Loading...
SR-07-22-2014-8E - 800-008-02To From Subject: City Council Meeting: July 22, 2014 Agenda Item: Mayor and City Council Sarah Gorman, Director, Records Marsha Jones Moutrie, City Attorney and Election Services /City Clerk Certification of Qualification of Initiative Petition Relating to the Santa Monica Airport Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Receive and file the attached Certification of Qualification regarding an initiative measure that would amend the City Charter by adding provisions relating to the Santa Monica Airport ( "the Airport "); and 2) Adopt the attached resolution requesting and directing the actions necessary to place the measure on the November 2014 ballot. Executive Summary On June 10, 2014, an initiative petition proposing a City Charter amendment relating to closure of the Santa Monica Airport and restrictions on Airport businesses was submitted to the Office of the City Clerk and forwarded to the County Registrar - Recorder ( "the County ") for signature verification. On July 16th, the County notified the City Clerk's office that the measure was being certified as containing the requisite number of signatures for placement on the ballot. Accordingly, staff recommends that Council receive and file the certification and adopt the attached resolution, which requests and directs the actions necessary to place the initiative on the November 2014 ballot. Background On March 27, 2014, proponents of the measure notified the City Clerk's Office of their intent to circulate an initiative petition. On April 2 "d, the City Attorney prepared a ballot title and summary, as required by law, which describes the measure as "amending the City Charter to require voter approval in order to close all or part of the Santa Monica 1 Airport, change use of the Airport land, or impose new restrictions on fuel sales or use of aviation facilities." Thereafter, the proponents gathered signatures; and they filed their signed petition with the City Clerk on June 10, 2014. On July 16th, the County notified the City Clerk that the measure had received the requisite number of signatures, which is 15% of the voters or 9541. The County found that 15,594 signatures were filed, 75 signatures were withdrawn, not sufficient6andg u127s signatures were dfound not esuffol sufficient sufficient, 2,965 were found because the signatures were duplicates. See Attachment B. Discussion ode section 9255 provides that if an initiative petition to amend a California Elections C f a city's registered voters, the city charter is signed by no less than 15 percent o measure shall be submitted to the voters at an established statement general election occurring in not less than 88 days. The section establishes that the action of placing the certified petition on the ballot is ministerial, not discretionary. Thus, if the County certifies the petition, the law requires the City Council to send the measure to the voters. The next general election will occur on November 4, 2014. This measure could appear as an additional item on the ballot, which will include other contests, including federal, state, county and local races and at least one other local measure. Thus, staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution to place the measure on that ballot. Alter_ n_ atives The alternatives are very limited by law, and staff recommends against them. However, they are identified so that Council will be aware of all possibilities. While Elections Code Section 9255 specifies that a qualified measure must go to the section doe nt voters at a general election occurring than next days later, election ballot Thuss it specify that the measure m ust be p aced on the 2 possible to question whether the subject measure must be placed on the November 2014 ballot, as opposed to a later ballot. Legal staff was able to locate only one case addressing this issue. In Jeffrey V. Superior Court, 125 Cal.Rptr.2d 175 (2002), Huntington Beach residents circulated an initiative measure to amend the city charter by creating council districts and imposing term limits. The measure provided, by its own terms, that it would become effective in November of 2004. The measure qualified for the ballot in time to be placed on the November 2002 ballot. But, the city council, which opposed the measure, opted to place it on the March 2004 ballot instead. The proponents filed suit. The trial court concluded that the council Appeal had the legal authority to e delay ed that the legislature h tegislature might want t resolve the issue by reluctantly agreed and Bugg requiring placement on the ballot for the next general election at least 88 days away. Staff recommends against delaying the placement f t s subject only measure rn abcase based on Jeffrey for several reasons. Jeffrey app that may be on point, and its facts are different because the Airport measure has no specified effective date. Thus, unlike the fact situation in Jeffrey, the City's situation raises the specter of a legislative body using infinite delay to thwart the initiative power. Also, in general, the California law staunchly protects the initiative power, and the courts are highly critical of attempts to thwart De Vita v. County of Napa, 9 Cal.4" 763,776 (1995) [ ,It is the duty of the courts to jealously guard this right of the people ['and to] apply a liberal construction to this power wherever it is challenged...." ]. Finally, refusing to place the measure on the November ballot would be inconsistent with the City's past practice and could be perceived as contrary to its commitment to participatory democracy. The only other possible alternative is litigation. Theoretically, the Council could refuse to place the measure on the ballot, publicly state the reasons, and either sue or defend the lawsuit that would likely be filed immediately by the proponents. Some residents 3 have urged that the City should sue to avoid placing the measure on the ballot because signature gatherers were misleading. Others have claimed that the measure violates the California Constitution's requirement that initiatives must be legislative, rather than administrative. Article IV, Section 1; Article II, Section 8. Staff recommends against this course of action. Generally speaking, pre - election challenges to initiatives are disfavored as a matter of law, though the courts will consider a claim that subject matter is inappropriate for an initiative. Independent Energy Producers ASSOC. V. McPherson, 38 Cal.4`h 1020,1029 (2006) However, in this case, the arguments that the measure is unlawful are being made by the Redden v. City of Santa Monica, which Airport neighbors filed against the City and the measure's proponents. The petitioners in Redden are already asking that the measure be kept off the November 2014 ballot. So, it seems little would be gained by initiating or provoking additional litigation at this time. And, the City has reserved its rights with respect to any potential challenge to the legality of the initiative. Environmental Analysis not require environmental The placement of the proposed measure on the ballot does view. A voter - sponsored initiative is not a "project" subject to the requirements of the re Madre v. City of Sierra Madre, California Environmental Quality Act. Friends of Sierra 25 Cal At' 165 (2001). Next Steps Next steps are specified as requests and directives in the attached resolution. In summary, once the Council adopts the resolution, arguments for and against the are an impartial analysis, and the measure will be prepared, the City Attorney will prep City Clerk will transmit the materials to the County, which will prepare the ballot. The hlet. City will prepare and distribute the voter information pamphlet. 12 Financial Impacts & Budget Actions The City Clerk estimates that the cost of placing this measure on the ballot would be $5,000. The County of Los Angeles will undertake the necessary actions to add the measure to the ballot and will bill the City for those servi es. Funding is available in the c FY 2014 -15 Adopted Budget account the number Reord12 &2 ESecOtioOn (Professional Sery ceslCity eClerk's under the Elections Division Department. Prepared by: Marsha Jones Moutrie, City Attorney Forwarded to Council: Approved: S � Sarah Gorman City Clerk Certificate of Sufficiency of Initiative Petition Los Angeles County Signature Verification Letter Resolution and Exhibit 1 (Proposed Charter Amendment) Rod Gould City Manager Attachments: A. B. C 5 ATTACHMENT A CERTIFICATE OF SUFFICIENCY OF INITIATIVE PETITION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS CITY OF SANTA MONICA ) I, SARAH P. GORMAN, City Clerk of Santa Monica, do hereby certify that the petition entitled "Voter Approval Required Before City Can Redevelop Airport Land." Was filed with the City Clerk Department on June 10, 2014, That each petition section contains signatures purporting to be signatures of qualified electors of the City of Santa Monica, California; That attached to this petition at the time it was filed, was an affidavit purporting to be the affidavit of the person who solicited the signatures, and containing the dates between which the purported qualified electors signed this petition; That the affiant stated his or her own qualification, that he or she had solicited the signatures upon that Section, that all of the signatures were made in his or her own presence, and that to the best of his or her information and belief, each signature to that section was the genuine signature of the person whose name it purports to be; That after the proponents filed this petition and based on the County of Los Angles Registrar- Recorder/ County Clerk's signature verification certificate, I have determined the following facts regarding the petition: 1. Petition contains 15,594 signatures filed. 2. Under request of the City Election Official, the Los Angeles County Registrar- Recorder /County Clerk found 75 signatures had been withdrawn. 3. Under request of the City Election Official, the Los Angeles County Registrar- Recorder /County Clerk verified 12,765 signatures. 4. Under request of the City Election Official, the Los Angeles County Registrar- Recorder /County Clerk found 9,800 signatures sufficient. 5. Under request of the City Election Official, the Los Angeles County Registrar- Recorder /County Clerk found 2,965 signatures not sufficient. 6. Under request of the City Election Official, the Los Angeles County Registrar- Recorder /County Clerk found 127 signatures to be duplicates. (Exhibit A, June 15, 2015 Letter to Gorman from Los Angeles County Registrar- Recorder /County Clerk). The number of signatures qualified, 9800, is in excess of the minimum number of signatures required and said petition is hereby qualified as of this 17`h day of July, 2014. SARAH P. GORMAN, CIVIC City Clerk of the City of Santa Monica Dean C. Logan Registrar - Recorder /County Clerk July 15, 2014 Ms. Sarah P. Gorman, City Clerk City of Santa Monica 1685 Main Street Room #102 Santa Monica, CA 90407 ATTACHMENT B Dear Ms. Gorman: We have comp Approval in Order To Close All Or Part completed the signature verification submitted on June 12, 2014 for An initiative Measure Amending The City Charter To Require Voter App impose New Restrictions Of The Santa Monica Airport, Change Use Of The Airport Land, Or On Fuel Sales Or Use Of Aviation Facilities. The results of the signature verification are as follows: 15,594 Number of signatures filed 75 Number of signature withdrawn 12,765 Number of signatures verified 9,800 Number of signatures found sufficient 2,965 Number of signatures found not sufficient 127 Not Sufficient because duplicate ad ta Entry and Signature Verification Sectio Please call Raymond Q. Oliande,u st onsDaegarding the signature verif ation of this n at (562) 462 -2376 if you have any q petition. Sin iJ — DEAN C. LOGA Registrar - Recorder /County Clerk Reference: Resolution No. 10828 (CCS)