Attorney. It is also the responsibility of the City
Attorney to draft a ballot measure’s title and summary, neither of which should contradict the
ballot question.
It is a disservice to residents to allow a Council to game the initiative process by inserting
biased language into the ballot question that is offered by opponents or proponents of the
ballot measure.
Please respond to the Civil Grand Jury report “If You Are Only Reading the Ballot, You
Are Being Duped” in SUPPORT of County Counsel review of ballot questions drafted by
the City Attorney and submitted by the City for inclusion on the Cupertino ballot.
Sincerely,
Liana Crabtree
Cupertino resident
From:Rhoda Fry
To:City Clerk; City Council
Subject:Public Comment Agenda #8 Grand Jury
Date:Tuesday, December 20, 2022 3:53:13 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council,
Reading this report reminds me that I would like the City to get an explanation as to how our City of
Cupertino 2022 ballots all had diamonds on the council candidates when not all candidates merited
diamonds.
Additionally the County failed to provide a remedy for voters who had already voted using the
diamonds as their guide.
The public merits an explanation and the County must provide assurances that this egregious error
will not happen again.
Warm Regards,
Rhoda Fry