CCMIN021610 - Laserfiche WebLink

Karen DeBaca Martens noted that the Tea Party movement is gathering strength across the nation and sending the message to vote all existing politicians out of office so that the people will be heard. Allen Roberts reviewed the history of Ordinances No. 1961 and 1962 and thanked the Council for committing to the Poison Pill provision, for not subjecting the voters to two referendums. Kay Ayala expressed concern with the majority of the Council refusing to support the request for additional information by 2 of its members. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND OTHER MATTERS 11. 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 presented the staff report, providing a history of the approval, ensuing litigation, and referendum pertaining to the Oak Grove Development. The Council at its January 19, 2010 meeting accepted the City Clerk's certification of the Referendum Petition for Ordinance No. 1961 and now must consider options for the petition and related election procedures. Vice -Mayor Thorne said he read that a referendum should be placed on the ballot at the next regularly scheduled election date, provided that date is more than 88 days away. That would suggest that June 8 is the only option available. Ms. Seto clarified that the Council has a choice between that regularly scheduled election date and a special election date, which could be the November 2 date. Councilmember Sullivan said he discussed regular municipal and special election dates with the City Attorney, and was under the impression that the next regular municipal election would actually be in November because no items were placed on the June ballot. Mr. Lowell said he reviewed the Elections Code following that discussion and would now read it to require that the next regular election date is June 8 if held in November, it would be termed a special election being held concurrently with a regular election. Councilmember Sullivan inquired about the costs associated with each date. Ms. Seto stated that the cost of a June election would be approximately $97,500. The November election date would cost approximately $79,000 and includes the cost for City elective offices. Councilmember McGovern stated the Council also has the ability to rescind the ordinance. She said the November election date not only costs less, but it provides more opportunity for preparation of arguments and public education. She said this has been such a drawn out process because of the developer, not the public, and that she would hate to deprive the public of its opportunity for education for the sake of time. Mayor Hosterman said she often finds rebuttal arguments to be overly lengthy, convoluted, and difficult to follow and asked if they are required. Ms. Seto stated the Council could vote to allow only direct arguments. City Council Minutes Page 4 of 15 February 16, 2010