Debate will be re-broadcast on Santa Clara cable Channel 6:

• Friday May 22, 1998 - 5:00 pm
• Wednesday May 27, 1998 - 3:00 pm
• Saturday May 30, 1998 - 1:00 pm
• Monday June 1, 1998 - 7:00 pm

| What Is Measure D | Visions For Agnews | Debate | Legal | Vote June 2 | Sun's Propaganda |

The debate was competently moderated, and a broad range of topics were addressed.

Those in attendance were loyal to their side of the issue, and the only persons likely to have been swayed were in the TV audience. That is as expected. For this reason it is unfortunate that on occasion the Sun contingent resorted to rowdiness to voice their disapproval of positions taken by the representatives of the people.

A few blatant items of misinformation were presented by Sun's VP of Real Estate. Among these the following statements:

1. Sun claims that at the Santa Clara city council meeting on January 14, 1997 there was a unanimous vote by the council to approve the concept of Sun's plan.
   • This is patently untrue, and designed to be misleading.

   • After much debate the council voted unanimously to permit the EIR process to commence, but this was only after at least three council members (Lisa Gilmor, Jim Arno, Patty Mahan) were assured that approving the commencement of the EIR in no way indicated approving the concept of Sun's project, and that it in no way constituted a precedent or pre-approval of Sun's project. It was merely an expedient so that if (and only if) the project were approved, there would then be less time delay to complete the EIR, as it would already be underway. An unusual means of "doing business" for sure, but that is what the council decided by that unanimous vote.

   • Specifically, council member Mahan stated her great reluctance to commence the EIR process fearing that it might be construed as a tacit pre-approval of the project. It was only after she was assured that the vote on the commencement of the EIR had no bearing on the debate of the Sun project that she agreed to go along with it.

   • It was after this discussion that the other reluctant council members agreed to commence the EIR process.

   • When Sun uses this council vote as an example of the city council unanimously approving their plan in principle, Sun is actively misleading you.

2. Sun claims that the judge fully and completely and unequivocally validated the EIR
   • Not so. That is entirely false. The judge did not validate the EIR unequivocally.

   • The judge merely decided not to issue a Writ of Mandate.

   • The judge did not decide that the Sun project is in full compliance with the EIR. The finding of the court in no way suggests that. In fact, there were NO comments made by the Judge.

   • The judge specifically Did Not Certify the text which Sun had provided the court which would have validated Sun's statement.

   • Repeat: The text which Sun provided to the court and which Sun wanted entered into the decision was specifically Not Acceptable to the court.

   • The decision by the judge is a standoff. Neither side won, neither side lost. The decision leaves the matter open to appeal.

3. Sun claims that the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO, pronounced shippo) backs Sun's proposal.
   • This is false.

   • SHPO considers Agnews a historical treasure, and as such does not believe it should be destroyed.

   • At the Santa Clara planning commission meeting where the Agnews matter was discussed, it was brought to the commissioners attention that SHPO had been conspicuously silent on the Agnews matter.

   • It is almost unprecedented for SHPO to be silent on the possible destruction of a major historical district. It is SHPO's charter to be involved in these matters.

   • It turns out that Cherlyn Widell, the head of SHPO (an office appointed by the governor) was threatened with dismissal if she involved herself with the preservation of Agnews.

   • It is the threat of dismissal of the head of SHPO, that caused SHPO to remain silent on the Agnews matter. It had nothing to do with indifference towards Agnews. It was simply a matter of blackmail.

   • The status of Historical District was nevertheless confirmed, unanimously, by SHPO, as well as by the National Register of Historic Places. It should be noted that the Santa Clara city council voted unanimously to support the registration of Agnews in the National Register of Historic Places.

   • Any suggestion that offices or officials charged with the preservation of our national heritage favor the Sun project, is completely and utterly false.

To contact the Agnews Preservation Coalition by Email. Just press the button.

Or call (telephone) 408-243-6363 for more information.

Law suits are expensive. The Agnews Preservation Coalition is in need of funds to sustain the litigation. Any contributions you wish to make will be greatly appreciated, not just by the Agnews Preservation Coalition, but by every Santa Clara and California citizen who believes that some of our heritage is worth remembering.