CCMIN011910 - Laserfiche WebLink

Councilmember Sullivan said he is interested in many of the same issues as Ms. Summers. He requested they be addressed in the report and Ms. Summers notified of its presentation to the Council. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND OTHER MATTERS 17. Accept the City Clerk's Certification of the Referendum Petition for Ordinance No. 1961 regarding the Oak Grove Development, Consider Options for the Petition and Related Election Procedures Assistant City Attorney Larissa Seto said this item is with regards to certification of a referendum petition, options for that petition, and related election procedures. In November 2007, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1961 approving a 562 -acre project in the south hills which approved areas for 51 custom homes, 500 acres of open space, a trail, and staging area. Immediately thereafter, interested persons circulated a referendum petition and submitted it to the City within the time required by law. The County Registrar of Voters then certified that the petition had the required number of signatures. The City Clerk was required by law to present this information to the Council at its next regular meeting, but ensuing litigation involving several hearings and levels of appellant review delayed the action. In late December 2009, the Alameda County Superior Court issued a final order directing the City Council to take the required action on the referendum petition. Ms. Seto stated the Council must accept the certification of the referendum petition and then consider the following options: repeal Ordinance No. 1961 or submit the ordinance to the voters. If submitted to the voters, the Council must consider related election procedures including selection of a ballot date, wording of the ballot question, and typical issues associated with ballot arguments such as Council participation, whether to allow rebuttal arguments, and the timing for each. The staff report discusses options for each consideration. Due to the lack of a full Council this evening, Ms. Seto recommended that the Council accept the certification at this time but defer to a subsequent meeting the actions of all other items related to the election's procedures. Councilmember McGovern said she could not attend the February 2 meeting and requested the item be continued to the February 16 meeting. Ms. Seto confirmed that the election code does not stipulate a time frame for these subsequent actions. Councilmember McGovern asked if the cost estimate for a November 2010 election ($79,000) is for the referendum alone or the entire election. City Clerk Karen Diaz said that aside from printing costs associated with the referendum, adding it to the November ballot would result in very little additional cost. Councilmember Cook- Kallio asked if the same were true for the June 2010 estimate ($97,500). Ms. Diaz said it is not certain yet as it would depend on the number of ballot measures affecting Pleasanton's jurisdiction and how much can be consolidated. Councilmember Sullivan recalled an estimate of $150,000 to $200,000 for a special election at some point. Ms. Diaz said that discussion was in regard to a stand -alone election that was not consolidated with a primary or general election. Councilmember McGovern voiced concern with the provided ballot language options, stating that 2 through 4 seem to be drafted in favor of the project developer and without regard to the City Council Minutes Page 5 of 12 January 19. 2010