RES 77199 - Laserfiche WebLink

WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, CITY OF PLEASANTON COUNTY OF ALAMEDA STATE OF CALIFORNIA RESOLUTION NO. 77-199 A RESOLUTION DETERMINING THAT THE ADOPTION OF RESO- LUTION 77-156 BY THE CITY COUNCIL, WHICH WAS ATTEMPTED TO BE REFERENDED BY THE CITIZENS AGAINST REDEVELOPMENT, WAS ADMINISTRATIVE NOT LEGISLATIVE AND, THUS, NOT SUBJECT TO THE REFERENDUM PROCESS. Article 4, Section 1, of the California Constitution and Elections Code, Sections 4050 et sequitur, reserve unto the people and establish procedures for referending ac- tions of legislative bodies; and the power to exercise referendum procedures has been in- terpreted by the courts to pertain only to legislative actions and not to administrative actions; and on or about May 22, 1977, a group of citizens, commonly referred to as Citizens Against Redevelopment~ submitted to the Acting City Clerk of the City of Pleasanton, peti- tion sections attempting to referend action taken by the City Council when it adopted Resolution No. 77-156 on May 23, 1977; and pursuant to the procedure established by the Elections Code, a random sampling of 503 signatures was reviewed and determined that 86.2% of the signatures were valid regis- tered voters, thereby indicating that approximately 86.2% of the balance of the signatures, on the submitted sec- tions of the petition, would be valid and, thus, would qualify for purposes of the Elections Code as having the required number of signatures to referend the City Council's action if the determination of May 23, 1977 was leglislative and not administrative; and on July 18, 1977, the City Clerk transmitted to the City Council a certification of the number of registered voters in the City and that a sufficient number of valid signa- tures appear on the petition for consideration by the City Council of this matter; and the City Council, at its meeting of July 25, 1977, received a report from the City Clerk, together with a confidential letter from the City Attorney outlining the legal differ- ences between legislative and administrative action; and the City Council wasadvised by the City Attorney, at its meeting of July 25, 1977, that in the opinion of the City Attorney the City Council's action of May 23, 1977 was ad- ministrative and not legislative, since the City Council, by previous action taken at its meeting of March 29, 1977, had adopted various resolutions pertaining to the Livermore- Amador Valley Water Management Agency project establishing the position of the City Council. with respect to the pro- ject to be selected (Boehmer pipeline at 15.62mgd) and the