Albright Way InitiativeMEETING DATE: 2/3/14
ITEM NO:
08 s�tos COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: JANUARY 29, 2014
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: GREG LARSON, TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT: ALBRIGHT WAY INITIATIVE
A. ACCEPT ELECTION OFFICIAL'S CERTIFICATION OF THE
SUFFICIENCY OF THE ALBRIGHT WAY PETITION
B. ADOPT RESOLUTION CALLING A SPECIAL ELECTION;
REQUESTING THE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO
CONSOLIDATE THE SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION WITH THE
JUNE 3, 2014 STATEWIDE DIRECT PRIMARY ELECTION; AND
DIRECTING THE TOWN ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN IMPARTIAL
ANALYSIS
C. DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE THE REQUIRED BUDGET
ADJUSTMENT AS PART OF THE MID -YEAR BUDGET REVIEW.
RECOMMENDATION:
Accept Election Official's certification of the sufficiency of the Albright Way petition
Adopt resolution calling a special election; requesting the County Board of
Supervisors to consolidate the special municipal election with the June 3, 2014
statewide direct primary election; and directing the Town Attorney to prepare an
impartial analysis
Direct staff to prepare the required budget adjustment as part of the mid -year budget
review.
ALTERNATIVES:
Alternatively, the Council may take one of the following actions:
• Adopt the ordinance without alteration, or
■ Order report pursuant to California Elections Code § 9212.
PREPARED BY: Pamela Jacobs, Assistant Town Manager
Robert Schultz, Town Attorney
Kevlewed by: Assistant Town Manager Town Attorney Finance
NAMGMAdminwodutles\2014 Council Reports\2 -3 -14 Albrightlnitiative .Staff Report.Doc
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: ALBRIGHT WAY INITIATIVE
JANUARY 29, 2014
BACKGROUND:
On October 23, 2013, a Notice of Intent to Circulate a Petition titled Amend the Los Gatos
General Plan and Zoning Code and Adopt a Specific Plan for Development of 90 -160 Albright
Way and 14600 Winchester Boulevard (Albright Way Initiative) was filed with the Town's
Election Official (i.e., Interim Clerk Administrator). The Town Attorney prepared and provided
an official ballot title and summary for the proposed initiative for use by the proponents for
publication and circulation of the petition.
On December 11, 2013, proponents of the initiative filed with the Election Official the petition
containing a total number of 4,113 signatures. On December 12, 2013, the petition was delivered
by the Election Official to the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters Office for signature
verification. On January 22, 2014, the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters Office notified the
Town that the proposed initiative had received at least 3,020 valid signatures, more than 15% of
the registered voters in the Town.
DISCUSSION:
Election Code Requirements
Pursuant to California Elections Code § 9114, the Election Official is required to certify the
results of the signature verification to the Town Council. The certification, including the results
of the signature verification, is set forth in Attachment 1. Based on these results, the Election
Official is certifying that the petition meets the 15% valid signature requirement to place the
initiative on a special election ballot.
California Elections Code § 9214 requires the Town Council to either:
• order a special election at which time the measure, without alteration, shall be submitted
to a vote of the voters of the Town, or
• adopt the ordinance, without alteration, at the regular meeting at which the certification
of the petition is presented, or within 10 days after it is presented
If the Council orders a special election, the attached resolution (Attachment 2) would implement
this action. The proposed resolution calls a special election and places the measure on the ballot.
Further, it calls for the preparation of an impartial analysis by the Town Attorney pursuant to
Elections Code § 9280, which allows the Town Council to direct the Town Attorney to prepare
an impartial analysis of the measure showing the effect of the measure on the existing law and on
the operation of the measure. The resolution also allows for the filing of primary and rebuttal
arguments related to the measure as established by the County Registrar of Voters. Finally the
resolution authorizes the County Elections Department to assist the Town in holding the election,
which would be consolidated with the June 3, 2014 statewide primary election, pursuant to
§ 1405.
PAGE
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: ALBRIGHT WAY INITIATIVE
JANUARY 29, 2014
As an alternative to adopting the attached resolution at this meeting, Elections Code § 9212
allows the Town Council to order an impact analysis report of any initiative. The Town Council
may use such a report as part of its consideration, pursuant to § 9214 of the Election Code, on
whether to adopt the ordinance or order a special election. If the Council decides to order the
preparation of an impact analysis report, it must be completed and presented to the Town Council
no later than 30 days after the Election Official certifies to Town Council the sufficiency of the
petition. The Town Council is allowed to order a report on the effect of the proposed initiative on
any or all of the following topics:
1. Its fiscal impact.
2. Its effect on the internal consistency of the Town's general and specific plans.
3. Its effect on the use of land, the impact on the availability and location of housing, and the
ability of the Town to meet its regional housing needs
4. Its impact on funding for infrastructure of all types, including, but not limited to,
transportation, schools, parks, and open space. The report may also discuss whether the
measure would be likely to result in increased infrastructure costs or savings, including the
costs of infrastructure maintenance, to current residents and businesses.
5. Its impact on the community's ability to attract and retain business and employment.
6. Its impact on the uses of vacant parcels of land.
7. Its impact on agricultural lands, open space, traffic congestion, existing business districts,
and developed areas designated for revitalization.
8. Any other matters the Town Council requests to be in the report.
As Council can see from the above - quoted text of § 9212, the report can be quite comprehensive
and, therefore, time consuming to prepare. Staff from many different Town departments may be
required to complete the task; it is not just a legal function. In addition, completion of the report
would supplant other staff work priorities and may require outside consulting expertise and
support depending on the scope of the report established by Council. Therefore, if Council
determines to direct preparation of a report, the Council should specify and prioritize issues to
include in the report, which must be presented at the March 3, 2014 Council meeting. At that
meeting, the Council would have to either adopt the ordinance as proposed or submit the
initiative to the voters for the June 3, 2014 election.
Frequently Asked Questions
Staff has already prepared, posted and updated a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document
regarding the initiative process (Attachment 3). Staff anticipates expanding or adding to the
FAQ other questions appropriate for and needing staff response, such as:
Question: What is proposed by the initiative? What are the voters being asked to approve?
Question: What is a Specific Plan?
Question: What is the difference between the approved project and the proposed Specific Plan?
Additional questions could be directed by Council in lieu of or drawn from the § 9212 report
described above.
PAGE 4
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: ALBRIGHT WAY INITIATIVE
JANUARY 29, 2014
Written Arguments
The County Registrar of Voters has set March 11 as the deadline for the submission of the 300 word
arguments for and against any ballot measure and March 18 as the deadline for the 250 word rebuttals
for and against any ballot measure.
Elections Code § 9282 authorizes proponents of a petition ballot measure to submit the argument in
support of that measure and authorizes the Town Council to submit or authorize submission of the
argument against the ballot measure. If the Town Council does not submit or authorize submission of an
argument, then the Clerk Administrator will select the arguments for and against the ballot measure
pursuant to Elections Code § 9287.
Council approval of any argument, as well as a Town position in favor or against a ballot measure,
would need to be specifically agendized for a public Council meeting, presumably March 3 if so
requested by Council. Alternatively, the Council may simply authorize one or two Council members to
write an argument for or against a ballot measure which other individual Council members could then
review and sign if they chose to do so, as the Council did in 2007.
In 2007, the Town Council did not take a position for or against either the petition skateboard park ballot
measure or the Town- initiated appointed clerk/treasurer ballot measure. However, the Council did
authorize one member of Council to write and submit an argument against the skate park measure,
which was then subsequently signed by two other members of Council. Regardless of Council action or
authorization, Council members may individually take a position in favor of or against a ballot measure
and submit arguments accordingly.
Petition Complaints
The Town has received several complaints regarding the circulation of the petitions and has
referred those complaints to the District Attorney. In response to the Town's request for an
update on those complaints, Deputy District Attorney John Chase, head of the Public Integrity
Unit, responded as follows:
"As you are aware, the District Attorney's Office can only commit investigative
resources when there is a reasonable basis for believing that investigation would
uncover evidence of criminal activity. I have listened to citizens [redacted]
and [redacted] commenting to the Los Gatos Town Council. Although they claim
generally that the petition gatherers misrepresented the facts, the examples provided
are not the types of factual statements that would support a criminal
case. Statements that Neoix will leave or that there will be no money for schools
are predictions about a possible future, not factual statements that can be
disproved. Likewise, statements that the initiative will provide more money for
schools and the town are simply not the types of statements that can be proved false
(and that the speakers knew they were false). Frankly, the statements mentioned by
the council speakers strike me as the types statements that are made quite frequently
in many similar types ofpolitical campaigns.
PAGE 5
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: ALBRIGHT WAY INITIATIVE
JANUARY 29, 2014
As I'm sure you can appreciate, the District Attorney's Office must take care not to
interfere with the political process except where there is a clear necessity. In this
case, I do not see any indication of criminal activity in connection with the ballot
gathering activity. "
Responding to another citizen's inquiry, Mr. Chase stated that he is aware of no law that requires
private backers of a ballot initiative to disclose their financial interests in a ballot initiative.
CONCLUSION:
After accepting the Election Officials certification of the sufficiency of the Albright Way
initiative, Council should either adopt a resolution calling the special election to be held on June
3, 2014; adopt the ordination without alteration; or order the report pursuant to California
Elections Code § 9212.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
Is not a project defined under CEQA, and no further action is required
FISCAL IMPACT:
The costs for municipal elections are incurred by the Town, and no election costs were budgeted
for the current fiscal year, FY 2013 -14. The signature verification by the County Registrar of
Voters has cost approximately $12,000. Any study directed by the Council could cost between
$1,000 and $20,000 depending on the scope of the study specified by Council. The Town's cost
for the June election itself is estimated to be $85,000 if the voter's pamphlet is limited to
seven pages for the ballot measure itself, with Town and web access for the measure's exhibits
as allowed by law. Printing the measure's exhibits in the voter's pamphlet would increase the
Town's election costs by more than $1 million per rates established by the Registrar of Voters.
Based on Council direction, staff will include the appropriate funds in the Mid -Year Budget
adjustments scheduled for February 18, utilizing excess fund balance from last fiscal year (FY
2012 -13) to cover the previously unbudgeted costs this year.
Attachments:
I. Certification of the petition
2. Resolution calling the election
3. Frequently Asked Questions on the Local Initiative Process
4. Public Comments received through 12:00 p.m. Thursday, January 30, 2014
Distribution:
LezLi Logan, proponent
Phillip Albanese, proponent
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
TowN OF Los GATOS
Civic Center
CLERK DEPARTMENT
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
January 29, 2014
Subject: Certification of the Sufficiency of the Albright Initiative Petition
Dear Honorable Mayor and Council:
On December 11, 2013, proponents of the initiative filed with the Elections Official the petition
containing a total number of 4,113 signatures. In order for the petition to pass, 2,844 valid
signatures were required, based on the 15% registered voters requirement in the Town of Los
Gatos pursuant to California Elections Code Section 9214.
The Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters verified 100% of signatures up to 3,000 valid
signatures, using petition guidelines set by the Secretary of State. The Registrar of Voters
verified 3,020 valid signatures, not less than 15% of the registered voters in the Town (Exhibit
A).
Therefore, as the Interim Clerk Administrator and Elections Official, I am Certifying the
Sufficiency of the Albright Initiative Petition.
Shelley Neis
Interim Clerk Administrator /Elections Official
Town of Los Gatos
ATTACHMENT
INCORPORATEDAUGUST10, 1887
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
Santa Clara County
Registrar of Voters
�TA CVP
CLERK'S CERTIFICATE TO INITIATIVE PETITION
I, SHANNON BUSHEY, Interim Registrar of Voters of the County of Santa Clara, State
of California, hereby certify:
That the "Initiative to Amend the Los Gatos General Plan and Zoning Code and
Adopt a Specific Plan for Development of 90 -160 Albright Way and 14600
Winchester Boulevard" Initiative measure has been filed with this office on December
12, 2013.
That said petition consists of 115 sections;
That each section contains signatures purporting to be the signatures of qualified
electors of this county;
That attached to this petition at the time it was filed was an affidavit purporting to be the
affidavit of the person who solicited the signatures, and containing the dates between
which the purported qualified electors signed this petition;
That the affiant stated his or her own qualification, that he or she had solicited the
signatures upon that section, that all of the signatures were made in his or her
presence, and that to the best of his or her knowledge and belief each signature to that
section was the genuine signature of the person whose name it purports to be;
That after the proponent filed this petition I verified the required number of signatures by
examining the records of registration in this county, current and in effect at the
respective purportive dates of such of signing, to determine what number of qualified
electors signed the petition, and from that examination I have determined the following
facts regarding this petition:
1. Number of unverified signatures filed by proponent (raw count) 4,113
2. Number of signatures verified 3,750
a. Number of signatures found SUFFICIENT 3,020
b. Number of signatures found NOT SUFFICIENT 730
NOT SUFFICIENT because DUPLICATE 1
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official
seal this 22 "d day of January, 2014.
Shannon Bushey
Interim Registrar of Voters
OD� B: (SEAL) uty
JOB013
EXHIBIT A OF
ATTACHMENT
aPetition Result Breakdown
JobD13 Town of LG Economic Dev & Jobs Retention
RESULT DESCRIPTION
Town of Los Gatos Economic Development & Jobs Retention
Approved
Approved
Signatures Required
1896
NotReg
Raw Count
4,113
9.9%
Sample Size
4,113
Percent oiSigs
Sigs Checked
3,750
Checked
Sigs Not Checked
363
Reg Late
Sigs Valid
3,020
80.5%
Sigs Invalid
730
19.5%
Duplicated
1
0.0%
Non - duplicate Invalids
729
19.0%
Percent of
Sample Size
8.8%
73.4%
17.7%
0.0 %
17.7%
RESULT ABBR
RESULT DESCRIPTION
I
Approved
Approved
3,020
80.5
NotReg
Not Registered
372
9.9%
OutOfDist
Out of District
250
6.7%
Duplicate
Signed more than once
1
0.0%
Reg Late
Registered Late
4
0.1
RegDiffAdd
Registered at a Different Address
87
2.3%
Cantldntfy
Cannot Identify
15
0.4 %
NoSig
No Signature
1
0.0%
PCMR012 - Petition Result Breakdown
Printed: 1/17/2014 9:30:37AM
Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT A OF
ATTACHMENT
'"eta is
11
'"WIS
I
Warageref
- We
Sun
...........
managenmnt
.
Raov 4113 SAgs Found AM in Holm
3020
WNW 4113 SIgs dm m: 0
Hum of SIgs 370 Q, Gigs Found: .1
Hum [lot Meow 362 LAW YUJI: 722
lNgs Found Wit mw it) S;ziniple:
730
`,CmIctilcitions
few nl Cf'%.IaU6 = flumler Found vallm lu,%i ,er in Sample
9.1
Unl--ot i e-c-ted Total Vak = Ravi Count , Peron! of AM
102,u
Duplicate 'Jk gnahwe Factor = Ra* CourIV&ii'lple Size
Dup s9' Da = Chip Sqg Factor , (Dup Gig Factor - 1
Dup Ski = Chip 309 ight ' f IU Of Out,, Sigs
cl
DRS y Bowdon the Sample =
Uncorrected Total Valid - Dup
3020
Rea 206
Total Vadd Basec on the Sample
3020
Required VaNd
18m
Minimum Required! 050",
0012
UnWIL011 Valk: Requhec to Pass s a s e d c, n I,,,a nn p I e i 110
yes e.6
EXKBF A OF
ATTACHMENT I
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
RESOLUTION 2014 -002
RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF ASPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION
TO BE HELD NNE 3, 2014 FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE VOTERS OF AN
INITIATIVE AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CODE
AND ADOPTING A SPECIFIC PLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT OF
90 -160 ALBRIGHT WAY AND 14600 WINCHESTER BOULEVARD
WHEREAS, On October 23, 2013, a Notice of Intent to Circulate a Petition titled "Amend
the Los Gatos General Plan and Zoning Code and Adopt a Specific Plan for Development of 90-
160 Albright Way and 14600 Winchester Boulevard" (the "Initiative ") was filed with the Town's
Elections Official with a request that a title and summary be prepared for the measure; and
WHEREAS, the Town Attorney provided a title and summary for the proposed Initiative to
the proponents; and
WHEREAS, the petitions regarding the Initiative were filed with the Elections Official on
December 11, 2013, bearing unverified signatures; and
WHEREAS, to qualify for the June 3, 2014, ballot, proponents were required to obtain
signatures of fifteen percent (15 %) of the registered voters of the Town and to include a request for
a special election in their petition and the petition included that request; and
WHEREAS, the Clerk Administrator and Town Attorney have found that the petition's
form complies with the Elections Code; and
WHEREAS, the County Elections Division has examined the records of voter
registration and has certified that the Petition is signed by the requisite number of voters to
qualify for a special election; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council wishes to consolidate the Special Municipal Election with
the Statewide Primary Election to be held June 3, 2014, and that the precincts, polling places and
elections officers of the two elections be the same within the Town; and that the Santa Clara
County Elections Department canvass the returns of the Special Municipal Election; and that the
elections be held in all respects as if one election.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Town Council of the Town of Los
Gatos does Declare, Determine and Order as Follows:
SECTION 1. Pursuant to the laws of the State of California relating to general law cities, there is
called and ordered to be held in the Town of Los Gatos, California, on Tuesday, June 3, 2014, a
Special Municipal Election.
ATTACHMENT 2
SECTION 2: Pursuant to Elections Code § 9214, subdivision (b) and § 1405, subdivision (a)(1), the
Town Council hereby orders the Initiative to be placed on the ballot without alteration and does
order the following question submitted to the voters at the Special Municipal Election:
Shall the Town's General Plan, General Plan
Land Use Map, and Zoning Code and Map be YES
amended and shall the Albright Specific Plan be
adopted to provide land use rules for
approximately 21.6 acres of land at 90 -160
Albright Way and 14600 Winchester Boulevard. NO
SECTION 3. The text of the ballot measure, without its exhibits, is attached to this resolution as
Exhibit A. The text of the measure, without its exhibits, shall be printed in the ballot materials;
copies of the exhibits to the measure shall be available for public inspection in the Clerk
Administrator's office and on the Town's website at www. losgatosca .gov /AlbrightWayInitiative.
SECTION 4. The Town Council directs the Clerk Administrator to transmit a copy of the measure
to the Town Attorney, and directs the Town Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis of the
measure pursuant to Elections Code § 9280.
SECTION 5. The initiative measure shall pass only if a majority of the votes cast by voters voting
on the measure are "yes" votes.
SECTION 6. Pursuant to § 10403 of the Elections Code, the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Santa Clara is hereby requested to consent and agree to the consolidation of a Special Municipal
Election with the Statewide Primary Election on Tuesday, June 3, 2014.
SECTION 7. The County Elections Department is authorized to canvass the returns of the Special
Municipal Election. The election shall be held in all respects as if there were only one election and
only one form of ballot shall be used.
SECTION 8. The Board of Supervisors is requested to issue instructions to the County Elections
Department to take any and all steps necessary for the holding of the consolidated election.
SECTION 9. The Town of Los Gatos recognizes that the additional costs will be incurred by the
County by reason of the consolidation of the two elections and agrees to reimburse the County for
its costs to do so.
SECTION 10. The Clerk Administrator is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this Resolution
with the Board of Supervisors and the County Election Department of the County of Santa Clara.
SECTION 11. The ballots to be used at the election shall be in form and content as required by law.
SECTION 12. The Clerk Administrator is authorized, instructed and directed to procure and
famish any and all official ballots, notices and printed matter and all supplies, equipment and
paraphernalia that may be necessary to properly and lawfully conduct the election and to take all
other necessary actions to place the measure on the June 3, 2014, ballot.
SECTION 13. In all particulars not recited in this resolution, the election shall be held and
conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections.
SECTION 14. The notice of the time and place of holding the election is given and the Clerk
Administrator and County Elections Department are authorized, instructed and directed to give
further or additional notice of the election, in time, form and manner as required by law.
SECTION 15. The Council finds that this is not a project under the California Environmental
Quality Act by virtue of the State CEQA Guidelines, 14 Code of California Regulations § 15378,
subdivision (b)(3) and, therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los
Gatos, California, held on the 3d day of February, 2014, by the following vote:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SIGNED:
MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
ATTEST:
CLERK ADMINISTRATOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQ) ON THE
LOCAL TOWN INITIATIVE PROCESS
This information is being provided in regards to an initiative proposed
affecting the Albright Business Park. More information regarding the
initiative is available on the Town's website: www.LosGatosCa.2ov
Question: What is an initiative? How does the initiative process work?
The initiative is a process under the State Constitution and State law that allows residents to
propose adoption of an ordinance through a local election. An ordinance is a local law. The
proponents of an initiative first must draft a proposed ordinance. Then, they circulate a petition
within the community in order to collect sufficient signatures to compel consideration of the
ordinance by the Town Council.
Question: How can an initiative be placed on a ballot?
The proposed initiative begins with the filing of the Notice of Intent to Circulate Petition and a
Petition for a proposed initiative with the Town Clerk. The filing fee of $200 is refundable to the
filer if the petition receives sufficient signatures to qualify for the ballot within one year.
Question: What does the petition consist of? How many signatures are required?
The petition includes a title and summary prepared by the Town Attorney that constitutes an
impartial summary of the purpose of the initiative. It also includes the text of the proposed
ordinance. The proponents of the initiative must obtain signatures from 10 percent of registered
voters for a measure to appear on the ballot in the next regularly scheduled election. The
threshold is 15 percent to call a special election within 88 to 103 days after certification of the
signatures. If the special election would be held within 180 days prior to a regular or special
election occurring within the same territory, the election on the initiative measure may be
consolidated with that regular or special election. As of October 2013, the Town of Los Gatos
has 18,957 registered voters; consequently, 1,896 certified signatures are required for the 10%
threshold and 2,844 for the 15% threshold.
Question: Who may sign the initiative petition? Who may circulate the initiative petition?
Only registered voters of Los Gatos at the time of signing the petition are entitled to sign it. Any
person who is a registered voter or is qualified to register to vote in California (i.e., the person is
a U.S. citizen, at least 18 years old, and not in prison or on parole for conviction of a felony) may
circulate an initiative petition. Circulators are prohibited from misrepresenting the purpose or
contents of the petition to potential petition signers, intentionally making a false statement in
response to a voter's inquiry as to whether the circulator is a paid signature gatherer or a
volunteer, and from refusing to allow prospective signers to read the initiative measure or
petition.
ATTACHMENT3
Question: Who responds to complaints regarding the initiative petition circulation?
The County District Attorney's Office is responsible for reviewing and investigating allegations
relating to circulators. All complaints received by the Town will be forwarded to the District
Attorney's Office.
Question: How long do the proponents have to collect signatures? What happens if a
sufficient number of signatures are collected?
Signatures must be collected within six months from the start of the process; otherwise, the
petition is invalid. Upon receiving an initiative petition, the County Registrar of Voters must
verify the number of signatures obtained and their eligibility within 30 days. When there are
more than 500 signatures, random sampling is allowed. The County Registrar of Voters shall
submit its results to the Town.
If the requisite number of valid signatures has been gathered, the Town Clerk submits the
initiative to the Town Council at its next regularly scheduled meeting. The Town Council has
three options: 1.) Adopt the ordinance without alteration; 2.) Place the Initiative on the ballot for
a vote of the electorate; 3.) Request that a report be prepared on the Initiative's fiscal impact, its
consistency with the general plan, and /or other effects. Reports must be received within 30 days
after the Town Clerk has certified the sufficiency of the petition and the Town Council at that
time must either adopt the ordinance or order an election.
Question: If the Town Council chooses to place the initiative ordinance on the ballot, how
many votes are required for it to pass?
Usually an initiative ordinance passes with a majority vote. Tax measures require a 2/3 vote.
Question: Does the Town have a position on the initiative?
The Town may provide fair, impartial and factual information regarding an initiative. The Town
Council has the ability to discuss an initiative and take a position by majority vote, but it may not
use or authorize the use of any public resources to campaign for or against an initiative. The
Town Council has not taken a position at this time. Individual Council members are advised to
avoid taking a position on the ballot measure until after the Council's consideration of either
adopting the initiative or placing it on the ballot, to avoid any appearance of bias or conflict.
Question: Who can file arguments for or against the Initiative? What is that process?
The order of precedence to determine arguments and rebuttals for and against any ballot measure
is specified by State law and applied by the Registrar of Voters. The proponents who file an
initiative have first right to submit ballot arguments and/or rebuttals in support of the measure.
The Town Council may, by majority vote, either submit or authorize arguments and/or rebuttals
in support of or opposition to the ballot measure.
Question: What is the cost to the Town for the initiative?
The Town is responsible for the costs of certifying the signatures, election costs, and any staff
time or resources used to process the petition, election and Council consideration of same. If an
initiative qualifies for a ballot that can be consolidated with a County or State election, then costs
are estimated to be approximately $82,000 to $100,000. If a stand -alone special election is
required, then the estimated costs rise to $350,000 or more.
Question: If the initiative ordinance is approved by the electorate, can it later be amended?
An ordinance approved by the electorate through the initiative process can generally only be
amended or repealed by another vote of the electorate; it cannot be amended or repealed by the
Town Council unless the initiative expressly allows such action. This proposed initiative
specifies that only the electorate may change the initiative prior to June 3, 2021.
Question: Where can I view a full copy of the initiative?
It is available on the Town's website. A copy is available for viewing at the Clerk's Office
(Town Hall), Community Development Department (Town Hall) and the Library.
Question: What is the projected schedule for the current initiative?
The Town received on Wednesday, January 22, a determination by the County Registrar of
Voters that more than 15% of registered voters submitted valid signatures on the petitions. The
Town Council is required to first consider the initiative at its regularly scheduled meeting on
February 3, 2014. If the Council requests a report on the initiative as discussed above, then that
report must be provided no later than March 3, 2014. By March 3, 2014, the Council would
either need to adopt the initiative or schedule an election for consideration of the initiative. If the
initiative is to be submitted to the voters, it could be consolidated with the Statewide Direct
Primary Election in June.
Additional information will be added to this FAQ as it is obtained.
s �j1
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
wvtkLEN
I&
From: Jeff Whalen <Jeff.Whalen @bridgebank.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2014 11:32 AM
To: Steven Leonardis; Council; Joe Pirzynski; BSpector; Diane McNutt; Marcia Jensen
Cc: Attorney; Town Manager
Attachments: town council letter.pdf
Respectfully submitted.
Jeffrey M. Whalen
Senior Vice President, Market Manager
Specialty Markets
Bridge Bank
55 Almaden Blvd. suite 100
San Jose, Ca. 95113
P(4O8) - 556 -8614
C(4O8) - 839 -3878
Be bold, venture wisely.rm
/l . a-
�0
The information contained in this message is proprietary and /or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please: (1) delete the message and all copies; (it)
do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any manner; and (iii) notify the sender immediately. The security and confidentiality of your personal information
is important to us. Please do not reply to this e-mail with sensitive information, such as an account number, PIN, password or ID, unless you are replying through a
secure channel. Bridge Bank does not accept time- sensitive instructions sent by email including orders, funds transfer instructions, or stop payments on checks.
Any message sent to or from this domain may be stored in accordance with regulatory requirements.
ATTACHMENT
1
� Jkeo ak
January 29, 2014
Dear Mayor Leonardis and honorable members of the Town Council,
As a lifelong resident of Los Gatos I am appalled by the recent effort by 2 individuals to put an initiative
on the ballot in June for what the council previously approved for the Carlyle Group and Peter Pau
regarding the development of Albright Way, with additional concessions for them...... all at great
monetary expense to us as taxpayers.
The initiative and signature gathering process has been couched as "money for our schools" and
"keeping" Netflix in Los Gatos. Clearly this tactic is an end run around YOU, our duly elected officials, to
determine what can and cannot be built under our general plan and what you approved by council vote,
giving Pau et. al. permission to do so without recourse for the next six or seven years. Perhaps this was
always their pernicious plan under the original "development agreement' which was withdrawn.
Perhaps it's a more powerful force based outside of our town that the council cannot fend off. The
question is .... will this initiative set a precedent for the next (out of town) developer, like Grosvenor and
the North 40?
The two individuals working for the developer who signed the initiative (which thus far has been
bankrolled by the developer) may indeed personally benefit from it; however on the signed "notice of
intent to circulate" there are clearly misstatements, as there were when my wife and I were asked in 4
separate instances to sign the petition.
Page 1 item # (1) states... "will be consistent and compatible with the surrounding neighboring
community". It is not now, nor will it be, unless it becomes a baseline for future development of the
north end of town. Item #2) states... "Promote future development that is compatible with surrounding
areas ".... Agreed, that it WILL do... promote growth once built, because it will promote further
development in the University and Lark corridor creating more traffic gridlock. #(2) further states...
"complements downtown Los Gatos and is consistent with the small town environment and look of the
town ". How that comparison was made is inaccurate and illogical to me. It does not complement, and
is not consistent with anything ever built here. And item# (3) "take advantage of the transit
opportunities presented by the proximity of existing transit and planned extension of the Vasona light
rail ". Even councilman Pirzynski admitted light rail most likely won't be built in our lifetimes at its
present cost; and wasn't the developers argument that they (Netflix) were going to utilize company
buses to move people in and out? # (6) states "the development will minimize or mitigate its impacts
on the town infrastructure and other community services" How so? Does that mean they won't need
water, sewer, power, police, or fire protection? What a sales job to our populace.
�\I. �5)3
In our 4 interactions with the paid signature gatherers (both of them from the Sacramento valley) not
once would they allow me (us) to review the 3DO page document, but referred me to town hall for
review. Not once did they admit that the council had already approved this project, but rather told me
we would "loose Netflix° if it didn't get to the ballot. My wife's experience was exactly the same.
This campaign was very cleverly crafted to circumvent you the council, hide the truth from the
signing/voting citizenry, deceive them into thinking that Netflix was leaving, give the developer more
than you allowed in your approval at 485K sq ft ..... all paid for by a deep pockets (out of town) developer,
whom many of us are sorry to say, made fools of our local government at our expense.
This whole ballot initiative process has been foisted on an uninformed public who either does not have
time to educate themselves, or haven't thought it through with respect to setting a precedent for future
developers. How can we let the "people" decide when they don't have the facts?
Which, by the way, is why we have YOU, the Mayor and council, to make informed decisions the public
is not qualified to make.
If you, as our elected officials cannot deny this initiative going to ballot, then have the courage to state
why it shouldn't be passed. Deny this initiative be put on the June ballot giving the town citizens time
to educate themselves so that a larger, more well informed demographic may make an educated
decision in the November election.
Rasp ully
Jeff Whalen, os Gatos
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK