The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About8.1 Admin Elections Cd Case ~ e e .. CITY OF DUBLIN AGENDA STATEXENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 24, 1994 SUBJECT: Authorization for city of Dublin to be included as an amicus curiae in pittsburg case related to Administration of Elections Code (Report by Elizabeth silver, city Attorney) EXHIBITS ATTACBED:~Memorandum to California City Attorneys dated December 20, 1993 ~ RECOMMENDATION: ~ Support Amicus Brief FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None DESCRIPTION: The City Attorney has received a request that the City join as an "amicus" in a case pending before the Court of Appeal (No More Garbage in pittsburq Committee vs. Lillian Pride). The case involves a challenge to the Pittsburg city Clerk's determination that two referendum petitions did not qualify for the ballot. The referendum petitions sought to referend a general plan amendment and zoning ordinance amendment for a solid waste recycling center and transfer station. The city Clerk found the petitions insufficient for three reasons: 1) some circulators failed to complete dates in their own handwriting, as required by Elections Code Section 44; 2) some circulators were not registered voters in Pittsburg, despite their sworn declarations to the contrary (Elections Code Section 4052(c); and 3) the petition did not include the entire resolution approving the general plan amendment (Elections Code Section 4052). It is important for City Clerks to have clear direction in administering the provisions of the Elections Code. Because Dublin has had two referenda in the last year, the City Clerk and City Attorney believe it is appropriate for the City of Dublin to join as an "amicus" in this case. There is no cost to the city to join. staff recommends that the city council authorize support for the "amicus" brief. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ITEM NO. ..9.1 COPIES TO: CITY CLERK FILE ~ MICHAEL R. WOO OS SAMUEL T. CRUMP LAURA J. ANOER50N LAW OFFICES HIGHAEL R. "rOODS ." ,.. . ,~ .- r) arc 2 8 1993 I;ny ()r: DUBLIN FACSIMILE: ,707' 935-0523 e Po PJ;lOF't.5510N~'- COFlPOR.A.TION 18100 CARRIGER ROAP !:>ONOMA. CALIFORNIA Q:-;470-407:;! 17071 996-1776 December 20, 1993 .' :: (J t. ,..... ,& ~ ,- MEMORANDUM To: city Attorneys From: Michael R. Woods City Attorney, city of Pittsburg Re: Request for Amicus support in No More Garbaqe in Pittsburq committee v. Lillian Pride. et (A063237 and A063238) al. The League has urged that cities Jo~n in the amicus brief being prepared in this case. (See Legal Advocacy committee Report of November, 1993.) The purpose of this letter is to request that . your city authorize its support (if it has not already done so) by completing and mailing the enclosed authorization form. These cases involve a challenge to the Pittsburg city Clerk's determination that two referendum petitions did not qualify for the November, 1993 general election ballot. city Clerk Lillian Pride rejected two sets of referendum petitions which sought to referend a general plan amendment and zoning ordinance amendment for a solid waste recycling center and transfer station. The bases for her action included: 1) some circulators failed to complete dates of circulation in their own handwriting, as required by Elections Code section 44; 2) some circulators were not registered to vote in the city of pittsburg, despite their sworn declarations to the contrary (Elections Code section 4052(c)); and 3) the general plan referendum petition did not include the entirety of the resolution being challenged, but only one paragraph (the actual "approval" language) and an exhibit (see Elections Code section 4052; Billiq v. Voqes (1990) 223 CA3d 962, 273 CR 91; Nelson v. Carlson (1993) 17 CA4th 732, 21 CR2d 485). e e Memorandum to city Attorneys December 17, 1993 page 2 The committee that circulated the petitions was controlled by the owners of a shopping center in the vicinity of the proposed transfer station. One of the owners coincidentally owns an interest in a competing solid waste facility. The committee challenged the city Clerk'S actions in superior court and prevailed. The City Clerk, Council and city appealed. ->L In response to the Superior court's decision, the city Clerk certified both measures for the ballot. Both the general plan amendment and rezoning amendment passed by wide margins, thus allowing the transfer station to proceed. The court of Appeal could decide that the outcome of the vote moots the appeal. We intend to urge the court to decide the issues, since they will undoubtedly be repeated elsewhere in the state. city clerks should have clear direction in these circumstances. The California city clerks Association the Northern Division of the California city Clerks Association (two separate . entities) are supporting the amicus brief, in addition to the many cities who have already responded. If your city has not yet authorized support and wishes to participate, we ask that you notify the amicus brief writer no later than January 31, 1994. The brief is due in early February, and is being prepared by: Fredric D. Woocher strumwasser and Woocher 100 wilshire Blvd., suite 1900 santa Monica, CA 90401 We have enclosed an authorization form for your convenience. Thank you for your assistance. MRW:k~ Enclosure cc: Fredric D. Woocher JoAnne Speers e e AUTHORIZATION OF REPRESENTATION I/We hereby authorize Frederic D. Woocher of strumwasser & Woocher to include the city of as an amicus curiae in No More Garbaae in pittsbura committee v. Lillian Pride. et al. l/We understand that there is no financial contribution requirement for our participation. Name Title Address City/State/Zip Please return this form to Fredric o. Woocher, Strumwasser & Woocher, 100 wilshire Blvd., suite 1900, Santa Monica, CA 90401. pi ttsbur\smrt. ref\mcatyfor.ami ; I ," ,4 '< (I. "'! ;."" \ ~ . : ,I." I . ~ " . '- . ;':":.,:,:"',1 '; .~....:<.t':~~;'>'~;'~~.~,:<.' .,. " ,.:.:..:::'~\.:,:",:,:.::',,>.;"" ;?: ~;;,:.: . \. ' " \, ~' :. . , ~".' . . ~ : ,to i.. I ~ " '., , . .. ,,' .'t'l;",' ", .'. ".".