Advocacy organization filed petition for writ of mandate seeking to compel city and city clerk to process referendum petition for purpose of proposed referendum on city’s resolution authorizing development project that included construction of public park.
The Superior Court, Alameda County, denied petition. Organization appealed. The Court of Appeal reversed and directed trial court to issue peremptory writ of mandate. After trial court issued writ of mandate on remand, city repealed resolution and issued new resolution for same development, but without park project. Organization moved for order compelling compliance with writ of mandate. The Superior Court granted motion. City appealed.
The Court of Appeal held that:
- City “entirely repealed” resolution that adopted development agreement, within meaning of referendum statute;
- City’s adoption of second resolution approving development agreement without park provision did not violate stay provision of referendum statute; and
- As a matter of apparent first impression, in determining whether a subsequent enactment is essentially the same as the original enactment within meaning of stay provision of referendum statute, the relevant comparison is with the legislative act or acts in the original enactment that made the enactment subject to the referendum power.