Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout21 - Certification of PetitionAgenda Item No. 21 July 25, 2000 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council FROM: LaVonne M. Harkless, City Clerk SUBJECT: CERTIFICATION OF THE PETITION ENTITLED "NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC PLANNING AND IMPROVEMENTS; TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE" AND ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION SETTING THE ELECTION DATE RECOMMENDATION 1) Approve the certification of the "Newport Beach Traffic Planning and Improvements; Traffic Phasing Ordinance" petition from the Registrar of Voters, County of Orange, as presented by the City Clerk; and 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 (consolidated with the County of Orange). BACKGROUND On June 19, 2000 the proponents of the "Newport Beach Traffic Planning and Improvements; Traffic Phasing Ordinance" filed the petition with the City Clerk's office. Consistent with the process used for signature verification on the "Protection from Traffic and Density Initiative ", I contracted with the County of Orange to perform the signature verification service. On July 12, 2000, the City Clerk informed the proponents of the sufficiency of their petition. Based on the voter registration, 6,987 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: 9,212 Number of signatures verified: 7,064 Number of signatures found invalid: 2,148 Number of signatures found invalid because of being duplicates 121 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 department's 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 9, 2002). 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 5, 2002). 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 November 7, 2000, March 6, 2001, June 5, 2001, March 5, 2002 or April 9, 2002. 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. 2 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 ($46,582 - $93,164). 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. 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. LaVonne M. Harkless, CMC /AAE City Clerk Attachments: Certification Resolution Calling Election CERTIFICATE AS TO VERIFICATION OF SIGNATURES ON INITIATIVE PETITION State of Califomia) )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 "Newport Beach Traffic Planning and Improvements; Traffic Phasing Ordinance." I further certify that from said examination I have determined the following facts regarding this document: Number of signatures examined: 9.212 Number of signatures verified: 7,064 Number of signatures found invalid: 2.148 Number of signatures found invalid because of being duplicates 121 WITNESS my hand and Official Seal this 12th day of July, 2000. o.•`••yS R ARC 0F+L,����i ? t t c; ROSALY LEVER Registrar of Voters County of Orange 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, , 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; FfIl WHEREAS, on June 19, 2000, the following described petition was filed with the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, on July 25, 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 , a [General] [Special] Municipal Election for the purpose of submitting the following proposed charter amendment: TER AMENDMENT Shall the Charter be amended to add Section 423 to require voter I YES approval of any amendment or repeal of certain provisions of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance? 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 and shall remain open continuously from that time until eight o'clock p.m. of the same day when 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 25`h day of July, 2000. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK EXHIBIT A Section 423: NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC PLANNING AND IMPROVEMENTS; TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE (a) The residents of Newport Beach believe that the current Traffic Phasing Ordinance (Ordinance 99 -17 - the "TPO ") protects our quality of life and the quality of life for our children. The TPO protects neighborhoods from traffic, controls development and saves taxpayer money by requiring the developer to pay for important road improvements. The TPO has three key Sections that provide protection against neighborhood traffic congestion and excessive development. These three Sections of the TPO, which are described in Subsections 1, 2 and 3, shall not be amended or repealed except by a majority of those voting on an amendment or repeal at a regular general municipal election held pursuant to Section 1000 of this Charter. 1. 90 Percent Capacity Maximum. Section 15.40.040 (Q) of the TPO defines and "Unsatisfactory Level of Service" at specified intersections as traffic that exceeds 90 percent (90 %) of the intersection's anticipated capacity, during either any morning or evening Peak Hour Period, (i.e. any four consecutive fifteen (15) minute periods between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. (Morning) or any four consecutive fifteen (15) minute periods between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. (Evening) with the highest traffic volumes for each of the specified intersections on weekdays between February 1 and May 31). Section 15.40.040 (Q) of the TPO shall not be amended or repealed except by a majority vote of the people of the City of Newport Beach. 2. One Percent Trigger Mechanism. Section 15.40.040 (F) of the TPO defines the threshold at which specified intersections are deemed impacted by a Project. That threshold is where Project trips increase the volume of traffic on any leg by one percent (1 %) or more during any Peak Hour Period. Section 15.40.040 (F) of the TPO shall not be amended or repealed except by a majority vote of the people of the City of Newport Beach. 3. Development Funding. Section 15.40.030(A)(3) of the TPO requires Project Proponents to make or fund traffic improvements, or make the contributions to fund traffic improvements, that are necessary to make the Findings for Approval and to comply with all Conditions of Approval identified through application of the TPO. Section 15.40.030(A)(3) of the TPO shall not be amended or repealed except by a majority vote of the people of the City of Newport Beach. (b) AIRPORT AREA EXCEPTION To ensure that this Section does not impact the ability of the City of Newport Beach to prevent further expansion of John Wayne Airport (JWA) or to prevent an increase in commercial jet operations at JWA, this Section shall not apply to any modification of the TPO with respect to the Airport Area (the area bounded by Jamboree Rd, Bristol St. and Campus Drive) General Provisions Competing Initiatives. It is the intent of the people that the provisions of this Initiative be deemed competing and conflicting with the provisions of a similar initiative known as the "Protection from Traffic and Density" initiative (a.k.a. " Greenlight Initiative "). In the event both initiatives are adopted at the same election, the initiative receiving the highest number of affirmative votes shall prevail and the other initiative shall have no force or effect whatsoever. Repeal of Conflicting Charter Provisions. Should the Greenlight Initiative be in effect on the effective date of this Charter Amendment, the Greenlight Initiative is hereby repealed. Severability. If any provision of this Charter Amendment, or the application of such provision to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of this Charter Amendment, including the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected by such a holding and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, the provisions of this Charter Amendment are severable. Initiative Petition Attachments. Attached to the initiative petition proposing this Charter Amendment are true and correct copies of Ordinance No. 99 -17 (the TPO), and the Greenlight Initiative. .................................................................................................. ............................... �1.� a a�.e7 d....... a J.......................... FROM : HOt1SSELS PHONE NO. : 949 6400120 Sul. 25 2000 06:44PM P1 July 25, 2000 Mayor and City Council Members City of Newport Beach City Council Meeting, July 25, 2000 Dear Mayor and City Council: I do not believe former Newport Beach Mayor Tom Edwards visited the petition signing table for the " Redlight" Transportation Phasing Ordinance UPO) Initiative in front of Oelsons Market when he stated that, "he believes voters are not being coerced or lied to." (Daily Pilo Saturday June 17.2000) Based on my review of both initiatives, I believe that I was " coerced and lied to." When I entered Gelsons, I was stopped and asked if I wanted to stop the expansion of John Wayne Airport. If so, I should sign the " Redlight" TPO initiative sponsored by the Newport Beach Chamber of Commerce. In reality, the ° Redlight" TPO Initiative continues to exclude the area around John Wayne Airport from the requirements of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. This exclusion allows increased traffic around John Wayne, one of the requirements for fitrther expansion! When I still would not sign, the persistent signature gatherer then proceeded to tell me that this initiative went one step further than the Caeenlight Initiative. She said that the Redlight Initiative would require voter approval before major development projects are commenced because it eliminates the City Council's ability to override the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. In reality, the " Redlight" TPO Initiative does not change the City Council's ability to override the Traffic Phasing Ordinance requirements if they wish in order to approve fidure major development projects. Yvonne Housseis 1307 Outrigger Drive Corona del Mar, CA 92625 q�as100 - -t�-_7/ Allan Beek 2007 Highland Newport Beach CA 92660 July 25, 2000 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council There is a very serious question as to whether it is legally correct for this measure to go on the ballot. You certainly do not have to put it on the ballot tonight. Your 88 day deadline doesn't come until August 11. This gives you time to make an investigation of the legal propriety of putting it on the ballot. California law prohibits the use of misrepresentation to deceive or mislead voters. Section 9204 of the Elections Code provides redress and an expedited hearing in case a City Attorney's summary contains misrepresentations. Section 9295 provides redress in case a ballot argument contains misrepresentations. Section 18600 prohibits knowing use of misrepresentations to obtain signatures on a petition. And the courts instructed us just last year, in San Francisco Forty - Niners vs. Nishicka, that an initiative will not be allowed on the ballot if its signatures were obtained by misrepresentation. Misrepresentations were extensively used in obtaining signatures on the measure before you. The City Attorney heard them; you yourselves probably heard them. Most outrageous of all, circulators claimed it was sponsored by Greenlight, to "prove" which they would display the Greenlight return address on the attached copy of the Greenlight petition. They also claimed that the Measure would: Limit expansion of John Wayne Airport. Limit traffic. Impose tough traffic regulations and standards. Make developers pay for traffic improvements. Give the City control over land use around the airport. Of course all of this is flagrantly false. The measure is not supported by Greenlight; its whole purpose is to kill Greenlight by stealth, since Greenlight is such a common -sense and popular idea that they can't defeat it head -on. The measure does not limit expansion of John Wayne Airport. Whatever alleged benefits it bestows on the City are specifically denied to the airport area by the section "Airport Area Exception." Indeed, it kills Greenlight, and thereby denies the people the right to limit the hotels and office towers which generate airport passengers. So the net effect of the measure would be to increase flights from John Wayne Airport. The measure does not impose traffic regulations nor make developers pay for anything. That is already done by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and Fair Share Ordinance. Aside from killing Greenlight, all the Measure does is to change the method of amending three tiny parts of the code. To change the method of amending the law does not enact the law. The measure does not give the City control over land use around the airport. Only 20% of the land around the airport is in Newport Beach. That 201/o, as noted above, is excluded from the terms of the measure. In addition to these flagrant misrepresentations by the circulators, the measure itself and the Notice of Intent to Circulate petition contain misrepresentations: • The measure states that "... the provisions of this initiative be deemed competing and conflicting with the provisions of a similar initiative ... known as'Greenlight Initiative'." Without this statement, the two initiatives do not in fact conflict. If both were to be enacted, there would never be an occasion for a court to decide which took precedence. One deals with the method of amending the general plan. The other deals with the method of amending the code. There is no possibility of conflict. The voters should not be presented with a measure containing a misstatement of fact. • The stated reason on the Notice of Intent to Circulate Petition contains the misstatement that the "... 'Greenlight Initiative' threatens to eclipse the Traffic Phasing Ordinance as traffic policy for the City." This is simply not true. The two measures were written by the same people and they cooperate; they do not compete. Greenlight controls the amount of traffic, the Traffic Phasing Ordinance raises the money to pay for that traffic. The stated purpose of Greenlight is "... to give the voters the power to prevent Newport Beach from becoming a traffic- congested city ..." The stated purpose of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance is "To ensure that project proponents ... make or fund circulation system improvements that mitigate the ... impacts of project traffic ..." They work together, each doing its own half of the job. • The major provision is concealed. The fact that it kills Greenlight is not even mentioned in the Notice of Intent to Circulate Petition, and is not even given a paragraph of its own in the City Attorney's summary. Instead, that fact is buried in the last half of the last paragraph of the summary - -- a paragraph which starts out by repeating the voter approval requirement which was stated earlier, so that the reader is likely to dismiss the whole paragraph as repetitive. All of these misrepresentations flow from the deceptive concept behind the measure as a whole. It is a sham. Instead of honestly saying, "Vote No on Greenlight," the development community is trying to hide death for Greenlight in a sugar- coated poison pill. The dishonesty of this concept is revealed by the sugar they chose for the coating: The measure pretends to protect the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. But in fact the development community doesn't want to protect the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. They oppose it. The Presidents of the Irvine Company and Pacific Mutual and the Chamber of Commerce all spoke against it when it was adopted. Just last year they mounted an effort and had it weakened. If they really want to protect it, all they have to do is shut up and stop attacking it. The sham is further exposed by the lack of actual protection being offered. It only protects 1' /z% of the Ordinance - -- three tiny sections which can easily be circumvented by amending the remainder. Finally, Like Measure F, the proposed measure violates the single- subject rule. It is illegal to tie two or more measures together in one initiative, so that the voters must accept the bad one in order to get the good one. Here they must cancel Greenlight if they want to change the method of amending the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Those are two unrelated topics and may not be combined in one initiative. We know that many voters signed because they were deceived. Hundreds have seni7in cards asking to have their names removed from the petition. Who knows how many more don't know yet that they were deceived? The petition only qualified by 300 signatures. It is plain that the number of signatures obtained by deception is far greater than 300. Before placing this measure on the ballot, I urge you to make an investigation of the improprieties surrounding the gathering of signatures. If investigation confirms the thesis I have stated, that the whole process was hopelessly tainted by misrepresentation, then the proposed measure should not_ be placed before the voters.