Exhibit CC 03-01-2016 Item #22 Oaks Initiative 9212 ReportGrace Schmidt
From: Peggy Griffin <griffin@compuserve.com>
Tuesday, March 01, 2016 11:09 PM Sent:
To: City Council; David Brandt; City Clerk
Subject: City Council Meeting, March 1, 2016, Agenda Item #22-0aks Initiative 9212 Report
request
Dear City Council, Mr. Brandt and Ms. Schmidt,
Please add this email to the public record of tonight's meeting. It is what I said during Oral Communications for Agenda
Item #22.
I'd like to request that the following items be studied in the 9212 Report:
1. Environmental impacts to the surrounding area since the Oaks Initiative excludes this. This project sits at a
major intersection of Stevens Creek and Hwy 85. It's the exit path for the Garden Gate community. It's across
from our Senior Center, across from a major city park and across from a regional community college. Impacts to
these areas MUST be considered!
2. The reduction of parking to 60% of required parking will impact all these surrounding facilities.
3. The legality of the section in the Oaks Initiative regarding conflicts with other initiatives. It says if they don't get
the most votes, they still win. Is this even legal?
Thank you,
Peggy Griffin
1
Lauren Sapudar
From: Randy Shingai <randyshingai@gmail.com>
Monday, February 29, 2016 9:57 AM Sent:
To:
Cc:
City Council; City Clerk; City Attorney's Office
Liang C; Peggy Griffin
Subject: March 1, 2016 Council Agenda Item 22 comments
Dear Council,
I would like these comments for Agenda Item 22, Oaks Shopping Center Initiative Action Item, included in March 1, 2016 Council Meeting records.
The Oaks Initiative has this under "Section 6. General Provisions"
D. Conflict with Other Measures
In the event that there is a competing measure on the same ballot that would prohibit, limit or restrict the development of the Oaks Gateway
project approved by this measure, and both measures are approved by the voters, the voters hereby declare that they desire the provisions of
this measure to prevail over the conflicting measure, regardless of the number of votes cast for either measure, as this measure is limited and
specific to a single parcel of land and the competing measure is more broadly applicable to development in the entire city. The provisions of
this Initiative which are not in conflict with other competing measures, as approved by Cupertino voters, shall also prevail and shall be valid.
I believe that 9221 is the section of the Elections Code that address conflicting measures
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=elec&group=09001-10000&file=9200-9226
9221. If the provisions of two or more ordinances adopted at the
same election conflict, the ordinance receiving the highest number of
affirmative votes shall control.
Item 22 on Tuesday's City Council Agenda is about the preparation of a report specified by Section 9212 of the Elections Code. Here is 9212.
9212. (a) During the circulation of the petition, or before taking
either action described in subdivisions (a) and (b) of Section 9214,
or Section 9215, the legislative body may refer the proposed
initiative measure to any city agency or agencies for a report on any
or all of the following:
(1) Its fiscal impact.
(2) Its effect on the internal consistency of the city's general
and specific plans, including the housing element, the consistency
between planning and zoning, and the limitations on city actions
under Section 65008 of the Government Code and Chapters 4.2
(commencing with Section 65913) and 4.3 (commencing with Section
65915) of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code.
(3) Its effect on the use of land, the impact on the availability
and location of housing, and the ability of the city 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 legislative body requests to be in the
report.
(b) The report shall be presented to the legislative body within
the time prescribed by the legislative body, but no later than 30
1
days after the elections official certifies to the legislative body
the sufficiency of the petition.
I have highlighted (8) Any other matters the legislative body requests to be in the report.
Does the Cupertino Citizen's Sensible Growth Initiative (CCSGI) conflict with the Oaks Initiative? Many people believe that it would if were to
appear on the same ballot as the Oaks Initiative. There seem to be two issues here.
(1) The CCSGI will be considered as Agenda Item 23. This is after the Oaks Initiative, Agenda Item 22, is considered. A conflict
between the CCSGI and the Oaks Initiative is only possible if the Council decides to place the CCSGI for the November election. It
makes sense to switch the order of consideration, so that when the Oaks Initiative is considered, the chance of a conflict with the
CCSGI is better known. Please consider switching the order of Items 22 and 23.
(2) Voters have a right to know what they are voting on. Voters should not find out from a subsequent legal challenge that things were
not as they were led to believe. I request that the Council include a legal analysis of the initiative's "Initiative's Conflict with other
Measures" general provision "D" if the Council approves the CCSGI for the November election. 9212(a)(8) allows this analysis to be
included in the report if you, the City Council, requests it. The Council has a responsibility to voters to give them the information they
need to make informed choices.
Thank you,
Randy Shingai
San Jose 95129
2
1
Lauren Sapudar
From:Peggy Griffin <griffin@compuserve.com>
Sent:Tuesday, March 01, 2016 11:09 PM
To:City Council; David Brandt; City Clerk
Subject:City Council Meeting, March 1, 2016, Agenda Item #22-Oaks Initiative 9212 Report request
Dear City Council, Mr. Brandt and Ms. Schmidt,
Please add this email to the public record of tonight’s meeting. It is what I said during Oral Communications for Agenda Item
#22.
I’d like to request that the following items be studied in the 9212 Report:
1. Environmental impacts to the surrounding area since the Oaks Initiative excludes this. This project sits at a major
intersection of Stevens Creek and Hwy 85. It’s the exit path for the Garden Gate community. It’s across from our Senior
Center, across from a major city park and across from a regional community college. Impacts to these areas MUST be
considered!
2. The reduction of parking to 60% of required parking will impact all these surrounding facilities.
3. The legality of the section in the Oaks Initiative regarding conflicts with other initiatives. It says if they don’t get the
most votes, they still win. Is this even legal?
Thank you,
Peggy Griffin