13 - Laserfiche WebLink

voters, the Council will need to decide at what election (June 3, November 4 or a special election in between), how the ballot language should read, and whether all or some members of the Council will submit arguments in favor or against the referendum measure. If the Court should decide before that the referendum petition is invalid, or if the Court has not made a final decision (thereby leaving in place the temporary restraining order), then this item will be removed from the agenda. RECOMMENDATION Receive the City Clerk's certification of the results of the Referendum Petition; take action to repeal the ordinance or set an election date to submit the ordinance to the voters; if an election date is set, approve ballot language and determine whether all or some members of Council will submit arguments in favor or against the referendum measure. FINANCIAL STATEMENT The fiscal impact associated with calling the election in June 2008 is estimated at $97,500. In November 2008, it would be $79,000 and for a special, stand alone, election, $143,750. BACKGROUND On November 6, 2007, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1961, approving the application of James Tong, Charter Properties (Oak Grove Development) for PUD plan approval, as filed under Case PUD-33. This project would create 51 custom home sites and designate the remaining area for permanent open space. The project would be located on a 562-acre site located at 1400 Hearst Drive, near the present terminus of Hearst Drive, to the south of the Vintage Hills and Grey Eagle Estates, and to the east of Kottinger Ranch. On December 5, 2007, within 30 days from the date of adoption of the Ordinance, the proponents of the referendum submitted to the City Clerk 191 sections of a petition containing 5,225 signatures, by prima facie count. At the conclusion of the prima facie count, the City Clerk delivered the petition to the County Registrar of Voters (ROV) and requested signature verification. Following the Clerk's receipt of the referendum petition, the Oak Grove property owners filed litigation concerning the petitions. The lawsuit alleges that the petition is invalid for a number of reasons including that not all the documents that the State Elections Code required to be attached to the petition were attached and that the referendum proponents made false and misleading statements in an effort to get voters to sign the petition. By facsimile, on January 11, 2007, the City received from the Registrar of Voters the attached Certificate of Petition. The ROV determined that the petition contained 408 valid signatures of qualified registered voters in the City of Pleasanton based on the random sample examination set forth in Elections Code, section 9115. By reason of the random sampling formula prescribed by the California Secretary of State, 408 valid Page 2 of 4