Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007/04/17 Item 13 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT April 17, 2007 Item-13- SUBMITTED BY: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE CERTIFICATION OF SUFFICIENCY OF AN INITIATIVE PETITION REGARDING ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITS Susan Bigelow, MMC, City Clerk dJ -p. (!j3 4/5THS VOTE: YES NO X ITEM TITLE: BACKGROUND An initiative petition regarding allowable building height limits in certain areas of the City was filed with the City Clerk on February 21,2007. The required number of valid signatures needed was 8,985 (ten percent of the voters of the City, which was 89,849 according to the Registrar of Voters' official report to the Secretary of State on September 8, 2006). The Registrar of Voters examined the signatures on the petition, and found them to be sufficient. Elections Code Sections 9211 and 9114 require the City Clerk to certifY the results of the examination to the City Council. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the activity is not a "Project" as defined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to Section 15060( c )(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. RECOMMENDATION Council adopt the resolution and select one of the following options (EC 9215): A. Direct staff to place the ordinance, as proposed by the proponents, without alteration, on a Council agenda for adoption within ten days; or B. Direct staff to prepare a resolution for Council adoption placing the ordinance on the ballot at the next regular municipal election (June 3, 2008); or 13-1 April 17, 2007 Iteml:1_ Page 2 of3 C. Refer the proposed ordinance to any City agency or agencies for a report, to be presented to Council within 30 days, on any or all of the following: 1. Its fiscal impact. 2. Its effect on the internal consistency of the city's general and specific plans, including the housing element, the consistency between planning and zoning, and the limitations on city actions under Section 65008 of the Government Code and Chapters 4.2 (commencing with Section 65913) and 4.3 (commencing with Section 69515) of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code. 3. Its effect on the use of land, the impact on the availability and location of housing, and the ability of the city to meet its regional housing needs. 4. Its impact on funding for infrastructure of all types, including, but not limited to, transportation, schools, parks, and open space. The report may also discuss whether the measure would be likely to result in increased infrastructure costs or savings, including the costs of infrastructure maintenance, to current residents and businesses. 5. Its impact on the community's ability to attract and retain business and employment. 6. Its impact on the uses of vacant parcels ofland. 7. Its impact on agricultural lands, open space, traffic congestion, existing business districts, and developed areas designated for revitalization. 8. Any other matters the legislative body requests to be in the report. If Option C is chosen, when the report is presented to the Council, it shall either adopt the ordinance within ten days or order an election to be held at the next regular municipal election - June 3, 2008 (ECI405(b)). BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDA nON Not Applicable. DISCUSSION An initiative petition entitled, "A Petition to Adopt an Ordinance That Would Amend the General Plan to Require Voter Approval for Any General Plan Amendment That Would Increase Allowable Building Heights Above 84 Feet in Most Areas of the City, Except the Bayfront Planning Area and to Set a Building Height Limit of 45 Feet on Third Avenue Between E and G Streets" (Attachment I) was filed with the City Clerk's office on February 21,2007. The petition was forwarded to the San Diego County Registrar of Voters, and the petition signatures were validated up to the required number of 8,985 signatures (ten percent of the voters of the City, in accordance with Elections Code Section 9215). The certification by the Registrar of Voters (Attachment 2) was received March 27, 2007, and the proponents of the initiative were notified by mail on the same day. 13-2 April 17, 2007 ltem13-. Page 3 of3 According to a Memorandum of Law from the City Attorney's office dated February 22, 2007 (Attachment 3), the initiative petition did not contain the necessary language to require a special election, and therefore, the signatures were counted and validated up to the number required to place the measure on the ballot at the next regular election, Once the resolution approving the certification is adopted, the next step in the process is for the Council to: Adopt the ordinance, without alteration, at the regular meeting at which the certification of the petition is presented, or within 10 days after it is presented; or Submit the ordinance, without alteration, to the voters at the next regular municipal election; or Order a report pursuant to Elections Code Section 9212 (as outlined in Option C, above) at the regular meeting at which the certification of the petition is presented. When the report is presented to the legislative body, the legislative body shall either adopt the ordinance within ten days or order an election. DECISION MAKER CONFLICT Staff has reviewed the decision contemplated by this action and has determined that it is not site specific and, consequently, the 500-foot rule found in California Code of Regulations Section 18704.2(a)(l) is not applicable to this decision. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with the certification of the sufficiency of the petition; however, an appropriation will be requested once the Registrar of Voters prepares an invoice for signature validation services. The cost to include a measure on the June 3, 2008 ballot is estimated at $35,000. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Initiative Petition Attachment 2: Certification oflnitiative Petition Attachment 3: Memorandum of Law Prepared by: Donna Norris, Assistant City Clerk, Office of the City Clerk 13-3 Attachment 1 PETITION FOR SUBMISSION TO VOTERS PROTECTION OF GENERAL PLAN THROUGH VOTER APPROVAL OF CERTAIN CHANGES AND DESIGNATION OF HEIGHT LIMITS Section 1. Purpose and Findin2s - Protection of overlv intensive development and taller buildin2s This ordinance is intended to protect Chula Vista residents from the traffic, visual, community character and infrastructure impacts from overly intensive development and taller buildings. The intention is to protect the General Plan, in effect as of December 13, 2005, by requiring voter approval to increase allowable building heights above 84 feet in most areas of the city, and to set a building height limit of 45 feet on Third Avenue between E and G Streets. A statement of the reasons for the proposed action as contemplated in the petition is as follows: The people of Chula Vista should have a voice in protecting the current General Plan against chartges that will increase traffic congestion, reduce available parking and cause visual impacts from high rise developments in the wrong locations. The people of Chula Vista are also concerned about the protection of the character of the Third Avenue Village area, where over- development would also have visual, traffic and parking impacts. The current General Plan recognizes that high-rise buildings have a place in Chula Vista. They should be located where transportation systems have been built to serve them, and where existing neighborhoods will not be disrupted, displaced or overburdened. Under this initiative, the Bay Front Planning Area and other areas the current General Plan already designated as suitable for high-rise development would not be affected. Under this initiative, the voters would have a voice in protecting the current General Plan against changes that would adversely affect residents' quality of life. Section 2. Amendment of the General Plan The Land Use Element of the General Plan is hereby amended to add two provisions to read: Approval of Changes to Height Limits. Except as permitted under the Chula Vista General Plan Update as approved December 13, 2005, an amendment to the General Plan approved by the City Council which has the purpose or effect of increasing the allowable building height of development within any area to exceed 84 feet, such amendment, whether approved as a general plan change, specific plan, or by any similar action, 13-4 shall not take effect unless and until approved by a majority of the registered voters in the City at an election held in accordance with this ordinance. No voter approval shall be required for any General Plan changes affecting the Bayfront Planning Area, as identified in the Land Use Element of the Chula Vista General Plan as amended and adopted in 1989. Protection of Third Avenue Village Notwithstanding any other provision of the Chula Vista General Plan, no building that is part of any development, in the Third Avenue Village, which fronts on Third Avenue between E Street and G Street shall exceed 45 feet in height. For the purposes of this section, the allowable height shall be calculated as an average above existing grade, and shall include garages and rooftop appurtenances. These items shall not apply to amendments which are necessary to comply with state or federal law. Section 3. ImDlementation A. Upon the effective date of this initiative, the provisions of this initiative shall be inserted into the General Plan as an amendment thereto, except that if the four amendments permitted by State law for the calendar year in which it is approved have already been utilized for that year prior to the effective date of this initiative, this General Plan amendment shall be the first inserted into the General Plan on January I of the following year. Any provisions of City law inconsistent with the amendment inserted by this initiative shall be unenforceable to the extent of the inconsistency. B. To ensure that the Chula Vista General Plan remains a meaningful and integrated planning document, the General Plan provisions adopted by the initiative shall prevail over any conflicting revisions to the General Plan adopted between the date of circulation and the date the amendments included in this initiative measure are adopted by the voters. C. In the event that the City Council approves a change, amendment or other land use decision which must, by the terms of this initiative, be approved by the voters of the City of Chula Vista in order to become effective, the City Council shall set the matter for public vote. D. The City Council shall call any election required by this initiative for the next available general municipal election or may, in its discretion, set a special election. Section 4. Construction Nothing in this initiative shall be construed to make illegal any lawful use presently being made of any property. Nothing in this initiative shall be construed to require more than a simple majority vote for the adoption of this initiative or for the approval of any future measure required by this initiative. Nothing in this initiative shall be construed to interfere with rights to obtain 13-5 density bonuses under affordable housing laws or limit rights or entitlements under affordable housing laws. Section 5. Severability The provisions of this initiative measure shall not apply to the extent they violate state or federal laws. If any word, sentence, paragraph, subparagraph, section or portion of this initiative is declared to be invalid by a court, the remaining words, sentences, paragraphs, subparagraphs, sections and portions are to remain valid and enforceable. Section 6. Amendment or Receal This initiative may be amended or repealed only by the voters at a City election. Section 7. Effective Date Pursuant to the State of California Municipal Elections Code section 9217, if a majority of the voters voting on a proposed ordinance vote in its favor, the ordinance shall become a valid and binding ordinance of the city. The ordinance shall be considered as adopted upon the date that the vote is declared by the legislative body and shall go into effect 10 days after that date. 13-6 Initiative Measure to Be Submitted Directly to the Voters The City Attorney has prepared the following title and summary of the chief purpose and points of the proposed measure: Title: A Petition to adopt an ordinance that would amend the General Plan to require voter approval for any General Plan amendment that would increase allowable building heights above 84 feet in most areas of the City, except the Bayfront Planning area and to set a building height limit of 45 feet on Third Avenue between E and G Streets. Summary: This petition proposes to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan in two ways. First, except as permitted under the General Plan Update as approved on December 13, 2005, an amendment to the General Plan which will have the purpose or effect of increasing the allowable building height within any area to exceed 84 feet will not be effective until approved by a majority of the registered voters in the City. This petition will not require voter approval for any General Plan changes affecting the Bayfront Planning Area as identified in the Land Use Element of the Chula Vista General Plan as amended and adopted in 1989. Second, this petition proposes the Land Use Element of the General Plan be amended to provide that no building that is part of any development in the Third Avenue Village, which fronts Third A venue between E Street and G Street, shall exceed 45 feet in height. This petition proposes that for the purposes of the section regarding Third Avenue, the allowable height shall be calculated as an average above existing grade, and shall include garages and rooftop appurtenances. The petition proposes that in the event that the City Council approves a change, amendment or other land use decision, which must, by the terms of the petition, be approved by the voters of the City of Chula Vista in order to become effective, the City Council shall set the matter for public vote. The petition provides that the Council shall call any election required by this initiative for the next available general municipal election or may, in its discretion, set a special election. The petition further proposes that upon the effective date of the initiative, the provisions of the initiative shall be inserted into the General Plan as an amendment thereto, except that if the four amendments permitted by State law for the calendar year in which it is approved have already been utilized for that year prior to the effective date of the initiative, this General Plan amendment shall be the first inserted into the General Plan on January I of the following year; and that the initiative could only be amended or repealed by the voters at'a City election. The above is a summary of the terms of the proposed petition prepared by the City Attorney as required by Elections Code section 9203; it does not reflect any legal analysis or opinion of the City Attorney concerning the proposed measure. SDPUBISHAGERTY\33751 3.1 13-7 Attachment 2 ReoJd mal"~ 11\ 7..001 cX~~p~ MIKEL HAAS Registrar of Voters <ITountu of ~a:n ~i2g0 REGISTRAR OF VOTERS 5201 Ruffin Road. Suite I. San Die90. Caiifornia 92123-1693 Office: Fax: TOo: Toll Free: (858) 565-5800 (858) 694-2955 (858) 694-3441 (800) 696-0136 March 26, 2007 Susan Bigelow, City Clerk City of Chula Vista 276 4th Ave Chula Vista CA 91910 Dear Ms Bigelow: RE: City ofChula Vista Allowable Building Heights Following is the certification of the above named initiative petition. As directed, our office conducted a verification of up to 8,985 valid signatures from the tota120,488 submitted for verification. Results of the verification process are as follows: . Date petition was received by this office....................................................... February 22,2007 . Number of sections submitted ...............................................................................................174 . Number of signatures submitted ....................................................................................... 20,488 . Number of signatures verified ..........................................................................................12,238 . Number of signatures found NOT sufficient (includes 947 duplicates). ............................3,253 . Number of signatures found sufficient............................................................................ 8,985 . Number of signatures required ....................................................................................... 8,985 If you have any questions, please contact Elvira Vargas in the Records and Petitions Section at (619) 694-3443. Sincerely, MIKEL HAAS Registrar of V oters E~;~ Supervising Clerk, Records & Petitions 13-8 Attachment 3 ~~f? :-~~ - - - - -------- - - -- ~- -- RECEIVED CHOrA ~srA 7 FEE 22 P 4 :07 OFFICI;; OF TI-ll;; CITY ATTORN~i' GF CHUU, Vi:, - ,', CITY CLERK'S 8Ft:'!. CITY OF CHULA VISTA MEMORANDUM OF LAW DATE: February 22, 2007 TO: Susan Bigelow, City Clerk Elizabeth Wagner Hull, Assistant City Attornefvr Ann Moore, City Attorne~~ FROM: VIA: SUBJECT: Special Election Requirements MEMORANDUM OF LAW QUESTION PRESENTED Will the City Council be required to call a special election for either the Protection of the General Plan Initiative or the Elected City Attorney Act charter amendment proposal? SHORT ANSWER The General Plan Protection Initiative ("GPPI") is a measure to adopt an ordinance which limits the city's ability to modify certain provisions of the General Plan. Although the legislature has provided a way by which the proponents of a measure can require the Council to call a special election for the consideration of the initiative, the proposed measure has not complied with the procedural requirements necessary to trigger a special election. Specifically, the measure must request the calling of a special election and as currently being circulated the GPPI does not contain the necessary language. The Elected City Attorney Act is a proposed charter amendment. The legislature has provided city councils with three basic options when faced with a ballot measure proposing a city charter amendment. Those three options are to call a special election, place the measure on the ballot at any established municipal election date, or place the measure at any established election date pursuant to section 1000. The statutory framework leaves the decision to the City Council as to whether to call a special election. 13-9 Special Election Requirements February 22, 2007 Page 2 ANALYSIS 1. The Measures A. Protection of the General Plan Through Voter Approval of Certain Changes and Designation of Height Limits The GPPI petition proposes an ordinance to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan in two ways (Attachment I). First, it requires that an amendment to the General Plan which allows building heights within certain areas of the City to exceed 84 feet be approved by the voters prior to taking effect. Second, this petition proposes the Land Use Element of the General Plan be amended to prohibit buildings proposed in the Third A venue Village from exceeding 45 feet in height. The ordinance and ballot language are silent as to when the proponents anticipate an election on the matter. The language currently being circulated does not include a request for the Council to call a special election. B. Elected City Attorney Act This petition proposes to amend Sections 500 and 503 of the City Charter to make the City Attorney an elected officer of the City, independent of the Council and other city officials and responsible to the Chula Vista residents. (Attachment 2.) This measure proposes that the City Attorney be nominated and elected to a four-year term in the same manner and at the same election as a member of the Council. This petition, in the preamble to the City Council, states that the measure should be put to the voters at an election on a date to be determined by the Council but requests the election be scheduled at the earliest possible date. II. Petition Process for Ordinance Adoption By Initiative or Charter Amendment A. Notice of Intent - Filing The proponents of a measure to adopt an ordinance or amend a city's charter must begin the process by filing a "Notice of Intent to Circulate Petition," along with the text of the measure, with the city's elections official. (Cal.Elec.Code 99 9202, 9256). At least one, and not more than three, of the proponents, must sign the notice. Jd. Once the notice is filed, the elections official must immediately provide a copy of the notice to the city attorney. (CaI.Elec.Code 99 9203(a), 9256). On September 8, 2006 the City Clerk, the City's election official pursuant to Charter Section 502, received a notice of intent to circulate a petition for the GPPI from David J. Peterson and Earl Jentz. On that same day the Clerk also received a notice of intent to circulate a petition for the Elected City Attorney Act from Norma A. Cazares 13-10 (,ITV ('\C "'Ul II ^ \llCTA Special Election Requirements February 22, 2007 Page 3 and Charles 1. Ulrich. These were forwarded by the City Clerk to the City Attorney's office. B. Ballot Title and Summary Upon receipt of the notice, the city attorney must prepare a ballot title for, and an impartial, non-argumentative statement of, the proposed measure. (CaI.Elec.Code SS 9203(a), 9256). The ballot title and statement must be prepared by the city attorney and returned to the elections official within 15 days of the filing of the notice; the elections official must then provide a copy of the ballot title and summary to the person[ s] who filed the notice. (CaI.Elec.Code SS 9203(a)-(b), 9256). Prior to circulating the petition, the proponents of the measure must place the ballot title and summary on each section of the petition, above the text of the proposed measure and across the top of each page of the petition on which signatures are to appear. (Cal.Elec.Code SS 9203(b), 9256). The City Attorney's office prepared the ballot title and summary for the GPPI and forwarded this to the City Clerk on September 22, 2006 for distribution to the proponents. The City Attorney's office retained outside counsel to prepare the ballot title and summary of the Elected City Attorney Act. This ballot title and summary were provided to the City Clerk on September 22,2006. On October II, 2006, the City Clerk informed the Attorney's office that the Elected City Attorney Act measure had been withdrawn by the proponents and a revised notice of intent and request for ballot title and summary had been received. On October 26, 2006 a new ballot title and summary were forwarded from the outside counsel to the City Clerk for distribution to the proponents of the Elected City Attorney Act measure. C. Notice of Intent - Publication Prior to circulating the petition, the measure proponents are required to publish the notice, the ballot title and the summary. (Cal.Elec.Code SS 9205, 9207, 9256). The publication shall be done in accordance with California Elections Code section 9205. (CaI.Elec.Code S 9256). Within 10 days after publication, proponents must file copies of the notice, title and summary, as published, and affidavits certifying completion of tlle publication, with the elections official. (Cal.Elec.Code SS 9205, 9256). D. Petition - Format and Circulation After the above steps are completed, the proponents may begin circulating the petition. The petition shall set forth the text of the proposed amendment, in no less than 10-point type; the petition must be on white paper, uniform in size, with dimensions not less than 8-1/2 by II inches and not greater than 8-1/2 by 14 inches. (CaI.Elec.Code SS 9257, 9262). Each section of the petition must have attached to it an affidavit of the person soliciting the signatures stating the circulators name, address, and other required information. (Cal.Elec.Code SS 104, 9022, 9209, 9261). Once a measure has qualified 13-11 .....,T\J'......I"'" ......111" 1\ \ "....."T"II Special Election Requirements February 22, 2007 Page 4 for the ballot the local government has ministerial duty to place it on the ballot. (Save Stanislaus Area Farm Economy v. Board of Supervisors (1983) 13 Cal.App.4th 141, 148, 149). E. Timing of an Election for an Initiative Petition to Adopt an Ordinance -- General Plan Protection Initiative A petition for an initiative shall be submitted to the voters in signed by at least 10 percent of the registered voters of the City. (Cal.Elec.Code S 9214). The total number of registered voters of the city shall be determined according to the county elections official's last official report of registration to the Secretary of State that was effective at the time the Notice of Intent to Circulate Petition was given. (Cal.Elec.Code S 9214). The timing of the election is determined by how many valid signatures are received by the elections official. If the initiative petition to adopt an ordinance is signed by 15% of the voters or more and the petition contains a request that the ordinance be submitted immediately to the voters at a special election, the Council may be required to call a special election. When 15 percent of the voters have signed the petition the Council shall either: (I) adopt the ordinance as presented; (2) immediately order a special election pursuant to Elections Code section 1405; or (3) order a report pursuant to Elections Code section 9212 and upon receipt of the report adopt the ordinance or order a special election. (Cal.Elec.Code S 9214). When an initiative petition to adopt an ordinance is signed by 10 percent of the voters, but less than 15 percent the Council has three options. In that case, the Council shall either: (I) adopted the ordinance as presented; (2) submit the ordinance to the voters pursuant to Elections Code section 1405(b) unless a special election is otherwise required; or (3) order a report pursuant to Elections Code section 9212 and upon receipt of the report adopt the ordinance or order an election. (Cal. Elec. Code S 9215). Elections Code section 1405, provides that if an initiative qualifies pursuant to Section 9214 (qualifies with signatures of 15 percent or more of the voters) the election shall be held not less than 88 nor more than 103 days after the date of the order of election. (Cal.Elec.Code S l405(a)). If an initiative qualifies for the ballot pursuant to Section 9215 (qualifies with signatures between 10 percent and 15 percent of the voters) the election shall be held at the next regular election. (Cal.Elec.Code S 1405(b)). Although it is unknown how many valid signatures the proponents to qualify the OPPI, will submit, the initiative does not contain a request for the measure to be submitted to the voters at a special election. If the petition is signed by 15% of the voters and it contained language requesting a special election, the Council would be required to adopt the ordinance without alteration or call special election. If the petition is signed by 10% of the voters, whether it contains a request for a special election or not, the Council would not be required to call a special election. Based upon the applicable sections of the Elections Code, the initiative as being circulated does not meet the procedural requirements, as it does not include language requesting a special election, and the Council would not be required to call a special election. 13-12 Special Election Requirements February 22, 2007 Page 5 "Voter action by initiative is so fundamental that it is described 'not as a right granted the people, but as a power reserved by them.'" (Associated Home Builders, etc., lnc v. City of Livermore (1976) 18 CalJd 582, 591 citing Native American Sacred Site and Environmental Protection Association, et al. v. City of San Juan Capistrano (2004) 120 Cal.AppAth 961, 965). Thus, "courts are required to liberally construe this power (ibid.) and accord it 'extraordinarily broad deference.'" (Pala Band of Mission lndians v. Board of Supervisors (1997) 54 Cal.AppAth 565, 573-574 citing Native American Sacred Site and Environmental Protection Association, et al. at p. 966). Once a measure has qualified for the ballot the local government has ministerial duty to place it on the ballot. (Save Stanislaus Area Farm Economy v. Board of Supervisors (1983) 13 Cal.AppAth 141, 148, 149). Based upon this deference to the initiative process, the proponents may assert an equity argument that the citizens have expressed their desire to see this change in the law and that it should be placed before them as soon as possible. However, without the language stating the intent to call a special election in the measure there is no way to know whether the citizen's would have signed the petition knowing that it would require calling special election at a cost to the City of approximately $450,000-$500,000. "A paramount concern in determining whether a petition is valid despite an alleged defect is whether the purpose of the technical requirement is frustrated by the defective form of the petition." (Assembly v. Deukmejian (1982) 30 Cal.3d 638, 652, 180 Cal.Rptr. 297, 639 P.2d 939 citing MHC Financing Ltd. Partnership Two v. City of Santee (2005) 125 Cal.AppAth 1372). The purposes served by the ballot title and summary requirement of section 9203, subdivision (b), are: (1) to reduce the risk that voters were misled when signing the petition, (2) to allow verification that the signers had a neutral explanation of the proposed ordinance available to them when signed; and (3) to prevent signatures from being submitted in support of a different measure than that for which they were procured. (Alliance for a Better Downtown Mil/brae v. Wade, supra, 108 Cal.AppAth at pp.l30- 131, 133 Cal.Rptr.2d 249). There is a question as to whether the voters may have been misled as to the timing and cost of implementing this measure. Consequently, with the procedural deficiencies the Council would most likely not be required to call a special election. F. Timing of an Election for Charter Amendment Petition - Elected City Attorney Act A petition for an amendment to a city charter shall be submitted to the voters only if it is signed by at least 15 percent of the registered voters of the city. (Cal.Elec. Code S 9255(a)(3)). The total number of registered voters of the city shall be determined according to the county elections official's last official report of registration to the Secretary of State that was effective at the time the Notice of Intent to Circulate Petition was given. (Cal.Elec.Code S 9255(c)). Only a person who is a qualified registered voter at the time of signing the petition is entitled to sign it. (Cal.Elec.Code SS 9020, 9259). A 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 13-13 ('ITV Ill:: ,...WI II ^' 'ICT^ Special Election Requirements February 22, 2007 Page 6 election date pursuant to section 1000, provided that there are at least 88 days before the election. (Cal.Elec.Code S 9255(a)). Additionally, Elections Code section 1415 states: 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 municipal 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. "[T]he two statutes governing initiatives to repeal or amend city charters have no maximum time limits. Nothing in them requires a city council to "order" the election at the very next available opportunity. Indeed, the very fact that each statute allows options in election dates refutes that idea." (Jeffrey v. Superior Court (2002) 102 Cal.App.4,h I, 6). In analyzing the requirements for the placement of the Elected City Attorney Act on the ballot, state law provides the Council with the option of calling a special election, placing the measure on the next regularly scheduled municipal election, or placing it on the ballot at the time of an election pursuant to Elections Code section 1000. Although the proponents may desire to have their measure presented to the public immediately, the legislature and case law provide the Council with the discretion to choose the election at which the measure is heard. Both Elections Code section 9255 and 1415 provide minimum, but not maximum, time limits for the consideration of charter amendments. This is in direct contrast to the Elections Code provision governing the initiative process identified above for the GPPl. (Cal.Elec.Code SS 9214, 9215, and 1405). Consequently, the City Council has the option of calling a special election once the Elected City Attorney Act qualifies for the ballot but the Council would not be required to do so. This discretion is limited in that the COlmcil cannot delay indefinitely or to an election after the effective date identified in the ballot measure. (Jeffrey at p. 10). As presented, the Elected City Attorney Act does not contain a specific date for its implementation. IV. Conclusions A. General Plan Protection Initiative The GPPI is a measure to adopt an ordinance that limits the city's ability to modify the General Plan. Although the legislature has provided a way by which the proponents of an initiative can require the Council to call a special election, the proposed measure has not complied with the procedural requirements necessary to trigger a special election. Specifically, the measure must request the calling of a special election and as currently being circulated the GPPI does not contain the necessary language. 13-14 .......1"T"\f......r'.....llIll 1I\1t,-..'T.. Special Election Requirements February 22, 2007 Page 7 B. Elected City Attorney Act The Elected City Attorney Act is a proposed charter amendment. The legislature has provided city councils with three options when faced with a ballot measure proposing a city charter amendment. Those three options are to call a special election, place the measure on the ballot at any established municipal election date, or place the measure at any established election date pursuant to section 1000. The statutory provisions and case law make it clear the Council has the discretion to determine when to place the matter before the voters. 13-15 .....I~,.......r-.....',,"...'''.........A RESOLUTION NO. 2007- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE CERTIFICATION OF SUFFICIENCY OF AN INITIATIVE PETITION REGARDING ALLOW ABLE BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITS WHEREAS, an initiative petition entitled, "A Petition to Adopt an Ordinance That Would Amend the General Plan to Require Voter Approval for Any General Plan Amendment That Would Increase Allowable Building Heights Above 84 Feet in Most Areas of the City, Except the Bayfront Planning Area and to Set a Building Height Limit of 45 Feet on Third Avenue Between E and G Streets" was filed with the City Clerk's office on February 21, 2007; and WHEREAS, pursuant to California Elections Code Section 9215, the required number of signatures was 8,985, which was ten percent of the 89,849 voters in the City of Chula Vista as officially reported by the County Registrar of Voters to the Secretary of State on September 8, 2006; and WHEREAS, the San Diego County Registrar of Voters verified 8,985 signatures, and certified the results of its examination (Exhibit A). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby accept the certification of sufficiency of an initiative petition entitled, "A Petition to Adopt an Ordinance That Would Amend the General Plan to Require Voter Approval for Any General Plan Amendment That Would Increase Allowable Building Heights Above 84 Feet in Most Areas ofthe City, Except the Bayfront Planning Area and to Set a Building Height Limit of 45 Feet on Third Avenue Between E and G Streets," Presented by: Approved as to form by: :::.~_Ll d 1 ~-<;~ L~ Susan Bigelow, MMC City Clerk fl:~MLf/./d/1L~ .' n Moore .' City Attorney . " 13-16 J' ' vD)'",esfcY>cL..."CL r.iC: 'r\-e..","',", l? I Ap(~' \ 17; :A:0~ Donna Norris From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Leticia Lazo on behalf of CityClerk Monday, April 16, 2007 8:21 AM Susan Bigelow Donna Norris FW: GPPI>>>> -----Original Message----- From: BILL ' Sent: Satur ay, To: CityClerk Subject: GPPI>>>> CITY COUNCIL: Please adopt the GPPI........ .... ....... Or call a special election... .... ....... Thank you, Bill & Leah Pack ~ d)..\<s~; bu--.-\ccY' l.) ~ CD lJ-.f"\c...0 tt ~ ~tmyY\e~ c.~ ~ HWi\.0-'-J f C~ "J tuv Vi 1 CORRESPONDENClPa~1 of 1 ITEM 13, APRIL 17, 2007 Leticia Lazo From: Ned Ardagn~ Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 20074:34 PM To: CityClerk; Cheryl Cox; Rudy Ramirez; Jerry Rindone; John McCann; Steve Castaneda Subject: Building Height Initiative Support for Adoption Re: Item 13 of the April 17, 2007 City Council Agenda: Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Members: I am writing to support the adoption of the initiative to limit the height of buildings on Third Avenue and urge you to adopt the initiative without further delay as described in sub-part A of Agenda Item No. 13. Should you determine that the matter should be placed on the ballot for a vote by the entire voter population of the City I urge you to place it on the ballot prior to the June, 2008 date suggested by City Staff. This matter is being closely watched by the entire population of the City in both the western & eastern geographic regions and your decision could become the topic of many future political debates. I will attempt to attend the City Council meeting to voice my support in person but have scheduling conflicts. Very truly yours, Ned Ardagna **** This e-mail communication contains CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION WHICH ALSO MAY BE LEGALLY PRIVILEGED and which is intended only for the use of the intended recipients identified above. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, downloading, or copying of this communication is strictly prohib If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the above bye-mail or telephone and delete the communication and d Thank you for your cooperation. **** DISTRIBUTION: CITY COUNCIL CITY ATTORNEY CITY MANAGER CITY CLERK 4/17/2007 Donna Norris CORRESPONDENCE RE: ITEM 13, APRIL 17, 2007 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Leticia Lazo on behalf of CityClerk Monday, April 16, 2007 8:20 AM Susan Bigelow Donna Norris FW: Third Avenue Height -----Original Message----- From: Suzanne Kushnir r Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2007 To: CityClerk Subject: Third Avenue Height To Whom It May Concern. Please keep the maximum height for buildings on Third Avenue in Chula Vista at 45 feet. Let's not over-urbanize Chula and completely change the character of our city (ie. the horrible police station). Thank You, Suzanne Kushnir Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com DISTRIBUTION: CITY COUNCIL CITY ATTORNEY CITY MANAGER CITY CLERK 1 CORRESPONDENCE RE: ITEM 13. APRIL 17 2007 , Donna Norris From: Leticia Lazo on behalf of CityClerk Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 8:19 AM To: Susan Bigelow Cc: Donna Norris Subject: FW: GPPI and the UCSP -----Original Message----- From: Isla Morri Sent: Saturday, Apri 14, 2007 6:09 PM To: CityClerk Subject: GPPI and the UCSP Dear City Clerk, I am not able to attend the council meeting scheduled for April 17th, however, I want to make my views known. I urge the council to either adopt the General Plan Protection Initiative (GPPI) that has qualified to be placed on the ballot, or call a prompt election to resolve the issue prior to approval of the Urban Core Specific Plan (UCSP). Over 20,000 Chula Vistans have signed the GPPI, which should send the message loud and clear to the city council that everyday people are not in favor of the proposed UCSP as it now stands. I was so hopeful that with the election of a new mayor and council member we would see a change in the city council's willingness to listen to the will of the people. I am disheartened by the apparent disregard of the voice of the constituency when it comes to these issues. It's not too late for the right decision to be made. Please let the council and mayor know that I am strongly opposed to the proposed UCSP. DISTRIBUTION: CITY COUNCIL CITY ATTORNEY CITY MANAGER CITY CLERK 4/16/2007 Donna Norris CORRESPONDENCE RE: ITEM 13, APRIL 17, 2007 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Leticia Lazo on behalf of CityClerk Tuesday, April 17, 2007 9:37 AM Susan Bigelow Donna Norris FW: GPPI -----Original Message----- From: Eunice Seltenric Sent: Monday, April 16, To: CityClerk Subject: GPPI To the people in City Hall: My husband and I support the GPPI and urge you to either immediately adopt the changes called for by the GPPI, or call a prompt election. Please take prompt action. End the divisiveness and protect our historic downtown area. Keep Third Avenue our downtown village. Sincerely, Phil and Eunice Seltenrich Get a FREE Web site, company branded e-mail and more from Microsoft Office Live! http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub005000l4llmrt/direct/Ol/ DISTRIBUTION: CITY COUNCIL CITY ATTORNEY CITY MANAGER CITY CLERK , . 1 ~Yresporde(\ce... r-e" : 1~~ hO.13( A-pr', \ \ 7/ ;lDt) r") Donna Norris Rce;Clvtu From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Leticia Lazo on behalf of CityClerk Thursday, April 12, 2007 3:45 PM Donna Norris Susan Bigelow FW: GPPI '07 APR 12 P4:50 CITY OF CHULA ViS r r... CITY CLERK'S OFFICE -----Original Message----- From: June Leonard Sent: Thursday, April 1 , -2007 To: CityClerk Subject: GPPI TO THE CITY COUNCIL: Either adopt the General Plan Protection Initiative or call a prompt election to resolve this issue. Some city. Please city. people are not able to attend council meetings to find out We are still interested in what is happening to our city listen to what the majority of the people want to happen what is going on in our and outlying areas. in the future of our fair Sincerely, Eugene L. Leonard June M. Reilly Leonard ~ PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com '--j:)\s+r-; ~OY''' CL\~ tOVJiW G~ A-wu(n~ C; ~ V\,{ ().N'.~ef (;, (jbil 1 Coae SpDnde0C.L Ire: J- l:e.rn \ '6) Afri \ \7, ;;2oQ '7 Page 1 of 1 RECEIVED Donna Norris '07 APR12 PS:56 From: JaCkDaviS~ Sent: Thursday, April 12, 20074:51 PM To: CityClerk CITY OF CHULA VIS U. CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Chula Vista City Clerk, We, Jack & Judith Davis, 254 Vista Del Mar Court, C.V., CA. We don't want the high rise buildings (84 root) built on 3rdAvenue. We've been very active in the cities General Plan. We located in Chula Vista because, onts small town charm. If this plan contiues in the direction to allow larger buildings on 3rd Avenue to reach the 7 story height, we'll move out and you'll lose us as a tax base resident. That is how much we're against the high rise buildings. We're not against the basic revitalization in the General Plan. Sincerely ,Jack & Judith Davis p\s-tn Io.v--ncsn'. t; t:J ~\A.\f"\ c:.J et~ At+omej 01 0~e\ ~~ tAe..y\"\ 4/12/2007 CORRESPOND~l ~el ITEM 13, APRIL 17, 2007 Donna Norris From: Leticia Lazo on behalf of CityClerk Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 7:43 AM To: Donna Norris Cc: Susan Bigelow Subject: FW: NO MORE TALL BLOGS! Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red -----Original Message----- From: Bonnie 5eebe'-- [ IT Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 5:57 PM To: CityClerk Subject: Re: NO MORE TALL BLDGS! Chula Vista shud never have any more buildings higher than 7 stories!!! I've lived here since 1982 and love the atmosphere here as it still seems like a lovely small town. Developers will always want to build higher - don't let them spoil Chula Vista!! Bonnie Seeber DISTRIBUTION: CITY COUNCIL CITY ATTORNEY CITY MANAGER CITY CLERK' . . 4/16/2007 Donna Norris CORRESPONDENCE RE: ITEM 13, APRIL 17, 2007 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Leticia Lazo on behalf of CityClerk Monday, April 16, 2007 8:16 AM Susan Bigelow Donna Norris FW: GENERAL PLAN PROTECTION INITIATIVE -----Original Message----- From: Susan Watry Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2007 7:58 To: Steve Castaneda; Jerry Rindone; John McCann; Cheryl Cox; Rudy Ramirez; CityClerk Subject: RE: GENERAL PLAN PROTECTION INITIATIVE Mayor and City Council City Clerk: There will be no trust, no peace in Chula Vista as long as you continue to ignore the citizens and continue to ram through your grandiose redevelopment plans. Others before you have tried and gotten nowhere. It is time for you to begin to act as though the citizens are partners and not the enemy, time to build a sense of trust so we can move on. A good beginning would be to either adopt the GPPI or call an election as soon as possible so this can be resolved before approving the UCSP. Not doing so is almost sure to result in further turmoil - which none of us want. __ Wat~ DISTRIBUTION: CITY COUNCIL CITY ATTORNEY CITY MANAGER CITY CLERK 1 Donna Norris Co-n e ~pfJndev-Le re: rkv-n 13) A.r \ '1 2IJo7 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Leticia Lazo on behalf of CityClerk Monday, April 16, 2007 8:15 AM Donna Norris Susan Bigelow FW: Adopt the GPPI! -----Original Message----- From: raquel kinney ~ Sent: Sunday, April ~ 12:14 PM To: CityClerk Subject: Adopt the GPPI! Hello! Please either adopt the GPPI, or call a prompt election to resolve this issue PRIOR to approval of the UCSP. Please listen to the many, many voices who are asking for this issue to be resolved.. NO tall buildings on Third Avenue in Chula Vista!!! Don't ignore the will of the people!! We are a lot of Hispanics that are getting involved!!! Remember if you want to be elected, you have to listen to the will of the people! Thank you, Raquel Kinney Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com D \,';,+,-, ~l:>+'''''' ~ .C; ~ CoU-VI c.J; ~~ . fM-mrile-) ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ 1 Corre~nJen4 re' Page 1 ofl ~ \3, .Jvrr-'t I llj,;)DD7 Donna Norris From: Leticia Lazo on behalf of CityCierk Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 8:15 AM To: Donna Norris Cc: Susan Bigelow Subject: FW: GPPI Initiative -----Original Message----- From: Dave Evan~ Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2007 8:32 PM To: CityClerk Subject: GPPI Initiative I'm in complete support of the GPPI initiative, restricting building heights in the redevelopment of north-western Chula Vista. The Council needs to either adopt this initiative or place it on a ballot for an early test of voter sentiment, prior to approval of the GCSP. David M. Evans --::b \'S+r, loll+:' 0 n: C;~ to\Ml\~ ~~ f\+ruyne'f ~+:J ~ G'J ~ 4/16/2007 CORRESPONDENCEuRB ITEM 13, APRIL 17, 200; Leticia Lazo From: Gretchen Evan- Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 20071:55 PM To: CityClerk Subject: GPPllnitiative I totally support the general plan protection initiative restricting heights in the redevelopment of north-western Chula Vist The Council needs to adopt this initiative or add it on a ballot for an early test of voter opinion before the approval of the GCSP. We had a beautiful downtown shopping area & it should not be destroyed by high-rise trash. Gretchen N. Evans Chula Vista, CA 91910 DISTRIBUTION: CITY COUNCIL CITY ATTORNEY CITY MANAGER CITY CLERK CORRESPONDENCli...RE - . .I. - ITEM 13, APRIL 17, 200i Leticia Lazo From: Sent: To: Subject: City Council Attention: All members Please be real careful in planning the future of Third Avenue. Keep it like La Mesa, small and quaint. Why have green belts and crowded cities.... have a peaceful place to walk around, conviel parking...no tickets, free parking, let's get real. Make some good grown-up decisions that are for the people. Thanks, The Bales Family Native Chula Vistians Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos. DISTRIBUTION: CITY COUNCIL CITY ATTORNEY CITY MANAGER CITY CLERK Leticia Lazo CORRESPONDENCE RE: ITEM 13. APRIL 17. 2007 From: Jackie Morud~ Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 2:34 PM To: CityClerk Subject: General Plan I am again voicing my opinion, as have thousands of other Chula Vista residents, in opposition to high-rise buildings in the Third Avenue Village, which would destroy the character of our fair city. I strongly urge City Council to either adopt the General Plan Protection Initiative or call a prompt election to resolve this issue prior to approval of the Urban Core Specific Plan. There are plenty of other locations for high-density construction Uust look around at the sea of housing surrounding Chula Vista). The ambitious plans for our waterfront and the never-ending construction of housing and malls should be lucrative enough to appease builders and City officials without infringing on or ignoring the will of the people. Jackie Morud DISTRIBUTION: CITY COUNCIL CITY ATTORNEY CITY MANAGER CITY CLERK 4/17/2007 Donna Norris CORRESPONDENCE RE: ITEM 13, APRIL 17, 2007 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Leticia Lazo on behalf of CityClerk Monday, April 16, 20078:21 AM Susan Bigelow Donna Norris FW: UCSP -----Original Message----- From: Joan Roseman Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2007 5:14 PM To: Ci tyClerk Subject: UCSP Madam Mayor and Council Members, Incorporate the 45 foot height limit into the Urban Core Specific Plan. DO NOT ignore the will of the people who signed the Initiative. How difficult can it be t 0 make that small change in the UCSP? Let's corne together and move on! DISTRIBUTION: CITY COUNCIL CITY ATTORNEY CITY MANAGER CITY CLERK 1 CORRESPONDENCE RE: ITEM 13, APRIL 17, 2007 Donna Norris From: Leticia Lazo on behalf of CityClerk Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 9:59 AM To: Susan Bigelow Cc: Donna Norris Subject: FW: Redevelopment Plan -----Original Message----- From: Dr. Tom Mautner Sent: Monday, April 16, 20 9: S A To: Cheryl Cox; rramirex@chulavistaca.gov; John McCann; Jerry Rindone; Steve Castaneda; CityClerk Cc: Dr. Tom Mautner Subject: Redevelopment Plan Dear Mayor and City Council Members: It is disturbing to read that the City of Chula Vista leaders are ignoring and potentially throwing away the regulations voted into effect by the City's citizens. More importantly, it has been reported that the Mayor, and others, are taking the side of the developers rather than the best interests of the City. The Chula Vista Council should adopt the guidelines proposed in the latest voter initiative which has been endorsed by the required number of registered voter signatures and many others. Failure to adopt a plan (demonstrated viable by the Citizen group(s)) in the best interests of the City indicates the "selling out" of City Officials to irresponsible developers. At this point in time, it makes one wonder who will really benefit from the latest City plans. Developers? Citizens? Respectfully, Dr. Tom Mautner DISTRIBUTION: CITY COUNCIL CITY ATTORNEY CITY MANAGER CITY CLERK 4/16/2007 Donna Norris CORRESPONDENCE RE: ITEM 13. APRIL 17. 2007 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Leticia Lazo on behalf of CityClerk Monday, April 16, 2007 8:17 AM Donna Norris Susan Bigelow FW: Adopting the GPPI -----Original Message----- From: Richard Swallow ~ Sent: Saturday, Aprll 14, 2007 7:31 PM To: CityClerk Subject: Adopting the GPPI It is incumbent upon the city council to obey the will of the people, and that is to either adopt the changes called for by the GPPI ir to call a prompt election, and that being before pushing through the Urban Core Specific Plan. Shame on any elected official not supporting the will of those citizens who trusted their candidates enough to put them in office. DISTRIBUTION: CITY COUNCIL CITY ATTORNEY CITY MANAGER CITY CLERK 1 To: Chula Vista Cty r:!erk's Office Page 1 of 2 2007-04-1800:12:35 (GMT) From: Mitchell Berner RECEIVED FAX COVER SHEET '07 APR 18 Al0 :22 TO Chula Vista City COMPANY Chula Vista City FAXNUMBER'tIII.- ... FROM Mi tchell Berner DATE RE Clerk's Office Clerk's Office CITY OF CHULA VIS tI~, CIlY l;LERK 5 OFFICi: ~ 2007-04-18 00:11:02 GMT Tonight's Item 13 COVER MESSAGE Can you please distribute this letter to the Mayor, Council, City Attorney and City staff for item 13 tonight? I am not able to attend in person, Thank you. ~5ITI~- C~ht miAV~ L~ 4Holuwy " (1mrn U-~ T:J:-vdvf/~ I)uto-ciffl- ipLfuw..UVJl <T~/c~ 1>ti~,f-L www.efax.com Honorable Mayor Cox and Members of the City Council City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 N rn 0 < -0 rr1 U1 0 g \0 Tuesday, April 17, 2007 Subject: Council Docket Number 13: Consideration of Acceptance of Certification of Sufficiency of an Initiative Petition Regarding Allowable Building Height Limits Dear Mayor Cox and Members of the City Council: I am writing on behalf of Inland Industries Group LLC, the owners of the 19-acre bayfront business park located at 1011-1161 Bay Boulevard, regarding the proposed initiative before you this evening. I am writing to request the City Council direct the City Attorney and City Manager to evaluate whether or not the proposed initiative applies to the business park properties located at 1011-1161 Bay Boulevard. It is my understanding that the business park properties of 1011-1161 Bay Boulevard are in fact within the Bayfront Specific Plan west of Interstate 5; may be within the City of Chula Vista's Bay Front Planning Area as identified in the Initiative; and could otherwise be designated under the Chula Vista General Plan a site suitable for high-rise development. There are provisions in the Initiative that would seemingly cause the Initiative to not apply to the properties at 1011-1161 Bay Boulevard. We would appreciate having the City Attorney and City Manager evaluate whether or not the Initiative applies to these properties. I'm sorry I can not attend tonight's meeting, and thank you in advance for your consideration. Sincerely, ~e(f- President cc: City Clerk's Office City Attorney's Office Planning and Building Department Director Inland Industries Group LLC (")(") ~ =t~ ::u -<-< (")0 ~ fT1 r-""T1 (") mC") rn ::I:I=<: N ::><:c::: 0 < v;r- o~ -0 r',Ci ." ""T1< U1 0 ~v ~ 0~ f"'711_~ 0 HOW 00 YOU THEM? 110 West C Street, Suite 1300' San Diego, California 92101 . P 619.645.5247 . F 619.645.52'