13 - Laserfiche WebLink

13 THE CITY OF L~E~S~4NTON CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT March 4, 2008 Administrative Services TITLE: (Aspects of this item are currently pending in the Alameda County Superior Court and a decision from the Court bearing on this item is anticipated to be received prior to March 4. The item is being placed on the agenda as a placeholder so that the City Council could take action depending on the outcome of the court case.) RECEIVE THE CITY CLERK'S CERTIFICATION OF THE REFERENDUM PETITION WITH RESPECT TO ORDINANCE NO. 1961 APPROVING THE APPLICATION OF JAMES TONG, CHARTER PROPERTIES (OAK GROVE DEVELOPMENT) FOR PUD PLAN APPROVAL, AS FILED UNDER CASE PUD-33 AND CONSIDERER VARIOUS OPTIONS/RESOLUTIONS CONCERNING THE PETITION INCLUDING WHETHER TO RESCIND THE ORDINANCE OR CALL FOR AN ELECTION AND, IF AN ELECTION IS CALLED, TO ADOPT BALLOT LANGUAGE, REQUEST THE COUNTY TO CONSOLIDATE THE ELECTION WITH THE STATE PRIMARY ELECTION ON JUNE 3, 2008, AND ESTABLISH DATES FOR ARGUMENTS/REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF AND IN OPPOSITION TO THE REFERENDUM SUMMARY In November 2007 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. Opponents of the project circulated a referendum petition and gathered the required number of valid signatures to qualify the referendum for a ballot measure. The property owners then filed litigation concerning the referendum petition, claiming that the petitions did not meet the requirements of the Elections Code and that the referendum petitioners used false and misleading information in an effort to obtain signatures. The lawsuit asks the Court to direct the City Clerk to not process the referendum further. To that end, before the City Clerk could certify to the City Council that the required number of signatures had been gathered, the Superior Court issued an order preventing the City Clerk from .certifying the results to the City Council. In addition, in late February the Superior Court issued a tentative ruling that the referendum petitions did not meet the requirements of the Elections Code. At the time this staff report is being written (February 28), the Court has not issued a final decision. Accordingly, if the Court decides that the referendum process may continue, this staff report has been prepared so that at the Council's March 4, 2008 meeting, Council can accept the Clerk's certification, determine whether to repeal the ordinance in its entirety or to submit the ordinance to the voters. If the ordinance is to be submitted to the