HomeMy WebLinkAboutBallot Question Compliance - Press Release - 08.11.2016CUPERTINO
August 11, 2016
OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS
Telephone: (408) 777-3200 • FAX: (408) 777-3366 • pio@cupertino.org
City Hall • 10300 Torre Avenue • Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
Court Rules that Ballot Question Adopted by City Council is Factually Correct and
Complies with the State Elections Code
CUPERTINO, CA - The Santa Clara County Superior Court denied the Petition for Writ of
Mandate filed by the Committee Supporting Cupertino Citizen's Sensible Growth
Initiative.
The petition challenged the ballot question adopted by City Council for the Cupertino
Citizen's Sensible Growth Initiative (CCSGI) at its April 5, 2016 Meeting. The petitioners
objected to the language in the ballot question that the CCSGI would: (1) increase the
maximum building height in Neighborhoods to 45 feet, and (2) limit redevelopment in the
Vallco Shopping District.
On August 10, 2016, the Court ruled that the "ballot question accurately states the nature
of the CCSGI." It found that "the challenged language is factually correct, and was not
false, misleading, partial or otherwise failed to comply with the State Elections
Code." The Court also found that the petition was not brought in a timely manner.
In so ruling, the Court considered the context of the City's General Plan and zoning
designations, and indicated that the CCSGI effectively raises the maximum height limit of
buildings within the Neighborhoods to 45 feet —whether or not that was the intent of the
drafters and its proponents. Neighborhoods make up approximately 75% of the City of
Cupertino.
Cupertino, CA, is on the western edge of Silicon Valley against the foothills of the Santa Cruz
Mountains. With a population of 62,000 within 13 square miles, Cupertino is 42 miles south of San
Francisco and home to many high-tech companies, most notably Apple, Inc.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
COMMITTEE SUPPORTING CUPERTINO
CITIZENS' SENSIBLE GROWTH
INITIATIVE, et al.,
Petitioners,
VS.
CITY OF CUPERTINO, et al.
Respondents.
F I L
E D
AUG 1 0
2016
DAV1® H. Y(ANIA$AKI
ChWsuEx®euthre C4rw
Case No.: 16CV296322
ORDER ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF
MANDATE
Hearing: July 25, 2016
Department b
Hon. Theodore C. Zayner
Following briefing and hearing per the schedule to which the parties had stipulated, the
Court tools this matter under submission. Having heard and considered the arguments of counsel
and having reviewed and considered all pleadings and the authorities cited — the Court now issues
its ruling.
No objections having been raised by any party, all Requests for Judicial Notice are
GRANTED, and the Court has considered all judicially noticeable pleadings and papers submitted.
The Petition challenges the language of the Ballot Question proposed by Respondent City
of Cupertino, to be printed with all election materials to be submitted to the voters along with the
proposed "Cupertino Citizens' Sensible Growth Initiative" (CCSGI) that has been authorized as a
ORDER ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE — 16CV296322
4-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
citizen initiative to be placed on the November 8, 2016 general election ballot for the registered
voters of the City of Cupertino.
The Peremptory Writ of Mandate is DENIED.
Initially, the Court finds that Petitioners' lawsuit appears to be time -barred, under Elections
Code section 9295(b)(1). (See McDonough v. Superior Court (2012) 204 Cal.App.0' 1169, 1173.)
However, the Court has also considered the Petition on its merits, and finds the proposed
ballot question accurately states the nature of the CCSGI. The challenged language is factually
correct; and it is not false, misleading, partial, or otherwise fails to comply with the Elections Code.
Petitioners have not sustained their burden of proof required for the issuance of a peremptory writ.
(Elections Code section 9295(b)(2); McDonough, passim.)
In so ruling, the Court acknowledges the evidence and argument of Petitioners regarding
the intent of the initiative, particularly concerning height limits of buildings in the City's
"Neighborhoods" outside of the designated "Special Areas." The plain language of the proposed
initiative, considered within the context of the City's General Plan and zoning designations, does
appear to effectively raise the maximum height limits of buildings within the Neighborhoods —
whether that was or was not the intent of the drafters and proponents. Thus, the proposed ballot
question substantially complies with the standard set forth in Elections Code section 9295(b)(2),
and as discussed in McDonough.
DATED: * W , 2016
ORDER ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE - 16CV296322
-2-