HomeMy WebLinkAbout22 - Proposed Charter Amendment - Eminent DomainCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 22
July 25, 2006
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: City Clerk's Office
LaVonne M. Harkless, City Clerk
949 - 644 -3005, Iharkless @city.newport- beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT TO LIMIT THE USE OF
EMINENT DOMAIN
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the following resolutions to submit the proposed charter amendment to the voters
at the General Municipal Election to be held on November 7, 2006:
a) Adopt Resolution No. 2006-_ Calling and Giving Notice of the Holding
of a General Municipal Election on Tuesday, November 7, 2006 For the
Submission of a Proposed Charter Amendment;
b) Adopt Resolution No. 2006- Requesting the Board of Supervisors of
the County of Orange to Consolidate a General Municipal Election to be
Held on Tuesday, November 7, 2006, with the Statewide General Election
to be Held on the Same Date Pursuant to Section 10403 of the Elections
Code; and
c) After discussion, adopt Resolution No. 2006 - Setting Priorities for
Filing (A) Written Argument(s) Regarding a City Measure and Directing the
City Attorney to Prepare an Impartial Analysis.
DISCUSSION:
Background:
On March 28, 2006, Council Member Curry requested that the City Attorney prepare a
report for Council relative to the status of the practice of eminent domain in California
and that an ordinance be drafted which excludes eminent domain for private purposes.
On April 11, 2006, the requested report [copy attached) was presented to Council and
staff was directed to agendize the proposed ordinance for introduction at the Council
meeting on April 25, 2006. On April 25, 2006 the Council introduced Ordinance No.
2006 -12 and it was adopted on May 9, 2006 [copy attached).
Proposed Charter Amendment
July 25, 2006
Page 2
On June 27, 2006, Council Member Curry requested that a Charter amendment
regarding eminent domain be placed on the November ballot since the State did not
adopt legislation regarding this issue.
If the charter amendment is approved in November, staff will bring back an ordinance
repealing Ordinance No. 2006 -12, after the election has been certified.
In addition to adopting the resolution calling the election, resolutions also must be
adopted requesting consolidation with the County, and setting priorities for filing of
written argument(s) and, if desired, directing the City Attorney to prepare an impartial
analysis.
The Elections Code allows arguments to be submitted for measures and Section 9287
sets up priorities as to which argument is chosen for printing by the election official if
two or more arguments are submitted in favor of or against a measure. Although some
types of measures give the council automatic first priority to file arguments, if it is the
Council's desire to be sure that they have first priority in submitting arguments, formal
action is required (adoption of attached resolution). The arguments shall not exceed
300 words in length and requires that at least one but not more than five persons sign it.
The deadline for submitting direct arguments is 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, August 8, 2006.
In selecting the argument the City Clerk, as the city elections official, shall give
preference and priority, in the order named, to the arguments of the following: (a) the
legislative body, or member or members of the legislative body authorized by that body,
(b) the individual voter, or bona fide association of citizens, or combination of voters and
associations, who are the bona fide sponsors or proponents of the measure, (c) bona
fide associations of citizens; or (d) individual voters who are eligible to vote on the
measure.
In addition, the Council may direct the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the measure to
the city attorney to prepare an impartial analysis of the measure showing the effect of
the measure on the existing law and the operation of the measure. The analysis shall
not exceed 500 words in length. The deadline to submit the impartial analysis to the
election official is 5:30 p.m., Tuesday, August 8, 2006.
On July 11, 2006 the Council adopted Resolution No. 2006 -66 authorizing rebuttal
arguments on ballot measures for the November 7, 2006 election, therefore that
resolution pertains to this measure as well. The rebuttal arguments (not to exceed 250
words) are due not more than 10 days after the direct arguments are due (5:00 p.m.,
Friday, August 18, 2006).
H1Election 2006 \Eminent Domain \Election Staff Report 7 -25-06 - Eminent Domain.doc
Proposed Charter Amendment
July 25, 2006
Page 3
Environmental Review: Not applicable
Submitted by:
o7°r% �. 4ao n
LaVonne M. Harkless, City Clerk
Attachments: Resolution Calling the Election
Resolution Requesting Consolidation with County
Resolution Setting Priorities for Written Arguments
Staff Report from 4 -11 -06 (recycled to 4- 25 -06)
Ordinance No. 2006 -12
H'\Election 2006 \Eminent Domain \Election Staff Report 7- 25-06 - Eminent Domain.doc
RESOLUTION NO. 2006-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CALLING AND GIVING
NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION
ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2006, FOR THE
SUBMISSION OF A PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT
WHEREAS, pursuant to authority provided by Article XI of the Constitution, Title 4,
Division 2, Chapter 3 of the Government Code and Division 9, Chapter 3, Article 3
(commencing at §9255) of the Elections Code of the State of California, the City Council of the
City of Newport Beach desires to submit to the voters a proposed charter amendment relating to
the limitation of the use of the City's power of eminent domain; 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, Title 4, Division 2, Chapter
3 of the Government Code and Division 9, Chapter 3, Article 3 (commencing at §9255) of the
Elections Code of the State of California, there is called and ordered to be held in the City of
Newport Beach, California, on Tuesday, November 7, 2006, a General Municipal Election for
the purpose of submitting the following proposed charter amendment:
MEASURE
Shall the Charter be amended to add Section 424 to prohibit the City
of Newport Beach and/or any City - Affiliated Agency from YES
exercising the power of eminent domain to acquire real property for --------------- - - --
the sole purpose of transferring the property to another person to NO
further private economic development?
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, 2006.
TU F.Vcvnl
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
EXHIBIT A
Section 424. Limitations on Use of Eminent Domain
The City of Newport Beach and/or any City- Affiliated Agency shall not exercise the power of
eminent domain to acquire any property from the owner of the property, without the owner's
consent, for the sole purpose of transferring the property to another person to further private
economic development.
As used in this section of the Charter, the following terms shall have the following ascribed
meanings:
"Owner" means the owner of the fee title interest in the property to be acquired, as shown on the
last equalized assessment roll, or other more current proof of vesting the City may have.
"Property" shall mean any interest in real or personal property otherwise subject to acquisition
through the use of eminent domain.
"City- Affiliated Agency" shall mean the City of Newport Beach and/or any other entity
possessing the power of eminent domain, the governing board of which is solely composed of, or
is solely appointed by, the members of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach.
RESOLUTION NO. 2006-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF
ORANGE TO CONSOLIDATE A GENERAL MUNICIPAL
ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 7,
2006, WITH THE STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION TO
BE HELD ON THE SAME DATE PURSUANT TO SECTION
10403 OF THE ELECTIONS CODE
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California called a
General Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, November 7, 2006, for the purpose of
submitting to the voters an amendment to the Charter which sets limits on the use of eminent
domain; and
WHEREAS, it is desirable that the General Municipal Election be consolidated
with the Statewide General election to be held on the same date and that within the city the
precincts, polling places and election officers of the two elections be the same, and that the
county election department of the County of Orange canvass the returns of the General Municipal
Election and that the election be held in all respects as if there were only one election.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT
BEACH, CALIFORNIA DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That a measure is to.appear on the ballot as follows:
MEASURE
Wrd*1
Shall the Charter be amended to add Section 424 to prohibit the City
of Newport Beach and/or any City- Affiliated Agency from
exercising the power of eminent domain to acquire real property for
the sole purpose of transferring the property to another person to NO
further private economic development?
SECTION 2. That the county election department is authorized to canvass the
returns of the General Municipal Election. The election shall be held in all respects as if there
were only one election, and only one form of ballot shall be used.
SECTION 3. That the Board of Supervisors is requested to issue instructions to
the county election department to take any and all steps necessary for the holding of the
consolidated election.
SECTION 4. That the City of Newport Beach recognizes that additional costs
will be incurred by the County by reason of this consolidation and agrees to reimburse the
County for any costs.
SECTION 5. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this
resolution with the Board of Supervisors and the county election department of the County of
Orange.
SECTION 6. 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 this 25th day of July, 2006.
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
u: •;
RESOLUTION NO. 2006-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, SETTING
PRIORITIES FOR FILING (A) WRITTEN ARGUMENT(S)
REGARDING A CITY MEASURE AND DIRECTING THE
CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN IMPARTIAL
ANALYSIS
WHEREAS, a General Municipal Election is to be held in the City of Newport Beach,
California, on Tuesday, November 7, 2006, at which there will be submitted to the voters the
following measure:
MEASURE
Shall the Charter be amended to add Section 424 to prohibit the City of Newport Beach
and/or any City - Affiliated Agency from exercising the power of eminent domain to acquire real
property for the sole purpose of transferring the property to another person to further private
economic development ?The precise wording of the measure to be submitted to voters pursuant to
this Section is attached as Exhibit A.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the City Council authorizes
(Council Member in Favor)
(Council Member in Favor)
(Council Member in Favor)
(Council Member in Favor)
(Council Member in Favor)
(Council Member in Favor)
(Council Member in Favor)
(Council Member Against)
(Council Member Against)
(Council Member Against)
(Council Member Against)
(Council Member Against)
(Council Member Against)
(Council Member Against)
SECTION 2. That the City Council directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the
measure to the City Attorney. The City Attorney shall prepare an impartial analysis of the
measure showing the effect of the measure on the existing law and the operation of the measure.
The impartial analysis shall be filed by the date set by the City Clerk for the filing of primary
arguments.
SECTION 2. 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 this 25th day of July, 2006.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
EXHIBIT A
Section 424. Limitations on Use of Eminent Domain
The City of Newport Beach and/or any City - Affiliated Agency shall not exercise the power of
eminent domain to acquire any property from the owner of the property, without the owner's
consent, for the sole purpose of transferring the property to another person to further private
economic development.
As used in this section of the Charter, the following terms shall have the following ascribed
meanings:
"Owner" means the owner of the fee title interest in the property to be acquired, as shown on the
last equalized assessment roll, or other more current proof of vesting the City may have.
"Property" shall mean any interest in real or personal property otherwise subject to acquisition
through the use of eminent domain.
"City- Affiliated Agency" shall mean the City of Newport Beach and/or any other entity
possessing the power of eminent domain, the governing board of which is solely composed of or
is solely appointed by, the members of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
COUNCIL AGENDA
ISO. a9
q,�5-o(o
Agenda Item No. 16
(April 11, 2006)
TO. HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Robin Clauson, City Attorney
ext. 3131, rclauson @city.newport- beach.ca.us
Aaron C. Harp, Assistant City Attorney
ext. 3131, aharp @city.newport- beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE LIMITING THE USE OF THE
CITY'S POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN
ISSUE:
Should the City adopt the proposed ordinance limiting the City's power of eminent
domain?
RECOMMENDATION:
Consider the proposed ordinance limiting the use of the City's power of eminent domain
and provide staff with direction regarding the proposed ordinance.
DISCUSSION:
Under the California Constitution and State law, the City is authorized to acquire
property by eminent domain. One of the prerequisites to acquiring property through the
use of eminent domain is that the property must be taken for a public use. Prior to
moving forward with an eminent domain action, the City Council is required to adopt a
Resolution which sets forth the public use and the necessity for eminent domain.
In Kelo v. City of New London, the United States Supreme Court upheld a Connecticut
State law that authorized the taking of private property for the sole benefit of another
private person as a public use within the meaning of the Takings Clause of the Fifth
Amendment.
b
CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE LIMITING THE
USE OF THE CITY'S POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN
April 11., 2006 •
Page 2
Because the Kelo case did not interpret the California Constitution and State law, the
impact of the Kelo decision is somewhat limited in California. However, based on the
Ke/o case, there are concerns that the interpretation of the tern "public use" used in the
California Constitution and State law may be broadened to include a.taking of private
property for the sole benefit of another private person. As a result of the decision in
Ke/o, the State legislature is currently considering bills limiting the Kelo decision.
Further, as set forth in the attachment hereto, several cities and counties are
considering ordinances or other actions to limit the Kelo decision.
To date, California Courts have not interpreted the term "public use' to allow the taking
of private property for the sole benefit of a private person. Furthennore, in the
redevelopment context, redevelopment agencies are prohibited from condemning
property without a finding that the property is blighted.
As set forth above, property owners already have a great deal of protection because the
City Council must make a speck determination that the property is necessary for a
public use prior to initiating eminent domain actions. This allows for a review of the
specific facts related to the proposed taking prior to the initiation of eminent domain
proceedings. Further, in the redevelopment context, the members of the redevelopment •
agency must make an additional finding that the property is blighted prior to initiating
eminent domain proceedings.
If the proposed ordinance is adopted, the City and any City Affiliated Agency, such as a
Redevelopment Agency necessary for the City to transfer the Santa . Ana Heights
Redevelopment Area to the City, would be prohibited from exercising the power of
eminent domain to acquire any property without the owner's consent, if the purpose was
solely to further private economic development.
if adopted this ordinance could limit the City's ability to acquire property by eminent
domain in limited situations where the City Council may find that acquisition by eminent
domain is appropriate. For instance, in the future, property may need to be acquired by
eminent domain and turned over to another person for private economic development
as a result of natural disasters, environmentally hazards or blight.
Environmental Review: Environmental review is not required under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not
result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment)
and 15060(cx3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA
Guidelines.
0
CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE LIMITING THE
USE OF THE CITY'S POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN
• April 11, 2006
Page 3
Public Notice: Public notice was provided in accordance with all applicable laws.
Prepared by:
SIGNATURE
Aaron C. Harp,
Assistant City Attorney
Attachment: Proposed Ordinance
Response to Kelo
E
E
Submitted by:
SIGN E
Ro in Clauson,
City Attorney
ORDINANCE NO. 2006 _ •
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, ADDING CHAPTER
1.35 TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MUNICIPAL CODE LIMITING THE USE OF THE
CITY'S POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN
WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach ( "City') is a charter city, governed
by a charter adopted by the citizens of the City; and
WHEREAS, the State of California Eminent Domain Law authorizes the
City to acquire property through eminent domain for a public use; and
WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that cities and
redevelopment agencies may utilize eminent domain laws to take private
property for the sole benefit of another private person; and
WHEREAS, the City finds and declares that the arbitrary use of eminent
domain by local government agencies for the benefit of other private property
owners hampers economic development; and
WHEREAS, the City finds that adopting a clear policy limiting the City's
use of eminent domain to public use, will provide certainty for City property
owners and encourage economic investment; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to remove impediments to vibrant economic
growth within the City and to also remove the threat of eminent domain occurring
in arbitrary circumstances where private parties are the beneficiaries of the City's
use of eminent domain.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach,
California, hereby ordains as follows:
SECTION 1: Chapter 1.35 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code is hereby added
to read as follows:
CHAPTER 1.35
EMINENT DOMAIN
Sections:
4.35.010 Definitions
1.35.020 Limitations on Use of Eminent Domain
• 1.35.010 Definitions
As used in this Chapter, the following terms shall have the following ascribed
meanings:
"Owner" means the owner of the fee title interest in the property to be acquired,
as shown on the last equalized assessment roll, or other more current proof of
vesting the City may have.
"Property" shall mean any interest in real or personal property otherwise subject
to acquisition through the use of eminent domain.
"City - Affiliated Agency" shall mean the City of Newport Beach and/or any other
entity possessing the power of eminent domain, the governing board of which is
solely composed of, or is solely appointed by, the members of the City Council of
the City of Newport Beach.
1.35.020 Limitations on Use of Eminent Domain
The City of Newport Beach and/or any City - Affiliated Agency shall not exercise
the power of eminent domain to acquire any property from the owner of the
• property, without the owners consent, for the sole purpose of transferring the
property to another person to further private economic development.
SECTION 2: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision
shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this
ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this
ordinance, and each section, subsection, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of
the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses and
phrases be declared unconstitutional.
SECTION 3: The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of
this ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the
official newspaper of the City, and it shall .be effective thirty (30) days after its
adoption.
SECTION 4: This ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City
Council of the City of Newport Beach, held on the _ day of 2006,
and adopted on the _ day of , 2006, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES, COUNCILMEMBERS
NOES, COUNCILMEMBERS
2
ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
3
n
•
i
to
{
Response to Kelo
• Anaheim - Mayor Curt Pringle is attempting to put a measure on the ballot that
would modify the city charter, prohibiting the use of eminent domain for private
development.
Chula Vista - The City Council voted unanimously to place an eminent domain
measure on the June ballot. The measure would limit condemnations to public
use and require the City of Chula Vista to keep properties it acquires for at least
10 years.
Dana Point - The City Council voted unanimously in October 2005 to put the
issue of eminent domain for private development on the ballot. Residents will
vote in November 2006.
Encinitas - City Council Member Jerome Stocks proposed an ordinance that
would require a 213 majority on a public ballot for every taking of private property
for private redevelopment On July 13, 2005, the City Council unanimously
agreed to draft an ordinance titled the Encinitas Property Rights Act to be
introduced this fall.
Orange County - In February 2006, the Board of Supervisors voted to let
Orange County voters decide on June 6, 2006 whether to prohibit the County
• from using eminent domain for private commercial development.
Riverside - In September 2005, City of Riverside officials declared that
homeowners who live in one of the seven redevelopment project areas can
obtain a written guarantee from the City that it will not seize their house for
economic development purposes. The Redevelopment Agency is also proposing
to amend the plan for the La Sierra/Arianza project area to declare that it will not
use eminent domain to acquire owner - occupied single - family houses. A group
has also launched a petition drive for a possible June 2006 referendum to ban
the Redevelopment Agency's use of eminent domain for private development.
San Diego - On September 12, 2005, the Government Efficiency and Openness
Committee, chaired by City Councilwoman Donna Frye, recommended that the
full City Council limit the government's ability to take property and adopt other
policies that protect property owners.
San Diego County - County Supervisors, led by Bill Hom and Ron Roberts,
ordered an immediate review of the county's eminent domain policies on July 26,
2005.
ORDINANCE NO. 2006-12
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, ADDING CHAPTER
1.35 TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MUNICIPAL CODE LIMITING THE USE OF THE
CITY'S POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN
WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach ( "City ") is a charter city, governed
by a charter adopted by the citizens of the City; and
WHEREAS, the State of California Eminent Domain Law authorizes the
City to acquire property through eminent domain for a public use; and
WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that cities and
redevelopment agencies may utilize eminent domain laws to take private
property for the sole benefit of another private person; and
WHEREAS, the City finds and declares that the arbitrary use of eminent
domain by local government agencies for the benefit of other private property
owners hampers economic development; and
WHEREAS, the City finds that adopting a clear policy limiting the City s
use of eminent domain to public use, will provide certainty for City property
owners and encourage economic investment; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to remove impediments to vibrant. economic
growth within the City and to also remove the threat of eminent domain occurring
in arbitrary circumstances where private parties are the beneficiaries of the City's
use of.eminent domain.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach,
California, hereby ordains as follows:
SECTION 1: Chapter 1.35 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code is hereby added
to read as follows:
CHAPTER 1.35
EMINENT DOMAIN
Sections:
1.35.010 Definitions
1:35.020 Limitations on Use of Eminent Domain
1.35.010 Definitions
As used in this Chapter, the following terms shall have the following ascribed
meanings:
"Owner" means the owner of the fee title interest in the property to be acquired,
as shown on the last equalized assessment roll, or other more current proof of
vesting the City may have.
"Property" shall mean any interest in real or personal property otherwise subject
to acquisition through the use of eminent domain.
"City- Affiliated Agency" shall mean the City of Newport Beach and /or any other
entity possessing the power of eminent domain, the governing board of which is
solely composed of, or is solely appointed by, the members of the City Council of
the City of Newport Beach.
1.35.020 Limitations on Use of Eminent Domain
The City of Newport Beach and /or any City - Affiliated Agency shall not exercise
the power of eminent domain to acquire any property from the owner of the
property, without the owner's consent, for the sole purpose of transferring the
property to another person to further private economic. development.
SECTION 2: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision
shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this
ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this
ordinance, and each section, subsection, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of
the fact that any one or more sections, subsections,, sentences, clauses and
phrases be declared unconstitutional.
SECTION 3: The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of
this ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the
official newspaper of the City, and it shall be effective thirty (30) days after its
adoption.
2
SECTION 4: This ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City
Council of the City of Newport Beach, held on the 25th day of April, 2006, and
adopted on the 9th day of May, 2006, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES, COUNCILMEMBERS Cwvcy, SeCich,
Roaanzky, .Ridgeway, DaigE;e, N.ichoZ6, Mayon Webb
NOES, COUNCILMEMBERS None
ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS None
MAYOR
3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
COUNTY OF ORANGE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH }
I, LaVonne M. Harkless, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California, do
hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council is seven; that the foregoing
ordinance, being Ordinance No. 2006 -12 was duly and regularly introduced before and adopted by
the City Council of said City at a regular meeting of said Council, duly and regularly held on the 9tb
day of May 2006, and that the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit:
Ayes: Curry, Selich, Rosansky, Ridgeway, Daigle, Nichols, Mayor Webb
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstain: None
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the
official seal of said City this 10th day of May 2006.
(Seal)
City Clerk
City of Newport Beach, California
CERTIFICATE OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
COUNTY OF ORANGE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH }
I, LAVONNE M. HAR.KLESS, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California, do hereby
certify that Ordinance No. 2006 -12 has been duly and regularly published according to law and the
order of the City Council of said City and that same was so published in The Daily Pilot, a daily
newspaper of general circulation on the following date, to wit: May 13, 2006.
In witness whereof, I have hereunto subscribed my name this day of
2006.
City Clerk
City of Newport Beach, California