HomeMy WebLinkAboutSuperior Court Rules Vallco Referendum Petition is Valid - Press Release - 03.21.2019
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Brian Babcock, PIO
March 21, 2019 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3262
Superior Court Rules that
Vallco Referendum Petition Is Valid
CUPERTINO, CA – The Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, ruled today
that a referendum petition—which protests the General Plan amendment for the Vallco
Town Center Specific Plan—substantially complies with the Elections Code. The request for
ruling was made by the Cupertino City Clerk and Better Cupertino Action Committee.
In September and October 2018, the City Council adopted three resolutions and enacted three
ordinances in connection with its approval of the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan project.
Opponents of the project filed a total of four referendum petitions challenging two of the
resolutions and two of the ordinances. On December 18, 2018, the City Council received the
City Clerk’s certification that each referendum petition contained sufficient valid signatures.
Meanwhile, the City received a December 6, 2018 letter from attorneys representing Vallco
Property Owner, LLC, the developer and applicant for the project. In the letter, Vallco
claimed that the referendum petition challenging the General Plan amendment for the
project “fails to provide the full and accurate text of the resolution being referred, as required
by the California Elections Code” and that the City Clerk must therefore “reject this defective
Referendum.”
The City Clerk investigated Vallco’s contentions and concluded that the referendum petition
“substantially complied” with Elections Code requirements despite a few minor and
inadvertent differences between the petition and the adopted General Plan amendment. In a
submission filed jointly with referendum proponents Better Cupertino Action Committee,
the City Clerk asked the Superior Court to rule that the referendum petition was valid and
could continue to be processed by the City. As stated in briefing to the court, the Clerk
argued that invalidating this referendum petition “would be inconsistent with fundamental
constitutional interests of petition signers.”
In a March 21, 2019 order, Judge Sunil Kulkarni agreed that the petition “substantially
complies” with the Elections Code’s requirement that a referendum petition include the text
of the challenged resolution, and ordered that the City Clerk may submit the referendum
petition to the Cupertino City Council.
Under the Elections Code, the City Council must then determine whether to repeal the Vallco
General Plan amendment challenged by the referendum petition or to place that amendment
on the ballot for City voters to consider at an upcoming election.
The City Council must also decide whether to repeal or place on the ballot two other Vallco
approvals challenged by referendum petitions (the Specific Plan and a Development
Agreement). The fourth referendum petition, challenging the rezoning ordinance for the
project, was rejected as procedurally defective and is not moving forward.
To review documents regarding the referendums, visit www.cupertino.org/referendum.
Attachment: Order of the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara
###
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
l1
t2
t3
L4
15
L6
t7
18
t9
20
2t
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ROBERT S. PERLMUTTER (State Per N-g' 183333)
KEVIN F. buxtov (State BarNo. 23199q ^,hNDREw p. MnrBR (State Bar No. 3-2!p93)^SHUT4 Minarv & WEINBERGERLLP
396 Haves Street
San Francisco, Califo tnia 9 4 I 02
Telephone: (415) 552-7272
Facsimile: (415)552-5816
Perlmutter@smwlaw. com
bundy@,smlnlaw.com
amill"e@smwlaw.com
Attornevs for CITY CLERK OF CITY OF
CUPERIINO
IN RE REFERENDUM PETITION
AGAINST CITY OF CUPERTINO
RESOLUTION NO. 18-085
caseNo. l?o/3 f /flla
[Exempt From Filing Fee
Government Code $ 61031
MAR 2 1 2019
(Xerk of tho Gourt
Suporlor Coutl of thnhCltn
] STIPULATED ORDER
F 'E-"r'H'D
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORIIIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
Code Civ. Proc. $ I 138
Action Filed: March 20,20L9
Filed ConcurrentlY with Ex Parte
Application in Sulport of Joint Submission
ori Agreed Facts
ORDER
pursuant to the Joint Submission on Agreed Facts and the Memorandum of Points and
Authorities and declarations in support thereof, it is hereby ordered that:
1. The referendum petition against City of Cupertino Resolution No. 18-085 ("GPA
Referendum,,) substantially complies with the requirement of Elections Code section 9238(b)(2)
that areferendum petition include the o'text" of the subject resolution or ordinance.
2. The City Clerk shall process the GPA Referendum and promptly submit it to the
city council for appropriate action pursuant to Elections code section 9247.
3. Should the'city council submit Resolution No. l8-085 to the voters at a general or
IPROPOSED]
a A Qlf I\Tr\
STIPULATED ORDER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
L2
13
L4
15
L6
t7
18
t9
20
2l
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
special erection pursuant to Elections code section g24l,the Adopted version of the Resolution
(as defined and described in the Joint submission on Agreed Facts) shall be made available to
voters either in the ballot materials or as otherwise provided by law'
4. The parties shall bear their own costs. code civ. Proc. $ 1139'
Dated: March \ zOre By:
Judge o u
1098292.1 4
2
IPROPOSEDI
l'1AaEl\lr\
STIPULATED ORDER