HomeMy WebLinkAbout16 - Certification of Greenlight Petition & Setting Election DateAgenda Item No. 16
January 11, 2000
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: LaVorme M. Harkless, City Clerk
SUBJECT: CERTIFICATION OF THE PETITION ENTITLED "PROTECTION FROM
TRAFFIC AND DENSITY INITIATIVE" AND ADOPTION OF A
RESOLUTION SETTING THE ELECTION DATE
RECOMMENDATION
1) Approve the certification of the 'Protection from Traffic and Density Initiative" petition
from the Registrar of Voters, County of.Orange, as presented by the City Clerk;
. 2) Adopt Resolution No. 2000 -_ calling and giving notice of the holding of an election
for the submission of the proposed charter amendment to be held on 2000;
and
3) Direct the City Clerk to prepare for consideration at a future meeting all the necessary
resolutions, etc. needed to conduct the election on the established date.
BACKGROUND
On December 9, 1999 the proponents of the "Protection from Traffic and Density Initiative" filed
the petition with the City Clerk's office. Based upon direction provided by the City Council at
the meeting of December 13, 1999, the City contracted with the County of Orange to perform the
signature verification service. On January 3, 2000, the City Clerk forwarded a copy of the
"Certificate as to Verification of Signatures on Initiative Petition" provided by the Registrar of
Voters to the proponents informing them of the sufficiency of their petition. Based on the voter
registration, 6,778 valid signatures were required to qualify for the ballot. After examining the
petition, the Registrar of Voters determined the following facts:
Number of signatures examined: 9,012
Number of signatures verified: 6,822
Number of signatures found invalid: 2,190
Number of signatures found invalid
because of being duplicates 575
Pursuant to Election Code Sections 1415 and 9114, the clerk must certify a sufficient petition to
the city council at the next regular meeting. If the petition is signed by not less than 15 percent of
the registered voters of the city according to the county election departments last official report of
registration to the Secretary of State, the city charter proposal shall be submitted to the voters at
either a special election called for that purpose, at any established municipal election date, or at
any established election date pursuant to Election Code Section 1000, provided that there are at
least 88 days before the election.
In 1980 voters adopted Section 1000 of the City Charter which establishes the date for General
Municipal Elections. The section states that commencing with the election of November 2,
1982, General Municipal elections for the election of officers and for such other purposes as the
City Council may prescribe shall be held in the City on the first Tuesday after the first Monday of
November in each even - numbered year, and consolidated with the Statewide general election in
the manner provided by the California Elections Code. A review of the election materials (ballot
arguments), has revealed that the voters approved the change in election date (from April to
November) because of a desire for "a substantially larger turnout of voters" and to "save more
than $20,000 per election."
According to Election Code Section 1000, the established election dates in each year are as
follows:
a) The second Tuesday of April in each even- numbered year (April 1.1, 2000).
b) The first Tuesday after the first Monday in March of each odd- numbered year
(March 6, 2001).
C) The first Tuesday in March in each even- numbered year (March 7, 2000). '
d) The first Tuesday after the first Monday in June of each odd - numbered year
(June 5, 2001).
e) The first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of each year (November 7, 2000).
Since the election must be held at least 88 days after the election is ordered, the only
"established" election dates (in date order) available for the election are April 11, 2000,
November 7, 2000, March 6, 2001, or June 5, 2001.
In addition to selecting an already established election date, the Council also has the option of
setting another date more than 88 days after the election is ordered, however an argument could
be made that the selection of a date other than the first Tuesday after the first Monday in
November of each year may be inconsistent with the provisions of the City Charter. Election
Code Section 1003 provides exceptions to the chapter of the election code that establishes
election dates. Section 1003 states that the chapter shall not apply to elections held in chartered
cities or chartered counties in which the charter provisions are inconsistent with this chapter. It
also provides an exception for county, municipal, district, and school district initiative,
referendum, or recall elections.
Any date chosen by the Council other than the election date established by the City Charter (the
first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of each year), would be considered a special
election.
• Based on information provided by the Registrar of Voters, the cost of a special election would be
between $1.00 -$2.00 per registered voter ($45,187- $90,374). The cost to add the proposed
charter amendment to the November 2000 ballot would be minimal since the City already has an
election scheduled for that date. In 1996 the cost to add Measure Q to the November ballot was
$3,229.08.
Phil Arst, initiative proponent, submitted a letter dated December 20, 1999, requesting that the
Council authorize a special election for the initiative at the earliest possible date in Apri l (copy of
letter attached).
In summary, prior to the adoption of the resolution calling and setting the election date, the
Council will need to discuss the available election date options consistent with the provisions of
the Election Code and the City Charter. It is clear that the City Council may, consistent with
Section 1000 of the City Charter submit the matter to the voters at the general municipal election
held on November 7, 2000. The City Council also probably has the option of scheduling a
special election either on any "established election date" or another date more than 88 days after
the election is ordered, but these options may be subject to legal challenge, as opined by the City
Attorney.
0
Encl: Certification
Draft Resolution
Phil Arst Letter dated 12/20/99
0
LaVonne M. Harkless, City Clerk
CERTIFICATE AS TO VERIFICATION
OF SIGNATURES ON INITIATIVE PETITION
State of California)
)ss.
County of Orange)
I, Rosalyn Lever, Registrar of Voters of the County of Orange, do hereby certify
that I am the county officer having charge of the registration of voters in the County of
Orange, and I have examined, or caused to be examined, the attached petition submitted
to the City of Newport Beach entitled "Protection from Traffic and Density Initiative."
I further certify that from said examination I have determined the following facts
regarding this document:
Number of signatures examined: 9,012
Number of signatures verified: 6,822
Number of signatures found invalid: 21190
Number of signatures found invalid
because of being duplicates 575
WITNESS my hand and Official Seal this 3rd day of January, 2000.
S19AR OF (� " **
e ��V�. .•TF .
/'G��
ROSALYN LEVER
Registrar of Voters
County of Orange
0
0
0
! RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CALLING AND GIVING
NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A [GENERAL] [SPECIAL]
MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON TUESDAY, 2000, FOR THE
SUBMISSION OF A PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT
WHEREAS, Section 1003 of the Charter of the City of Newport Beach provides that the
powers of the initiative and referendum are reserved to the electors of the City and that the
provisions of the Elections Code of the State of California shall apply to the use of the initiative
and referendum in the City; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to authority provided by Article XI of the Constitution and Title 4,
Division 2, Chapter 3 of the Government Code and Division 9, Chapter 3, Article 3
(commencing at §9255) of the Election Code of the State of California, a petition has been filed
• with the legislative body of the City of Newport Beach signed by more than fifteen per cent of
the registered voters of the city according to the county election department's last official report
of registration to the Secretary of State to submit a proposed charter amendment to the voters;
and
WHEREAS, on December 9, 1999, the following described petition was filed with the
City Clerk; and
WHEREAS, on January 11, 2000, the City Clerk filed a document entitled "Certificate as
to Verification of Signatures on Initiative Petition ", which states that the above described petition
contained the signatures of more than fifteen per cent of the qualified voters of the City
according to the county election department's last official report of registration to the Secretary
of State, and that said petition was sufficient as to the number of signatures required for a valid
petition initiating a charter amendment; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is authorized and directed by statute to submit the proposed
charter amendment to the voters.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That pursuant to Article XI of the Constitution and Title 4, Division 2,
Chapter 3 of the Government Code and Division 9, Chapter 3, Article 3 (commencing at §9255)
of the Election Code of the State of California, there is called and ordered to be held in the City
of Newport Beach, California, on Tuesday,
2000, a [General] [Special]
Municipal Election for the purpose of submitting the following proposed charter amendment:
CHARTER AMENDMENT
Shall the Charter be amended to add Section 423 to require voter YES
approval of certain amendments to the Newport Beach General --------------- - --
Plan? NO
SECTION 2. That the text of the charter amendment submitted to the voters is attached
as Exhibit A.
SECTION 3. That the ballots to be used at the election shall be in form and content as
required by law.
SECTION 4. That the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to procure and
furnish any and all official ballots, notices, printed matter and all supplies, equipment and
paraphernalia that may be necessary in order to properly and lawfully conduct the election.
SECTION 5. That the polls shall be open at seven o'clock a.m. of the day of the election
0
0
and shall remain open continuously from that time until seven o'clock p.m. of the same day when 9
• the polls shall be closed, except as provided in §14401 of the Elections Code of the State of
California.
SECTION 6. That in all particulars not recited in this resolution, the election shall be
held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections.
SECTION 7. That notice of the time and place of holding the election is given and the
City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to give further or additional notice of the
election, in time, form and manner as required by law.
SECTION 8. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this
resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED on this 11`" day of January, 2000.
is MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
•
EXHIBIT A i
Section 423. Protection from Traffic and Density.
Voter approval is required for any major amendment to the Newport Beach General Plan. A
"major amendment" is one that significantly increases the maximum amount of traffic that
allowed uses could generate, or significantly increases allowed density or intensity.
"Significantly increases" means over 100 peak hour trips (traffic), or over 100 dwelling units
(density), or over 40,000 square feet of floor area (intensity); these thresholds shall apply to the
total of: 1) Increases resulting from the amendment itself, plus 2) Eighty percent of the increases
resulting from other amendments affecting the same neighborhood and adopted within the
preceding ten years. "Other amendments" does not include those approved by the voters.
"Neighborhood" shall mean a Statistical Area as shown in the Land Use Element of the General
Plan, page 89, in effect from 1988 to 1998, and new Statistical Areas created from time to time
for land subsequently annexed to the City.
"Voter approval is required" means that the amendment shall not take effect unless it has been
submitted to the voters and approved by a majority of those voting on it. Any such amendment
shall be submitted to a public vote as a separate and distinct ballot measure notwithstanding its
approval by the city council at the same time as one or more other amendments to the City's
General Plan. The city council shall set any election required by this Section for the municipal
election next following city council approval of the amendment, or, by mutual agreement with
the applicant for the amendment, may call a special election for this purpose with the cost of the
special election shared by the applicant and the City as they may agree. In any election required
by this Section, the ballot measure shall be worded such that a YES vote approves the
amendment and a NO vote rejects the amendment; any such election in which the ballot measure
is not so worded shall be void and shall have no effect.
This section shall not apply if state or federal law precludes a vote of the voters on the
amendment.
(End of amendment. But the proposed ballot measure also includes the following "Second"
through "Seventh ":)
City Attorney's Note: If the proposed charter amendment is approved the following six
paragraphs would not become part of the City Charter but do express the intent of the voters and
would provide guidance in interpreting, implementing and administering the City Charter.
Second. Purpose. It is the purpose of the amendment to give the voters the power to prevent
Newport Beach from becoming a traffic- congested city, by requiring their approval for any
change to the City's General Plan that may significantly increase allowed traffic; and also to
make sure that major changes do not escape scrutiny by being presented piecemeal as a
succession of small changes.
0
Third. Findings. 1. In planning the growth of their city and protecting its quality of life, a
prime concern of the people of Newport Beach is to avoid congestion and gridlock from too
much traffic.
2. The General Plan guides growth in the City of Newport Beach by designating land use
categories for all lands in the City, and providing limits on the allowed density and intensity of
use for each land use category.
3. The General Plan already provides for additional growth in the City; if all development
allowed by the General Plan were to be built, the traffic generated in the City would increase by
about 20 %.
4. The people, whose quality of life is at stake, should have the power to disapprove any
proposed General Plan amendment that may significantly increase traffic congestion beyond that
which could already occur from development under the General Plan.
Fourth. Implementation. 1. It is the intent of the foregoing amendment to the City Charter of
the City of Newport Beach that, to the maximum extent permitted by law, it apply to all
amendments to the General Plan approved by the Newport Beach city council after the time of
filing of the Notice Of Intent To Circulate Petition, provided that it shall not apply to any
amendment for a development project which has obtained a. "vested right" as of the effective date
• of the foregoing amendment to the City Charter. A 'bested right" shall have been obtained if
(a) The project has received final approval of a vesting tentative map. As to such vesting
tentative maps, however, they shall be exempt only to the extent that development is expressly
authorized in the vesting tentative map itself; or
(b) The project has obtained final approval of a Development Agreement as authorized by
the California Govemiment Code; or
(c) The following criteria are met with respect to the project:
(i) The project has received a building permit, or where no building permit is required,
its final discretionary approval, and
(ii) Substantial expenditures have been incurred in good faith reliance on the building
permit, or where no building permit is required, the final discretionary approval for the project;
and
(iii) Substantial construction has been performed in good faith reliance on the building
permit, or where no building permit is required, on the final discretionary approval.
Phased projects shall qualify for vested rights exemptions only on a phase by phase basis
consistent with California law.
2. The city council is encouraged to adopt guidelines to implement the foregoing amendment to
the City Charter of the City of Newport Beach following public notice and public hearing,
provided that any such guidelines shall be consistent with the amendment and its purposes and
findings. Any such guidelines shall be adopted by not less than six affirmative votes, and may
be amended from time to time by not less than six affirmative votes.
3. The City shall take all steps necessary to defend vigorously any challenge to the validity of
the foregoing amendment to the City Charter of the City of Newport Beach.
4. Peak hour trip generation rates shall be calculated using the most recent version of the Trip
Generation Manual of the Institute of Transportation Engineers. The city may fine -tune these
rates, but not to less than 95% of the rates in the Manual.
Fifth. Attachment. Attached to this petition is a copy of page 89 of the Land Use Element of
the General Plan, showing the "Statistical Areas" of the City of Newport Beach.
Sixth. Construction. Nothing herein shall be construed to make illegal any lawful use
presently being made of any land or to prohibit the development of any land in accordance with
the provisions of the City's General Plan in force at the time of filing of the Notice of Intent to
Circulate Petition.
Seventh. Severability. If any part of this initiative is declared invalid on its face or as applied
to a particular case, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts, or their
application to other cases. It is hereby declared that each part of this initiative would have been
adopted irrespective of the fact that any one or more other parts be declared invalid. "Part" is
generic, including but not limited to: Word, clause, phrase, sentence, paragraph, subsection,
section, and provision.
0
.j
n
PEI
T4,
lom
��.
Rage
'99 DEC 20 A8:11
Philip L..4rst
2601 Lighthouse hu=e
Corona del Mar, CA 92625
949- 721 -1272
December 20, 1999
i\iri.Fl,ay?64ie�i,Harkles� r i
C�ty�4iett Beach
3300 Newport Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Dear Lavonne:
This is to advise you of the questionable use of our tax dollars inherent in the excessive
procedure the city instructed the County Registrar of Voters to use to validate the Greenlight
Initiative signatures. Additionally, the city's instructions to the Registrar will incur unneeded
schedule delays in the signature validation process.
You have informed us that this self- inflicted process will prohibit meeting your estimate of the
deadline date we need to meet to be eligible for a special election prior to next November. As we
have just learned of all of these procedures, we are protesting at this time.
In contrast, The Irvine Company's request to obtain approval for its massive traffic congestion
inducing amendment to the General Plan for Newport Center is being rushed by the City Staff,
possibly in order to beat the effective date of the initiative. The 10,000 citizens who signed
petitions deserve equal treatment to that given to The Irvine Company.
In the city's letter to the Registrar they were instructed to do a 100% validation of signatures
until the required number of 6778 is reached. This can cost the city up to $18,000 and take up
time better used to move the program along. Additionally, in the city's letter, there was no
request for schedule acceleration to permit completion prior to January 11.
Per our previous requests to you, state law pennits a statistical sampling of signatures at a far
lower monetary and excess time cost than 100% validation. The County Registrar of Voters
office has informed me that they would do a statistical sampling, at $2.00 per signature, if
requested by the City Clerk. You would need to set a sample accuracy goal and so instruct the
registrar. For example, if the total were 500 signatures, the cost to the taxpayers would be
$1,000, producing savings of up to $17,000. Additionally, the validation could be completed in
several days instead of the maximum allowable time period the city's letter authorized.
If the initiative signatures were highly suspect and the validation outcome was uncertain, the
requested 100% validation would be justified. Greenlight's exceptionally large collection of
signatures is not suspect nor is the validation outcome uncertain:
A 50% surplus of signatures was turned in. This surplus is approximately double the standard
"cushion" of 25 -30% normally used for other signature solicitation campaigns.
Newport Beach voter registration percentages are among the highest in the county. This will
produce a lower rejection rate than normal.
The circulators removed the names of all non - Newport Beach residents (Newport Coast, etc.)
in advance, thereby again providing for a far lower rejection rate than normal.
Our self -test of sample completed petitions showed a high percentage of valid signatures.
Ll
E
0
• Circulators carefully followed instructions received from the City Clerk / County Registrar of
Voters.
All in all, the 50% surplus of signatures, and lower than normal rejection rate make the
requirement for 100% validation a waste of our tax dollars and a needless delay of initiative
progress.
It is our understanding that you are following the directions of the city council in this matter.
However, the action indicated in the Consent Calendar of the 12/13/99 City Council meeting for
the budget amendment to pay for the signature validation did not call out the method of signature
validation to be used. Therefore I believe that while the council is not in session, it is within your
administrative discretion to determine how to spend the tax dollars budgeted for this program.
We request that you immediately instruct the County Registrar of Voters to use statistical
sampling to validate the signature total. In this approach, the city will both save money and have
the verification completed prior to the January 11, 2000 City Council meeting.
By copy of this letter we request that you and /or Homer Bludau if necessary, place these two
items on the agenda for the 1/11/2000 council meeting: 1.) Initiative certification (after receipt of
an acceptable count from the Registrar;) 2.) A motion to authorize a special election for the
Initiative at the earliest possible date this April.
This will preclude our concern that preferential acceleration is being given to The Irvine
Company while delaying the voters consent initiative until after that company's major traffic
inducing development has been passed.
Please advise your decision in writing to the undersigned.
Sincerely,
For the Initiative Proponents
Philip Arst
Initiative Proponent
E
CC: Thomas Hyans
Evelyn Hart
Homer Bludau
Robert Burnham
,a;e._ _
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
January 11, 2000
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: LaVonne Harkless, City Clerk
Robert H. Burnham, City Attorney
RE: Proposed Ballot Measure /Charter Amendment
"Greenlight" Initiative
"RECEIVED A ER •ND�
PRINTED•"
The purpose of this memo is to attempt to answer some of the questions regarding
the proposed amendment to the City Charter.
1. WHEN CAN THE MEASURE BE PLACED ON THE BALLOT
The City Attorney has prepared a memo that answers this question and a copy is
attached. The short answer is that the measure can, without a doubt, be placed on the
ballot for the next general municipal election (November 2000). The measure probably
can be placed on the ballot at the next "established election date' (April 2000) and
possibly at a special election set at least 88 days after the call of the election. The
uncertainty relative to a special election stems from the provisions of Section 1002 that
requires all "municipal elections" to be held on "an established election date." The
uncertainty regarding the April 2000 date is based on the interplay between our Charter
and Sections 1003 and 1301 of the Elections Code.
2. WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DETERMINING IF THE PETITION
COMPLIES WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ELECTIONS CODE
The City Clerk is responsible for determining if a petition to amend a city charter
substantially complies with the formatting requirements of the Elections Code. There is
no statute that prevents the City Clerk from asking for input from the City Council or
anyone else, but the Clerk is ultimately responsible to make the determination. The City
Clerk determined that the petition substantially complied with the Elections Code prior to
requesting verification of the signatures.
3. WHEN IS THE CITY COUNCIL REQUIRED TO TAKE ACTION TO
APPROVE THE CERTIFICATION AND SET THE DATE OF THE ELECTION.
The Elections Code requires the clerk to certify the results of the examination of
the signatures at the next regular meeting of the legislative body. While there is no
statutory mandate to do so, we believe that City Council should approve the certification
at the meeting of January 11, 2000.
The Elections Code does not establish a specific time within which the City Council
is required to take action after certification of a petition to amend a city charter. In this
regard, the provisions of the Elections Code relative to charter amendments differ from an
initiative ordinance. In the case of an initiative ordinance the legislative body is required
to take action within 30 days after presentation of the petition. While there is no case law
on the subject, we believe a court would rule that the legislative body must take action no
later than the date on which the measure may lawfully placed on the ballot at the next
general municipal election.
4. MAY THE CITY COUNCIL DIRECT THE PREPARATION OF A REPORT
ANALYZING THE IMPACT OF THE MEASURE
The Elections Code does not specifically authorize the preparation of a report
analyzing the impact of the measure or authorize the legislative body to delay setting an
election until presentation of the report. In the case of an initiative ordinance, the
legislative body is authorized to direct the preparation of an impact report and defer, for a
period of up to thirty (30) days, a decision whether to adopt the ordinance or set an
election. However, there is nothing in the Elections Code or State law that would prevent
the legislative body from directing the preparation of an impact report and that action
could be taken at any time.
LaVopne Harkless, City Clerk
Robert Burnham, City Attorney
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
December 20, 1999
TO: Lavonne Harkless, City Clerk
FROM: Robert Burnham, City Attorney
RE: Proposed Charter Amendment
Timing of Election
I NTRODU CTIONICONCLUSION
You have asked for a legal opinion as to the City Council's options for
setting an election on the so- called "Greenlight Initiative" assuming you certify the
petition to the City Council. In my opinion the City Council may, consistent with
Section 1000 of the City Charter submit the matter to the voters at the general
municipal election held on November 7, 2000. The City Council probably has the
option of submitting the matter to the voters at a special election held at least 88
days after the date the election is ordered.
BACKGROUND
Two provisions of the Elections Code and Section 1000 of the City Charter have the
greatest impact on the options available to the City Council. Section 1415 of the
Elections Code (adopted in 1996) reads as follows:
"City or city and county charter proposals that qualify pursuant to Section
9255 shall be submitted to the voters at either the next regular general
election occurring not less than 88 days after the date of the order of
election, or at a special election called for that purpose or on any established
election date pursuant to Section 1000 occurring not less than 88 days after
the date of the order of election"
Section 9255 of the Elections Code (recodified in 1988) reads, in pertinent part, as
follows:
"(a) The following city or city and county charter proposals shall be
submitted to the voters at either a special election called for that purpose, at
any established municipal election date, or at any established election date
pursuant to Section 1000, provided that there are at least 88 days before the
election:"
Section 1000 of the City Charter was adopted by the voters in 1980. This section
reads as follows:
"Commencing with the election of November 2, 1982, General Municipal
elections for the election of officers and for such other purposes as the City
Council may prescribe shall be held in the City on the first Tuesday after the
First Monday of November in each; even - numbered year, and consolidated
with the Statewide general election in the manner provided by the California
Elections Code."
DISCUSSION
A. General Municipal Election
The City Council clearly has the option to schedule the election on
November 7, 2000. This is the date the electorate has selected as the time for the
"next regular general municipal election" — the time for the election of candidates
and consideration of other important matters. Section 1415 specifically allows the
proposal to be presented to the voters at the next regular general election
(assuming that date is at least 88 days after the order of the election). Section 9255
allows the proposal to be submitted to the electorate at any established municipal
election date.
Based on a review of election material, the voters approved the change in
election date (from April to November) because of a desire for "a substantially
larger turnout of voters" and to "save more than $20,000 per election." (ballot
arguments). From a practical standpoint, selection of a November 7, 2000 election
would achieve these objectives.
B. Special Election
The City Council probably has the option of setting the measure for a special
election on any "established election date." The City Council very probably has
the option to call a special election on any other date that is at least 88 days after
the date the election is ordered. The caveat to these options is the inconsistency
and conflict between various provisions of the Elections Code and Section 1000 of
the City Charter.
1. Established Election Dates
Section 1000 of the Elections Code identifies the "established election
dates ". However, Section 1003 (which is in the same Chapter as Section 1000)
says "this chapter shall not apply" to "elections held in chartered cities ... in which
the charter provisions are inconsistent with this chapter" or "municipal... initiative,
referendum or recall elections." An argument can be made that none of the dates
specified in Section 1000 of the Elections Code are available because the City
Charter is inconsistent with Section 1000 of the Elections Code. An argument can
also be made that none of the dates specified in Section 1000 of the Elections Code
are available because the submission of a charter proposal to the voters pursuant
to petition is an initiative election. I believe that that a court would reject both
arguments but the potential exists for a contrary ruling.
2. Special Election
Sections 1415 and 9255 each appear to authorize the City Council to
place a charter proposal on the. ballot. at a special election called at least 88 days
after the order of election. However, Section 1001 of the Elections Code requires
all "municipal... elections... be held on an established elections date" except as
provided in Section 1003 (discussed above). If the arguments describe above are
rejected by the court there is a direct conflict between Section 1001, 1415 and 9255
of the Elections Code. I believe that a court would resolve the conflict by ruling
that Sections 1415 and 9255 prevail because they are specific to charter proposals.
However, a contrary ruling is possible and that would eliminate the option of
setting an election on a date other than an established election date.
3. General Municipal Election
Section 1301 of the Elections Code requires a "general municipal
election to be held on two of the four "established election dates" unless the City
Council has adopted an ordinance specifying another date. In my opinion, Section
1301 is not applicable to charter cities with specific charter provisions relative to
the date of the general municipal election. However, if a court were to rule
otherwise, the second Tuesday in each even - numbered year would be a general
municipal election date.
C. Related Elections Code Sections
Charter proposals differ from referendum and initiatives in terms of the
timing of elections. As you know, an election on an initiative or referendum must
be held within 103 days unless special circumstances exist. This requirement is
understandable given the nature of these measures. The Elections Code does not
impose a specific time constraint on charter proposals apparently because they
frequently represent a change to the "constitution" of a city. However, the
Legislature has ensured that charter proposals be submitted timely by requiring an
election be set no later than the next regular general municipal election that is
more than 88 days after the order of election (November 7, 2000 in our case). The
similarity between Sections 1415 and 9255 confirm that the Legislature intended to
adopt timeframes for elections on charter proposals that differ from those
applicable to initiatives and referenda.
SUMMARY
In summary, the City Council may set the election on the proposed charter
amendment on November 7, 2000 - the date of the next regular general municipal
election. The City Council probably has the option of scheduling a special election
either on any "established election date" or another date more than 88 days after
the election is ordered but these options may be subject to legal challenge.
A oert Burnham
W
PERCENTAGE OF VOTER TURNOUT
; -k,. yi ..:XL..
E /�cdo
3.,' •�� "� }t y _ nd'i�
r� i 10 W
April 13 1976
General Municipal
32,953
9,175
27.84
March 8, 1977
Special Municipal - Open
Space Park Bond Act
39,069
9,820
25.14
April 11 1978
General Municipal
40,910
10,661
26.06
November 7 1978
Consolidated - Eastblulf
40,745
29,378
72.10
April 8 1980
General Municipal
42,009
15,620
37.18
November 4, 1980
Consolidated - Corona del
Mar Freeway
42,703
35,165
82.35
November 3 1981
Consolidated - Bed Tax
42,546
5,402
12.70
June 8 1982
Consolidated - Bed Tax
?
22 478
?
AWy
erti
F
November 2 1982
General Municipal - 4 Seats
44,500
31,096
69.88
November 6, 1984
General Municipal - 3 Seats &
Charter Amendment
47,678
37,642
78.95
November 4, 1986
General Municipal - 4 Seats &
Charter Amendment
45,392
29,842
65.74
November 25, 1986
Special Municipal - Measure A
(Newport Center
45,529
19,805
43.50
November 3, 1987
Consolidated - Beacon Bay
Leases
43,121
3,896
.09
November 8, 1988
General Municipal - 3 Seats &
Traffic Initiative
48,466
39,202
80.89
November 7, 1989
Consolidated - City County
Dock Lease River Property
46,373
13,809
29.78
November 6 1990
General Municipal - 4 Seats
44,504
30,270
1 68.02
November 3, 1992
General Municipal - 3 Seats &
Measures
49,976
41,433
82.91
November 2 1993
Special Municipal
47 546
21,774
45.80
November 8, 1994
General Municipal - 4 Seats &
Measure
46,766
32,475
69.44
November 5, 1996
General Municipal - 3 Seats &
Charter Amendment
49,812
35,477
71.22
November 3 1998
General Municipal - 4 Seats
45,530
1 28,809
63.27
Section 1000 of the City Charter was amended by amendments effective on April 8,
1980. The amendment stated that commencing with the election of November 2, 1982,
General Municipal elections for the election of officers and for such other purposes as
the City Council may prescribe shall be held in the City on the first Tuesday after the
first Monday of November in each even - numbered year.
F:\ Users \CLK \SHARED \Historical- Info \Election Turnout.doc
Jan -10 -00 21:29 PRINCEVILLE PTNRS 949720 1852 P.01
a ..
(RECEIVED AFTER AGE1V A
PRINTED:" (o
i
Llzanne lbbum W
3632 Blue Key *00 YA1I I A9:45
Corona Del Mar, CA
4 January 2000
To: Members of the Newport Beach City Council
From: Lizanne Witte
RE Greenlight Initiative
9262,5F - - ,:.,i r ; ^L'tRr.
I am writing to urge you to voteyes permitting the Greenlight Initiative to proceed to the
vote of the public at a special election in April.
It would be unfair to deny what is clearly the overwhelming desire of your constituents
and to deny fair democratic process due to an obscure legal interpretation of an obscure
technicality. It appears that the city attorney has been pressured to come up with some
way, any way to defeat this initiative before it comes to a fair vote of Newport Beach
residents.
Please don't be swayed. A fair - minded City Council would endorse the efforts otso
many residents who worked hard to gather these votes. Don't dismiss the clear message
being sent by voters that, when it comes to such crucial matters as the future development
of Newport Beach, residents want to be able to vote for their destiny. It is reasonable and
logical that local residents would want to have more say over their destiny and not hand
over such decisions that affect their day to day lives to local politicians.
As someone who personally gathered signatures (covering the Saturday soccer circuit this
fall) and who had many friends doing the same, I will report that virtually everyone I
approached signed the petition. The only exception 1 encountered was individuals
affiliated professionally with the Irvine Company or people whose spouses worked for
the Irvine Company, even in more distant relationships such as accountants or outside
consultants. However, these people told me they are concerned about too much
development as well as increased traffic and they would sign the petition if they could.
What does that tell you!
For every volunteer tnom like myself working for the Greenlight cause, the Building
industry Association backed by the Irvine Company has, perhaps, six lawyers assigned
the task of working to defeat our efforts. It is obvious that developers are looking for
Jan -10 -00 21:29 PRINCEVILLE PTNRS 949 720 1852 P_O2
ways to defeat this initiative before it gets to the ballot. It has never been an even playing
field when it comes to local development decisions.
Take courage and vote yes for a special election on the Greenl' ht initiative. It's the right
Sincerely,
'.iL.uan Wttte
rAs
Cc: Mr. Homer Bludau, City Manager
Members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission
':d?'� • ts6 ='.rsW�fti68Sii.'�L`F��:.K.ti.i m.M.ii::....
170 1