Loading...
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