Rebuttals redactedSANTA U
REGISTRAR OF VOTERS AUG I IS 200"1
DECLARATION BY AUTHOR(S) OR OTHER -11K
{Elections Cade § 9164, 9167, 9504, 9609
The undersigned author(s) of the rebuttal to the argument i of a ainst ballet measure - at the
(circle one; (letter)
� , Municipal election for the Clitt of Cunggkno,
(title of election) (name of jurisdiction)
to be held on November 8, 2005 hereby state that such argument is true and correct to the best
(date of election)'
of + w knowledge and belief.
(his I her I their
a �w
y
�r
Print Dame as Signed MalelFemale
Pnnt Name as Signed MalelFemale
Print Name as Signed ael a ale
r
Print tame as Signed Male/Female
it1irerson I eleptione
-ou SANTA CL ARA COUNTY
REGISTRAR OF VOTERS
REBUTTAL SIGNER AUTHORIZATION
The author of an argument may sign the rebuttal argument or may authorize in writing any other person to
author/sigii the rebuttal argument. Below �s a sample of written authorization that is required when the author
of the argument does not sign the rebuttal argument but in has another person sign in their place. All
required signarures must be 2jiginAl signatures.
Date of Election
Asasigneronthe Argurnent ray rte rt c it st measure A in the
circle one) --L--`
I authorize
� cta_
the rebuttal argument in ixw-,p4ws4,
,Printed Name
Date of Election _k_ami t_
Asa signer on the Argument infiaxray: ofOa rxi4l, Measure in the
(Circle one),-"
Lh CW, I authorize
(Jurisdiction)'
by vk to sign the rebuttal argument in my-p+ace_
(new rebuttal signer)
ignature Priited Name
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
REGISTRAR OF VOTERS
REBUTTAL SIGNER AUTHORIZATION
The author of an argument may sign the rebuttal argument or may authorize in writing any gather person to
author/sign the rebuttal argument. Below is h sample f written authorization that is required when the author of
the argument dues not sign the rebuttal argument but instead has, another person sign in their place. All required;
signatures must be tari incl signatures.
Date of Election
W.
As a signer on the Argument in f4vor oklavainsl Measure 4 in the
irl cant.._.
(Jurisdiction)
v"- to sign the rebuttal argument in my place,
h rut 1 r
'wSignature Printed Name
---------------------------
Date of Flection
As a signer on the argument i � � l a fi asur in the
(circle uta
I authorize
(Jurisdiction)
to sura the rebuttal argument in my place,
(new rebuttal signer
Signature Printed Name
Rebuttal to argument in favor of Measure A
It is interesting the arguments for Measure A speak mostly of what it won't do,
rather than what it will do. We believe you should know how this extreme measure will
affect our community.
Measure A will cause massive urban sprawl. That is why environmental groups
such as the League of Conservation Voters, Greenbelt Alliance and the Sierra Club all
oppose this initiative. it doesn't stop building hjust increases the land area necessary for
housing to occur, which threatens our hillsides and open space.
This poorly written initiative will place restrictions on density, making affordable
housing for teachers, firefighters, and law enforcement along out transportation corridors
impossible. That's why Sheriff Laurie Smith and all members of the Cupertino Union
School District are opposed to this measure.
In addition, many residents are worried these extreme initiatives, will hurt and
impact the quality of our schools. Good government processes are essential for the health
fall of our institutions. Cupertino should not be seen as a fringe community. That's
why the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce, the Silicon Valley Leadership Group and the
League of Women Voters oppose these initiatives.
Finally, the proponents are out -of -touch with the views of Cupertino residents. A
recent survey showed that most of us like the efforts made at the corner of Stevens Creek
and De Anza.
We don't need to destroy our City to save it, Please join us in voting No on
Measure A.
.-4�� z"
Print N a as Signedt l' c i
Print Name as Signediii
�r
i
rind Name as Signed i ffil
C 0 W E
� SANTA CLARA COUNTY
. REGISTRAR t F VOTERS AUG� 200:3
f-
REBUTTAL SIGNER
R
ie author of an argument may sign the rebuttal argument or may authorize ingrit n any art i ers n to'-
author/sign the rebuttal argument. Below is a sample of written authorization a.tion that is required when the author
of the argument does not ,sign the rebuttal argument but instead has another person sign in their place. All'
required signatures mn t be cam i ival signatures.
M -
Date of Election � � "��R� 6 �� �.?� 7
.s a signer on ther uments( `nt xgar-o / ain t measure in the
(circle ranee
(neer rebuttal siren
b
Signature Painted Name
Date of Election C <- r'°, �. �r ".�
s a signer on the Argument I vor a _1a a inst Measure � in the:
c itire i
i0
f authorize
U'41cti n)
to sign the zebu I argument in my place.`
(new rebuttal signers
Signature Printed Marne
p
C'0 SANTA CLARA COUNTY
REGISTRAR OF VOTERS lC 1
�A G�REBUTTAL SIGNER -�
1
t_�
'. �*�
The author ofan ar Lure rt may sign the rebuttal argument or may authorize in writing any tither person to
author/sign the rebuttal argurnent. Below is a sample of written authorization that is required when the author
of the argument does not sign the rebuttal argument but instead has another person sign in their place.; ` All
required signatures nrrtst be trri[ iD l si natures,
Cl—
Date f Election '� �' e t kir d
As a signer on the :Ax u ent r.favor of "A aainst Measure ill the
rr �l
I authorize
(firs ictrt�ra`'
° w to sign. the. rebuttal r rrznent %r� �y, place.
(new rebuttal signer
ian t-nre Printed Name
Date of Election
As a signer on the Argument ent i r favor of iiLnstMeasure in the
(circle one
I authorize
(Jurisdiction)
to sign the rebuttal argument in my place.
(new rebuttal signer)
1g iature printed Name
r%
The author of an argument may sign the rebuttal argument or may authorize in writing any other person to
author/sip, the rebuttal argument. Below is a sample of written authorization that is required when the author
of the arg,=ent does not sign the rebuttal argument but instead has another person sign in their place. All
rcqtfired signatures must be gdginal signatures.
I i
Date of Election '` i n
As a signer on the Argument `n favor oj)l ggLinst Measure 4, 04 in the
(-ei-r-cTe-1 one)
4"' n a �Ilo ',' T m4flinr;7pt
gn the rebuttal argument in my place.
Printed Name
. . * . . . . . . ............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... . ....... . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Date of Election
As a signer on the Argument LwLamvo—ro-f—1 a-ga—inst Measure in the
(circle one)
I authorize
(Jurisdiction)
to sip the rebuttal argument in my place.
(reeve rebuttal signer)
— signature Printed Name
11 W i1-:1,
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
REGISTRAR OF VOTERS
AUG
"VrAl rJC0 A"TUnD17ATIfl�-
r%
The author of an argument may sign the rebuttal argument or may authorize in writing any other person to
author/sip, the rebuttal argument. Below is a sample of written authorization that is required when the author
of the arg,=ent does not sign the rebuttal argument but instead has another person sign in their place. All
rcqtfired signatures must be gdginal signatures.
I i
Date of Election '` i n
As a signer on the Argument `n favor oj)l ggLinst Measure 4, 04 in the
(-ei-r-cTe-1 one)
4"' n a �Ilo ',' T m4flinr;7pt
gn the rebuttal argument in my place.
Printed Name
. . * . . . . . . ............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... . ....... . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Date of Election
As a signer on the Argument LwLamvo—ro-f—1 a-ga—inst Measure in the
(circle one)
I authorize
(Jurisdiction)
to sip the rebuttal argument in my place.
(reeve rebuttal signer)
— signature Printed Name
REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE A
--H0U&NGdDE*S1T*
Over 4000 Cupertino voters signed the initiative petitions, It is sad to see
initiative opponents misrepresenting what the initiatives contain.
Profit-driven developers and other special interest groups, whose members
mostly don't live in Cupertino and don't care about preserving its suburban
character, may say virtually anything to get voters to reject this General Plan
Amendment.
Opponents falsely claim, "this initiative ... would place strict limits on all
property owners. "
This initiative has no limits on single -family homes, nor duplex,
triplex, or fourplex housing; and there is a total exemption for
commercial buildings in the area of the Vallco all.
Opponents also claim the initiative "is an insult to public safety officers [and
they/ ... are not welcome ...
These initiatives have nothing to do with affordable housing.
Affordable housing qan be constructed in low-density
developments. Public service employees live in our city now, and
they will always be welcome.
Opponents claim that the initiatives "will hurt the image of our community .
They care about "Lrnage," Residents care about the quality of our
schools,. In reality, unchecked high-density development is
actually hurting our schools now. Provisions of this Measure will
help to preserve the character and quality of our excellent schools by
avoiding further overcrowding,
Our General Plan does set density limits for our community; however, the
Council can, and does, amend the Plan to allow projects with higher densities,
Vote "YES" to return control of Cupertino's future to its own citizens.
www. Cupertino. CC
am
o Appear on Re f
Print (dame as Si e�d# Fma1ii
Rebuttal to argument in favor of Measure B
We already have height [units in the current General Plan, Die exurclue limits the proponents
staff gest are too inflexible and treat cveq area of-the City the sank. Under their proposal, the Apple
Headquarters could not exist and the Library would not stand.
Vlore iraport-,unly, these initiatives will not solve any of the problenis the proponents suggest,
I ) These initiatives will exacerbate urban spa AvL That's why enNironlilentalists like
Congressman Nfike Honda and the League of Consea�,ation Voters oppose these initiatives-
2) There will be an increased strain oil public services that is badfor our major employers and
turns local businesses. That's why the Cupertino Chaniber of Conitnerce, and all members of
file Cupertino City Council oppose therm
3) 'FIrese initiatives hurt school. City reports have stated these initiatives wrill increase croding
in schools and teacher,- will be forced to live outside the district, That" s why all, incinbers of
the Cupertino Union School District oppose them.,
'ibe views or our hillsides are pristine, Bill these initiatives threaten that viell" as new
development will lac pushed into our hillsides. That's why the Greenbelt Alliance opposes
these measures.
Pleasejoin the Deniocrific Party, Republiczan leaders like Sheriff Laurie South and Fonner
Assenibly-ruan Jim Cunneen, the Green Party, and every reasonable conurturnly leader in Cupertino in
opposing these than germ is initiatives.
1 do not need to destroy our city in order to save it, Vote NO on, Measure B,
wnlur
Contw,t Person
"2
LLLI
1i,
Print Signed ale
Print m i d *` ' l eFernale
Print Name as
I A
ME
. ... .. ...... ....... .. . . .. .....
Ccaar'rSANTA CLARA COUNTY
w�
REGISTRAR F VOTERS
REBUTTAL
SIGNER AUTHORIZATI
C U PE R T t i ClTY C1_EFIt
The author f an r uITICi t may sign the rebuttal argument gar Inca a tbttri e in �n� t�kl�� ���t� i
author/sign the rebuttal argument, Below is to sample, of written authorization that is required when the author
of the argument does Pot sign the,, rebuttal gar uirtent but instead has another person sign in their place. All
required signatures must be original sirynratures.
Date of Election �°rte � �` � � �6
f_r
As a signer do the r ument -i 'ryor, ,rl a tilt Measure in the
Circle one)
I tauthori e
'j�yea g«
thy^is l'crion r+
Jct+moi i (C'k i t ? to sign the rebuttal argument in -=y place.
new rebuttal si er
V�k t_<1
Signature Printed Mame_
........................
3
Tate of Election
.s a signer on die rgumet .. it), ,, . ,or o _l azainst Measure in the
eire e e
,1 authorize
o; is ,iti n) {µ
to sign the rebuft4 r ument, inlee,
(neve rebuttal signer)
ignataare Printed Name
� r
�x (I lulll-
SANTA CLARA COUNTYId
REGISTRAR OF VOTERS,
r
REBUTTAL SIGNER AUTHO i A I
�,F"' }
pg
L
The author of an argurnetat may sign the rebuttal argument t or may authorize in writing any rather person to
author/sign the rebuttal argument. nt. elow is a sample of written autlaa izatiean that is required when the author
of the argument dues not sign the rebuttal argument but instead has another person sin in their place, All
required signatures must be original signatures.
z'
Date of Election
Asa signer cin the 'Ar uratent h fraa�oaa � aggLrast Measure in the
m , r
(carele pane)
a=uthorize
(. . tsd�trerta
�v- to a 3a the rebuttal argument i ,W place,
(new rebuttal suer
Signature _ Printed Name
Date of Election
As a signer on the Argument in Lavor qins1Measure it] the
(circle one)
1 authorize
(Jurisdiction) _
to sura the rebuttal argument, in my place.
(aaev; rebuttal signer
Signature , Printed Name
SANTA CLARA U 1
W III
REGISTRAR OF VOTERS
REBUML r
a
Date of Eawr$'4F.�Sd 4 �, b!. �,{= { I I...w�'}
As a sae:;av l a i �,.
in the
a
—1 1 authorize
argument in my place-
r �)
l Printed Name
........................................
Date of Elmtion
As a signer on the Argument i € in Measure in the
heal some)
authorize
uts
to sa' rebutW argument. my place.
signatum Printed Name
REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE B
-B0it0N6-fif_-'1GHT-S
Our opponents' arguments are grossly misleading.
Opporients falsely claim, "[the] initiative would place the same height limitations
on every building '*
Actually, the Measure has several height standards. The general
standard is 36 feet, (45 feet in the Vallco District), Commercial
buildings in the Vallco Mail area are unrestricted.
Opponents claim ";[the] initiative fails to distinguish between commercial areas
transportation corridors, industrial areas, or neighborhoods. "
In fact, the initiative states existing buildings and residenfial
neighborhoods are exempt from any height limitations.
Contrary to the opponents' argument, this Height initiative would not affect
affordable housing, which can be constructed just as well with low-rise
buildings, as with tall buildings.
If a large employer, like Apple or HP, etc, requires tall buildings-, it could be
accomplished with voter approval. The City Council could require that election
costs be borne by developers, which would be small compared to the project
cost,
The General Plan includes Height guidelines-, however, 3 out of 5 Council
members frequently amend the plan, producing very tall (100+ feet) monster
buildings at Stevens Creek and De Anna.
Be aware, under the currently proposed General Plan Update, the City could
authorize construction of thousands more housing units in tall buildings
throughout Cupertino.
See for yourself — the southeast corner of Stevens Creek and De Anza. Is this
what you want for the Cupertino's future?
We ask you NOT to simply believe special interest groups and politicians,
Read the initiatives for the truth at www. Cupertino. CC.
Rebuttal to argument in favor of Measure C
� 'c must stop lite fear that inspired these initiatives. Cupertino is as great place to liA,,e,,md oo&
We bare an intelligent, afft uent community. our school are tops, and our City Council is responsive. Ir
it's not broke. don't fix it
Yet these initiatives appeal to our worst fears, without pro%iding ary real solutions to our
problems. lawfact.they make the potential for future problems worse
-
This initiative may be the most egregious of all. For in defining the set-backs so na-rowly for
every area of the:City, vvillisonre inadequate excepbons for the Vallee area,L our City Council will be, able
to approve as WaIrnart, but not a new Libram
The set-back- reqWrements Nvould mstrict all new corantercial growth to strip-jualls or big two
retail development. The fifiliative simply ensures vast new parking lots all around Cupertino. Tws is not
NvIrat the proponents endorse, but what the initiatives allow. These are poorly written, inRexible and
extreme laws that destroy our ability to build a better Cupertino. -flicy are void of good government
restraint and. most importantly, they actually harni flee titian vve value most in Cupertino including out
education systern.
Let's stop the fear. plea sejoin all reasonable leaders in Cupertino including the entire City
Council, Sheriff Laurie Smith, and former Asserribkyntanhin Curtneen in defeating these, harrallb.]
initiatives.
NVe don't need to destroy Cupertino to save it. Vote No on Measure C.
� arot RM
I
TMe to pear
uste ,
07,
)ate
r� ..
riotName as Signed l
Print Name as Signed
Vn t Name as Sign -MWWF—emale
C'C)awl SANTA CLARA COUNTY
REGISTRAR OF VOTERS
7' 2005
. J
"REBUTTAL
"The author of an argument may sign the rebuttal argument, or may authorize, ii - yl!Ty- d pdFs nfo—�.�.�
uthor/sign the rebuttal argument, Below is a sample of written authorization that is required hen the author
of the argument dries not sign the rebuttal argurnent but instead hits another person sign in their place, All
requited signatures must be original signatures.
Date ofElection r'+
As a signer ars the Argument irr k'01."4 / cIn � Measure ? . in the
sera°els rre
1 authorize
url "dreti rt
"�t �' fit' tr1 = f
t to sirr flee rebuttal arut�r�rrt rr � ° l�lae;
(tree. rebuttal signer)
a.
Signature Printed Name
......m.,.... ............... ...............
Date of Election
As a signer oil the Argument V—;--f pleasure -- in the
rrele e
I authorize
to sign the rebuttal rri ent ire place.
(new rebuttal signer
gnature Printed Name
REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE C
-f WftDff4G-S-ET-BAr7K-&
Your vote on these initiatives may be the last chance for Cupertino residents to
prevent our City from becoming like "downtown Los Angeles."
Opponents falsely claim this is an "extreme initiative."
Setback standards in this measure are not extreme.
Similar setbacks are specified in previous Cupertino General Plans,
Stevens Creek Boulevard has 35 feet setbacks (same as the
initiative) to create a tree-lined boulevard.
North De Ani a Blvd. has setbacks of 35-50 feet to create an
attractive entrance into the City, and to enhance property values.
The opponents falsely claim this initiative "require[s] all buildings to be set
back the same distance ... , "
The setback is NOT a fixed distance for all localities, and this
Measure does not apply to residential neighborhoods.
The initiative standard is "a minimum of 35 feet. In the Vallco District,
this Measure specifies 1 to 1 slopeline. Commercial buildings in
the area of the Vallco all are exempt. The initiative only establishes
a minimum distance for setback. Buildings can locate at varying
distances behind the landscaped areas. The different setbacks
would provide a varied rather than a rigid building line on the street.
Opponents of the initiatives (developers, and other special interest groups, who
generally are not residents of our City) will probably spend a fortune in an
attempt to sway voters; and they may say virtually anything to confuse them.
Don't be fooled by misleading arguments,
Join Cupertino residents; vote "YES" on this initiative to Save Our City.
www. Cupertino, CC