Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
File 2 of 2 - Special Municipal Election March 7, 2000 - Ini
U r'�. ju ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF THE MEASURE TO PROVIDE FOR YOUTH SPORTS, SCHOOL, AND SENIOR CITIZEN FACILITIES MEASURE is an advisory vote. A "NO"vote on Measure would enable the residents of Huntington Beach to benefit from about $400,000 of new sales and property tax per year. Your "NO"vote on Companion Measure would then allow local government to allocate those dollars to activities and groups mentioned in this advisory measure. A "NO" vote on Companion Measure , would continue the commercial zoning on the Talbert-Beach site and benefit children, seniors, and other related groups on a city-wide basis without a tax increase to local residents. Please help us help the kids and the seniors and the rest of this community benefit from this windfall income to both the schools and the city. NO NEW TAXES, VOTE `NO' ON COMPANION MEASURE �y i`.1 FCITY, HU TI T H ' 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 C. OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY CITY CLERK STATEMENT TO BE FILED BY AUTHOR OF ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF ADVISORY MEASURE All arguments concerning measure filed pursuant to Division 9, Chapter 3 (beginning with § 9200) of the Elections Code shall be accompanied by the following form statement to be signed by each proponent and by each author, if different, of the argument: The undersigned proponent(s) or authors(s) of the primary argument in favor of ballot measure ADVISORY MEASURE at the Special Municipal Election for the City of Huntington Beach, to be held on March 7, 2000, hereby state that the argument is true and correct to the best of their knowledge and belief. Sign Name n� Print Name Date !:5ekc,i awd- rKit-oLe/ C � � - g:election/2000/advisory/form of statement—advisory—in favor.doc (Telephone:714.536-5227) w o . CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY CITY CLERK. STATEMENT TO BE FILED BY AUTHOR OF ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF ADVISORY MEASURE All arguments concerning measure filed pursuant to Division 9, Chapter 3 (beginning with § 9200) of the Elections Code shall be accompanied by the following form statement to be signed by each proponent and by each author, if different, of the argument: The undersigned proponent(s) or authors(s) of the primary argument in favor of ballot measure ADVISORY MEASURE at the Special Municipal Election for the City of Huntington Beach, to be held on March 7, 2000, hereby state that the argument is true and correct to the best of their knowledge and belief. Sign Name Print Name Date 46,-Ir jr'e Z//,P 4� ZlfZalv� w. g:election/2000/advisory/form of statement—advisory—in favor.doc (Telephone:714-536-5227) �Ri� , naL p0 — Argument Against Advisory Measure The Council majority has placed this Measure before you in an attempt to influence your vote on the Crest View site. This "Advisory Measure," is a sham, that the majority on the City Council concocted to deny us the right to a special election to decide the best use of the Crest View School site. The people of the city gathered enough signatures to place the Crest View initiative on the ballot during a special election. The citizen's initiative rezones the Crest View School site to its original zoning - low density residential. The site is not appropriate for Wal-Mart or any big box retailer. The special election should have been held in December 1999 or January 2000. The only way the council could delay the vote until March was to place another issue on the ballot. This "Advisory Measure" is that sham. The City Council majority believes they have a better chance of defeating the citizen's initiative now during the primary election than during a special election. This way, the Crest View initiative is buried in with all the other propositions on the ballot, rather than being the only issue. Your vote on this "Advisory Measure" does not have the power to direct the City Council to do anything. Do you believe the majority on this City Council actually listens to the people of Huntington Beach? If the Council really cared about what the voters want then why isn't the result of this measure binding on the Council? The Council majority has manipulated the democratic process in an attempt to get their way. Don't be misled, Vote YES on the citizen's initiative to rezone the Crest View school site back to its original low density residential zoning. Visit www.savecrestview.com Email us at: Savecrestview@aol.com `4' 4 ' STATEMENT TO BE FILED BY AUTHOR OF AGRgUMENT AGAINST ADVISORY MEASURE All arguments concerning measure filed pursuant to Division 9, Chapter 3 (beginning with 9200) of the Elections Code shall be accompanied by the flowing form statement to be signed by each proponent and by each author, if different, of the argument: The undersigned proponent(s) or author(s) of the rebuttal argument against ballot measure ADVISORY MEASURE at the Special Municipal Election for the City of Huntington Beach, to be held on March 7, 2000, hereby state that the argument is true and correct to the best of their knowledge and belief. kCvl.4yuy ' Date o uv-� !-le j 4 i`l Connie Boardman, Crest View United-Huntington Beach Tomorrow Date ,,/ f 7 ZZ David Sullivan, Huntington Beach City Councilman Date /i i ?A'�� Robert Cronk, Crest View United 4 Date l/ f 7 Barbara Boskovich, Crest View United Date % ^c J Scott, South Huntington Beach Community Activist t; -1 J 1 A0-14 t,-1H November i 1999 Councilmember Ralph Bauer 16511 Cotuit Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Dear Councilmember Bauer: Find enclosed the direct argument from Robert Cronk, against the following Advisory Measure: ADVISORY VOTE ONLY. Shall 50% of the sales tax income from the Crest View site be spent to acquire, develop, improve, maintain sports fields for soccer, football, softball, baseball, and other sports; replace restrooms, bicycle/pedestrian trails, lighting, and showers on city beach; acquire senior center site; develop swim complex, and improve neighborhood parks and tot lots? Which was received by my office on November a, 1999. Please note that rebuttals are due in my office on November 29, 1999 during normal office hours, as posted. Sincerely, Connie Brockway, CMC City Clerk CB:jh enclosure g:/cbmemos/99-242jh STATEMENT TO BE FILED BY AUTHOR OF ARGUMENT AGAINST ADVISORY MEASURE All arguments concerning measure filed pursuant to Division 9, Chapter 3 (beginning with 9200) of the Elections Code shall be accompanied by the flowing form statement to be signed by each proponent and by each author, if different, of the argument: the undersigned proponent(s) or author(s) of the rebuttal argument against ballot measure ADVISORY MEASURE at the Special Municipal Election for the City of Huntington Beach, to be held on March 7, 2000, hereby state that the argument is true and correct to the best of their knowledge and belief. `J1J9titJ u/, �%Z/` Date Connie Boardman, Crest View United-Huntington Beach Tomorrow Date 12 David Sullivan, Huntington Beach City Councilman DateXXE Robert Cronk, Crest View United f � Date Barbara Boskovich, Crest View United �.a Date ,`..M aiscott, South Huntington Beach Community Activist The Council majority has placed this Measure before you in an attempt to influence your vote on the Crest View site. This"Advisory Measure," is a sham,that the majority on the City Council concocted to deny us the right to a special election to decide the best use of the Crest View School site. The people of the city gathered enough signatures to place the Crest View initiative on the ballot during a special election. The citizen's initiative rezones the Crest View School site to its original zoning - low density residential. The site is not appropriate for Wal-Mart or any big box retailer. The special election should have been held in December 1999 or January 2000. The only way the council could delay the vote until March was to place another issue on the ballot. This"Advisory Measure"is that sham. The City Council majority believes they have a better chance of defeating the citizen's initiative now during the primary election than during a special election. This way, the Crest View initiative is buried in with all the other propositions on the ballot, rather than being the only issue. Your vote on this "Advisory Measure" does not have the power to direct the City Council to do anything. Do you believe the majority on this City Council actually listens to the people of Huntington Beach?If the Council really cared about what the voters want then why isn't the result of this measure binding on the Council?The Council majority has manipulated the democratic process in an attempt to get their way. Don't be misled, Vote YES on the citizen's initiative to rezone the Crest View school site back to its original low density residential zoning. Visit www.savecrestview.com Email us at: Savecrestview@aoLcom =, ,, ., ' : '; 0 m �.- r Argument in favor of Initiative Measure We would all agree that Huntington Beach has been having a tough time as of late. And that there have been lots of changes too. Unfortunately some of those changes have not been for the better. In fact, some of those changes have been down right hurtful. Take the proposed Crest View Retail Pro1ect for example. Over 22,500 of Huntington Beach's registered voters have asked OUR City Council to reverse it's decision to move forward on a Wal-Mart in a residential neighborhood. They didn't. We asked the City Council to consider other projects that weren't as destructive, that would raise more funds for our schools, create good paying jobs, and bring in more taxes. They won't. The Council claims that Wal-Mart's 145,000 square-foot building will bring in $400,000 per year for 25 years. But why did they turn down a project that would have brought in $568,000 per year for. 30 years? Or one involving a grocery store that would have given our schools $864,000 per year? The council also claims that this Aircraft Carrier sized Wal-Mart will generate $400,000 in annual tax dollars. Yet, research by the Planning Commission Chairman showed the income would be less / than half the cities estimate. That's Strange If building a Wal-Mart isn't about taxes, or better schools, or a better Huntington Beach, don't we have to wonder, what IS it about? It is clear that it is-time we take back our City. Good things can come from hard times. If we stand together we can make OUR Huntington Beach a better place to live, to go to school, to play, to work. Lets fight together for a Huntington Beach worth living in. Visit www.savecrestview.com Vote YES on Measure The undersigned proponents or authors of the primary argument in favor of ballot measure INTTIA'TIVE MEASURE at the Special municipal Election for the City of Huntington Beach, to be held on March 7, 2000, hereby state that the argument is true and correct to the best of their knowledge and belief. t � '✓�. Date NC 2tl'L 17 l g51 Connie Boardman, Crest View United- Huntington Beach Tomorrow Date �'°���-�-�. /7 /yfl. David Sullivan, Huntington Beach City Councilman Date 171 �99` Sallie E. Dashiell, Huntington Beach High School District Trustee Date (!hnScott, South Huntington Beach Community Activist Date Sally Nielsen, Ocean View School District Teacher, Retired ,. ,; 1'qr } . The undersigned proponents or authors of the primary argument in favor of ballot measure INITIATIVE MEASURE at the Special municipal Election for the City of Huntington Beach,to be held on March 7, 2000,hereby state that the argument is true and correct to the best of their knowledge and belief. '►`�B -� Date Connie Boardman, Crest View United - Huntington Beach Tomorrow Date David Sullivan, Huntington Beach City Councilman Date Sallie E.Dashiell,Huntington Beach High School District Trustee p Date _ Jo Scott, South Huntington Beach Community Activist Date// Sally Nielsen, Ocean View School District Teacher, Retired We would all agree that Huntington Beach has been having a tough time as of late. And that there have been lots of changes too. Unfortunately some of those changes have not been for the better. In fact, some of those changes have been down right hurtful. Take the proposed Crest View Retail Project for example. Over 22,500 of Huntington Beach's registered voters have asked OUR City Council to reverse it's decision to move forward on a Wal-Mart in a residential neighborhood. They didn't. We asked the City Council to consider other projects that weren't as destructive,,that would raise more funds for our schools, create good paying jobs, and bring in more taxes. They won't. The Council claims that Wal-Mart's 145,000 square-foot building will bring in$400,000 per year for 25 years. But why did they turn down a project that would have brought in$568,000 per year for 30 years?Or one involving a grocery store that would have given our schools $864,000 per year? The council also claims that this Aircraft Carrier sized Wal-Mart will generate $400,000 in annual tax dollars. Yet, research by the Planning Commission Chairman showed the income would be less than half the cities estimate. That's Strange If building a Wal-Mart isn't about taxes, or better schools, or a better Huntington Beach, don't we have to wonder, what IS it about? It is clear that it is time we take back our City. Good things can come from hard times. If we stand together we can make OUR Huntington Beach a better place to live, to go to school, to play, to work. Lets fight together for a Huntington Beach worth living in. Visit www.savecrestview.com Vote YES on Measure_. November 19, 1999 Councilmember Ralph Bauer 16511 Cotuit Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Dear Councilmember Bauer: Find enclosed the direct argument from Robert Cronk, in favor of the following Initiative Measure: Shall the Ordinance to change the General Plan Designation of the Crest View School site from CG-F1 (Commercial General with a maximum floor area ratio of 0.35) to RL-7 (Residential with a maximum of 7 dwelling units per net acre), and to change the Zoning Designation of the Crest View School site from CG (Commercial General) to R-L (Low Density Residential) be adopted? Which was received by my office on November--a, 1999. Please note that rebuttals are due in my office on November 29, 1999 during normal office hours, as posted. Sincerely, Connie Brockway, CMC City Clerk CB: jh enclosure g:/cbmemos/99-241 j h.doc J 47 ' dfiv 0 ARGUMENT AGAINST INITIATIVE TO REZONE CRESTVIEW SITE FROM COlV11NIERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL "NO" vote on Measure continues commercial zoning on the Talbert- Beach site. Commercial zoning guarantees that the Ocean View School District will get desperately needed funds to fix leaky roofs, heating, air conditioning, other repairs, and to purchase computers and technology upgrades. By law, the money cannot be spent on teachers or administrator's salaries. A "NO" vote will benefit children with no new taxes. A "NO" vote gives an annual income of over $400,000 to the City of Huntington Beach. This money will be spent on our needs for kids, seniors, and public safety including money for police services, youth sports, repair and maintenance of our infrastructure, senior citizen programs, and improvements to our beaches and parks. WE WILL ENJOY THESE BENEFITS WITH NO INCREASE IN TAXES, IF YOU VOTE "NO" ON MEASURE PLEASE, KEEP YOUR TAX DOLLARS IN HUNTINGTON BEACH. Huntington Beach loses $87 million annually in merchandise sales to places like Westminster Mall, Costco in Fountain Valley, Fashion Island in Newport Beach, and South Coast Plaza in Costa Mesa. Huntington Beach lost Price Club (now Costco) to Fountain Valley and the Mall to Westminster. VOTE NO; LET'S NOT LOSE THIS ONE TOO. The Ocean View School District supported commercial zoning on this site knowing that they have several other school sites available should enrollment increase. The Lessee of the site, Wal-Mart, has looked extensively for other locations. None are suitable for their needs. Huntington Center is not available since those owners will begin rebuilding soon and have long term contractual arrangements with other tenants. A "NO" vote means better schools for our children and better services to the residents of Huntington Beach with NO NEW TAXES to the residents of our city. V a �. CITY OF HUNTINGTON 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY CITY CLERK STATEMENT TO BE FILED BY AUTHOR OF ARGUMENT AGAINST INITIATIVE MEASURE All arguments concerning measure filed pursuant to Division 9, Chapter 3 (beginning with § 9200) of the Elections Code shall be accompanied by the following form statement to be signed by each proponent and by each author, if different, of the argument: The undersigned proponent(s) or author(s) of the rebuttal argument against ballot measure INITIATIVE MEASURE at the Special Municipal Election for the City of Huntington Beach, to be held on March 7, 2000, hereby state that the argument is true and correct to the best of their knowledge and belief. S' ame Print Name Date P*64e,� ®Ceara V%.iW . f r3 ✓l c � L r, > g:election/2000finiti2tive/form of statement—initiative-against.doc (Telephone:714-536.5227) J. CITY OF HUNTINGTON 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY CRY CLERK STATEMENT TO BE FILED BY AUTHOR OF ARGUMENT AGAINST INITIATIVE MEASURE All arguments concerning measure filed pursuant to Division 9, Chapter 3 (beginning with § 9200) of the Elections Code shall be accompanied by the following form statement to be signed by each proponent and by each author, if different, of the argument: The undersigned proponent(s) or author(s) of the rebuttal argument against ballot measure INITIATIVE MEASURE at the Special Municipal Election for the City of Huntington Beach, to be held on March 7, 2000, hereby state that the argument is true and correct to the best of their knowledge and belief. Sign Name Print Name Date �Z/j LP/4 2zi �o.tNSar �k-Jt flue lG,�l.S r i g:electioni2000rinitiative/form of statement—initiative-against.doc (Telephone:714-536-5227) IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS BY CITY ATTORNEY FULL TEXT OF MEASURE I MEASURE I INITIATIVE TO AMEND ZONING AND.GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH OF CREST VIEW SCHOOL SITE TO PROHIBIT COMMERCIAL This ballot measure is an initiative ordinance that would amend the City's DEVELOPMENT AND PERMIT RESIDENTIAL USES ONLY. General Plan and Zoning Ordinance as it pertains to the Crest View School The People of the City of Huntington Beach do ordain as follows: site. The General Plan designation for the site would be changed from 1.The Land Use Element of the City's General Plan is hereby amended to CG+1 (Commercial General with a maximum floor area ratio of 0.35) to change the general plan designation for the 13.89 acre site located on RL-7 (Residential with a maximum of 7 dwelling units per net acre). The the South side of Talbert Avenue described in City Council Resolution zoning designation of the site would be changed from CG (Commercial 98-95 from CG-F1 (Commercial General with a maximum floor area ratio General) to RL(Low Density Residential).These changes limit the future of 0.35)to RL-7(residential with a maximum of 7 dwelling units per net development of the site to low density residential uses.A vote of the people acre). would be required in order to change the general plan and zoning designations of the site from those provided by this measure. If this 2. The City s Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance is hereby amended by measure is adopted,and a court later invalidates a portion of the measure, amending District Map 40(Sectional District Map 36-5-11)to rezone the that portion shall be severed and have no effect on the remainder of the property described above from CG (General Commercial)to R-L(Low measure. Density Residential). 3.The above may not be amended except by vote of the people. 4.Should any provision or application of the above be invalidated by a court of law, it shall be severed and have no effect on the remainder of this ordinance. ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE i REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE I We would all agree that Huntington Beach has been having a tough time as A"NO"vote on Measure I keeps the Crest View Site commercial.A"NO" of late. vote on Measure I produces an income to the school district of$68 million in And that there have been lots of changes too. lease payments and matching funds. This money, by law, cannot go to teachers or administrators salaries.It goes to kids. Unfortunately some of those changes have not been for the better.In fact, A"NO"vote on Measure I means the school district will retain title to the some of those changes have been down right hurtful. land,it cannot be sold for high-density residential tracts. Take the proposed Crest View Retail Project for example. A "NO" vote on Measure I guarantees the city will earn over $400,000 Over 22,500 of Huntington Beach's registered voters have asked OUR City annually for police protection, paramedics, youth sports, parks, libraries, Council to reverse it's decision to move forward on a Wal-Mart in a beaches,and for seniors. residential neighborhood. A"NO"vote on Measure I means NO tax increase. They didn't. A"NO"vote on Measure I says we don't lose another opportunity like we lost We asked the City Council to consider other projects that weren't as when the Price Club(now Costco)moved to Fountain Valley. destructive,that would raise more funds for our schools,create good paying A"NO"vote on Measure 1 supplies 300 new local jobs. jobs,and bring in more taxes. They won't. A "NO" vote means $100 million, a combination of lease payments, matching funds,sales taxes,and property tax,to the children and citizens of The Council claims that Wal-Mart's 145,000 square-foot building will bring Huntington Beach with no tax increases to us. in$400,000 per year for 25 years. National respected experts have verified these facts. But why did they turn down a project that would have brought in$568,000 Join us in votingNO"on Measure I.It helps us all. per year for 30 years? Or one involving a grocery store that would have " p given our schools$864,000 per year,? The council also claims that this Aircraft Carrier sized Wal-Mart will s/Dave Garofalo,Mayor generate$400,000 in annual tax dollars. s/Shirley S.Dettloff,Councilmember Yet, research by the Planning Commission Chairman showed the income s/Fred J.Speaker,Chairman,Planning Commission would be less than half the cty's estimate.That's Strange s/Pam Walker,President,Ocean View School District s/Chuck Beauregard,Fcunder,Save Our Kids If building a Wal-Mart isn't about taxes, or better schools, or a better Huntington Beach,don't we have to wonder,what IS it about? It is clear that it is time we take back our City. Good things can come from hard times.If we stand together we can make OUR Huntington Beach a better place to live,to go to school, to play,to work. Let's fight together for a Huntington Beach worth living in. Visit wwwsavecrestview.com ' Vote YES on Measure 1. s/Connie Boardman,Crest View United—Huntington Beach Tomorrow s/Dave Sullivan,Huntington Beach City Councilman 12 2�//�� s/Sallie E.Dashiell,Huntington Beach High School District Trustee 0 s/John F.Scott,South Huntington Beach Community Activist s/Sally Nielsen,Ocean View School District Teacher,Retired 30-14 ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE I REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE I "NO"vote on Measure I continues commercial zoning on the Talbert-Beach A YES vote on Initiative Measure 1 will rezone the Crest View School site to site.Commercial zoning guarantees that the Ocean View School District will residential use. The sale of this property at today's value of almost$10 get desperately needed funds to fix leaky roofs, heating,air conditioning, million will qualify the OVSD for an additional$27 million in State matching other repairs,and to purchase computers and technology upgrades.By law, funds.Therefore,a YES vote on Initiative Measure 1 will result in a total of the money cannot be spent on teachers or administrator's salaries.A"NO" $37 million going immediately to the district. This is enough to do all the vote will benefit children with no new taxes. needed repairs and upgrades AND ESTABLISH A LARGE RESERVE A "NO" vote gives an annual income of over $400,000 to the City of FUND.The Wal-Mart plan limits the District to an annual income starting at Huntington Beach.This money will be spent on our needs for kids,seniors, only$400,000 dollars. and public safety including money for police services,youth sports,repair The project will produce LESS THAN HALF the income projected. Is that and maintenance of our infrastructure, senior citizen programs, and enough money to justify destroying an area of our city with traffic gridlock? improvements to our beaches and parks. WE WILL ENJOY THESE Can the Council majority be trusted to use the meager profits for youth and BENEFITS WITH NO INCREASE IN TAXES, IF YOU VOTE "NO" ON seniors? No!These are the same empty promises that are used in every MEASURE I. election. PLEASE, KEEP YOUR TAX DOLLARS IN HUNTINGTON BEACH. If the public wants a Wal-Mart, the proper location is at the Huntington Huntington Beach loses$87 million annually in merchandise sales to places Center.There is no reason that a Wal-Mart could not go in this nearly vacant like Westminster Mail,Costco in Fountain Valley,Fashion Island in Newport mall. Beach,and South Coast Plaza in Costa Mesa.Huntington Beach lost Price Don't be fooled by the"no new taxes"deception.Due to Propositions 13 and Club(now Costco)to Fountain Valley and the Mall to Westminster.VOTE 218,only YOU the voter can increase local taxes. NO;LETS NOT LOSE THIS ONE TOO. The Ocean View School District supported commercial zoning on this site Vote YES on Measure I and Vote NO on Advisory Measure J. knowing that they have several other school sites available should enrollment increase. The Lessee of the site, Wal-Mart, has looked . s/Peter Green,Mayor,Huntington Beach City Council extensively for other locations. None are suitable for their needs. s/Debbie Cook,Environmental Attorney,Author of Measure C Huntington Center is not available since those owners will begin rebuilding s/Bob Biddle,Huntington Beach Planning Commissioner soon and have long term contractual arrangements with other tenants. s/John Jankowski,Member,Council on Aging A"NO"vote means better schools for our children and better services to the s/Marvin Josephson,Crest View United residents of Huntington Beach with NO NEW TAXES to the residents of our city. s/Pam Walker,President,Ocean View School District s/Robert L.Traver,Chairman of Board of Chamber of Commerce s/Ralph H.Bauer,Council Member,Former Mayor s/Chuck Beauregard,Founder Save Our Kids s/Pat Davis,Senior Citizen Advocate i i ;�,_5 30-15 16Av(Lye;S a� 'IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS BY CITY ATTORNEY It MEASURE J N Z CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH The question of whether 50%of the sales tax income from the Crest View site should be spent on certain specific items is advisory only.The vote is not binding but serves merely to help the City of Huntington Beach gauge public support.The City Council may take whatever action it desires,or no action, regardless of the vote.Should the Council take action,it is not limited to the question as presented,and it may alter anything if it chooses to do so. ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE J REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE J MEASURE J is an advisory vote.A"NO"vote on Measure I would enable THIS HASTILY DRAWN MEASURE REEKS OF SHADY, BACK-DOOR the residents of Huntington Beach to benefit from about$400,000 of new POLITICKING. O.C. Weekly has revealed that the developer of the sales and property tax per year.Your"NO"vote on Companion Measure I proposed Wal-Mart has invested$100,000 in a Huntington Beach bank— would then allow local government to allocate those dollars to activities and the very same bank in which 3 City Council members are shareholders. groups mentioned in this advisory measure. These same 3 City Council members approved this project and opposed the A "NO" vote on Companion Measure I, would continue the commercial citizen's measure. zoning on the Talbert-Beach site and benefit children, seniors, and other This advisory measure has been placed on the ballot by the Council majority related groups on a city-wide basis without a tax increase to local residents. only to deceive the voters.A YES vote on companion Measure I WILL NOT Please help us help the kids and the seniors and the rest of this community result in a tax increase.Propositions 13 and 218 insure that ONLY you,the benefit from this windfall income to both the schools and the city.NO NEW voter,can raise local taxes. TAXES,VOTE'NO'ON COMPANION MEASURE I. The City Council does not need your approval to spend money on youth sports and seniors. That power has always belonged to them. This isn't about youth sports or seniors.Rather,these are the same empty promises s/Tracy Pellman,School Board Member that are used in every election to defeat the hard work of the voting public. s/Shirley Dettloff,City Council Member,Former Mayor But the most repulsive aspect of this Advisory Measure is its intent to s/Thomas A.Shaw,Fire Captain confuse voters.Don't be fooled. s/William T.Borden,Sr.,Free Lance Writer Huntington Beach Wave s/Pam Julien,City Council Member Vote YES on Measure I and NO on Advisory Measure J. s/Peter Green,Mayor,Huntington Beach City Council s/Debbie Cook,Environmental Attorney,Author of Measure C s/Bob Biddle,Huntington Beach Planning Commissioner s/John W.Jankowski,Member,Council on Aging s/Marvin Josephson,Crest View United ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE J REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE J The Council majority has placed this Measure before you in an attempt to A"NO"vote on Measure I to rezone the Crest View Site from commercial to influence your vote on the Crest View site.This"Advisory Measure,"is a residential, will guarantee that the sales tax income from the commercial sham,that the majority on the City Council concocted to deny us the right to operation will go to youth sports, seniors, police protection; paramedics, a special election to decide the best use of the Crest View School site. parks,libraries,beaches,infrastructure,and all the things that enhance our The people of the city gathered enough signatures to place the Crest View quality of life. initiative on the ballot during a special election. The citizen's initiative Join us by voting"NO"on Measure I and not rezone the Crest View Site to rezones the Crest View School site to its original zoning - low density residential,so public benefits on the Advisory Vote can have a chance. residential.The site is not appropriate for Wal-Mart or any big box retailer. The special election should have been held in December 1999 or January s/Dave Garofalo,Mayor 2000.The only way the council could delay the vote until March was to place s/Bill Borden,Free Lance Writer another issue on the ballot.This"Advisory Measure"is that sham.The City s/Tracy Pellman,OVSD School Board Member Council majority believes they have a better chance of defeating the s/Ed Laird,Advisory Chair Orange County Council Boy Scouts of America citizen's initiative now during the primary election than during a special s/Pat Davis,Senior Advocate election. This way, the Crest View initiative is buried in with all the other propositions on the ballot,rather than being the only issue. Your vote on this"Advisory Measure"does not have the power to direct the City Council to do anything.Do you believe the majority on this City Council actually listens to the people of Huntington Beach? If the Council really cared about what the voters want then why isn't the result of this measure binding on the Council? The Council majority has manipulated the democratic process in an attempt to get their way. Don't be misled,Vote YES on the citizen's initiative to rezone the Crest View school site back to its original low density residential zoning. -- Visit www.savecrestview.com Email us at:Savecrestview@aol.com s/Connie Boardman,Crest View United-Huntington Beach Tomorrow s/Dave Sullivan,Huntington Beach City Councilman 12 s/Robert Cronk,Crest View United _12- s/Barbara Boskovich,Crest View United g GJ s/John F.Scott,South Huntington Beach Community Activist / 30-16 a, C Q O(C C�ICQLJ 'Q�C��®Q [BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 O FF9C E OF THE CO TIY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY CITY CLERK January 25, 2000 To Whom It May Concern: Re: Direct/Rebuttal Arguments to Measure I on the March 7, 2000 Ballot In accordance with Elections Code Article 6, Section 9295, the direct/rebuttal arguments to Measure I on the March 7, 2000 ballot were made available by the Office of the City Clerk for public examination for not less than 10-calendar-days. (Telephone:714-536.5227 KANE, BALLMCER 8o BERKMCAN A LAW CORPORATION 515 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET, SUITE 1850 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071 TELEPHONE (213) 617-0480 MURRAY O. KANE FAX (213) 625-0931 ROBERT P. BERKMAN BRUCE D. BALLMER RETIRED GLENN F. WASSERMAN R. BRUCE TEPPER, JR. EUGENE B. JACOBS JOSEPH W. PANNONE December 27 1999 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ROYCE K. JONES OF COUNSEL STEPHANIE R. SCHER J U N E AILIN MICHAEL J. KARGER PRINCIPALS Connie Brockway +� City Clerk City of Huntington Beach ` 2000 Main Street ` a... Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Ms. Brockway: t You have asked for an opinion as to whether at least one of the persons signing arebtittal argument to an initiative must be the same as a person who signed the argument in favor of, or against, the initiative and whether this would apply to an advisory measure as well. It is our opinion that the law imposes no such requirement on either initiatives or advisory measures. California Elections Code §9219 (all code sections herein refer to the Elections Code) sets forth the requirements for ballot arguments for and against an initiative. The section states that persons filing an initiative may file written arguments in favor of the ordinance and the legislative body may submit an argument against it. Section 9220(a)provides that if the legislative body submits an argument against, "it shall immediately send copies of the argument to the persons filing the initiative petition [who] may prepare and submit a rebuttal argument... [and] the legislative body may prepare and submit a rebuttal to the argument in favor of the ordinance." The issue presented relates to Initiative Measure I in which the proponents of the measure (Connie Boardman, Dave Sullivan, Sallie E. Dashiell, John F. Scott, and Sally Nielsen) signed the ballot argument in favor of that Measure. The argument against Measure I was sent to the proponents and a Rebuttal to Argument Against Measure I was submitted, but it was signed by five different persons (Peter Green, Debbie Cook, Bob Biddle, John Jankowski, and Marvin Josephson). As stated above, Elections Code §9220 states that"[t]he persons filing the initiative petition may prepare and submit a rebuttal argument" and this could be read to mean that if the persons signing the rebuttal are not the persons listed as proponents, they could not submit such a rebuttal. .In this case;no one else attempted to submit a rebuttal argument. Connie Brockway December 27, 1999 Page 2 The case of Ferrara v. Belanger(1976) 18 Cal.3d 253, 133 Cal.Rptr. 849 is instructive. This case, decided by the California Supreme Court, involved an interpretation of an Elections Code section, since amended and recodified as Elections Code §9219, which provided that "persons filing an initiative petition...may file with the petition a written argument in favor of the ordinance." The city clerk refused to accept the two "pro" arguments filed in favor of the ordinance because they were not filed with the petition as well as because they were not filed by proponents of the measure. The Supreme Court found that the city clerk had misinterpreted the Code because the section was permissive rather than mandatory, finding that"[t]he section nowhere provides that a failure to file a ballot argument at the very outset of the initiative process necessarily precludes a proponent from thereafter filing a ballot argument. Similarly, the section contains no language prohibiting a nonproponent from filing a ballot argument in favor of the measure. Accordingly, from the statutory phraseology itself, the section appears simply to constitute an authorizing provision, establishing the right of an initiative proponent to file a ballot argument in its favor" Id. at 262, 133 Cal.Rptr. at 855. The Court went on to examine the legislative history of the provision which was first adopted as part of the initial initiative legislation enacted in 1911, which provided that it was "to be liberally construed for the purpose of ascertaining and enforcing the will of the electors." The Court found that such a liberal construction means the section"should not be interpreted so as to create rigid procedural barriers preventing the filing of ballot arguments in favor of initiative measures", and quoting approvingly an earlier Supreme Court case holding the essential purpose of[ballot argument] provisions is to give the voters information concerning the measures on the ballot...'[T]o fulfill the lofty purposes of the initiative process voters must have the benefit of both the `pro' and `con' ballot arguments in reaching a decision as to how they will cast their votes. To achieve this goal, all of the comprehensive ballot argument procedures afford those who support a measure, but who are not formal proponents, an opportunity to submit a ballot argument in the event that the proponents of the measure fail to do so. Nothing in either the history or language of[the] section...remotely suggests that the Legislature, in adopting the broad initiative reforms in 1911, intended to preclude such input into the initiative process. Id. It is our opinion that the reasoning in Ferrara should be applied to the case presented to us concerning the Huntington Beach ballot measure. The rebuttal to the argument against Measure I was the only one submitted by the proponents. To refuse to place it in the sample ballot because it was not signed by at least one of the persons who signed the argument in favor of the measure would be contrary to the liberal construction of initiative statutes and would thwart the essential purpose of the provisions,which is to give the voters information. Connie Brockway December 27, 1999 Page 3 Likewise, the same rationale prevails with respect to the arguments regarding advisory Measure J, in which the names of the persons signing the Argument Against Measure J do not match those signing the Rebuttal To Argument In Favor Of Measure J. Although the sections regarding the submittal of ballot arguments for this measure is contained in a different part of the Elections Code (Section 9280, et. seq.) the provisions are almost identical to those cited above. Section 9285 permits "persons filing the argument in favor of the city measure may prepare and submit a rebuttal argument" and"persons filing the argument against the city measure...may prepare and submit a rebuttal to the argument in favor of the city measure." The Ferrara court's holding applies to Measure J, for to withhold the argument from the voters would thwart the intent of the Legislature and the purpose behind the provisions. It is our opinion that the questioned arguments should be accepted and printed as part of the sample ballot. Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned should you need any further information. Very truly yours, KANE, BALLMER&BERKMAN q"—, Michael J. arger cc: City Attorney REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT FILED IN FAVOR OF INITIATIVE MEASURE R i F REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT FOR INITIATIVE A"NO" vote on Measure :1 keeps the Crest View Site commercial. A"NO" vote on Measure I produces an income to the school district of$68 million in lease payments and matching funds. This money, by law, cannot go to teachers or administrators salaries. It goes to kids. A`PTO"vote on Measure means the school district will retain title to the land, it cannot be sold for high-density residential tracts. A"NO"vote on Measure 1 guarantees the city will earn over $400,000 annually for police protection, paramedics, youth sports, parks, libraries, beaches, and for seniors. A"NO" vote on Measure 1 means NO tax increase. A"NO" vote on Measure says we don't lose another opportunity like we lost when the Price Club (now Costco) moved to Fountain Valley. A"NO" vote on Measure Z supplies 300 new local jobs. A"NO" vote means $100 million, a combination of lease payments, matching funds, sales taxes, and property tax,to the children and citizens of Huntington Beach with no tax increases to us. National respected experts have verified these facts. Join us in voting "NO" on Measure It helps us all. 08/22/1994 03:59 1145463907 RALPH H BAIJER PAGE 01 FORM OF STATEMENT TO BE FILED BY AUTHOR OF ARGUMENT All arguments concerning measures filed pursuant to Division 9, Chapter 3 (beginning with § 9200)of the Elections Code shall be accompanied by the following hwri statement to be signed by each proponent and by each author, if different, of the arourne:rit: r�✓-' �}J, ' The undersigned proponent(s)or author(s)of the ( lrebutta[)argument,(in favor aqagainst) ballot proposition (name or number)at the(title of election)election for the (jurisdiction) to be held on _, 19_hereby state that the argument is true and correct to the best of(his/herlthelr) know[edge end belief. Sign Name Print Name Date G, lc'Sr' Pr1 1 ?eez'7 ie 615'1 rs/Y Have authors sign this form AND the- opww44� Rebuttal § 9600, E.C. Statement of Authors of Arguments Form 10 Martin&Chapman Co,,r 1951 Wright Circle*Anahaim,CA 92806-6028 7141939-9866.Fax 7114/939-9870 (DL/4 E:V.tWlr ttSty y0800(\i"74M30.49) 10 REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT FILED AGAINST INITIATIVE MEASURE A YES vote on Initiative Measure will rezone the Crest View School site to residential use. The sale of this property at today's value of almost $10 million will qualify the OVSD for an additional $27 million in State matching funds. Therefore, a YES vote on Initiative Measure T will result in a total of $37 million going immediately to the district. This is enough to do all the needed repairs and upgrades AND ESTABLISH A LARGE RESERVE FUND. The Wal-Mart plan limits the District to an annual income starting at only $400,000 dollars. The project will produce LESS THAN HALF the income projected. Is that enough money to justify destroying an area of our city with traffic gridlock? Can the Council majority be trusted to use the meager profits for youth and seniors? No! These are the same empty promises that are used in every election. If the public wants a Wal-Mart, the proper location is at the Huntington Center. There is no reason that a Wal-Mart could not go in this nearly vacant mall. Don't be fooled by the "no new taxes" deception. Due to Propositions 13 and 218, only YOU the voter can increase local taxes. Vote YES on Measure and Vote NO on Advisory Measure ; ,, H The undersigned proponents or authors of the rebuttal argument in favor of ballot measure INITIATIVE MEASURE at the Special Municipal Election for the City of Huntington Beach, to be held on March 7, 2000, hereby state that the rebuttal is true and correct to the best of their knowledge and belief. Date z Peter Green, Mayor, Huntington Beach City Council �J Date Debbie Cook, Environmental Attorney, Author of Measure C V14- Date Bob Biddle, Huntington Beach Planning Commissioner Date John Jankowski, Member, Council on Aging Date Marvin Josephson, Crest View United REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT FILED AGAINST ADVISORY MEASURE REBUTTAL, TO ADVISORY VOTE A"NO" vote on Measure :1 to rezone the Crest View Site from commercial to residential, will guarantee that the sales tax income from the commercial operation will go to youth sports, seniors, police protection; paramedics, parks, libraries, beaches, infrastructure, and all the things that enhance our quality of life. Join us by voting "NO" on Measure T and not rezone the Crest View Site to residential, so public benefits on the Advisory Vote can have a chance. �f ry -a 1-Y 'Y 08/22/1994 04:00 7148468907. RALPH H BAUER PAGE 03 FORM OF STATEMENT TO BE FILED BY AUTHOR OF ARGUMENT Ali arguments concerning moasures filed pursuant to Division 9, Chapter 3 (beginning with 9200) of the Elections Code shall be accompanied by the following form statement to be signed lay each proponent and by each author, if different, of the argument, (Vatgag I K-Ir 0(1, The undersigned proponent ponent (s) a.-author(s)of the(wry/rebuttal}proposition(name or number)at the, (title of election)election for the {jurisdiction) to beheld on 19—hereby state that the argument is true and correct to the best of (hisfher.lthelr) knowledge and belief, Sign Name Print Name Date (Oa A_ C� &Az aQ c7 1 I 2-4 Ci C3 rD�n .4 MAN & c-24 9 oa y-D Wlek ww—f -Y -COLA -r!�'50 C)� e3 Have authors sign this form AND the Apglum *4-*A4 Rebuttal §9800, E.C. Statement of Authors of Arguments Form 10 Martin&Chapman Co.x 1951 Wright Circle Anaheim,CA 92806-6028 7141939-9860*Fax 7141939411870 00 1 bft�ENk"NVAU%4M0ft50K\1~FS6,W9j R — 10 REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT FILED IN FAVOR OF ADVISORY MEASURE THIS HASTILY DRAWN MEASURE REEKS OF SHADY, BACK-DOOR POLITICKING. O.C. Weekly has revealed that the developer of the proposed Wal-Mart has invested $100,000 in a Huntington Beach bank — the very same bank in which 3 City Council members are shareholders. These same 3 City Council members approved this project and opposed the citizen's measure. This advisory measure has been placed on the ballot by the Council majority only to deceive the voters. A YES vote on companion Measure 1- WILL NOT result in a tax increase. Propositions 13 and 218 insure that ONLY you, the voter, can raise local taxes. The City Council does not need your approval to spend money on youth sports and seniors. That power has always belonged to them. This isn't about youth sports or seniors. Rather, these are the same empty promises that are used in every election to defeat the hard work of the voting public. But the most repulsive aspect of this Advisory Measure is its intent to confuse voters. Don't be fooled. Vote YES on Measure I and NO on Advisory Measure �l A.i J ri:s l i The undersigned proponents or authors of the rebuttal argument against ballot measure ADVISORY MEASURE at the Special Municipal Election for the City of Huntington Beach, to be held on March 7, 2000, hereby state that the rebuttal is true and correct to the best of their knowledge and belief. Date `- Peter Green, Mayor, Huntington Beach City Council Date Debbie Cook, Environmental .Attorney, Author of Measure C �� Date Bob Biddle, Huntington Beach Planning Commissioner = Date Cv John Jankowski, Member, Council on Aging Date -f/p Marvin Josephson, Crest View United C], Gij,70WBEA SPECI�4L�9UP�ICOPi4L ELECTION N0710E IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Spec�lunicipat Ei 'ction wtll'be held in the City of Huntington on Tuesday,Marc#t 7&2000 r the fodowingWleasures s one measure;as follows w, ,', PROOF F P U B LI shau the ordrnance to c tange the General Plan Desi Hatto n of the Crest w School_site ftoiri CG F1 YES fin, e 'tit; with a rliawrrtutn flopr area ratfo�of 0 35):#o RL 7{Residential vu�th a maximurtt of dwel4ng STATE O F C,A.LI F O R units per net acre) atci to cxtange the 2ornng' l3esignation of the Crest Vew School site from CG (t;omnereiat General)to R!;(Low Density Resideriha!) NO be adopted County of Orange � t _ This ballot measure is=an mrtiaUve ordinance that would amend the City's Generai`Plan and Zoning I a m a Citizen of the Ur Ordinan ce as d pertains to the:Grest view School site The General Planeign3twn forltie site uyould L. r be changed from CG F1 (Commercal General with a maxunum floor area ratio of 0 35j to RL 7 resident Of the e County (Resenbd with a maximum of 7 dweNing units per net ) h ioningdesigrtatton of thesite+nrouid be changed from CG {Commercial General)to RL(Low pensrty.Reidentraij These changEs limit the over the age of eighteen future development of the sae to tow density residenUai uses A vote of the people would be required party t0 or i n to reste ceder to dtange the generalplan acxf zoning designations of the .,ite from those provided by�tiisa measure #this measure> adopted sand a court latel mvandates_a portion of the measure that pprtwrr� entitled matter. I am a shall be severed and have no effect on the remainder ofthe measure the HUNTINGTON BEAC newspaper of g�n eral c one Advisory measure as fcuows f a n d published in the C ADVISORY SOT E aRiLY sl,an so�ipyof the sales vEs Beach, C O u n p f income from fine Crest View site be spent#o ficqutre develop improve maintain sports fields for soccer s California, and that att football softbau baseball avid other sports r77 eplace true and complete CO restrooms bicjrde/pedestrian-trails lighting,and sho,e►ers on aty beady acgpire`senior centerde Na and published in the deve1gp swam complex and improve rieighb000d and Fountain Valley parks and toll°ts' s newspaper to wit the is = The question of whether�0%of the sales tax income from the crest view site should;be Spent oc�' cer#a+-SOP, Off asadvisogr only the vote i��ofbuadiag�uf sewes�erety-t�help th€ Huntington Beach gauge pubhc}support"'The City Council may take whatever action it desires or no actior% regardless of the vole-yShouid=theCodncil take;action 'it is not limited to the question as_ November 1 , 199 resented and it ma ,alter an p y,t ything if it ehooses=to do so" February 3 , 200 The polIs`will be open-between the hours of 7 OO a m,and 8 OQ p m Br, Connieockway 11 01 99 02 03=00 I declare, under penal "City"Clerk City ofHuntirigtonBeaeh Dated the foregoing is true an Executed on February 3 , 2000 at Costa Mesa, California. Signature CITY.017,HUN �I G ON PEACH SPECIAL MUaa(COPAL ELECTION WTI&OF ELECTION - - NOTICE IS,HEREBY GIVEN that a.Special Municipal Election will be held in the City of Huntington on Tuesday,March 7,2000,for the foilowing Measures: one measure as follows: PROOF OF PUBLIC Shallti the Ordinance to change the General"Plan / Designation of the Drest View School site from CG-F1 YES (Commercial General with`a maximum floor area ratio of. 0.35)to RL-7(Residential with a maximum of 7 dwelling STATE OF CALL FO RN I, units per net acre),and to change the,zoning Designation,of the Crest ViewSchool site from CG (Commercial General)to R-L(Low Density Residential) NO be adopted? County of Orange This ballot measure is-.an initiative ordinance that.would amend the City's General Plan and Zoning a m a Citizen of the U nl Ordinance as-it pertains to the Crest View School site.- The General Plan designsti ra on�for the site woul; be,changed from,CG-F1 (Commercial':Generat-with a maximum,floor,area tio of 0.35) to-RL= resident of the CO U n`1 (Residential with a,maximum of 7 dwelling units per net acre)..The zoning designation'of the site woul( be"changed"from Ca(Commercial General)to RL(Low Density Residential). '"These chang'"limit th( Over the age of eighteen.1 future developnient of the site to low density residential uses::"A vote of the people would be required"ii party t0 Or Interested order tb change-thwgeneral plan and_zoning designations of the=sie fromthose.-provided by thi measure., If this measure is adopted,and a covet later imralidates"a portion,of the measure, that porfioi entitled matter. I am a p shall be severed and',haveno effect on the remainder of the measure. the HUNTINGTON BEACH newspapper of general cir one Ad sarymeasure-as,fouows and p u b I is h e d in the CI ADVISORY VOTE ONLY..Shall so°/q of the sates tax YES Beach, County Of O r income from the Crest View site be spent to acquire, - - - develop improve maintain sports fields for soccer, California, and that attac fdot4aII softball t as_611 and other"sperm;replace true and Complete CO py re;tupoms bicycle/pedestrian ils,tra lighting and showers on aty beach aCGuire senior center site; NO and published in the H develop swim complex and improve ielghborhood and Fountain Valley parks and otlots? newspaper to wit the issu � � � - - P P The question of whether 50%of the sales taz income from the Crest View site should be spent on -"certain-specific-items asadvisory only.—The-vote-is not=binding butsewgs merely W betp the-City-of Huntington Beach gauge"public support: The City�Council may(ike whateveraction°if desires;or no November 1 , 1999 action;'regardless of the vote. ."Should the Council take action, it is not limited to the question as presented,and it may alter anything if it chooses to do so. February 3 , 2000 The.polls"will be open between the hours of 7:00 a.m.and 8:00 p.m. I declare under penalty /sl Connie Brockway11-01-99 & 02-03-00 City Clerk,City of Huntington Beach Dated the foregoing is true and a Executed on February 3 , 2000 at Costa Mesa, California. C Signature 69 01=`HUNT�NGT®N �EACt-1 SPECIAL MUNICIPAL E CTIOM NOTICE OF ELECTION -- NQ77GEJS iiEREBY,„GIVEN that a Speaa6 Muniapal ITtecUon wfi he held ui tti Gty of Huntington on�uesctay March 7 2000,forthi following Measyres 01te{116a$ttr@ d5 fO11QW,S 3 x - Shatl the Orcimance to change the General Plan pes�naUon of the'frrest View School sde firom CG-F1 YE$ PROOF OF PUBLICATION {cQaicec�e�aiW�tnamuntn«�rao�f z 0 35}to RL 7{Residential with a tr►axtmum of=�dwelling ands per net acre,and to change tfie Zoning Ilesgnatwn oT Crest,}(7ew School sde from CG a` � (Commerdal General]fo R-L(Low Density Resident�l) -Np STATE OF CALIFORNIA) �adopte�� x-� S S e Thin,ballot measure �:initiahve ordinance:than would a mend#he3 City's::Ggneral Plan and Zorunf Ordinance as It pertains to the Crest View School site The General Pert des�naLon for the site wouh be Banged Tram CG F1 {Commerdal General with a maximum floor an3a ratio of 0 351 to-t2L= C o u n ty of Orange (ResKien6al wRh.a maximum oT TdwPlltng ands per net acre) Ttie`mning destgnaaonof nee site iNouii bA-phanged.irom�G(Coinmerdal:Generat)-to RL(Low Oansilytesuferitial) 'Jhese;dianges Nrntt`thi future�levetopment of the site to low>ieosdy residential uses A vote of the people would be r+sgUired order to change the general Plan,and d zonhig esignations of ltie sde from those Prevtded by'thi I am a Citizen of the United States a-- -" meag�� admit ,and a counfater inva.idare$e po�on af ,e measure shag be severed and have:no effect on the remainder of the measure resident of the County aforesaid, LL over the age of eighteen years, and onegevlso neasure.aslonovirs party to O r interested I n the ADVISORY Vt3TE OPILIG.snag 5d%of fhe sales tax entitled matter. I am a rinci al cl ,' inntmeCrestvieinrsitebe'sp@rrttoacquire p p d evelopOmpnr/e mamtaiti sports fields for soccer the H UNTI N CTO N BEACH I N D EP EN D E` y football softt�all t�aseaall and othersports,rapier e ugstr oorrts bJcyglelpeds5fiart#rats I�ghtutg and newspa er of general circulation r1r sttouprersontatytieach acquiresenrorcenterade h10 PP r P develop swirri complex and artprove neighboFhood and ublished in the City of Hunt1r parks and totlois2 P tj' Beach, County of Orange, Statl The questwn of whetl�er 50%of the'sales bx income from the Crest View site shoutd;be spent pn California, and that attached Notice. �5 ��° °�'°"'y ° � '` " "ati�°h�P�eC ;of Huntington Beach gaffe putN�suppoR _ e-Cit Counc�may take whatevR ctwp rt desaes or no , true and complete copy as was pr :- °Y°� 51�''°"� 'np' era is-"°"�„�d to Presented and><may attar anyEhing d It chooses to do so and published in the Huntington and Fountain Valley issues of 7 Mi whd,:4 oopm newspaper to wit the issue(s) of: c$ lp il,ZVs th " 1J s tLA.= November 4, 1999 I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on November 4 , 1999 at Costa Mesa, California. Signature o/W�gYi6 i�.ipi/�g� t a,��/®®S,p/EP1C16D - .. Vu/L MV�W« Ili.�LGV GitItl �5 NOTICE FELECTION f iVQT10E IS i iEREBY,GIVI�N that a 5peaa!Murllcipai Electron vinll be held rn die'C of yurrtrngton on Tuesdays areh 7 ?000 for the�otbwmg A�eesures One�lteaSureaS•f011gws ` � Shall the l�rdmance to change the GeneralPlarf Designation of therest View School site from..CGF 17 YES; (Commeraat General with a rnaximunt floor area ra4o of. PROOF F P B L CAT' 0 35)tosRt 7(Residentwl_wrth amaximum 7 dwellrnq; ., units per;net acre) and to catange the�anrng Desrgnatton of the crest pew Sdrgoi sftW from G� •"(Comrtteraa�General)to R�L(Low Density Restdenbai); NO be adopted? STATE OF CALIFORNIA) v S s e 7tias 4altot measure an,ipitiativa ordinance that would.amend V City General Plan and Zu iirig t?rd 1 inance as rt.pertams to the Crest View Sdrool siteThe GeneralrPlan rlesignabon for,the site would lie changed from:CG Ft (Commeroiat General with a mazinwm:floor arw rats of`d35) 1 L4 County o f Orange , IRasbential with a maximum of 7 dwelling units per net sore) Tr►e z01,6g desOu6on fhe site would be changed from CG(Comnierdai General}to Rl(t ow Density Residential) These dianges limit the future development of the silo to low deru dy residenbaf uses A vote:.of the people would be requved tri: order tq change;fhe genera Plan and zoning designations of the Site fromr'thoft provided by-lhts` I am d Citizen Of the United States �t0r.1 eas<na ,a[po o�; shall be severed and have no effect on the remainder of the measure resident of the County aforesaid; over the age of eighteen years, and one Advtso 'measure as follows �_. party to or interested in the ADVISORY 1fOTE=O(qLY Shall 5d3°k_of the sales tax �lfS �� entitled matter. ! am a principal di "r °r"�er t llew, bespar���°"'re develop improve rrrarntarn spats fields for soccer Di the HUNTINGTON BEACH INDEPEN f°°' `I' ' n andrrports rare restrooms bicygelestestnan tracts a hbng end news a er of eneral circulation, � r � hO1Ner °ncay "'resen,orcenterrte, p pp g t develop swan caiex and unprnve neightrortioocf and ublished in the City of Hunt parksaniYtotlots?= p Beach, County of Orange, Sta ,e q�astion of wt,ether sti%of the sales taut income rrorti the Crest vier,site should ba spent certavi"specific items a advisory only;The vote:is not landing txrt serves merely to helplane city of• California, and that attached Note Hun ;gfon eeactr ge�ge ,�Sapp ,, trCo ,,,im,,take wnatan><;,esire><'Pr' true and complete copy as was � ,es �of>�vote show the�«, '°" it i ,not limiteii�' 'ag Qreserited and It m-Y aitei 3fiyfhing if choosesto do so and published in the Huntington 8 00 and Fountain Valley issues o The polls will be open'siween the hou a rs of 7 00 a m nd p m newspaper to wit the issue(s) of: k '2'-"s 4 ja� a• ro scar s � a � a .•.,. November 4, 1999 I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on November 4 , 1999 at Costa Mesa, California. Signature d CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION NOTICE TO VOTERS OF DATE AFTER WHICH NO ARGUMENTS FOR OR AGAINST A CITY MEASURE MAY DE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY CLERIC NOTICE IS GIVEN that a Special Municipal Election is to he held in the City of Huntington Beach on March 7, 2000, at which there will be submitted to the voters the following Advisory measure: ADVISORY VOTE ONLY. Shall 50% of the sales tax YES income from the Crest View site be spent to acquire, develop, improve, maintain sports fields for soccer, football, softball, baseball, and other sports; replace restrooms, bicycle/pedestrian trails, lighting, and showers on city beach; acquire senior center site; NO develop swim complex, and improve neighborhood parks and tot lots? NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that pursuant to Article 4, Chapter 3, Division 9 of the Elections Code of the State of California, the legislative body of the City, or any member or members thereof authorized by the body, or any individual voter or bona fide association of citizens, or any combination of voters and associations, may file a written argument, not to exceed 300 words in length, for or against the City measure. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that, based upon the time reasonably necessary to prepare and print the arguments and sample ballots for the election, the City Clerk has fixed November 19, 1999, during normal office hours, as posted, as a reasonable date prior to the election after which no arguments for or against the City measure may be submitted to the clerk for printing and distribution to the voters as provided in the Article 4. Arguments shall be submitted to the City Clerk at the Civic Center, Huntington Beach, California. Arguments may be changed or withdrawn until and including the date fixed by the City Clerk. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that the city council had determined that rebuttal arguments, as submitted by the authors of the opposing direct arguments, may be filed with the clerk not more than 10 days after the final date for filing direct arguments - November 29, 1999. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that any ordinance, impartial analysis, or direct argument filed under the authority of the elections code will be available for public examination in the clerk's office for not less than 10-calendar days from the deadline for filing arguments. Any rebuttal argument filed under the authority of the elections code will be available for public examination in the clerk's office for not less than 10-calendar days from the deadline for filing rebuttal arguments. 11-04-99 City Clerk Dated g:election/2000/advisory/notice to voters of date-advisory.doc 4 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION NOTICE TO VOTERS OF DATE AFTER WHICH NO ARGUMENTS FOR OR AGAINST A CITY MEASURE MAY RE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY CLERK NOTICE IS GIVEN that a Special Municipal Election is to he held in the City of Huntington Beach on March 7, 2000, at which there will be submitted to the voters the following measure: Shall the Ordinance to change the General Plan Designation of the Crest View School site from CG-F1 YES (Commercial General with a maximum floor area ratio of 0.35) to RL-7 (Residential with a maximum of 7 dwelling units per net acre), and to change the Zoning Designation of the Crest View School site from CG (Commercial General) to R-L (Low Density Residential) NO be adopted? NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that pursuant to Article 4, Chapter 3, Division 9 of the Elections Code of the State of California, the legislative body of the City, or any member or members thereof authorized by the body, or any individual voter or bona fide association of citizens, or any combination of voters and associations, may file a written argument, not to exceed 300 words in length, for or against the City measure. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that, based upon the time reasonably necessary to prepare and print the arguments and sample ballots for the election, the City Clerk has fixed November 19, 1999, during normal office hours, as posted, as a reasonable date prior to the election after which no arguments for or against the City measure may be submitted to the clerk for printing and distribution to the voters as provided in the Article 4. Arguments shall be submitted to the City Clerk at the City Hall, Huntington Beach, California. Arguments may be changed or withdrawn until and including the date fixed by the City Clerk. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that the city council had determined that rebuttal arguments, as submitted by the authors of the opposing direct arguments, may be filed with the clerk not more than 10 days after the final date for filing direct arguments - November 29, 1999. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that any ordinance,-impartial analysis, or direct argument filed under the authority of the elections code will be available for public examination in the clerk's office for not less than 10-calendar days from the deadline for filing arguments. Any rebuttal argument filed under the authority of the elections code will be available for public examination in the clerk's office for not less than 10-calendar days from the deadline for filing rebuttal arguments. a . 11-04-99 City Clerk Dated g:election/2000/initiative/notice to voters of date-initiative.doc e Y � P� JANICE M. MITTERMEIER County Executive Officer 4 LJPJTV ® F 2 ROSALYN LEVER 1 Registrar of Voters 5 3 Mailing Address: P.O.Box 11298 Santa Ana,California 92711 REGISTRATION & ELECTIONS DEPARTMENT 1300 South Grand Avenue, Bldg. C Santa Ana,California 92705 (714)567-7600 TDD(714)567-7608 FAX(714)567-7627 December 10, 1999 TO: City Clerks FROM: Rosalyn Lever, Registrar of Voters SUBJECT: Letter Designations for March 7, 2000 The following letter designations have been assigned to measures for the March 7, 2000 primary election: F County—2/3 Vote—Jail, Landfill, Airport G - Magnolia School District— Bonds H - Garden Grove—Transient Occupancy Tax I - Huntington Beach — Crest View Zoning J - Huntington Beach —Advisory— Crest View Sales Tax K - Mission Viejo —Advisory— Municipal Office Space L - Mission Viejo— Integrated Waste Management Franchise M - Seal Beach — Referendum — Repeal Zoning Change If you have any questions please call me at (714) 567-7626. r d e CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: Gail Hutton City Attorney FROM: Connie Brockway City Clerk DATE: September 3, 1999 SUBJECT: SAVE THE OPEN SPACE AND PARKS ALLIANCE V. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, ET AL. Attached is a communication from the Law Offices of Annabel D. Cook. Please advise me of any requirements the City Clerk's Office may have regarding this communication. cc: Mayor and City Councilmembers City Administrator Fire Chief Dolder, Acting City Administrator cbmemos/99-180cg LAW OFFICES OF ANNABEL D. COOK 820 SOUTH YORBA STREET ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 92869 TELEPHONE: (714)246-1755 FACSIMILE: (714) 744-9049 ELECTRONIC MAIL: ANNABELCOOK@EARTHLINK.NET September 3, 1999 Connie Brockway, City Clerk CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92646 Re: Save the Open-space and Parks Alliance v City of Huntington Beach, et al Dear Ms. Brockway: Please take notice that Save the Open-space and Parks Alliance ("STOP") intends to commence an action against the City of Huntington Beach to challenge the approval by the City of Huntington Beach of a Conditional Use Permit,Variance and Tract Map for a Wal-Mart at the site of Crest View School. The challenge is based upon violations of the California Environmental Quality Act and related Government Code provisions. The notice is provided pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21167.5. Sincerely, 6 Annabel D. Cook #2NOTICECITY 1 Annabel Cook, Esq. SB #193138 LAW OFFICES OF ANNABEL COOK 2 820 South Yorba Street 3 Orange, California 92869 Tel: (714) 246-1755 4 Fax: (714) 744-9049 5 Attorneys for Plaintiffs: 6 SAVE THE OPEN-SPACE AND PARKS ALLIANCE 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 COUNTY OF ORANGE SAVE THE OPEN-SPACE AND PARKS ) Case No. 9 ALLIANCE, an unincorporated association, ) NOTICE OF ELECTION TO 10 Petitioners, PREPARE ADMINISTRATIVE 11 vs. ) RECORD BY PETITIONER CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, a municipal ) (CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL 12 corporation, ) QUALITY ACT) 13 Respondent, and 14 WAL-MART, Inc., an Arkansas corporation ) Date: 15 doing business in California; ARNEL RETAIL ) Time: GROUP, and OCEAN VIEW SCHOOL ) Dept: 16 DISTRICT, organized pursuant to the state laws of California, 17 ) „ Real Parties in Interest. 18 ) 19 20 21 By this notice, Petitioners give notice pursuant that Petitioners elect to prepare the D 22 administrative record in the above titled action. 23 DATED: September 3, 1999 24 LAW OFFICES OF ANNABEL COOK 25 f �, I 26 �- y: Annabel D. Cook 27 Attorneys for Plaintiffs: SAVE THE OPEN-SPACE AND 28 PARKS ALLIANCE #2NOTICEAR CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH F��"J INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: Gail Hutton City Attorney FROM: Connie Brockway City Clerk DATE: September 3, 1999 SUBJECT: SAVE THE OPEN SPACE AND PARKS ALLIANCE V. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, ET AL. Attached is a communication from the Law Offices of Annabel D. Cook. Please advise me of any requirements the City Clerk's Office may have regarding this communication. cc: Mayor and City Councilmembers City Administrator Fire Chief Dolder, Acting City Administrator cbmemos/99-180cg s LAW OFFICES OF ANNABEL D. COOK 820 SOUTH YORBA STREET ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 92869 TELEPHONE: (714)246-1755 FACSIMILE: (714) 744-9049 ELECTRONIC MAIL: ANNABELCOOK a EARTHLINK.NET September 3, 1999 Connie Brockway, City Clerk CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92646 Re: Save the Open-space and Parks Alliance v. City of Huntington Beach, et al Dear Ms. Brockway: Please take notice that Save the Open-space and Parks Alliance ("STOP") intends to commence an action against the City of Huntington Beach to challenge the approval by the City of Huntington Beach of a Conditional Use Permit,Variance and Tract Map for a Wal-Mart at the site of Crest View School. The challenge is based upon violations of the California Environmental Quality Act and related Government Code provisions. The notice is provided pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21167.5. Sincerely, Annabel D. Cook #2NOTICECITY -r• vJ 'YY 1 Annabel Cook, Esq. SB #193138 LAW OFFICES OF ANNABEL COOK 2 820 South Yorba Street 3 Orange, California 92869 Tel: (714) 246-1755 4 Fax: (714) 744-9049 5 Attorneys for Plaintiffs: 6 SAVE THE OPEN-SPACE AND PARKS ALLIANCE 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 COUNTY OF ORANGE SAVE THE OPEN-SPACE AND PARKS ) Case No. 9 ALLIANCE, an unincorporated association, ) NOTICE OF ELECTION TO 10 Petitioners, PREPARE ADMINISTRATIVE 11 vs. RECORD BY PETITIONER ) _ 12 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, a municipal ) (CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL corporation, ) QUALITY ACT) 13 Respondent, and 14 WAL-MART, Inc., an Arkansas corporation ) Date: 15 doing business in California; ARNEL RETAIL ) Time: GROUP, and OCEAN VIEW SCHOOL ) Dept: 16 DISTRICT, organized pursuant to the state laws ) - of California, 17 ) Real Parties in Interest. 18 ) t 19 20 21 By this notice, Petitioners give notice pursuant that Petitioners elect to prepare the 21. 22 administrative record in the above titled action. 23 DATED: September 3, 1999 24 LAW OFFICES OF ANNABEL COOK 25 7 26 C y: Annabel D. Cook 27 Attorneys for Plaintiffs: SAVE THE OPEN-SPACE AND 28 PARKS ALLIANCE #2NOTICEAR e J.4 CITY ®F HUNTINGTON BEACH '• INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HU.STINGTO.N BEACH �y TO: GAIL HUTTON RE: ORIGINAL SU'l%L 20N & COMPLAINT c -A FILE 4 /U(?, DATE: RECEIVED BY: CITY ATTORRTEY OFFICE SENT TO: POLICE OFFICER ASSOCIATIt IF APPLICABLE SENT TO: PD LEGAL I LT STENVA.RT IF APPLICABLE /5,le SUMMONS, — (CITACION JUDI CIAO (A I y OF Ho�, t 14T i -'OFF 101-403F F7T,4�497P;E elc-WE) NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: (Aviso a Acusado) -7 MEVORANDitA OF SERVICE as- city -----------........................... --------............ CONNIE BROCKWAY, in her official caTDacik�� Clerk for the City of Huntington Beach; CITY OF SERVED ON: 1�2 HUNTINGTON BEACH, a municipal corporation; and CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HIP \JcLne_11e9 L,7 .TINGTON BEACH, in its official capacity; and DOES 1 through 30 , inclusive, --BY: /0M Brentl&yl TbBERT� F. CRONK, and ROES 31 through 60, inclusive, Real Party in Interest . PROCESS SfkRyel YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: DATE: (A Ud. le esta demandando) ARNEL RETAIL GROUP, INC. ,15- A� 9 You have 30 CALENDAR . DAYS after ' this Despu6s de que le entreguen esta citation judicial usted summons is served on you to file a typewritten tiene un plazo de 30 DIAS CALENDARIOS para pies' entar response at this court. una respuesta escrita a m6quina en esta code. A letter or phone call will not protect you; your Una carta o una flamada telef6n!ca no le ofrecer-6 typewritten response must be'In proper legal form proteccl6n; su respuesta escrita a m6quina tiene que if you want the court to hear your case. cumplir con las.formalidades legates apropladas s! usted If you do not file your response.on time, you may quiere que la codeescu.che su caso, lose the case, and your wages, money and Si usted no presenta su respuesta a tlempo,puede perder property may be taken-without further, Warning el ca*so, y le pueden quitar su salarlo, su-dinero y otras from the court. cosasde su propledad sin aviso adicional'por parte de la torte. There are other legal requirements. You,'may want Existen otr6s requisitos legales. Puede que usted quiera to call an attorney right away. If you do'-not know Ilarnar a un abogado inmediatarnente. Si no conoce a un an attorney, you may call an attorney referral abogado, -puede flamar a un servicio de*referencla de service or-a legal aid office' (listed In the phone abogados o a una oficina de ayuda legal(vea el directotio book). telef6n!co). The name and address of the court is: '(El nornbre y direcci6n de la torte es) CAIc NUI ER erq*1 Ca Superior Court of California SO) 700 Civic Center Drive West - Box 1994 JUDGE N0'f110_r(" QCHUMAT'dIN Santa Ana, California 927401 DEPT Q Central Justice Center The name,address, and telephone number of plaintiffs attorney,or plaintiff without an attorney, is: (El nombre,la direccl6n y el nOmero de tel6fono del abogado del dernandante, o del dernandanfe que no tiene abogado, es) (;714) 641-5100 Leonard A. Hampel SBN* #35964 Robert O. Owen. SBN #126105 611, Anton Boulevard, Suite 1400 Costa Mesa, California 92626 DATE AUG 3 0 1999 ALAN SLATER Clerk, by LARRY BROWN Deputy ,(Fecha) (Actuario) (Delegado) ISEALI NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served 1.=as an individual defendant. 2.=as the person sued under the fictitious name of(specify): 3.F_""_1 on behalf of(specify): City Council of the City of Huntington Beach —"C under: CCP 416.10 (corporali) ='CCP 416.60(minor) CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation) 0 CCP 416.70(conservatee) CCP 416.40 (association or partnership) CCP 416.90 (individual) bother. C.C.P. § 416.50 4.[Y]by personal delivery on(date): 9/2/99 Form Ad c P'e:by Rule 982 (See reverse for Proof of Service) Judicial CQJ':!!c f California 9E2,,a)(q)[Re, January 1.198-11 SUMMONS CCP 412.20 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY(Name and Address): TELEPHONE NO: FOR COURT USE ONLY obert O. Owen (714) 641-5100 Leonard A. Hampel SBN #35964 � Robert O. Owen SBN #126105 �- 611 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1400 Costa Mesa, California 92626 ATTORNEY FOR(Name): ARNEL RETAIL GROUP, INC. 'AUG i 0 1999 INSERT NAME OF COURT,JUDICIAL DISTRICT,AND BRANCH COURT,IF ANY: Ii�✓�(h;,Ll11 tFi,�l.c•..u .v.l.r L..i..l.:� Superior Court of California Central Justice Center BY L. BRFYd`i CASENAME: ARNEL RETAIL GROUP, INC. V. CONNIE BRO=,7AY, etc. , et al . CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET CASE NU% 8: (Case Cover Sheets) jUDGE N0110W1A 1. Case category (Insert code from list below for the ONE case type that best describes the case): U EP•+,` C 3 01 Abuse of Process 18 Insurance Coverage/Subrogation 02 Administrative Agency Review 19 Intellectual Property 03 Antitrust/Unfair Business Practices 20 Enforcement of Judgment(Sister State, Foreign, 04 Asbestos Out-of-Country Abstracts) 05 Asset Forfeiture 21 Partnership and Corporate Governance 06 Breach of Contract/Warranty 22 PI/PD/WD-- Auto (Personal Injury/Property Damage/ 07 Business Tort Wrongful Death) 08 Civil Rights(Discrimination, False Arrest) 23 PI/PD/WD-- Nonauto 09 Collections(Money Owed, Open Book Accounts) 24 Product Liability 10 Construction Defect 25 Professional Negligence (Medical or Legal Malpractice, etc.) 11 Contractual Arbitration 26 Real Property(Quiet Title) 12 Declaratory Relief 27 RICO 13 Defamation (Slander, Libel) 28 Securities Litigation 14 Eminent Domain/Inverse Condemnation 29 Tax Judgment 15 Employment(Labor Commissioner Appeals, 30 Toxic Tort/Environmental EDD Actions, Wrongful Termination) 31 Unlawful Detainer--Commercial 16 Fraud 32 Unlawful Detainer--Residential 17 Injunctive Relief 33 Wrongful Eviction 34 Other: Writ of Mandate 2. Type of remedies sought(check all that apply): a. 0 Monetary b. XD Nonmonetary c. = Punitive 3. Number of causes of action: 4. Is this a class action suit? 0 Yes ERJ No Date: August 30 , 1999 Robert O: Owen (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (SIGNATURE OF PARTY OR ATTORNEY FOR PARTY) NOTE TO PLAINTIFF • This cover sheet shall accompany each civil action or proceeding,except those filed in small claims court or filed under the Probate Code, Family Code,or Welfare and Institutions Code. ° File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule. • Do not serve this cover sheet with the complaint. • This cover sheet shall be used for statistical purposes only and shall have no effect on the assignment of the case. Form Adopted by Rule982.2 CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Judicial Council of California (Case Cover Sheets) 982.2(b)(1)[New July 1.19961 1 RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP �999 LEONARD A. HAMPEL (SBN 35964) 2 ROBERT O. OWEN (SBN 126105) ALAN iLA--ER,Uecubve Uh1,,a,1C1e 611 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1400 3 Costa Mesa, California 92626-1998v r: txR„fl„ (714) 641-5100 4 Attorneys for Petitioner and Plaintiff 5 ARNEL RETAIL GROUP, INC. 6 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF ORANGE, CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER 10 11 ARNEL RETAIL GROUP, INC. ) CASE NO. 12 ) 813868 Petitioner and Plaintiff, ) 13 vs. ) VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF o z 14 ) MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR o a a CONNIE BROCKWAY, in her official ) DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE FloZO0 capacity as City Clerk for the City of ) RELIEF rc o w 15 Huntington Beach; CITY OF ) ¢tor- - �,w z HUNTINGTON BEACH, a municipal ) a�o z 16 corporation; and CITY COUNCIL OF THE ) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, in its ) .BUDGE NOMOTO uy i'i; i��"�.+��� •;'iZ W a 17 official capacity; and DOES 1 through 30, W o O Z inclusive, ) DEPT, G3 dam' � 18 ) x 0 LU�0 Respondents and Defendants. ) t:;-wC W`=zo 19 ) c ) s w= 0 ;ca — 20 J J LL ROBERT F. CRONK, and ROES 31 through) 00�m 21 60, inclusive, ) w W 22 Real Party in Interest. ) to z Cr w ) dLd Q6 23 zcrJx WWa�. tx x m w 24 Petitioner and Plaintiff Arnel Retail Group, Inc., hereby alleges as follows: �tr=w a QON ►u w3 z 25 1. Petitioner and Plaintiff Arnel Retail Group, Inc. ("Arnel") is a California 3 � cc - o 26 corporation doing business in the City of Huntington Beach and the County of Orange. Ame' =0 0,8 27 is the developer of a project (the "Project"), which has been approved by the City of 28 Huntington Beach, for the construction of a Wa1Mart store and additional separate commercia 290/017226-0002/3285634.1 a08/30/99 COMPLAINT/PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDA'I 1 uses on properties located within the City, which properties are owned by the Oceanview 2 School District. Arnel has an agreement to lease the real properties upon which the approved 3 Project is to be constructed, is the applicant for the Project approvals, and has a financial 4 interest in the Project itself. 5 2. Respondent and Defendant Connie Brockway is, and at all times alleged herein 6 was, the City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach. Ms. Brockway serves as the City's 7 Elections Official and is charged with the legal responsibility of,receiving, examining, and 8 certifying or rejecting initiative and referendum petitions filed in her office, in accordance witl 9 all applicable state and local laws. Ms. Brockway is named in this action in her official 10 capacity only. 11 3. Respondent and Defendant City of Huntington Beach ("City") is a city duly 12 organized and existing pursuant to its own charter and the Constitution and applicable laws of 13 the state of California. The City is, and at all times herein mentioned was, responsible for 14 carrying out and complying with the provisions of its charter and all applicable state laws with 15 respect to the certification, acceptance, rejection, and processing of municipal initiative and 16 referendum petitions. 17 4. Respondent and Defendant City Council of the City of Huntington Beach 18 ("City Council") is, and at all times herein mentioned was, the legislative body of the City. 19 The City Council is responsible for reviewing and approving or rejecting the City Clerk's 20 decision to certify municipal initiative or referendum petitions, and for taking further actions 21 to reject, adopt, or place on the ballot such petitions, in compliance with all applicable state 22 and local laws. The City Council is named in this action in its official capacity only. (The 23 City, the City Council, and the City Clerk are collectively referred to herein as the "City 24 Respondents.") 25 5. Real Party in Interest Robert F. Cronk ("Real Party") is an individual residing 26 in the City of Huntington Beach. Real Party is a proponent and sponsor of the invalid 27 initiative petition which is the subject of the instant Petition and Complaint. 28 6. Petitioner is unaware of the true names or capacities of the parties fictitiously -2- 290/017226-0002/3285634.1 a08/30/99 COMPLAINT/PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAT 1 sued herein as DOES 1 through 30, inclusive, and ROES 31 through 60, inclusive, and will 2 amend this Petition and Complaint to set forth their true names and capacities when the same 3 have been ascertained. Petitioner is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that 4 said fictitiously-named Respondents and Defendants and/or Real Parties In Interest were the 5 agents and employees of the other fictitiously-named or actually named Respondents and 6 Defendants and/or Real Parties in Interest and, acting within the course or scope of such 7 employment or agency, took some part in such acts or omissions, by reason of which said 8 fictitiously-named Respondents and Defendants are liable to Petitioner for the relief prayed for 9 herein. 10 7. The Project has received all necessary discretionary development approvals 11 from the City Council, including certification of a comprehensive Environmental Impact 12 Report and approval of a General Plan amendment, a zone change, a conditional use permit, 13 and a tentative parcel map. These approvals were granted only after many months of study 14 involving numerous public meetings and formal public hearings during which all interested 15 members of the public were given ample opportunity to present their views on the pertinent 16 issues. Arnel has expended, and continues to expend, considerable sums of money to gain 17 entitlements to develop and to physically develop the Project. A legal challenge to the 18 sufficiency of the Environmental Impact Report for the Project has been dismissed by the 19 Orange County Superior Court. 20 8. On or about August 4, 1999, Real Party and others filed an initiative petition 21 with the City Clerk consisting of a Ballot Title and Summary of a proposed initiative measure 22 a Notice of Intent to Circulate Petition,-and a proposed ordinance (collectively, the "Initiative 23 Petition"), along with signatures resulting from circulation of the Initiative Petition. A true 24 and correct copy of the Initiative Petition (with voters' and circulators' signatures and other 25 information redacted) reflecting its format and text as presented to the City Clerk is attached 26 hereto as Exhibit "A". The Initiative Petition is ostensibly aimed at preventing construction 27 the Project. 28 9. On or about August 5, 1999, the City Clerk forwarded the Initiative Petition -3- MVPr AINTIPETITION FOR WRIT OF MAND. 1 the Orange County Registrar of Voters' office, which has contracted with the City to perform 2 the process of examining and verifying signatures contained on the Initiative Petition. 3 10. The Initiative Petition purportedly contains approximately 22,000 signatures, 4 which may include numerous duplicate signatures, signatures of those who are not registered 5 City voters, and otherwise invalid signatures. The signatures were obtained, in large part, 6 through the use of paid petition circulators, whose compensation is based upon the number of 7 signatures gathered. 8 11. Aside from the inadequacy of the signatures, the Initiative Petition is legally 9 invalid and may not be processed by the City Respondents or placed on the ballot for reasons 10 including, but not limited to, the following: 11 (a) Section 1 of the ordinance proposed by the Initiative Petition seeks to amend 12 the land use element of the City's General Plan "to change the general plan designation for the 13 13.89 acre site located on the South side of Talbert Avenue described in City Council 14 Resolution 98-95 from CG-171 (Commercial General with a maximum floor area ratio of .035) 15 to RL-7 (residential with a maximum of 7 dwelling units per acre.)" However, the Initiative 16 Petition failed to attach or include the portions of the General Plan it seeks to amend, failed to 17 attach or include a proper or accurate description of the property sought to be affected by the 18 General Plan Amendment, improperly referenced outside documents which were not attached 19 to the Initiative Petition, and was otherwise not in the correct form in order to properly 20 constitute a General Plan amendment. 21 (b) Section 2 of the ordinance proposed by the Initiative Petition seeks to amend 22 the City's Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance "by amending District Map 40 (Sectional Districi 23 Map 36-5-11) to rezone the property described above from CG (General Commercial) to R-L 24 (Low Density Residential)." However, the Initiative Petition failed to attach or include the 25 portions of the City's Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance it seeks to amend, failed to attach or 26 include a proper or accurate description of the property sought to be affected by the proposed 27 Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance amendment, improperly referenced outside documents 28 which were not attached to the Initiative Petition, and was otherwise not in the correct form it -4- ��� vn�n�cua.a ,nciznigq COMPLAINT/PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAT I order to properly constitute a Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Amendment. Further, even 2 assuming that Section 2 of the ordinance proposed by the Initiative Petition was, standing 3 alone, legally sufficient, it would be void ab initio due to the invalidity of Section 1 of said 4 ordinance because state law requires that any zone change must be consistent with the 5 underlying general plan designation for the property affected. 6 12. Elections Code § 9201, governing municipal initiative petitions, provides, in 7 part, that "[t]he first page of each section shall contain the title of the petition and the text of 8 the measure." This is in accord with the statutory requirements governing county initiative 9 petitions and municipal referendum petitions. (Elections Code §§ 9101 and 9238(b)(2).) 10 These statutory provisions are related in language and purpose in that they require initiative 11 and referendum petitions to include the full and complete text of the local legislation they 12 intend to enact or referend, and were enacted by the State Legislature to promote 13 enlightenment and reduce uncertainty and confusion in the minds of the electorate as to the 14 true content and effect of the petitions they are asked to sign. 15 13. . For the reasons noted above, the Initiative Petition failed to substantially, or 16 even minimally, comply with the requirement of Elections Code § 9201 that it include the full 17 text of the measure it proposes to enact. This statutory violation constitutes a "fatal defect" in 18 the Initiative Petition under an unbroken line of relevant case law authority. As a result of the 19 Initiative Petition's complete noncompliance with the full text requirement of § 9201, the 20 prospective signers of the petition, as a matter of law, were neither fully apprised of the 21 substantive provisions of the proposed measure nor sufficiently enlightened of the specific 22 property affected. Further, the failure of the Initiative Petition to comply with § 9201 23 precluded the City Clerk from discharging her ministerial function of ascertaining whether 24 there was compliance with the "full text" requirement. 25 26 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 27 (Writ of Mandate -- Against City Respondents) 28 14. The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 13, inclusive, are hereby incorporates -5- nnn�nic:rz., , .,ncizn49 COMPLAINT/PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAT I by reference as though set forth in full. 2 15. As a matter of law, the City Respondents have mandatory, ministerial and 3 non-discretionary duties to follow and enforce all applicable Elections Code provisions and 4 case law requirements, and to refuse to certify, and to reject, initiative petitions which do not 5 substantially conform to such legal requirements. Therefore, any current and future acts of 6 the City Respondents to review, process, certify, adopt, place on the ballot, and/or conduct an 7 election concerning the measure proposed by the Initiative Petition would be unlawful, 8 improper, invalid, and in violation of a clear and present ministerial legal duty to reject the 9 invalid and fatally defective Initiative Petition. Any such actions are and would be beyond the 10 scope of the City Respondents' legal authority and jurisdiction, would constitute prejudicial 11 abuse of discretion, would constitute the performance of duty specifically enjoined by law, and 12 therefore would be invalid under Code of Civil Procedure § 1085. 13 16. Petitioner has no clear, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of 14 law, and an appropriate writ of mandate directed to the City Respondents is the proper and 15 prescribed remedy for violations of this type. If the City Respondents are not prevented from 16 further processing of the Initiative Petition, Petitioner and other citizens and members of the 17 public will suffer and continue to suffer great and irreparable harm, including but not limited 18 to the potential for general plan and zoning redesignations which could prevent construction of 19 the Project; an initiative enactment which clearly violates key substantive and procedural 20 provisions of the state Elections Code law; and a misleading initiative enactment based on the 21 confusion of an electorate which was not properly informed of its provisions. 22 23 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 24 (Declaratory Relief--Against City Respondents and Real Parry in Interest) 25 17. The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 16, inclusive, are hereby incorporated 26 by reference as though set forth in full. 27 18. By virtue of the unlawful actions and omissions of the City Respondents and 28 Real Party as described above, an actual controversy and dispute has arisen and now exists -6- 290/017226-0002/3285634.1 a0S/30/99 COMPLAINT/PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDA T 1 between Petitioner, on the one hand, and the City Respondents and/or Real Party, on the other 2 hand, in that City Respondents and/or Real Party deny that the City Respondents have failed tc 3 comply with and enforce all applicable law requiring them to refuse certify and process the 4 Initiative Petition, and to take no further action to enact or place the same on the ballot, or to 5 treat it as valid in any way, all as set forth in more detail above. 6 19. It is necessary and appropriate at this time that the Court issue a declaratory 7 judgment so that all parties hereto and the public as a whole may know the illegality or 8 legality of the Initiative Petition and the actions of the City Respondents with respect to 9 accepting, processing, and potentially certifying the Initiative Petition. 10 11 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 12 (Injunctive Relief Against City Respondents and Real Parry in Interest) 13 20. The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 19, inclusive, are hereby incorporates 14 by reference as though set forth in full. 15 21. . If the City Respondents continue to fail to enforce, follow and comply with th 16 applicable requirements of California law, including the Elections Code, and continue to refus 17 to reject the Initiative Petition and to take no further action on such petition, Petitioner will bE 18 and will continue to be, irreparably injured by said unlawful action, all as more particularly 19 set forth above. 20 22. All City Respondents should,immediately be enjoined from taking any further 21 actions to review, certify, consider, adopt, place on the ballot, and/or conduct an election 22 concerning the invalid Initiative Petition, and should be restrained, enjoined, and prevented 23 from taking any further action pursuant to Elections Code § 9215 to recognize, certify, adopt 24 enact, or place upon the ballot the invalid Initiative Petition, all as set forth in more detail 25 above. 26 23. Petitioner has no adequate remedy at law to prevent it from suffering this 27 irreparable injury. 28 WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays for judgment as follows: -7- 290/017226-0002/3285634.1 a08/30/99 COMPLAINT/PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDA' 1 A. On the First Cause of Action: 2 1. That a Peremptory Writ of Mandate be issued requiring the City Clerk, 3 the City, and the City Council, and each of them, to recognize, enforce, follow and comply 4 with mandatory requirements of the California Elections Code, and all applicable law, by 5 setting aside their decision to accept, review, certify, enact, approve, adopt, place on the 6 ballot, and/or conduct an election concerning the illegal Initiative Petition, and requiring them, 7 and each of them, to affirmatively reject, decertify, refuse to accept, and refuse to place on 8 the ballot the illegal Initiative Petition. 9 2. For a temporary stay of all further action by the City Respondents on 10 the invalid Initiative Petition, including action under Elections Code § 9215, pending final 11 resolution of this action. 12 3. For incidental compensatory damages in the sum according to proof at 13 trial. 14 B. On the Second Cause of Action: 15 1. For a declaratory judgment that the actions of the City Respondents in 16 recognizing, processing, certifying, accepting, enacting, approving, adopting and/or placing 17 upon the ballot the invalid and illegal Initiative Petition are, and will be, in violation of the 18 provisions of the Elections Code and all applicable law, and that the City Respondents are 19 required to set aside such unlawful actions, and to reject and refuse to certify, accept, enact, 20 adopt, approve, or place upon the ballot the invalid Initiative Petition. 21 C. On the Third Cause of Action: 22 1. For a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and 23 permanent injunction preventing the City Respondents from taking any further action to enact 24 or'place the invalid and illegal Initiative Petition on the ballot or to adopt the measure 25 proposed by the Initiative Petition pursuant to Elections Code § 9215, or to recognize its legal 26 validity in any fashion, and to require the City Respondents to enforce, follow and comply 27 with all applicable laws, including the Elections Code, by setting aside any actions to approve 28 review, certify, adopt, enact, accept, place on the ballot, and/or conduct an election -s- 290/017226-0002/3285634.1 a03/30/99 COMPLAINT/PETITION FOR WRIT OF btANDA i I concerning the invalid and illegal Initiative Petition, and to reject, decertify, refuse to accept 2 the invalid Initiative Petition. - 3 D. On All Causes of Action: 4 1. That Petitioner recover its costs and reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant 5 to Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5, Government Code § 800, and all applicable law, in this 6 action. 7 2. That Petitioner obtain such other and further relief as this Court may 8 deem just and proper. 9 DATE: August 30, 1999 RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP LEONARD A. HAMPEL 10 ROBERT O. OWEN 11 By: 12 onard A. H 1 Attorneys for Petitioner and Plaintiff 13 ARNEL RETAIL GROUP, INC. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -9- 290/017226-0002/32S5634.1 a08/30/99 COMPLAINT/PETITION FOR WRIT OF MAND� VERIFICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE I have read the foregoing VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF and know its contents . [X] OF THE THREE PARAGRAPHS BELOW, CHECK APPLICABLE PARAGRAPH [] I am a party to this action. The matters stated in it are true of my own knowledge except as to those matters which are stated on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true. � I am [X] an Officer of ARNEL RETAIL GROUP, INC, a party to this action, and am authorized to make this verification for and on its behalf, and I make this verification for that reason. I have read the foregoing document and know its contents . I am informed and believe and on that ground allege that the matters stated in it are true . [] I am one of the attorneys for a party to this action. Such party is absent from the `aforesaid county where such attorneys have their offices, and I make this verification for and on behalf of that party for. that reason. I have read the foregoing document and know its contents . I am informed and believe and on that ground allege that the matters stated in it are true. Executed on August 27,. 1999 at Costa Mesa, California. I declare under penalty of pe ury unde the law the State of California that the foregoing is true a d corre t . I / #L RUDY B LD I e 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 BALLOT MEASURE TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION OF THE CREST VIEW SCHOOL SITE FROM CG-F1 (COMMERCIAL GENERAL WITH A MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO OF 0.35)TO RL-7 (RESIDENTIAL WITH A MAXIMUM OF 7 DWELLING UNITS PER NET ACRE),AND TO CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF THE CREST VIEW SCHOOL SITE FROM CG (COMMERCLAL GENERAL)TO R-L(LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) Summary: This proposed ballot measure would amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach to change the General Plan designation of the Crest View School site. The General Plan designation would be changed from CG-Fl (Commercial General with a maximum floor area ratio of 0.35)to RL-7(Residential with a maximum of 7 dwelling units per net acre). The Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach would also be amended to change the zoning designation of the Crest View School site. The zoning designation would be changed from CG(Commer- cial General)to RL(Low Density Residential). A vote of the people would be required to change the general plan and zoning designations as amended by this measure. If a court invalidates a portion of the proposed measure,that portion shall be severed and have no effect on the remainder of the proposed measure. The following was published on February 15, 1999 in the Orange County Register by Robert F. Cronlc, 18312 Hartlund Ln.,Huntington Beach,CA 92646: PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE OF INTENT TO CIRCULATE PETITION. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN by the persons(s)whose names appear hereon of their intention to circulate a petition within the City of Huntington Beach for the purpose of amending the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. A statement of the reasons for the proposed action contemplated in the petition is as follows: For many years,the community has relied on the Crestview school site for educational uses and a park. This site is near a residential neighborhood. However,recently the City Council voted to rezone the land and amend the general plan to allow a huge discount store on this site. This would add thousands of cars to Beach Boulevard and the area surrounding the site,clogging streets with traffic and adding air polution. Such a store would unfairly compete with existing stores by not providing family health benefits. Existing stores would end up laying off employees. We do not oppose all development:the development should simply be consistent with the character of our community. INITIATIVE MEASURE TO BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO THE VOTERS INITIATIVE TO AIMEND ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION OF CREST VIEW SCHOOL SITE TO PROHIBIT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND PERMIT RESIDENTIAL USES ONLY. The People of the City of Huntington Beach do ordain as follows: 1. The Land Use Element of the City's General Plan is hereby amended to change the general plan designation for the 13.89 acre site located on the South side of Talbert Avenue described in City Council Resolution 98-95 from CG-F1 (Commercial General with a maximum floor area ratio of 0.35)to RL-7(residential with a maxi- mum of 7 dwelling units per net acre). 2. The City's Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance is hereby amended by amending District Map 40(Sectional District Map 36-5-11)to rezone the property described above from CG(General Commercial)to R-L(Low Density Residential). 3. The above may not be amended except by vote of the people. 4. Should any provision or application of the above be invalidated by a court of law,it shall be severed and have no effect on the reminder of this ordinance. Special Election Wording: We,the undersigned,are registered and qualified voters of the City of Huntington Beach constituting not less than 15 percent of the voters of the City,present to the City Council this petition and request the ordinance be adopted by the City Council or submitted immediately to v t �j special election. � 11 l � D I I 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 BALLOT MEASURE TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION OF THE CREST VIEW SCHOOL SITE FROM CG-FI (COMMERCIAL GENERAL WITH A MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO OF 0.35)TO RL-7(RESIDENTIAL WITH A MAXIMUM OF 7 DWELLING UNITS PER NET ACRE),AND TO CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF THE CREST VIEW SCHOOL SITE FROh1 CG (COMMERCIAL GENERAL)TO R-L(LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) Summary: This proposed ballot measure would amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach to change the General Plan designation of the Crest View School site. The General Plan designation would be changed from CG-FI (Commercial General with a maximum floor area ratio of 0.35)to RL-7(Residential with a maximum of 7 dwelling units per net acre). The Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach would also be amended to change the zoning designation of the Crest View School site. The zoning designation would be changed from CG (Commer- cial General)to RL(Low Density Residential). A vote of the people would be required to change the general plan and zoning designations as amended by this measure. If a court invalidates a portion of the proposed measure,that portion shall be severed and have no effect on the remainder of the proposed measure. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: THIS PETITION MAY BE CIRCULATED BY A PAID SIGNATURE GATHERER OR A VOLUNTEER. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASK - CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REGISTERED VOTERS ONLY For Clerks Use Only Date/Time 11/19/99 1:58:39 PM City of Huntington Beach Page 1 Office of the City Clerk Minutes ID Category Subject Volume Page Date Keywords 41715 440.50 60 398 04/05/1999 APPROVED MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 97-1 (EIR) - CREST VIEW SCHOOL- WAL*MART- S/S TALBERT E/O BEACH BOULEVARD 41620 440.50 60 345 03/15/1999 DEFERRED TO 4/5/99 MITIGATION MONITORING - EIR 97- 1 - CREST VIEW SCHOOL-WAL*MART- S/S TALBERT E/O BEACH BLVD, DEFERRED TO 4/5/99 COUNCIL MEEETING 41636 440.50 60 331 03/15/1999 ITEM REMOVED FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA FOR SEPARATE DISCUSS ON 4/5/99 - Mitigation Monitoring Program - EIR 97-1 - Crest View School - Wal*Mart- S/S Talbert E/O Beach Boulevard 41366 440.50 60 174 12/14/1998 Pub Hear-Approved EIR 97-1/(Adopted Res 98-94) - Approved General Plan Amendment 97-1 (Res 98-95) - Approved Intro Ord 3408 -Zoning Map Amendment 97-1 (Crest View School - Wal Mart- S/S Talbert, 300' E/O Beach Blvd 40283 440.80 59 772 07/14/1998 Joint Study Session Between City Council and Planning Commission--Crest View School Site/Wal-Mart--South Side of Talbert Avenue, 300 Feet East of Beach Blvd. 40100 600.10 59 691 06/01/1998 DEFERRED FROM 5/18/98-APPROVED AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT WITH PLANNING CONSULTANTS RESEARCH, INC. &AMENDMENT TO REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT WITH ARNEL RETAIL GROUP-CREST VIEW EIR 35189 600.10 58 790 03/03/1997 Prof Svcs Contract btwn City & Planning Consultants Research for Planning Consulting Svcs for Preparation of 2 EIRs for Proposed Devlpmts at Crest View& Rancho View Schools & Reimb. Agrmt btwn city &Arnel Retail Group for EIR 32862 440.50 58 232 04/22/1996 Crest View School Site- GPA Consideration Deferred Date/Time 11/19/99 1:58:39 PM City of Huntington Beach Page 2 Office of the City Cleric Minutes ID Category Subject Volume Page Date Keywords 20793 650.70 53 163 11/15/1993 NOTICE OF SALE-CREST VIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL- BEACH BLVD/TALBERT-CITY NOT TO PURSUE ACQUISITION-650.70 Total Records Selected: 9 Date/Time 11/19/99 1:59:01 PM City of Huntington Beach Page 1 Office of the City Cleric Minutes ID Category Subject Volume Page Date Keywords 41715 440.50 60 398 04/05/1999 APPROVED MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 97-1 (EIR) - CREST VIEW SCHOOL- WAL*MART- S/S TALBERT E/O BEACH BOULEVARD 41693 420.40 60 387 04/05/1999 ENTRY 2 OF 2- PUB HEAR-2 APPEALS - (2) CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY- NON-PUBLIC ITEM - MITIGATION MONITOR FOR EIR 97-1 CRESTVIEW SCHOOL/WAL-MART CONTD FR 3/15/99 CITY COUNCIL MTG 41620 440.50 60 345 03/15/1999 DEFERRED TO 4/5/99 MITIGATION MONITORING - EIR 97- 1 - CREST VIEW SCHOOL-WAL*MART- S/S TALBERT E/O BEACH BLVD, DEFERRED TO 4/5/99 COUNCIL MEEETING 41636 440.50 60 331 03/15/1999 ITEM REMOVED FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA FOR SEPARATE DISCUSS ON 4/5/99- Mitigation Monitoring Program - EIR 97-1 -Crest View School -Wal*Mart- S/S Talbert E/O Beach Boulevard 41366 440.50 60 174 12/14/1998 Pub Hear-Approved EIR 97-1/(Adopted Res 98-94) - Approved General Plan Amendment 97-1 (Res 98-95) - Approved Intro Ord 3408 -Zoning Map Amendment 97-1 (Crest View School - Wal Mart- S/S Talbert, 300' E/O Beach Blvd 40283 440.80 59 772 07/14/1998 Joint Study Session Between City Council and Planning Commission--Crest View School Site/Wal-Mart--South Side of Talbert Avenue, 300 Feet East of Beach Blvd. 39994 160.30 59 658 05/18/1998 Re: EIR-WaI-Mart-Community Development Director Fallon reported there is an error on the map &that she had not been aware of this error until the end of the day on 5/15/98. 39993 160.30 59 658 05/18/1998 Re: EIR-WaI-Mart-Councilmember Green stated a staff member was not authorized to modify an EIR; thus Community Development Director Fallon was correct to not have corrected the report herself. Total Records Selected: 8 Date/Time 11/19/99 1:55:52 PM City Of Huntington Beach Page 1 Office of the City Clerk Minutes ID Category Subject Volume Page Date Keywords 41693 420.40 60 387 04/05/1999 ENTRY 2 OF 2- PUB HEAR- 2 APPEALS- (2) CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY- NON-PUBLIC ITEM - MITIGATION MONITOR FOR EIR 97-1 CRESTVIEW SCHOOL/WAL-MART CONTD FR 3/15/99 CITY COUNCIL MTG 41105 440.50 60 224 01/04/1999 Approved Adoption Of Ord 3408 Zone Map Amendment No. 97-1 (Crestview School Site) s/s Talbert 300' a/Beach Boulevard Arnel Retail Group 31295 160.30 58 40 02/05/1996 In response to the City Administrator's request, Melanie Fallon, Community Development Director, explained the process of the land use issue (Crestview site property) 31292 160.30 58 39 02/05/1996 The City Administrator assured Council that at such time, the neighborhood would be noticed (Crestview school site property) 31291 160.30 58 39 02/05/1996 Community Development Director report: Crestview site had been removed from General Plan/GP by Planning Commission, considered at such time as an application/proposal is submitted to determine if issues can be 31290 160.30 58 39 02/05/1996 Mayor Sullivan stated he wanted the citizens for Crestview to know they and been heard and that the City Council will give fair and honest consideration. Discussion was held re whether the Crestview site was scheduled in forthcoming meeting Total Records Selected: 6 Date/Time 11/19/99 1:54:51 PM City of Huntington Beach Page 1 Office of the City Clerk Minutes ID Category Subject Volume Page Date Keywords 41693 420.40 60 387 04/05/1999 ENTRY 2 OF 2 - PUB HEAR- 2 APPEALS - (2) CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY- NON-PUBLIC ITEM - MITIGATION MONITOR FOR EIR 97-1 CRESTVIEW SCHOOL/WAL-MART CONTD FR 3/15/99 CITY COUNCIL MTG 40283 440.80 59 772 07/14/1998 Joint Study Session Between City Council and Planning Commission--Crest View School Site/Wal-Mart--South Side of Talbert Avenue, 300 Feet East of Beach Blvd. 39994 160.30 59 658 05/18/1998 Re: EIR-WaI-Mart-Community Development Director Fallon reported there is an error on the map&that she had not been aware of this error until the end of the day on 5/15/98. 39993 160.30 59 658 05/18/1998 Re: EIR-WaI-Mart-Counci[member Green stated a staff member was not authorized to modify an EIR; thus Community Development Director Fallon was correct to not have corrected the report herself. Total Records Selected: 4 'Y 21a,41� J, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION TO: DAVE GAROFALO, Mayor Pro Tern FROM: CONNIE BROCKWAY, City Clerk DATE: August 13, 1999 SUBJECT: Crest View United Petition—Election Code Sections 9211,9114& 9115 (Response to Attached Memo of August 11, 1999) The attached sections of the California Elections Code set forth the process for verification of signatures affixed to initiative petitions, Charter amendment petitions, referendums, and recall petitions. I have chosen to request a full signature count versus random sampling. Last week I prepared a memorandum on other aspects of the initiative process for the City Councilmembers, City Attorney and Administration. Should it not have reached you yet, I will be glad to again forward a copy to you. Attachments xc: Mayor&City Councilmembers Ray Silver, City Administrator Melanie Fallon,Assistant City Administrator Gail Hutton, City Attorney CB:le G:CBMemos\99-1601e.doc Chapter 3 Municipal Elections 9212. 9209. Affidavit attached to petition. Each section shall have attached thereto the declaration of the person soliciting the signatures.This declaration shall be substantially in the same form as set forth in Section 9022,except that the declaration shall declare that the circulator is a voter of the city, and shall state the voter's residence address at the time of the execution of the declaration. (Added by Stats. 1994,c.920,§2.) 9210. Filing of petition. The petition shall be filed by the proponents or by any person or persons authorized in writing by the proponents.All sections of the petition shall be filed at one time.Once filed,no petition section shall be amended except by order of a court of competent jurisdiction. When the petition is presented for filing,the elections official shall do all of the following: (a)Ascertain the number of registered voters of the city last reported by the county elections official to the Secretary of State pursuant to Section 2187 effective at the time the notice specified in Section 9202 was published. (b)Determine the total number of signatures affixed to the petition.If, from this examination,the elections official determines that the number of signatures,prima facie,equals or is in excess of the minimum number of sig- natures required,he or she shall accept the petition for filing.The petition shall be deemed as filed on that date.Any petition not accepted for filing shall be returned to the proponents. (Added by Stats.1994,c.920,§2.) 9211. Examination of signatures. After the petition has been filed,as herein provided,the elections official shall examine the petition in the same manner as are county petitions in accordance with Sections 9114 and 9115,except that for the purposes of this section,references to the board of supervisors shall be treated as references to the legislative body of the city. (Added by Stats.1994,c.920,§2.) 9212. Report on effect of proposed initiative to legislative body. (a)During the circulation of the petition,or before taking either action described in subdivisions(a)and(b)of Section 9214,or Section 9215,the leg- islative body may refer the proposed initiative measure to any city agency or agencies for a report on any or all of the following: (1)Its fiscal impact. (2)Its effect on the internal consistency of the city's general and spe- cific plans,including the housing element,the consistency between planning and zoning,the limitations on city actions under Section 65008 of the Govern- ment Code,and Chapters 4.2(commencing with Section 65913)and 4.3(com- mencing with Section 65915)of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code. (3)Any other matters the council requests to be in the report. (b)The report shall be presented to the legislative body within the time prescribed by the legislative body but no later than 30 days after the elections official certifies to the legislative body the sufficiency of the petition. (Added by Stats.1994,c.920,§2.) 265 1999 9112. DIVISION 9. MEASURES SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS pared pursuant to Section 9111. (c)With respect to county initiative measures that qualified for the ballot in the preceding two calendar years,the number which were not approved by the voters, and the number of these ballot measures for which reports were prepared pursuant to Section 9111. (Added by Stats.1994,c.920,§2.) 9113. Filing of petition. The petition shall be filed by the proponents,orby any person or persons authorized in writing by the proponents.All sections of the petition shall be filed at one time.Any sections of the petition not so filed shall be void for all purposes.Once filed,no petition section shall be amended except by order of a court of competent jurisdiction. When the petition is filed,the county elections official shall determine the total number of signatures affixed to the petition.If,from this examina- tion,the county elections official determines that the number of signatures, prima facie, equals or is in excess of the minimum number of signatures required, the county elections official shall examine the petition in accor- dance with Section 9114 or 9115.If,from this examination,the county elec- tions official determines that the number of signatures,prima facie,does not equal or exceed the minimum number of signatures required, no further action shall be taken. (Added by Stats.1994,c.920,§2.) 9114. Examination of signatures. Except as provided in Section 9115,within 30 days from the date of filing of the petition, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays, the elections official shall examine the petition,and from the records of registration ascer- tain whether or not the petition is signed by the requisite number of voters.A certificate showing the results of this examination shall be attached to the petition. In determining the number of valid signatures,the elections official may use the duplicate file of affidavits maintained,or may check the signatures against facsimiles of voters'signatures,provided that the method of prepar- ing and displaying the facsimiles complies with law. The elections official shall notify the proponents of the petition as to the sufficiency or insufficiency of the petition. If the petition is found insufficient,no further action shall be taken.How- ever,the failure to secure sufficient signatures,shall not preclude the filing of a new petition on the same subject,at a later date. If the petition is found sufficient,the elections official shall certify the results of the examination to the board of supervisors at the next regular meeting of the board. (Added by Stats.1994,c.920,§2J 9115. Sample examination of signatures. (a)Within 30 days from the date of filing of the petition,excluding Satur- days,Sundays,and holidays,if,from the examination of petitions pursuant to Section 9114 shows that more than 500 signatures have been signed on the petition,the elections official may use a random sampling technique for veri- fication of signatures.The random sample of signatures to be verified shall be drawn so that every signature filed with the elections official shall be given an equal opportunity to be included in the sample.The random sampling shall 1999 254 Chapter 2.County Elections 9117. include an examination of at least 500,or 3 percent of the signatures,which- ever is greater. (b)If the statistical sampling shows that the number of valid signatures is within 95 to 110 percent of the number of signatures of qualified voters needed to declare the petition sufficient,the elections official shall examine and verify each signature filed. (c)In determining from the records of registration,what number of valid signatures are signed on the petition,the elections official may use the dupli- cate file of affidavits maintained,or may check the signatures against facsimi- les of voters' signatures, provided that the method of preparing and displaying the facsimiles complies with law. (d)The elections official shall attach to the petition,a certificate showing the result of this examination,and shall notify the proponents of either the sufficiency or insufficiency of the petition. (e)If the petition is found insufficient,no action shall be taken on the peti- tion.However,the failure to secure sufficient signatures shall not preclude the filing later of an entirely new petition to the same effect. (f)If the petition is found to be sufficient,the elections official shall certify the results of the examination to the board of supervisors at the next regular meeting of the board. (Added by Stats. 1994,c.920,§2.) 9116. Initiative petition signatures;pass ordinance or call special election. If the initiative petition is signed by voters not less in number than 20 per- cent of the entire vote cast within the county for all candidates for Governor at the last gubernatorial election preceding the publication of the notice of intention to circulate an initiative petition,and contains a request that the ordinance be submitted immediately to a vote of the people at a special elec- tion,the board of supervisors shall either: (a)Pass the ordinance without alteration either at the regular meeting at which it is presented,or within 10 days after it is presented. (b)Immediately call a special election at which the ordinance,without alteration,shall be submitted to a vote of the voters of the county. (c) Order a report pursuant to Section 9111 at the regular meeting at which the ordinance is presented.When the report is presented to the board of supervisors,it shall either adopt the ordinance within 10 days or order an election pursuant to subdivision(b). (Added by Stats.1994,c.920,§2.) 9117. Consolidation with regular election;calling of special election. (a)When it is legally possible to hold a special election under this article within 180 days prior to a regular election,the board of supervisors may sub- mit the proposed ordinance at that regular election instead of at a special elec- tion. (b)In all other cases,the board of supervisors shall call a special election, to be held not less than 88 nor more than 103 days after the date of the presen- tation of the proposed ordinance to the board.However, to avoid holding more than one election within any 180-day period,the date for holding the special election may be fixed later than 103 days after the date of the presenta- tion of the proposed ordinance to the board,but at as early a date as practica- ble after the expiration of the 180-day period. 255 1999 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION `= { f #kl TO: Connie Brockway, City Clerk FROM: Dave Garofalo, Mayor Pro Tern DATE: August 11, 1999 SUBJECT. Crestview United Petition Would you please let my office know a process by which you verify signatures? It is my understanding, and certainly in the best interest of the general public, that each and every signature be verified versus a more arbitrary, random check of same. Several people have informed me that they were approached in public places such as Pier Plaza with the only question being "Are you a registered voter?" Please let me know at your earliest convenience. DG:1p xc: Mayor and City Council Gail Hutton Ray Silver Melanie Fallon .Aa CU V OF HUM7UN270[m BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 ®(AMC E OF THE CCOTY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY CITY CLERK September 2, 1999 To: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers From: Connie Brockway, City Clerk Regarding: City Council Agenda Item F-4 (Regarding Special Municipal Election) Transmitted pursuant to State Elections Code S.9114 is the Certificate As To Verification of Signatures for the Petition Entitled "Initiative to Amend Zoning and General Plan Designation of Crest View School Site to Prohibit Commercial Development and Permit Residential Uses Only." The City Clerk's RCA (Request for Council Action) and the election resolutions as they are reflected on the City Council Tuesday, September 7, 1999 agenda will be provided to Council under separate cover and will be available to the public at the City Clerk's Office on Friday, September 3, 1999. Connie Brockway, CMC City Clerk Attachments: Copy of letter from Rosalyn Lever, Registrar of Voters, dated September 2, 1999 Copy of Certificate as to Verification of Signatures on Petition cbmemos/99-177cg F- If (Telephone:714-536-5227) JANICE M. MITTERMEJER County Executive Officer 4 UN-rV C:) F ROSALYN LEVER 2 Registrar of Voters 3 Mailing Address: N cm� PH P.O.Box 11298 Santa Ana,California 92711 REGISTRATION & ELECTIONS DEPARTMENT 1300 South Grand Avenue,Bldg.C Santa Ana,California 92705 (714)567-7600 TDD(714)567-7608 FAX(714)567-7627 _4 September 2, 1999 Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach ti 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Ms. Brockway: Enclosed is our Certificate as to Verification of Signatures for the petition entitled "Initiative to Amend Zoning and General Plan Designation of Crest View School Site to Prohibit Commercial Development and Permit Residential Uses Only" for the city of Huntington Beach. The number of registered voters in the city of Huntington Beach as of the report of registration to the Secretary of State dated February 10, 1999 is 100,913. Very truly yours, Rosalyn Lever Registrar of Voters Enc. CERTIFICATE AS TO VERIFICATION OF SIGNATURES ON PETITION State of California) ) SS. County of Orange ) 1, Rosalyn Lever, Registrar of Voters of the County of Orange, do hereby certify that I am the county officer having charge of the registration of voters in the County of Orange, and I have examined, or caused to be examined, the attached initiative petition submitted to the City of Huntington Beach entitled "Initiative to Amend Zoning and General Plan Designation of Crest View School Site to Prohibit Commercial Development and Permit Residential Uses Only." I further certify that from said examination I have determined the following facts regarding these documents: Number of signatures submitted: 22,366 Number of signatures examined: 22,169 Number of signatures verified: 15,445 Number of signatures found invalid: 6,724 Number of signatures found invalid because of being duplicate: 1 ,337 WITNESS my hand and Official Seal this 2"d day of September, 1999. 0oaaoaoa©aon000 000 RAR OF Yn °Ooo °0000000°° 404 0°° da ROSALYN LEVER 4 o m Registrar of Voters 4 0 b o f o p a � a County of Orange ea D O C a °na� °° � °°°oOOpooIao�oIop,pCO°°�° 0� ° o°O0° 0IT 00000aoaaa0000'lo�°oQpu (-S71 )l-&rDekajaJ %ITY OF HUNTINGTON EEAGr, MEETING DATE: July 6, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CK99-004 Council/Agency Meeting Held: '-la - 9 9 Deferred/Continued to: �� �� � ©AP roved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied """T' City Clerk's Signat re �-0 I /o - 5 Council Meeting Date: July 6, 1999 Department ID Number: CK99-004 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: CONNIE BROCKWAY, City Clerk& PREPARED BY: CONNIE BROCKWAY, City Clerko SUBJECT: OPTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO REFER PROPOSED INITIATIVE MEASURE DURING CIRCULATION OF A PETITION TO ANY CITY AGENCY OR AGENCIES FOR REPORT (RELATIVE TO CHANGE OF ZONING DESIGNATION OF CREST VIEW SCHOOL SITE) Est,tement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: The State Elections Code provides the City Council with the option during the circulation of a petition or before taking certain actions set forth in the Elections Code to refer a proposed initiative measure to any city agency or agencies for a report on the effect of the proposed initiative. Available Actions: The City Council may determine not to take any action on this item. -AR I.--- The City GoupGil may refer the d—ir-n ttiafave—rneasuFe—to—any—city—agency--or 9' its fiseel t Ili ng- - en-planning and zoning, he imitations CK99004 -2- 06/29/99 9:15 AM kcQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTIuN MEETING DATE: July 6, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CK99-004 08=of theme.f�n` e-cnd-C-hapters-4-2 ( 3-( ion-65915) of Dnvusgen 1 of T;LI 7 e_f ah9G Gever-nm•nt-C—oc—. rt-. cc (( y- eetiens-Eede- Analysis: The City Council may, pursuant to the State Elections Code, refer a proposed initiative during its circulation of following its filing and certification by the City Clerk to any city agency or agencies for a report back to Council on its effect. As the petition is currently being circulated this option is being presented to Council for consideration. The City Council may determine not to refer the proposed measure for report. The City Council may decide to defer obtaining such report until the initiative has been filed and found to contain the required number of signatures. The attached sections of the State Elections Code (S.9214 and 9215) provide information as to the time frames for Council to receive such report. The City Administrator recommends that no action be taken by the City Council. Funding Source: Not applicable. Environmental Status: Not applicable. CK99004 -3- 06/29/99 9:34 AM KaQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTON MEETING DATE: July 6, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CK99-004 Attachment(s): Cfty C.lerk't, P a g e,N u-m--b—er • De ption L 1 Elections Code Sections 9212, 9214, 9215 2. Summary of Proposed Ballot Measure Prepared by City Attorney 3. Notice of Intent to Circulate Petition 4. Memo to City Councilmembers and staff dated June 15, 1999 5. Government Code Section 65008, Chapter 4.2 (commencing with Section 65913), and Chapter 4.3 (commencing with Section 65915) RCA Author: CB CK99004 -4- 06/29/99 9:53 AM A TTA CHMENT 1 1 Chapter 3. M.-_,nicipal Elections 9212. 9209. Affidavit attached to petition. Each section shall have attached thereto the declaration of the person soliciting the signatures. This declaration shall be substantially in the same form as set forth in Section 9022,except that the declaration shall declare that the circulator is a voter of the city, and shall state the voter's residence address at the time of the execution of the declaration. (Added bil Stats. 1994, c. 920, §2.) 9210. Filing of petition. The petition shall be filed by the proponents or by any person or persons authorized in writing by the proponents. All sections of the petition shall be filed at one time. Once filed, no petition section shall be amended except by order of a court of competent jurisdiction. When the petition is presented for filing,the elections official shall do all of the following: (a)Ascertain the number of registered voters of the city last reported by the county elections official to the Secretary of State pursuant to Section 2187 effective at the time the notice specified in Section 9202 was published. (b) Determine the total number of signatures affixed to the petition. If, from this examination, the elections official determines that the number of signatures,prima facie,equals or is in excess of the minimum number of sig- natures required, he or she shall accept the petition for filing. The petition shall be deemed as filed on that date.Any petition not accepted for filing shall be returned to the proponents. (Added by Stats. 1994, c. 920,§2J 9211. Examination of signatures. After the petition has been filed,as herein provided,the elections official shall examine the petition in the same manner as are county petitions in accordance with Sections 9114 and 9115, except that for the purposes of this section,references to the board of supervisors shall be treated as references to the legislative body of the city. (Added by Stats. 1994, c. 920, §2.) 9212. Report on effect of proposed'initiative to legislative body. (a) During the circulation of the petition, or before taking either action described in subdivisions(a)and(b)of Section 9214,or Section 9215,the leg- islative body may refer the proposed initiative measure to any city.agency or agencies for a report on any or all of the following: (1)Its fiscal impact. (2)Its effect on the internal consistency of the city's general and spe- cific plans,including the housing element,the consistency between planning and zoning,the limitations on city actions under Section 65008 of the Govern- ment Code,and Chapters 4.2(commencing with Section 65913)and 4.3(com- mencing with Section 65915)of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code. (3)Any other matters the council requests to be in the report. (b)The report shall be presented to the legislative body within the time prescribed by the legislative body but no later than 30 days after the elections official certifies to the legislative body the sufficiency of the petition. (Added by Stats. 1994, c. 920, §2.) ��� iQQQ 9213. DIVISION 9 MEASURES SUBMi T i ED TO THE VOTERS 9213. Report on municipal initiatives submitted to Secretary of State; time. On or before April 1 of each odd-numbered year, the elections official of each legislative body shall file a report with the Secretan-of State containing the folloi�-ing information: (a) The number of municipal initiative petitions circulated during the preceding t%%-o calendar years which did not qualify for the ballot, and the number of these proposed initiatives for which reports were prepared pursu- ant to Section 9212. (b) With respect to municipal initiative measures that qualified for the ballot in the preceding two calendar years, the number that were approved by the voters, and the number of these ballot measures for which reports Were prepared pursuant to Section 9212. (c) With respect to municipal initiative measures that qualified for the ballot in the preceding two calendar years, the number that were not approved by the voters, and the number of these ballot measures for which reports were prepared pursuant to Section 9212. (Added by Stats. 1994, e. 920, §2.) \9214. Petition signatures; adopt ordinance or order special election. J If the initiative petition is signed by not less than 15 percent of the voters of the city according to the last report of registration by the county elections official to the Secretary of State pursuant to Section 2187 effective at the time the notice specified in Section 9202 was published, or in a city with 1,000 or less registered voters the signatures of 25 percent of the voters or 100 voters of the city,whichever is the lesser number, and contains a request that the ordi- nance be submitted immediately to a vote of the people at a special election, the legislative body shall do either of the following: (a)Introduce the ordinance,without alteration, at the regular meeting at which it is presented, and adopt the ordinance within 10 days after it is pre- sented. (b)Immediately order a special election, to be held not less than 88 nor more than 103 days after the date of the order, at which the ordinance,with- out alteration, shall be submitted to a vote of the voters of the city. (c) Order a report pursuant to Section 9212 at the regular meeting at which the ordinance is presente en t e report is presented to the legisla- tive body,the legislative body shall either adopt the ordinance within 10 days or order an election pursuant to subdivision(b). ;Added by Stats. 1994, c. 920, §2.) ----� 9215. Petition signatures; ordinance submitted at next regular municipal election. If the initiative petition is signed by not less than 10 percent of the voters of the city,according to the last report of registration by the county elections official to the Secretary of State pursuant to Section 2187,effective at the time the notice specified in Section 9202 was published, or, in a city with 1,000 or less registered voters,by the signatures of 25 percent of the voters or 100 vot- ers of the city,whichever is the lesser number, and the ordinance petitioned for is not required to be,or for any reason is not, submitted to the voters at a special election, and is not passed without change by the legislative body, then the ordinance, without alteration, shall be submitted by the legislative body to the voters at the next regular municipal election occurring not less 1999 266 s . �-l 5 � �� n e--07 Chapter 3. Municipal Elections 9220. than 88 days after the order of the legislative body, or after the legislative —'� body is presented with-a report prepared pursuant to Section 9212. (Added by Stats. 1994, c. 920, §2.) 9216. Mayor may veto. In cities having a mayor, or like officer, with the veto power, when the passage of an ordinance petitioned for by the voters is vetoed, the failure of the legislative body to pass the ordinance over the veto shall be deemed a refusal of the legislative body to pass the ordinance within the meaning of this article. (Added by Stats. 1994, c. 920, §2.) 9217. Valid ordinance if majority. 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.No ordinance that is either proposed by initiative petition and adopted by the vote of the legislative body of the city without submission to the voters, or adopted by the voters,shall be repealed or amended except by a vote of the people, unless provision is otherwise made in the original ordinance. (Added by Stats. 1994, c. 920, §2.) 9218. More than one ordinance at same election. Any number of proposed ordinances may be voted upon at the same election,but the same subject matter shall not be voted upon twice within any 12-month period at a special election under the provisions of this article. (Added by Stats. 1994, c. 920, §2.) 9219. Arguments for and against ordinance. The persons filing an initiative petition pursuant to this article may file a written argument in favor of the ordinance, and the legislative body may submit an argument against the ordinance. Neither argument shall exceed 300 words in length, and both arguments shall be printed upon the same sheet of paper and mailed to each voter with the sample ballot for the elec- tion. The following statement shall be printed on the front cover,or if none,on the heading of the first page, of the printed arguments: "Arguments in support of or in opposition to the proposed laws are the opinions of the authors." Printed arguments submitted to voters in accordance with this section shall be titled either "Argument In Favor Of Measure " or "Argument Against Measure " accordingly, the blank spaces being filled in only with the letter or number,if any,which designates the measure.At the discre- tion of the elections official, the word "Proposition" may be substituted for the word"Measure" in the titles.Words used in the title shall not be counted when determining the length of any argument. (Added by Stats. 1994, c. 920, §2.) 9220. Rebuttal arguments. (a)If the legislative body submits an argument against the ordinance, it shall immediately send copies of the argument to the persons filing the initia- tive petition. The persons filing the initiative petition may prepare and sub- mit a rebuttal argument not exceeding 230 words.The legislative body may 267 1999 A TTA CHMENT 2 BALLOT TITLE: A BALLOT MEASURE TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION OF THE CREST VIEW SCHOOL SITE FROM CG-F1 (COMMERCIAL GENERAL WITH A MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO OF 0.35) TO RL-7 (RESIDENTIAL WITH A MAXIMUM OF 7 DWELLING UNITS PER NET ACRE), AND TO CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF THE CREST VIEW SCHOOL SITE FROM CG (COMMERCIAL GENERAL) TO R-L (LOW.DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) SUMMARY: This proposed ballot measure would amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach to change the General Plan designation of the Crest View School site. The General Plan designation would be changed from CG-F1 (Commercial General with a maximum floor area ratio of 0.35) to RL-7 (Residential with a maximum of 7 dwelling units per net acre). The Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach would also be amended to change the zoning designation of the Crest View School site. The zoning designation would be changed from CG (Commercial General) to RL (Low Density Residential). A vote of the people would be required to change the general plan and zoning designations as amended by this measure. If a court invalidates a portion of the proposed measure, that portion shall be severed and have no effect on the remainder of the proposed measure. z � C7 rQ A TTA CHMENT 3 Proof of Publication of THE CITY ATTORNEY HAS PREPARED I THE FOLLOWING: PUBLIC NOTICE A LILOBALLOT MEASURE TO CHANGE NOTICE OF INTENT THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION TO CIRCULATE PETITION I OF THE CREST VIEW SCHOOL SITE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN by the FROM CG-Fl (COMMERCIAL GEN- person(s) whose names appear I ERAL WITH A MAXIMUM FLOOR hereon of their intention to circu- AREA RATIO OF 0.35)TO RL-7(RESI- late a petition within the City of DENTAL WITH A MAXIMUM OF 7 Huntington Beach for the purpose DWELLING UNITS PER NET ACRE), of amending the Citys General AND TO CHANGE THE ZONING Plan and Zoning Ordinance, I DESIGNATION OF THE CREST VIEW A statement of the reasons for the j SCHOOL SITE FROM CG (COM- proposed action contemplated MERCIAL GENERAL) TO R-L (LOW in the petition is as follows: DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) For many years, the community I SUMMARY: has relied on the Crestview school This proposed ballot measure site for educational uses and a I would amend the Land Use Ele- ment of the General Plan of the park. This site is near a residential City of Huntington Beach to Howwevveer, reticently the City Coun- j change the General Plan des- cil voted to rezone the land and ignahon of the Crest View School amend the general plan to allow site.The General Plan designation a huge discount-store on this site. would be changed from CG Fl This would add thousands of cars (Commercial General with a to Beach Boulevard and the area maximum floor area ratio of 0.35) surrounding the site, clogging to RL-7 (Residential with a ma)i- streets with tra�iic and adding air mum of 7 dwelling units per net pollution: acre).The Zoning and Subdivision Such a store would unfairly comOrdinance of the City of Hunting- -pete with existing stores by not ton Beach would also be providing family health benetftss, amended to change the zoning! Existing stores would end up laying designation of the Crest View off employees. School site. The zoning designs-; We do not oppose all develop lion would be changed from CG' ment: the development should (Commercial Gen.A vote of the to RL(Low simply be consistent with the char- Density Residential)).A acter of our community, change people would be required to change the general plan and Robert F; Cronk zoning designations as amended 118312 Hartlund Ln. by this measure. If a court invali- Huntington Beach, CA 92646 dates a portion of the proposed INITIATIVE MEASURE TO BE SUBMIT- measure, that portion .shall be TED DIRECTLY TO THE VOTERS: severed and have no effect on the remainder of the proposed INMATiVE TO AMEND ZONING AND measure. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION OF CREST VIEW SCHOOL SITE TO PRO- Publish: Orange County Register HIBIT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT February 15, 1999 AND PERMIT RESIDENTIAL USES 2C3100200 R-267 ONLY, The People of the City of Hunting- I ton Beach do ordain as follows: 1.'The Land Use Element of the City's General Plan is hereby amended to change the general plan designation for the 13.89 acre site located on the South side of Tolbert Avenue described in City Council Resolution 98-95 from CG-Fl(Commercial General ..�3 with a maximum floor area ratio of 0,35) to RL-7 (residential With a w^ maximum of 7 dwelling units per ~�—r Z. net acre). ' 2, The Citys Zoning and Subdi- vision Ordinance is hereby amended by amending District Map 40(Sectional District Map 36- 15-11) to rezone the property de- r scribed above from CG(General "( "c> '� Commercial) to R-L (Low Density ti Residential).- t '3, The above may not be amended except by vote of the t�nwt people. 4. Should any provision or appii- cation of the above be invali- dated by a court of law,it shall be severed and have no effect on tha rPmrinrior nf thrc rxrtinn o T H If O R A N G E gf J U N T Y tegj$ ver This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp 625 N. Grand Ave., Santa Ana, CA 92701 PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015.5 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ) ss. County of Orange, ) Proof of Publication of THE CRY ATTORNEY HAS PREPARED I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of THE FOLLOWING: PUBLIC NOTICE BALLOT TITLE: NOTICE OF INTENT A BALLOT MEASURE TO CHANGE the County aforesaid; I am over the age of twenty TO CIRCULATE PETITION THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION OF THE CREST VIEW SCHOOL SITE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN by the; FROM CG-FI(COMMERCIAL GEN- One years, and not a party to or interested In the personfs)whose names appear, ERAL WITH A MAXIMUM FLOOR hereon of their Intention to circu- AREA RATIOOF 0.35)TO RL-7(RESI- late a pettnon wlttvn the Clty of, DENIL4L WITH A MAXIMUM F 7 Hunt4igton Beach for the purpose' DWEWNG UNITS PER NET ACRE), above entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the of amending the Cttys General' AND TO CHANGE THE ZONING Plan and Zoning Ordinance. I DESIGNATION OF THE CREST VIEW `inter of The Orange COount Register, a Aoposee actot of contreasemplated for theMERCCSCHOIAL GENERAL))TO R-L SITE FROM CG LC(OW OM- p g y g ) proposed action contemplated DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) In the petition Is as fellows: newspaper of general circulation, published in the For many years,the community SUMMARY:has relied on the Crestvlew school This proposed ballot measure site for educational uses and a would amend the Land Use Ele- park.Thls site Is near a residential ment of the Genera Plan of the city of Santa Ana, County of Orange, and which neighborhood. City of Huntington Beach to! However,recently the Cny Coun• change the Genera Plan des- cIl voted to rezone the land and Ignation of the Crest View School newspaper has been adjudged to be a newspaper of amend the general plan toallow Me.The General Plandeslgnoflon a huge discount-stae on this site. would!be charged from CG+1 This would add thousands of cars (Commercial General with a general circulation b the Superior Court of the to Beach Boulevard and the area maxmumfloorarea ratio of0.35) g Y P to RL-7(Residential with a maxl- sttreets sreets ding the site, clogging mum of 7 dwelling units per net with traifx;and adding air dlvlsl Coun of Oran a State of California, under the pollution: acre).The Zoning and Sub ty g ' Such a store would unfairly com- Ordinance of the City of Huntinong- pete with existing stores by not ton Beach would also be date of November 19, 1905, Case No. A-21046 that providing famlly heath benefts. de gr�n°of"�eC�Z ier,g,,,i Existing stores would end up laying Schoa Me.The zoning deslgna-. off employees. tion would be changed from CG We do not oppose all develop-the notice, of which the annexed is a true printed Thant: the development should (Commercla General)to RL(Low simply be consistent with the char- Density Resldenflaq.A vote of the acter of our community. People would be required to copy. has been published in each regular and entire change the general plan and P Y P g Robert F:Crank zoning designations as amended 118312 Harflund Ln. by this measure.If a court Involl- I Huntington Beach, CA 92646 dates a portion of the proposed issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement I INITIATIVE MEASURE TO BE SUBMIT- measure, that portion shall be TED DIRECTLY TO THE VOTERS: severed and have no effect on the remainder of the proposed thereof on the following dates, to wit: INITIATIVE TO AMEND ZONING AND measure. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION OF Publish: Orange County Register CREST VIEW SCHOOL SITE Orange TO PRO- February 1999, HIBIT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT 2C ruary 0 R-261 AND PERMIT RESIDENRAL USES ONLY. The People of the City of Hunting- ton Beach do ordain as follows: 1.The Land Use Element of the Cttys General Plan Is hereby Februar 15 , 19 9 9 amended to change the general Y plan desk7noMon for the 13•89 acre site aced on the South x side of Talbert Avenue described In City Council Resolution 98-95 r`p from CG-F1(Commercial Genera with a maximum floor area ratio of 0.351 to RL-7 (residential With a '— m um of 7 dwelling units per t t f net acre). 2. The Crys Zoning and Subdi- vision Ordinance Is hereby amended by amending District Cp —C "I certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury Map 40(Sectional District Map 36- fir"--_; 5-11)to rezone the property de- n i under the laws of the State of California that the scribed above from CG(General T:• - Commercial)to R-L(Low Density — foregoing is true and correct': °I)' 13. The above may not be -• amended except by vote of the J C7 February Y 15 1999 4.Should any povLsbn or aPpll- canon of the above be lrrvd dated by a court of law,r shad be 'severed and have no ettecton I the remainder of this ordinance. Sgna es PTI OF' OFPUBLICATION A TTA CHMENT 4 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Ray Silver, City Administrator Gail Hutton, City Attorney Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director FROM: Connie Brockway, City Clerk DATE: June 15, 1999 SUBJECT: Chapter 3, Section 9212—Elections Code as It Pertains to the Initiative Petition Being Circulated Relative to the Crest View Closed School Site— (Wal-Mart) At the July 6, 1999 Council meeting I will present an RCA to the City Council informing the Council that Council may refer the above-referenced proposed initiative measure to any City agency or agencies for a report (see attached code for specifics). The Council may take this action during the circulation of the petition, or before taking any action described in Section 9214(a) and (b) or Section 9215. Should Council direct the preparation of said report, the report shall be presented to Council within the time the Council prescribes but no later than 30 days after the City Clerk certifies to Council the sufficiency of the petition. The proponents must file the petition in the City Clerk's Office no later than August 11, 1999. Within 30 days from the date of filing excluding Saturdays, Sundays and holidays, the City Clerk shall ascertain whether or not the petition has been signed by the requisite number of voters. Attachments xc: Mr. Robert Cronk, Proponent CB:le G:CBMemos\99-1101e.doc A TTA CHMENT 5 CA Codes (gov:65000-650101 Page 1 of 1 65008 (a) Any action pursuant to this title by any city, county,city and county, or other local governmental agency in this state isnull and void if it denies to any individual or group of individualsthe enjoyment of residence, landownership, tenancy, or any other landuse in this state because of any of the following reasons: (1) The race, sex, color, religion, ethnicity, national origin,ancestry, lawful occupation, or age of the individuals or group of individuals. (2) The method of financing of any residential development of the individual or group of individuals. (3) The intended occupancy of any residential development bypersons or families of low, moderate, or middle income. (b) No city, county, city and county, or other local governmental agency shall, in the enactment or administration of ordinancespursuant to this title, prohibit or discriminate against anyresidential development or emergency shelter because of the method offinancing or the race, sex, color, religion, ethnicity, nationalorigin, ancestry, lawful occupation, or age of the owners or intendedoccupants of the residential development or emergency shelter. (c) (1) No city, county, city and county, or other localgovernmental agency shall, in the enactment or administration ofordinances pursuant to this title, prohibit or discriminate against aresidential development or emergency shelter because the developmentor shelter is intended for occupancy by persons and families of low and moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health andSafety Code, or persons and families of middle income. (2) For the purposes of this section, "persons and families ofmiddle income" means persons and families whose income does notexceed 150 percent of the median income for the county in which thepersons or families reside. (d) (1) No city, county, city and county, or other localgovernmental agency may impose different requirements on aresidential development or emergency shelter which is subsidized, financed, insured, or otherwise assisted by the federal or stategovernments or by a local public entity, as defined in Section 50079of the Health and Safety Code, than those imposed on nonassisteddevelopments, except as provided in subdivision (e) . (2) No city, county, city and county, or other local governmentalagency may, because of the race, sex, color, religion, ethnicity,national origin, ancestry, lawful occupation, or age of the intendedoccupants, or because the development is intended for occupancy bypersons and families of low, moderate, or middle income, imposedifferent requirements on these residential developments than thoseimposed on developments generally, except as provided in subdivision(e) . (e) Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this section or thistitle shall be construed to prohibit either of the following: (1) The County of Riverside from enacting and enforcing zoning toprovide housing for older persons, in accordance with state orfederal law, if that zoning was enacted prior to January 1, 1995. (2) Any city, county, or city and county from extendingpreferential treatment to residential developments or emergencyshelters assisted by the federal or state governments or by a localpublic entity, as defined in Section 50079 of the Health and SafetyCode, or other residential developments or emergency sheltersintended for occupancy by persons and families of low and moderateincome, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, or persons and families of middle income, or agricultural employees, asdefined in subdivision (b) of Section 1140.4 of the Labor Code, andtheir families. This preferential treatment may include, but neednot be limited to, reduction or waiver of fees or changes inarchitectural requirements, site development and property linerequirements, building setback requirements, or vehicle parking requirements which reduce development costs of these developments. (f) "Residential development, " as used in this section, means a single-family residence or a multifamily residence, includingmanufactured homes, as defined in Section 18007 of the Health andSafety Code. (g) This section shall apply to chartered cities. (h) The Legislature finds and declares that discriminatorypractices which inhibit the development of housing for persons and families of low, moderate, and middle income, or emergency sheltersfor the homeless, are a matter of statewide concern. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.../displaycode?section=gov&group=64001-65000&file=65000-6501 6/29/99 CA Codes (gov:65913-659141 Page 1 of 4 GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65913-65914 65913 (a) The Legislature finds and declares that there exists a sever shortage of affordable housing, especially for persons and families of low and moderate income, and that there is an immediate need to encourage the development of new housing, not only through the provision of financial assistance, but also through changes in law designed to do all of the following: (1) Expedite the local and state residential development process. (2) Assure that local governments zone sufficient land at densities high enough for production of affordable housing. (3) Assure that local governments make a diligent effort through the administration of land use and development controls and the provision of regulatory concessions and incentives to significantly reduce housing development costs and thereby facilitate the development of affordable housing, including housing for elderly persons and families, as defined by Section 50067 of the Health and Safety Code. These changes in the law are consistent with the responsibility of local government to adopt the program required by subdivision (c) of Section 65583. (b) The Legislature further finds and declares that the costs of new housing developments have been increased, in part, by the existing permit process and by existing land use regulations and that vitally needed housing developments have been halted or rendered infeasible despite the benefits to the public health, safety, and welfare of those developments and despite the absence of adverse environmental impacts. It is, therefore, necessary to enact this chapter and to amend existing statutes which govern housing development so as to provide greater encouragement for local and state governments to approve needed and sound housing developments. 65913. 1. In exercising its authority to zone for land uses, a city, county, or city and county shall designate and zone sufficient vacant land for residential use with appropriate standards, in relation to zoning for nonresidential use, and in relation to growth projections of the general plan to meet housing needs as identified in the general plan. For the purposes of this section, "appropriate standards" shall mean densities and requirements with respect to minimum floor areas, building setbacks, rear and side yards, parking, the percentage of a lot which may be occupied by a structure, amenities, and other requirements imposed on residential lots pursuant to the zoning authority which contribute significantly to the economic feasibility of producing housing at the lowest possible cost given economic and environmental factors, the public health and safety, and the need to facilitate the development of housing for persons and families of low or moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code. However, nothing in this section shall be construed to enlarge or diminish the authority of a city, county, or city and county to require a developer to construct such housing. Nothing in this section shall be construed to require a city, county, or city and county in which less than 5 percent of the total land area is undeveloped to zone a site within an urbanized area of http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.../displaycode?section=gov&group=65001-66000&file=65913-6591 6/29/99 CA Codes (gov:65913-659141 Page 2 of 4 such city, county, or city and county for residential uses at densities which exceed those on adjoining residential parcels by 100 percent. For the purposes of this section, "vacant land" shall not include agricultural preserves pursuant to Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 51200) of Part 1 of Division 1 of Title 5. For the purposes of this section, "urbanized area" means a central city or cities and surrounding closely settled territory, as defined by the United States Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census in the Federal ' Register, Volume 39, Number 85, for Wednesday, May 1, 1974, at pages 15202-15203, and as periodically updated. 65913.2. In exercising its authority to regulate subdivisions under Division 2 (commencing with Section 66410) , a city, county, or city and county shall: (a) Refrain from imposing criteria for design, as defined in Section 66418, or improvements, as defined in Section 66419, for the purpose of rendering infeasible the development of housing for any and all economic segments of the community. However, nothing in this section shall be construed to enlarge or diminish the authority of a city, county, or city and county under other provisions of law to permit a developer to construct such housing. (b) Consider the effect of ordinances adopted and actions taken by it with respect to the housing needs of the region in which the local jurisdiction is situated. (c) Refrain from imposing standards and criteria for public improvements including, but not limited to, streets, sewers, fire stations, schools, or parks, which exceed the standards and criteria being applied by the city, county, or city and county at that time to its publicly financed improvements located in similarly zoned districts within that city, county, or city and county. 65913.5. (a) As part of implementation of the demonstration program established pursuant to Section 14045 of the Government Code, a city, county, or city and county participating in the demonstration program shall grant a density bonus to a developer of housing within one-half mile of a mass transit guideway station unless the locality finds that granting of the density bonus would result in a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact. (b) Notwithstanding subdivision (f) of Section 65915, as used in this section, "density bonus" means a density increase of at least 25 percent over the otherwise maximum residential density allowed under the general plan and any applicable zoning and development ordinances. (c) A city, county, or city and county may require a developer to enter into a development agreement pursuant to Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 65864) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 to implement a density bonus granted pursuant to this section. (d) In an action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul a density bonus granted pursuant to this section, a court shall uphold the decision of a city, county, or city and county to grant the density bonus if the court finds that there is substantial evidence in the record that the housing development will assist the city, county, or city and county to do all of the following: (1) Meet its share of the regional housing needs determined pursuant to Article 10. 6 (commencing with Section 65580) of Chapter 4 of Division 1 of Title 7. (2) Implement its congestion management plan adopted pursuant to http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.../displaycode?section--gov&group=65001-66000&file=65913-6591 6/29/99 CA Codes (gov:65913-65914` Page 3 of 4 Chapter 2.6 (commencing with Section 65088) of Division 1 of Title 7. (e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to relieve any local agency from complying with the provisions of the Congestion Management Program required by Chapter 2. 6 (commencing with Section 65088) of Division 1 of Title 7. 65913.7. If a court finds that an action of a city, county, or city and county is in violation of Section 65913.1 or 65913.2, the city, county, or city and county shall bring its action into compliance within 60 days. However, the court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce its decision. Upon the court's determination that the 60-day period for compliance would place an undue hardship on the city, county, or city and county, the court may extend the time period for compliance by an additional 60 days. 65913. 8. A fee, charge, or other form of payment imposed by a governing body of a local agency for a public capital facility improvement related to a development project may not include an amount for the maintenance or operation of an improvement when the fee, charge, or other form of payment is required as a condition of the approval of a development project, or required to fulfill a condition of the approval. However, a fee, charge, or other form of payment may be required for the maintenance and operation of an improvement meeting the criteria of either subdivision (a) or (b) , as follows: (a) The improvement is (1) designed and installed to serve only the specific development project on which the fee, charge, or other form of payment is imposed, (2) the improvement serves 19 or fewer lots or units, and (3) the local agency makes a finding, based upon substantial evidence, that it is infeasible or impractical to form a public entity for maintenance of the improvement or to annex the property served by the improvement to an entity as described in subdivision (b) . (b) The improvement is within a water district, sewer maintenance district, street lighting district, or drainage district. In these circumstances, a payment for maintenance or operation may be required for a period not to exceed 24 months when, subsequent to the construction of the improvement, either the local agency forms a public entity or assessment district to finance the maintenance or operation, or the area containing the improvement is annexed to a public entity that will finance the maintenance or operation, whichever is earlier. The local agency may extend a fee, charge, or other form of payment pursuant to this section once for whatever duration it deems reasonable beyond the 24-month period upon making a finding, based upon substantial evidence, that this time period is insufficient for creation of, or annexation to, a public entity or an assessment district that would finance the maintenance or operation. As used in this section, "development project" and "local agency" have the same meaning as provided in subdivisions (a) and (c) of Section 66000. 65913.9. This chapter shall apply to all cities, including charter cities, counties, and cities and counties. The Legislature finds and declares that the development of a sufficient supply of housing to meet the needs of all Californians is http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.../displaycode?section=gov&group=65001-66000&file=65913-6591 6/29/99 CA Codes (gov:65913-659141 Page 4 of 4 a matter of statewide concern. 65914. (a) In any civil action or proceeding, including but not limited to an action brought pursuant to Section 21167 of the Public Resources Code, against a public entity which has issued planning, subdivision, or other approvals for a housing development, to enjoin the carrying out or approval of a housing development or to secure a writ of mandate relative to the approval of, or a decision to carry out the housing development, the court, after entry of final judgment and the time to appeal has elapsed, and after notice to the plaintiff or plaintiffs, may award all reasonably incurred costs of suit, including attorney's fees, to the prevailing public entity if it finds all of the following: (1) The housing development meets or exceeds the requirements for low-and moderate-income housing as set forth in Section 65915. (2) The action was frivolous and undertaken with the primary purpose of delaying or thwarting the low- or moderate-income nature of the housing development or portions thereof. (3) The public entity making application for costs under this section has prevailed on all issues presented by the pleadings, and, if an intervenor, the public entity actively, through counsel or otherwise, took part on a continuing basis in the defense of the lawsuit. (4) A demand for a preliminary injunction was made by the plaintiff and denied by a court of competent jurisdiction, such denial not having been reversed on appeal, or the action or proceeding was dismissed as a result of a motion for summary judgment by any defendant, and not reversed on appeal. (b) In any appeal of any action described in subdivision (a) , the reviewing court may award all reasonably incurred costs of suit, including attorney's fees, to the prevailing public entity if the court reviews and upholds the trial court's findings with respect to paragraphs (1) to (4) , inclusive, of subdivision (a) . http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.../displaycode?section=gov&group=65001-66000&file=65913-6591 6/29/99 CA Codes (gov:65915-659181 Pagel of 5 GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65915-65918 65915. (a) When a developer of housing proposes a housing development within the jurisdiction of the local government, the city, county, or city and county shall provide the developer incentives for the production of lower income housing units within the development if the developer meets the requirements set forth in subdivisions (b) and (c) . The city, county, or city and county shall adopt an ordinance which shall specify the method of providing developer incentives. (b) When a developer of housing agrees or proposes to construct at least (1) 20 percent of the total units of a housing development for lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or (2) 10 percent of the total units of a housing development for very low income households, as defined in Section 50105 of the Health and Safety Code, or (3) 50 percent of the total dwelling units of a housing development for qualifying residents, as defined in Section 51.3 of the Civil Code, a city, county, or city and county shall either (1) grant a density bonus and at least one of the concessions or incentives identified in subdivision (h) unless the city, county, or city and county makes a written finding that the additional concession or incentive is not required in order to provide for affordable housing costs as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code or for rents for the targeted units to be set as specified in subdivision (c) , or (2) provide other incentives of equivalent financial value based upon the land cost per dwelling unit. (c) A developer shall agree to and the city, county, or city and county shall ensure continued affordability of all lower income density bonus units for 30 years or a longer period of time if required by the construction or mortgage financing assistance program, mortgage insurance program, or rental subsidy program. Those units targeted for lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, shall be affordable at a rent that does not exceed 30 percent of 60 percent of area median income. Those units targeted for very low income households, as defined in Section 50105 of the Health and Safety Code, shall be affordable at a rent that does not exceed 30 percent of 50 percent of area median income. If a city, county, or city and county does not grant at least one additional concession or incentive pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) , the developer shall agree to and the city, county, or city and county shall ensure continued affordability for 10 years of all lower income housing units receiving a density bonus. (d) A developer may submit to a city, county, or city and county a preliminary proposal for the development of housing pursuant to this section prior to the submittal of any formal requests for general plan amendments, zoning amendments, or subdivision map approvals. The city, county, or city and county shall, within 90 days of receipt of a written proposal, notify the housing developer in writing of the procedures under which it will comply with this section. The city, county, or city and county shall establish procedures for carrying out this section, which shall include legislative body approval of the means of compliance with this section. The city, county, or city and county shall also establish procedures for waiving or modifying development and zoning standards which would otherwise inhibit the utilization of the density bonus on specific http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.../displaycode?section=gov&group=65001-66000&file=65915-6591 6/29/99 CA Codes (gov:65915-65918` Page 2 of 5 sites. These procedures shall include, but not be limited to, such items as minimum lot size, side yard setbacks, and placement of public works improvements. (e) The housing developer shall show that the waiver or modification is necessary to make the housing units economically feasible. (f) For the purposes of this chapter, "density bonus" means a density increase of at least 25 percent over the otherwise maximum allowable residential density under the applicable zoning ordinance and land use element of the general plan as of the date of application by the developer to the city, county, or city and county. The density bonus shall not be included when determining the number of housing units which is equal to 10 or 20 percent of the total. The density bonus shall apply to housing developments consisting of five or more dwelling units. (g) "Housing development, " as used in this section, means one or more groups of projects for residential units constructed in the planned development of a city, county, or city and county. For purposes of calculating a density bonus, the residential units do not have to be based upon individual subdivision maps or parcels. The density bonus shall be permitted in geographic areas of the housing development other than the areas where the units for the lower income households are located. (h) For purposes of this chapter, concession or incentive means any of the following: (1) A reduction in site development standards or a modification of zoning code requirements or architectural design requirements which exceed the minimum building standards approved by the California Building Standards Commission as provided in Part 2.5 (commencing with Section 18901) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code, including, but not limited to, a reduction in setback and square footage requirements and in the ratio of vehicular parking spaces that would otherwise be required. (2) Approval of mixed use zoning in conjunction with the housing project if commercial, office, industrial, or other land uses will reduce the cost of the housing development and if the commercial, office, industrial, or other land uses are compatible with the housing project and the existing or planned development in the area where the proposed housing project will be located. (3) Other regulatory incentives or concessions proposed by the developer or the city, county, or city and county which result in identifiable cost reductions. This subdivision does not limit or require the provision of direct financial incentives for the housing development, including the provision of publicly owned land, by the city, county, or city and county, or the waiver of fees or dedication requirements. (i) If a developer agrees to construct both 20 percent of the total units for lower income households and 10 percent of the total units for very low income households, the developer is entitled to only one density bonus and at least one additional concession or incentive identified in Section 65913.4 under this section although the city, city and county, or county may, at its discretion, grant more than one density bonus. 65915. 5. (a) When an applicant for approval to convert apartments to a condominium project agrees to provide at least 33 percent of the total units of the proposed condominium project to persons and families of low or moderate income as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, or 15 percent of the total units of the proposed condominium project to lower income households as defined in Section 50079. 5 of the Health and Safety Code, and agrees to pay for the reasonably necessary administrative costs incurred by a city, http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.../displaycode?section=gov&group=65001-66000&file=65915-6591 6/29/99 CA Codes (gov:65915-659181 Page 3 of 5 county, or city and county pursuant to this section, the city, county, or city and county shall either (1) grant a density bonus or (2) provide other incentives of equivalent financial value. A city, county, or city and county may place such reasonable conditions on the granting of a density bonus or other incentives of equivalent financial value as it finds appropriate, including, but not limited to, conditions which assure continued affordability of units to subsequent purchasers who are persons and families of low and moderate income or lower income households. (b) For purposes of this section, "density bonus" means an increase in units of 25 percent over the number of apartments, to be provided within the existing structure or structures proposed for conversion. (c) For purposes of this section, "other incentives of equivalent financial value" shall not be construed to require a city, county, or city and county to provide cash transfer payments or other monetary compensation but may include the reduction or waiver of requirements which the city, county, or city and county might otherwise apply as conditions of conversion approval. (d) An applicant for approval to convert apartments to a condominium project may submit to a city, county, or city and county a preliminary proposal pursuant to this section prior to the submittal of any formal requests for subdivision map approvals. The city, county, or city and county shall, within 90 days of receipt of a written proposal, notify the applicant in writing of the manner in which it will comply with this section. The city, county, or city and county shall establish procedures for carrying out this section, which shall include legislative body approval of the means of compliance with this section. (e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to require a city, county, or city and county to approve a proposal to convert apartments to condominiums. (f) An applicant shall be ineligible for a density bonus or other incentives under this section if the apartments proposed for conversion constitute a housing development for which a density bonus or other incentives were provided under Section 65915. 65916. Where there is a direct financial contribution to a housing development pursuant to Section 65915 through participation in cost of infrastructure, write-down of land costs, or subsidizing the cost of construction, the city, county, or city and county shall assure continued availability for low- and moderate-income units for 30 years. When appropriate, the agreement provided for in Section 65915 shall specify the mechanisms and procedures necessary to carry out this section. 65917. In enacting this chapter it is the intent of the Legislature that the density bonus or other incentives offered by the city, county, or city and county pursuant to this chapter shall contribute significantly to the economic feasibility of lower income housing in proposed housing developments. In the absence of an agreement by a developer in accordance with Section 65913.5 or 65915, a locality shall not offer a density bonus or any other incentive that would undermine the intent of this chapter. 65917.5. (a) As used in this section, the following terms shall have the following meanings: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.../displayeode?section=gov&group=65001-66000&file=65915-6591 6/29/99 CA Codes (gov:65915-659181 Page 4 of 5 (1) "Child care facility" means a facility installed, operated, and maintained under this section for the nonresidential care of children as defined under applicable state licensing requirements for the facility. (2) "Density bonus" means a floor area ratio bonus over the otherwise maximum allowable density permitted under the applicable zoning ordinance and land use elements of the general plan of a city, including a charter city, city and county, or county of: (A) A maximum of five square feet of floor area for each one square foot of floor area contained in the child care facility for existing structures. (B) A maximum of 10 square feet of floor area for each one square foot of floor area contained in the child care facility for new structures. For purposes of calculating the density bonus under this section, both indoor and outdoor square footage requirements for the child care facility as set forth in applicable state child care licensing requirements shall be included in the floor area of the child care facility. (3) "Developer" means the owner or other person, including a lessee, having the right under the applicable zoning ordinance of a city council, including a charter city council, city and county board of supervisors, or county board of supervisors to make application for development approvals for the development or redevelopment of a commercial or industrial project. (4) "Floor area" means as to a commercial or industrial project, the floor area as calculated under the applicable zoning ordinance of a city council, including a charter city council, city and county board of supervisors, or county board of supervisors and as to a child care facility, the total area contained within the exterior walls of the facility and all outdoor areas devoted to the use of the facility in accordance with applicable state child care licensing requirements. (b) A city council, including a charter city council, city and county board of supervisors, or county board of supervisors may establish a procedure by ordinance to grant a developer of a commercial or industrial project, containing at least 50, 000 square feet of floor area, a density bonus when that developer has set aside at least 2, 000 square feet of floor area and 3, 000 outdoor square feet to be used for a child care facility. The granting of a bonus shall not preclude a city council, including a charter city council, city and county board of supervisors, or county board of supervisors from imposing necessary conditions on the project or on the additional square footage. Projects constructed under this section shall conform to height, setback, lot coverage, architectural review, site plan review, fees, charges, and other health, safety, and zoning requirements generally applicable to construction in the zone in which the property is located. A consortium with more than one developer may be permitted to achieve the threshold amount for the available density bonus with each developer's density bonus equal to the percentage participation of the developer. This facility may be located on the project site or may be located offsite as agreed upon by the developer and local agency. If the child care facility is not located on the site of the project, the local agency shall determine whether the location of the child care facility is appropriate and whether it conforms with the intent of this section. The child care facility shall be of a size to comply with all state licensing requirements in order to accommodate at least 40 children. (c) The developer may operate the child care facility itself or may contract with a licensed child care provider to operate the facility. In all cases, the developer shall show ongoing coordination with a local child care resource and referral network or local governmental child care coordinator in order to qualify for http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.../displaycode?section=gov&group=65001-66000&file=65915-6591 6/29/99 CA Codes (gov:65915-65918� Page 5 of 5 the density bonus. (d) If the developer uses space allocated for child care facility purposes, in accordance with subdivision (b) , for any purposes other than for a child care facility, an assessment based on the square footage of the project may be levied and collected by the city council, including a charter city council, city and county board of supervisors, or county board of supervisors. The assessment shall be consistent with the market value of the space. If the developer fails to have the space allocated for the child care facility within three years, from the date upon which the first temporary certificate of occupancy is granted, an assessment based on the square footage of the project may be levied and collected by the city council, including a charter city council, city and county board of supervisors, or county board of supervisors in accordance with procedures to be developed by the legislative body of the city council, including a charter city council, city and county board of supervisors, or county board of supervisors. The assessment shall be consistent with the market value of the space. Any penalty levied against a consortium of developers shall be charged to each developer in an amount equal to the developer's percentage square feet participation. Funds collected pursuant to this subdivision shall be deposited by the city council, including a charter city council, city and county board of supervisors, or county board of supervisors into a special account to be used for childcare services or child care facilities. (e) Once the child care facility has been established, prior to the closure, change in use, or reduction in the physical size of, the facility, the city, city council, including a charter city council, city and county board of supervisors, or county board of supervisors shall be required to make a finding that the need for child care is no longer present, or is not present to the same degree as it was at the time the facility was established. (f) The requirements of Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 66000) and of the amendments made to Sections 53077, 54997, and 54998, by Chapter 1002 of the Statutes of 1987 shall not apply to actions taken in accordance with this section. (g) This section shall not apply to a voter-approved ordinance adopted by referendum or initiative. 65918. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to charter cities. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.../displaycode?section=gov&group=65001-66000&file=65915-6591 6/29/99 ok CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY CITY CLERK February 12, 1999 Mr. Robert F. Cronk 18312 Hartlund Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Dear Mr. Cronk: Attached is the Ballot Title and Summary as prepared by the City Attorney relative to Notice of Intent To Circulate Petition that you filed in the City Clerk's Office on DaGewJa%12, 1999. F4rva� Sincerely, 2�9� Connie Brockway City Clerk 6 cbmemos/99-45cg (Telephone:714-536-5227) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Inter-]Department Communication TO: Connie Brockway, City Clerk FROM: Gail Hutton,City Attorney DATE: -February 12,-_1999 SUBJECT: Ballot Title and Summary—Crest View Site RLS 99-052 and 99-086 are Attached hereto-A_.Nie proposed ballot title and summary for_ the attached referenced petition. Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have any questions. Gail Hutton .City Attorney Attachment c_ . Ray Silver, City Administrator Melanie Fallon, Assistant City Administrator Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director David Biggs, Director of Economic Development o C= N' .r�r? > � - c7 N 3' 4/s/4-99 Memos:99-086 T H E O R A N G E C 0 U IN Y qJ$ rer This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp 625 N. Grand Ave., Santa Ana, CA 92701 PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015.5 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ) ss. Cuu�rty of Orange, ) Proof of Publication of THE CIiYATTORNEYHAS PREPARED I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of THE FOLLOWING: PUBLIC NOTICE j BALLOT TITLE: NOTICE OF INTENT A BALLOT MEASURE TO CHANGE the County aforesaid; I am over the age of twenty TO CIRCULATE PETITION THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION I OF THE CREST VIEW SCHOOL SITE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN by the FROM CG-F1(COMMERCIAL GEN- and not a party to or interested in the persons)whose names appear ER WITH A MAXIMUM FLOOR one years, hereon of their Intention to clrcu-I AREA RATIO OF 0.35)TO RL-7(RESI- late a petton within the City of• DENTIAL WITH A MAXIMUM OF 7 Huntington Beach for the purpose DWELLING UNITS PER NET ACRE, above entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the lof amending the Citys General AND TO CHANGE THE ZONIN� Plan and Zoning Ordinance, DESIGNATION OF THE CREST VIEW 'A statement of the reasons for the SCHOOL SITE FROM CG (COM- printer of The Orange County Register, a iproposed action contemplated MERCIAL GENERAL)TO R-L(LOW In the petition is as follows: DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) newspaper of general circulation, published in the rFor marry years,the community, SUMMARY:hasrelledontheCresMewschool This proposed ballot ,measure site for educational uses and a would amend the Land Use Ele- park.This site Is near a resltlenrial; ment of the General Plan of the city of Santa Ana, County of Orange, and which o, hborhood, City of Huntington Beach to However,recently'the City Coun-I change the General Plan des- cil voted to rezone the land and i9natbn of the Crest View School newspaper has been adjudged to be a newspaper of amend the general plan to allow, site.The General Pion designation a huge discount-store on this site.I would be chanced from CG-Fit, This would add thousands of cars; (Commerc al rat vtlh a, general circulation b the Superior Court of the to Beach Boulevard and the area to RL-7 mflooroial witoof0.35)i g y p to RL-7(Residential with a maxi- surrounding the site, clogging mum of,7 dwelling units per net sheets with traffic and adding air, acre,.The Zoning and Subdivision County of Orange, State of California, under the pollution. Ordinance of the City of Hunting- 'Such a store would unfairly com- ton Beach would also be pete with existing stores by not amended to change the zoning date of November 19, 1905, Case No.A-21046 that providing family health beneffts• designation of the Crest View ExisfingstoreswouldenduPioNngl $chgpl site.The zoning designa- off employees. tton would be changed from CG the notice, of which the annexed is a true printed j We CIO not oppose all develop- Commercial General)to RL(Low ment: the development should simply be consistent with the char-I people Residential).A vote of the acter of our community. ' People would b be e required to copy, has been published in each regular and entire Robert F.Cronk zoninchangdesisiggnalionsa'samendeedd 18312 Hartlund Ln, by this measure.If a court Invali- Huntington Beach,CA 92646 dates a portion of the proposed issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement measure, that portion shall be INITIATIVE MEASURE TO BE SUBMIT severed and have no effect on TED DIRECTLY TO THE VOTERS: the remainder of the proposed thereof on the following dates,to wit: INITIATIVE GENERAL TO DDIZONIN AND measure. OF CREST VIEW SCHOOL SITE TO PRO Publish:Orange County Register HIBIT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT February 15, 1999 AND PERMIT RESIDENTIAL USESi 2C3100200 R-267 ONLY. The People of the City of Hunting- ton Beach do ordoln as follows: 1.The Land Use Element of the Citys General Plan is hereby F e b r u a r 15 , 19 9 9 amended to change the general y plan designation for the 13.89, acre site located on the South side of Talbert Avenue described; In City Council Resolution 98-95y - from CG-Fit(Commercial General' -Ca with a maximum floor area ratio of -— .-i 0.35)To RL-7 (residential with a 'maximum of 7 dwelling units per net acre). ,- C7 _.. ;.: 2. The Cites Zoning and Subdl- � e-z r-,,, vision Ordinance is hereby ^ amended by amending District_ 1 certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury Map40,1ec1.nQIDIst1ctMap36- 15-11)to rezone the property de-! under the laws of the State of California that the scribed above from CG(General l l::J 1, Commercial)to R-L(Low Density) foregoing is true and correct': Residential).- _ J- w 13. The above may not be amended except by vote of the Date February 15 1999 �?�'e 'f > I4.Should any provision or aPPII- cation of the above be Involl- dated by a court of law,If shall be severed and have no effect on the remainder of this ordinance. Signs es P �OF OF PUBLICATION A L • CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH T Inter-(Department Communication TO: Connie Brockway, City Clerk FROM: Gail Hutton, City Attorney DATE: February 12, 1999 SUBJECT: Ballot Title and Summary—Crest View Site RLS 99-052 and 99-086 are Attached hereto A, the proposed ballot title and summary for the attached referenced petition. Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have any questions. Gail Hutton City Attorney Attachment c: Ray Silver, City Administrator Melanie Fallon, Assistant City Administrator Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director David Biggs, Director of Economic Development :77, 4/s/4-99 Memos:99-086 BALLOT TITLE: A BALLOT MEASURE TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION OF THE CREST VIEW SCHOOL SITE FROM CG-F1 (COMMERCIAL GENERAL WITH A MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO OF 0.35)TO RL-7 (RESIDENTIAL WITH A MAXIMUM OF 7 DWELLING UNITS PER NET ACRE), AND TO CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF THE CREST VIEW SCHOOL SITE FROM CG (COMMERCIAL GENERAL) TO R-L (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) SUMMARY: This proposed ballot measure would amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach to change the General Plan designation of the Crest View School site. The General Plan designation would be changed from CG-F1 (Commercial General with a maximum floor area ratio of 0.35) to RL-7 (Residential with a maximum of 7 dwelling units per net acre). The Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach would also be amended to change the zoning designation of the Crest View School site. The zoning designation would be changed from CG (Commercial General) to RL (Low Density Residential). A vote of the people would be required to change the general plan and zoning designations as amended by this measure. If a court invalidates a portion of the proposed measure, that portion shall be severed and have no effect on the remainder of the proposed measure. f"�.Z CITY OF HUNTINGTON REACH INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: Gail Hutton City Attorney FROM: Connie Brockway City Clerk DATE: February 12, 1999 SUBJECT: NOTICE OF INTENT TO CIRCULATE INITIATIVE PETITION FILED BY ROBERT CRONK (WAL-MART) In order to meet the requirements of the State Elections Code, I am immediately transmitting the attached document to your office to prepare a Ballot Title and Summary to be returned to my office. cbmemos/99-44cg 0 f l Dated: TO: City Clerk of Huntington Beach FROM: Huntington Beach Residents RE: INITIATIVE PETITION I file herewith a proposed initiative petition and request that the City Attorney prepare a ballot title and summary, as required to do within 15 days by Cal . Elections Code §9203 . D NOTICE OF INTENT TO CIRCULATE PETITION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN by the persons) whose names appear hereon of their intention to circulate a petition within the City of Huntington Beach for the purpose of amending the City' s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance . A statement of the reasons for the proposed action contemplated in the petition is as follows : For many years, the community has relied on the Crestview school site for educational uses and a park. This site is near a residential neighborhood. However, recently the City Council voted to rezone the land and amend the general plan to allow a huge discount store on this site. This would add thousands of cars to Beach Boulevard and the area surrounding the site, clogging streets with traffic and adding air pollution. Such a store would unfairly compete with existing stores by not providing family health benefits . Existing stores would end up laying off employees . We do not oppose all development : the development should simply be consistent with the character cf r community- � Nam Address: /1/,I'74e14'y 44/ S) t INITIATIVE MEASURE TO BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO THE VOTERS : INITIATIVE TO AMEND ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION OF CREST VIEW SCHOOL SITE TO PROHIBIT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND PERMIT RESIDENTIAL USES ONLY. The People of the City of Huntington Beach do ordain as follows : 1 . The Land Use Element of the City' s General Plan is hereby amended to change the general plan designation for the 13 . 89 acre site located on the South side of Talbert Avenue described in City Council Resolution 98-95 from CG-F1 (Commercial General with a maximum floor area ratio of 0 . 35) to RL-7 (Residential with a maximum of 7 dwelling unites per net acre) . 2 . The City' s Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance is hereby amended by amending District Map 40 (Sectional District Map 36-5-11) to rezone the property described above from CG (General Commercial) to R-L (Low Density Residential) . 3 . The above may not be amended except by vote of the people. 4 . Should any provision or application of the above be invalidated by a court of law, it shall be severed and have no effect on the remainder of this ordinance. r F Z:) z•d-fir p 0 , CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CONNIE BROCKWAY, City Clerk DATE: August 9, 1999 SUBJECT: Initiative Petition to Amend Zoning and General Plan Designation of Crest View School Site to Prohibit Commercial Developmental Permit—Residential Uses Only Attached is a communication provided by the City Clerk's Office to Mr. Robert Cronk,proponent of the above referenced initiative petition filed in my office on August 4, 1999. Also attached is the City Clerk's Office communication to the Registrar of voters that accompanied the initiative petitions that I delivered to the Registrar's Office on August 5, 1999. The State Elections Code provides that the signature verification count shall be accomplished within 30 working days (September 16, 1999). Should the number of signatures be found sufficient the City Clerk shall certify the results of the signature examination to the City Council at the next regular meeting of the City Council (September 20, 1999). The following Election Code Sections will clarify the possible actions for Council consideration at the September 20, 1999 Council Meeting: Election Code Section 9212—Report on Effect of Proposed Initiative to Legislative Body pertains to the report council may request prior to taking action set forth in E. C. Section 9214 (a)(b)or E. C. Section 9215. Election Code Section 9214—(15%)Petition Signatures;Adopt Ordinance or Order Special Election pertains to a Special Election— 15% of registered voters as calculated by the County Registrar's report of registration to the Secretary of State. This election would be required to be held no sooner than 88 nor later than 103 days from the date the petition was certified to Council (September 20, 1999). Election Code Section 9215—(10%)Petition Signatures; Ordinance Submitted at Next Regular Municipal Election pertains to a General Municipal Election 10% of registered voters as calculated by the County Registrar's report of registration to the Secretary of State. This election would be November 7, 2000. (The Council also has the option to call a special election(or to adopt the ordinance) rather than submitting at the November, 2000 election.) Memo to Honorable Mayor and City Council Subject: Initiative Petition to Amend Zoning&General Plan of Crest View School Site 08/10/99 Page 2 The City Council's options are to: 1) approve introduction of the ordinance, without alteration, and adopt within 10 days; or 2) order a special election(15%verified); or 3) order a report and as set forth in the above, order a special election. The Registrar of Voters Office will be contacting the City Clerk's Office relative to the exact date for which a special election(within the time frame of 88-103 days) can be scheduled. If there are any questions at this point please call me or the City Attorney's Office who I know will be glad to assist Council. Attachments: (1) City Clerk's Communication to Robert Cronk, proponent (2) City Clerk's Communication to the Registrar of Voters (3) Election Code Section 9212,Report on Effect of Proposed Initiative to Legislative Body Election Code Section 9214,Petition Signatures;Adopt Ordinance or Order Special Election Election Code Section 9215,Petition Signatures; Ordinance Submitted at Next Regular Municipal Election (4)Notice of Intent to Circulate Petition xc: Ray Silver, City Administrator Gail Hutton, City Attorney Melanie Fallon,Assistant City Administrator Paul D'Alessandro, Deputy City Attorney CB:le a G:CBMemos\99-1551e.doc x CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH -2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY CITY CLERK August 4, 1999 Mr. Robert Cronk 18312 Hartlund Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92648 C-) 3-7 Dear Mr. Cronk: By this letter I acknowledge your submission and my receipt of 15 packages containing Initiative Petitions which, I as City Clerk, determined to contain signatures sufficient to accept for filing pursuant to S. 9210 of the Elections Code. Relative to the following subject: Initiative Measure to be Submitted Directly to the Voters: Initiative to Amend Zoning and General Plan Designation of Crest View School Site to Prohibit Commercial Development and Permit Residential Uses Only. Attached is a copy of S. 84305 of the Government Code Mass Mailing Requirements, which I am providing to you pursuant to S. 16 of the State Elections Code. Sincerely, G��L�i�y���;�,�P�Jt�G Connie Brockway, CMC City Clerk Attachment CB: jh gIcbmemos/99-152-jh (Telephone:714-536-5227) LITERATURE REQUIREMENTS A copy of Section 84305 of the Government Code shall be provided by the Elections Official to each candidate or his or her agent at the time of filing the declaration of candidacy and to the proponents of a local initiative or referendum at the time of filing the petitions. (§ 16, Elections Code) MASS MAILING REQUIREMENTS (a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), no candidate or committee shall send a mass mailing unless the name, street address, and city of the candidate or committee are shown on the outside of each piece of mail in the mass mailing and on at least one of the inserts included within each piece of mail of such mailing in no less than 6-point type which shall be in a color or print which contrasts with the background so as to be easily legible. A post office box may be stated in lieu of a street address if the organization's address is a matter of public record with the Secretary of State. (b If the sender of the mass mailing is a single candidate or committee, the name, street address, and city of the candidate or committee need only be shown on the outside of each piece of mail. (c) If the sender of a mass mailing is a controlled committee, the name of the person controlling the committee shall be included in addition to the information required by subdivision (a). (§ 84305, Government Code) h., 7 Martin&Chapman Co.-1998 (Amended 1997) EAFORMSUTERRE0.98 VMe CITE( OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ' 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERIC CONNIE BROCKWAY CITY CLERK August 5, 1999 Rosalyn Lever, Registrar of Voters County of Orange 1300-C South Grand Avenue Santa Ana, California 92711 Dear Ms. Lever: Re: Request to the County of Orange Registrar of Voters for Verification of Signatures on Initiative Petitions Submitted to the City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach. Initiative to Amend Zoning and General Plan Designation of Crest View School Site to Prohibit Commercial Development and Permit Residential Uses Only. 1. Per our telephone conversation yesterday I am submitting two boxes containing 15 packages of Initiative Petitions which on August 4, 1999E 1 accepted for filing pursuant to §9210 of the Elections Code. 2. 1 am requesting a full signature count. I understand that the City of Huntington Beach shall pay the County$2.00 per each signature checked. 3. Enclosed is a copy of the Affidavit of Publication - Notice of Intent to Circulate Petition published on February 15, 1999. Previously the Registrar's office informed me that the last report of registration by your office to the Secretary of State (E.C. Section 9214)was 100,913 registered voters, which will require 10,091 valid signatures for submission at the next General Municipal Election or 15,137 valid signatures to require a Special Municipal Election. Please call me for any information that you may require of my office. As in the past the assistance your office provides to the City of Huntington Beach is very much appreciated. Sincerely, Connie Brockway, CMC City Clerk `� I cam- - ut Attachment- Copy of Affidavit of Publication . - - o CB: cd av :')F-16t,eSb 7-0 31,12,fan,e 51u ps k g:/cbmemos/99-153-cd �If:G�i� 56cPian l (Telephone:714-536-5227) v G CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY CITY CLERK August 5, 1999 Rosalyn Lever, Registrar of Voters County of Orange 1300-C South Grand Avenue Santa Ana, California 92711 Dear Ms. Lever: Re: Request to the County of Orange Registrar of Voters for Verification of Signatures on Initiative Petitions Submitted to the City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach Initiative to Amend Zoning and General Plan Designation of Crest View.School Site to Prohibit Commercial Development and Permit Residential Uses Only. 1. Per our telephone conversation yesterday I am submitting two boxes containing 15 packages of Initiative Petitions which on August 4, 1999 1 accepted for filing pursuant to §9210 of the Elections Code. 2. 1 am requesting a full signature count. I understand that the City of Huntington Beach shall pay the County $2.00 per each signature checked. 3. Enclosed is a copy of the Affidavit of Publication - Notice of Intent to Circulate Petition published on February 15, 1999. Previously the Registrar's office informed me that the last report of registration by your office to the Secretary of State (E.C. Section 9214)was 100,913 registered voters, which will require 10,091 valid signatures for submission at the next General Municipal Election or 15,137 valid signatures to require a Special Municipal Election. Please call me for any information that you may require of my office. As in the past the assistance your office provides to the City of Huntington Beach is very much appreciated. Sincerely, Connie Brockway, CMC City Clerk ' Attachment- Copy of Affidavit of Publication CB: cd N _DE4VEREb To SU2 ¢NNE Stup,sk� g1cbmemos/99-153-cd �r (Telephone:714-536-5227) NIU- OF PETITION e, To 115ngad sf ! 5"�` R 7a 7'I-dh,e,-I- CUyt vl�nGccG elup.,r�i� �it�( �fCsf�� h�s� Qrifia/ C/Ses Oru/ ' oFFICIIIL sU�r DATE PERSON AU WILED TO FILE 1.4 OAANS£ SIGNATURE OF PERSON FILING SECTIOnS DATE OF FILING / OF SECTIONS APPROx l SIGS in 7 I1J' 66. �S- o CITY OFHUNTINGTONBEACH ire . Y INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICA R Ar' Pik Z HUNTINGTON BEACH -{ CITY ATTORNECY HUNTINGTOH BEE Cii TO: Gail Hutton City Attorney FROM: Connie Brockway City Clerk DATE: February 8, 1999 SUBJECT: RLS #99-086—YOUR HANDWRITTEN QUESTION ON THE ATTACHED MEMO Thank you for the Ballot Title and Summary—Crest View Site. I think your handwritten note is asking me if the public hearing notice had the word floodplain. It did not. The ordinance title on the agenda did have the word floodplain—both at the first and second readings. Also, I read the title with the word floodplain in it at both meetings. That is the history of the matter. I still have not received a corrected page for the official vault ordinance. Will you please provide me with a revised page if it is still your opinion that the matter is typographical. Thank you. cbmemos/99-41 cg e ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINA\CE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ZONING AND SUBDIVISION CODE BY AMENDING DISTRICT MAP 40 (SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 36-5-11) TO REZONE THE REAL PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF TALBERT AVENUE APPROXIMATELY 300 FEET EAST OF BEACH BOULEVARD FROM PS (PUBLIC-SEMI PUBLIC) TO CG (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) (ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 97-1) WHEREAS, pursuant to the California State Planning and Zoning Law, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission and Huntington Beach City Council have held separate, duly noticed public hearings to consider Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-1, which rezones the property generally located on the south side of Talbert Avenue approximately 300 feet east of Beach Boulevard from PS- (Public-Semi Public-) to CG (General Commercial); and After-due consideration of the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission and all other evidence presented, the City Council finds that the aforesaid amendment is proper and consistent with the General Plan, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. That the real property that is the subject of this Ordinance (hereinafter t referred to as the "Subject Property") is generally located on the south side of Talbert Avenue approximately 300 feet east of Beach Boulevard, and is more particularly described in the legal descriptions and sketch attached hereto as Exhibits A and B, respectively, and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 1 4/s:PCD:Ordinance:Amd97-1 RLS 98-454 12/1/98 �i Ls -I'L_9,�F-- AfX -�-� : f o A CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH-, _ INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION HUNTMGTON BEACH TO: Gail Hutton, City Attorney �- Paul D'Allesandro, Deputy City Attorney C� / FROM: Connie Brockway (J City Clerk DATE: January 29, 1999 -K- ; SUBJECT: Revised Notice of Intent to Circulate an Initiative Petition - Robp# C f ; (Wal-Mart) ,.: " � Transmitted is a revised Notice of Intent to Circulate an Initiative Petition, a Statement of Reasons, the_proposed ordinance text and a Request for the City Attorney to prepare a Ballot Title and Summary. Please notice that the ordinance has been revised to omit the word "Floodplain" which was in the title of the original ordinance. I have not received a response nsmittal to your office of Mr. Josephson's inquiry as to the sta us of the ordinance relative to the need for a re-readin of the or mance. b The deadline for your office to provide the Ballot title and Summary for the previously filed --- � Notice of Intent is February 5. For this revised Notice of Intent; the date due for the.Ballot Title and Summary to my office is February 12, 1999, as I delivered the Revised Notice of Intent to - �?7 your office on January 28, 1999. As stated before, I would appreciate-a,clarification of Mr. / Josephson's inquiry to your office. If the error in the title is-found not to be a problem and a re- m^"� reading of the Ordinance is not necessary, the Clerk's-Office will require a corrected ordinance page. I will also re-publish the corrected ordinance in the newspaper. If you find the error to be substantial I would appreciate direction, as it would relate in regard to this Notice of Intent. cc: Ray Silver, City Administrator Melanie Fallon, Assistant City Administrator r Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director Attachments: 1. Revised Notice of Intent to File an Initiative Petition 2. January 14, 1999 communication from Marvin Josephson, Co-Chair, Crest View United 3. Memo to City Attorney from City Clerk dated January 15, 1999 4. Memo to City Attorney transmitting original Notice of Intent cbmemos/99-32vm • s CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Inter-Department Communication TO: Connie Brockway, City Clerk FROM: Gail Hutton, City Attorney DATE: February 2, 1999 SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 3408—Crestview School Site Rezone BACKGROUND On December 14, 1998, the City Council approved the introduction of Ordinance No. 3408, which amended the zoning designation for the former Crest View school site from Public-Semi Public to Commercial General. On January 4, 1999, the city Council approved the adoption of Ordinance No. 3408. The title of the ordinance reads as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 3408 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ZONING-AND SUBDIVISION CODE BY AMENDING DISTRICT MAP 40 (SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 36-5-11) TO REZONE THE REAL PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF TALBERT AVENUE APPROXIMATELY 300 FEET EAST OF BEACH BOULEVARD FROM PS (PUBLIC-SEMI PUBLIC) TO CG(GENERAL COMMERCIAL-FLOODPLAIN) (ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 97-1) The title of the ordinance incorrectly contained the word "floodplain." The ordinance did not act to attach the floodplain designation to the property. ISSUE Does the City Council have to vote again on the ordinance after a corrected title has been prepared? ANSWER No. The inclusion of the word"floodplain"in the title of the ordinance was a typographical error. No further action on the ordinance is necessary. 4/s:4-99Memos:C1rk0129 ANALYSIS The Charter is the controlling authority regarding the adoption of city ordinances. It provides that: A regular ordinance shall be adopted only at a regular or adjourned meeting held no less than five days after its introduction. hi the event that any ordinance is altered after its introduction, it shall be finally adopted only at a regular or adjourned meeting held no less than five days after the date it was so altered. The correction of typographical or clerical errors shall not constitute the making of an alteration within the meaning of the foregoing sentence. (City Charter, Section 500(b).) In the present case, the ordinance was introduced and adopted with the word"floodplain"in the title. This was a typographical or clerical error within the meaning of Charter Section 500(b), and the correction of this error does not constitute an alteration within the meaning of the Charter, nor does it require further action by the City Council. Further, the floodplain designation has not been applied to the property merely because the word "floodplain"appears in the title of the ordinance. The operative clause of the ordinance is found in Section 2 thereof, which states as follows: Section 2. That the zoning designation of the Subject Property is hereby changed from PS (Public-Semi Public) to CG(General Commercial). The operative clause of the ordinance is what controls, and it does not include the floodplain designation. CONCLUSION The inclusion of the word "floodplain"in the title of Ordinance 3408 was a typographical or clerical error within the meaning of City Charter Section 500(b). The adoption of the ordinance is effective and does not require further action by the City Council. The floodplain designation has not been applied to the property, since the operative language of the ordinance controls over the erroneous inclusion of the word "floodplain"in the title of the ordinance. GAIL HUTTON City Attorney 4/s:4-99Memos:C1rk0129 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH o M LJ INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: Gail Hutton, City Attorney FROM: Connie Brockway ()b City Clerk DATE: January 15, 1999 SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 3408—Crestview School Site Rezone Attached is a communication dated January 14, 1999 from Mr. Marvin Josephson,Co-Chair, Crest View United, regarding the error in the first and second readings by title of Ordinance No. 3408 on 12/14/98 and 1/4/99 respectively; and requesting Council again vote on the ordinance. I have attached a copy of the original ordinance. The original ordinance reflects Floodplain in the title, as do the City Council agendas of the 12/14/98 and 1/4/99 meetings. The public hearing notice is also attached which does not reflect Floodplain. As Mr. Josephson's letter requires a response from your office I am forwarding his letter and these attachments to you. G:cbmemos/99-17cc %S J ,1'1 01%15/99 13:08 Fk1 Z01 r_ January 14, 1999 Marvin Josephson Crest View Uiiited 18162 Pemberco Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646 TO: Connie Brockway City Clerk 2000 Main St Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Dear Connie; It has come to the attention of Crest View United that an error has occurred with the past two votes of the city Council with regard Zone Map Amendment No. 97-1. The Agenda' s for the City Council Meetings dated Dec 14, 1998 and Jan 4, 1999 have stated that the Crest View School property be rezoned from Ps (Public-Semi Public) to CG (General Commercial-Floodplain) . This new addition of "Floodplain", has not appeared on other documents, and does not appear in the text of ordinance No. 3400. We feel that what the Council has passed is not in full agreement with what was presented to the public as an agenda item; that their vote should be voided; and request that the City Council re-vote on this item. Sincerely, Marvin Josephson LJ C LLj � _._ Co-Chair Crest View United �- r✓ Cz- S ORDINANCE NO. 3408 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNT12 TGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ZONING AND SUBDIVISION CODE BY AMENDING DISTRICT MAP 40 (SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 36-5-11) TO REZONE THE REAL PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF TALBERT AVENUE APPROXIMATELY 300 FEET EAST OF BEACH BOULEVARD FROM PS (PUBLIC-SEMI PUBLIC) TO CG(GENERAL COMIti1ERCIAL-FLOODPLAIN) (ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 97-1) WHEREAS,pursuant to the California State Planning and Zoning Law, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission and Huntington Beach City Council have held separate, duly noticed public hearings to consider Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-1, which rezones the property generally located on the south side of Talbert Avenue approximately 300 feet east of Beach Boulevard from PS- (Public-Semi Public-) to CG (General Commercial); and After due consideration of the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission and all other evidence presented, the City Council finds that the aforesaid amendment is proper and consistent with the General Plan, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. That the real property that is the subject of this Ordinance (hereinafter referred to as the"Subject Property") is generally located on the south side of Talbert Avenue approximately 300 feet east of Beach Boulevard, and is more particularly described in the legal descriptions and sketch attached hereto as Exhibits A and B, respectively, and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 1 4/s:PCD:Ordinance:Amd97-1 RLS 98-454 12/1/98 SECTION 2. That the zoning designation of the Subject Property is hereby changed from PS (Public-Semi Public) to CG(General Commercial). SECTION 3. That Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Code Section 201.04B District Map 40 (Sectional District Map 36-5-11) is hereby amended to reflect Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-1 as described herein. The Director of Planning is hereby directed to prepare and file an amended map. A copy of said District Map, as amended, shall be available for inspection in the Office of the City Clerk. SECTION 4. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 4th day of 1998. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: City Ad inistrator &Wctor of Pla ' g ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Legal Description Exhibit B: Sketch 2 4/s:PCD:Ordinance:Amd 97-1 RLS 98454 } 12/1/98 ENHIBTT � s Alm Pula ®R-9632 L=&=Ze Commil=wnt TLTLE OFFICER_O• ALL THAT CERTAIN LAND SiIUATID IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. COUNTY OF ORANGE, CITY Ol HUrv'TINGTON BEACH, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:' PARCEL I: THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION THIRTY-SIX, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE ELEVEN WEST, III THE RANCHO LAS BOLSAS, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 51, PAGE 13 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. EXCEPTING THEREFROM ONE-HALF OF ALL OIL, PETROLEUMf, NATURAL GAS, MINERAL RIGHT; AND OTHER HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES IN, ON OR UNDER THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY, BUT WITHOUT THE RIGHT OF ENTRY ABOVE A DEPTH OF 500 FEET FROM THE SURFACE OF SAIL LAND FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXPLORING FOR, EXTRACTING, MINING, BORING, REMOVING OR MARKETING SAID SUBSTANCES AS RESERVED IN DEED FROM SARAH G. GROVES, A WIDOW, TC BEN G. GAUTIER AND WIFE RECORDED DECEMBER 1, 1954 IN BOOK 2892, PAGE 346 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM ONE-HALF OF ALL OIL, PETROLEUM, NATURAL GAS, MINERAZ RIGHTS AND OTHER HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES IN, ON OR UNDER THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY, BUT WITHOUT THE RIGHT OF ENTRY ABOVE A DEPTH OF 500 FEET FROM THE SURFACE OF SAID LAND FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXPLORING FOR,EXTRACTING, MINING,BORING; REMOVING OR MARKETING SAID SUBSTANCES, AS RESERVED BY BEN G. GAUTIER AND WIFE BY DEED RECORDED JANUARY 20, 1960. PARCEL 2: THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION THIRTY-SIX, TOWNSHIP FIVE SOUTH, RANGE ELEVEN WEST, IN THE RANCHO LAS BOLSAS, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 51, PAGE 13 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. EXCEPTING THEREFROM ALL OIL, PETROLEUM, NATURAL GAS, MINERAL RIGHTS AND OTHER HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES IN, ON OR UNDER THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY, BUT WITHOUT THE RIGHT OF ENTRY ABOVE A DEPTH OF 500 FEET FROM THE SURFACE OF SAID LAND FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXPLORING FOR, EXTRACTING, MINING, BORING, REMOVING OR MARKETING SAID SUBSTANCES, AS RESERVED BY DONALD M. SMITH AND OTHERS BY DEED RECORDED JANUARY 20, 1960. EXHIBIT B fly" 4 N• //2,.N•W//4,M.W//4,SEC 36, T.5S.,R.//W. -} "'r7• '' � '; I' :I 167-60 , is t� � •. � a T orw AWbVE y9 ile' o- f PAN 1 t A"/ a o % o a jo" 1.1 SUBJECT SITE 4 n ursr wrw rcmrsumr smom Op • M PAR 1 . to • O 481 O u � u c Q P4 J6-l9 � i VOWN—?.' ' R ! O I 1 49 �N M M MARCH /982 PARCEL MAP PM. 56-33,91-/3 NOTE-ASSESSOR'S BLOCK d ASSESSOR'S MAP ZPARCEL NUMBERS BOOK157 PACE40 Ap SHOWN IN CIRCLES COUNTY Of ORANGE Ir� yust American Title Insurance C®mpaangr �.na j.%n j"•nn n1KMIt1AMN ONLY AND Is NOT A PAILT OP TIUS TTT1.E LMDERCB Ord. No. 3408 STATE OF CALIFOR1�tIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing ordinance was read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 14th day of December, 1998, and was again read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 4th day of January, 1999, and was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council. AYES: Julien, Bauer, Garofalo, Dettloff NOES: Green, Harman, Sullivan ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None I,Connie Brockway CITY CLERK of the City of Huntington Beach and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council,do hereby certify that a synopsis of this ordinance has been published in the Independent on ,19 In accordance with the City Charter of said City City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk Connie Brockwav Citv Clerk of the City Council of the City Deputy City Clerk of Huntington Beach, California G/ordinanc/ordbkpg 1/6/99 79 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING / BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE � = 7 Ap CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ���,c c� 1/ I NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, December 14, 1998, at 7:00 PM in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main�Street, Huntington Beach,the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following item: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 97-1/GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 97-1/APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 97-1 (Crest View School Site/Wa1XMart): Applicant/Appellant: Greg McClelland, Arnel Retail Group Request: EIR: To analyze and address potential environmental impacts associated with the general plan amendment and zoning map amendment. GPA: To amend the current general plan designation on a 13.89 acre site from P (RL-7) (Public with an underlying land use designation of Low Density Residential) to CG-F1 (General Commercial-maximum floor area ratio of 0.35). ZMA: To amend the current zoning designation of PS (Public-Semipublic) to CG (General Commercial). Planning Commission's Action: The Planning Commission recommended denial of EIR No. 97-1 and GPA No. 97-1 which are automatically forwarded to the City Council for review. The Planning Commission also denied ZMA No. 97-1,which was appealed by the applicant so that it could be heard concurrently with the other entitlements. Location: 18052 Lisa Lane(closed Crest View School/south of Talbert Avenue, approximately 300 feet east of Beach Boulevard) Project Planner: Jane Madera NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that this item is covered by Environmental Impact Report No. 97-1, which is also to be considered by the City Council. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Planning Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648,for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at City Hall or the Main City Library (7111 Talbert Avenue) after December 10, 1998. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to,the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Department at 536-5271 and refer to the above item. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk. Connie Brockway,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street,2nd Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 536-5227 (a:legals:council:98CC 1214) f (5) 01/04/99 - Council/Agency Agenda - Page 5 F. Administrative Items - None G. Ordinances G-1. Ordinance For Adoption G-1A. (City Council) Approve Adoption Of Ordinance No. 3408—Zone Map Amendment No. 97-1 —(Crestview School Site) s/s Talbert— 300' a/Beach Boulevard —Arnel Retail Group (440.50)—Adopt Ordinance No. 3408—"An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Code by Amending District Map 40 (Sectional District Map 36-5-11) to Rezone the Real Property Generally Located on the South Side of Talbert Avenue Approximately 300 Feet East of Beach Boulevard From PS (Public-Semi Public) to CG (General Commercial-Floodplain) (Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-1)." Submitted by the Planning Director (Public hearing and introduction approved 12/14/98) Recommended Action: After City Clerk reads by title, adopt Ordinance No. 3408, by roll call vote. Request By Mayor Green To Reconsider Adoption Of Resolution No. 98-100 Adopted On 12/21/98 "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Amending City Fee Resolution No. 5159, As Amended, to Adjust the Daily Beach Parking Fee and the Fees for the Main Promenade Parking Structure." Recommended Action: Motion to: Reconsider Resolution No. 98-100. If Motion To Reconsider Passes: 2. Recommended Action: Motion to: Send the Resolution back to the Downtown Council Sub-Committee for review and recommendation. G-1 B. (City Council) Approve Adoption Of Ordinance No. 3409—Amends Parking Meter Zone Fees In Business Residential Recreational Zones— Beach & Downtown (340.20) -Adopt Ordinance No. 3409— Amending parking meter zone fees — An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending Section 10.60.020 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Regarding Parking Meters." Submitted by the Community Services Director (Public hearing and introduction approved 12/21/98). Recommended Action: After City Clerk reads by title, adopt Ordinance No. 3409 by roll call vote. ) (3) 12/14/98 - Council/Agency Agenda - Page 3 D. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone wishing to speak on an OPEN public hearing is requested to complete the attached pink form and give it to the Sergeant-at-Arms located near the Speaker's Podium. D-1. (City Council) Public Hearing —Approve Environmental Impact Report No. 97-1/ General Plan Amendment No. 97-1/Appeal Of Planning Commission's Denial Of Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-1 (Crest View School Site/Wal*Mart) s/s Talbert Avenue, Approximately 300' e/o Beach Boulevard) Public hearing to consider: Applicant/Appellant: Greg McClelland, Arnel Retail Group Environmental Impact Report: To analyze and address potential environmental impacts associated with the general plan amendment and zoning map amendment. General Plan Amendment: To amend the current general plan designation on a 13.89 acre site from P (RL-7) (Public with an underlying land use designation of Low Density Residential) to CG-F1 (General Commercial-maximum floor area ration of 0.35). Zoning Map Amendment: To amend the current zoning designation of PS (Public- Semipublic) to CG (General Commercial). Planning Commission's Action: The Planning Commission recommended denial of EIR No. 97-1 and GPA No. 97-1 which are automatically forwarded to the City Council for review. The Planning Commission also denied ZMA No. 97-1, which was appealed by the applicant so that it could be heard concurrently with the other entitlements. Location: 18052 Lisa Lane (closed Crest View School/south of Talbert Avenue; approximately 300 feet east of Beach Boulevard). Environmental Status: Covered by Environmental Impact Report No. 97-1 which is also to be considered by the City Council. The document must be adopted and certified by the City Council prior to any action on General Plan Amendment No. 97-1 and Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-1. A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Planning Department, 2000 Main Street, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at City Hall or the Main City Library (7111 Talbert Avenue) after December 10, 1998. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Department at 536-5271 and refer to the above item. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk. (Continued On The Next Page) REBUTTAL TO ADVISORY VOTE A"NO"vote on Measure to rezone the Crest View Site from commercial to residential, will guarantee that the sales tax income from the commercial operation will go to youth sports, seniors, police protection; paramedics, parks, libraries, beaches, infrastructure, and all the things that enhance our quality of life. Join us by voting "NO" on Measure and not rezone the Crest View Site to residential, so public benefits on the Advisory Vote can have a chance. :• _. ,J w~'1 Y 08/22/1994 04:00 7148468907 RALPH H BAUER PAGE 03 .50 /4 FORM OF STATEMENT TO BE FILED BY AUTHOR OF ARGUMENT All arguments Concerning measures tiled pursuant to Division 9, Chapter 3 (beginning with § 9200) of the Elections Code shall be accompanied by the following form statement to be signed by each proponent and by each author, if different, of the argument 11,Ar1,.,.•. The undersigned proponent(s)or author(s)of the(perry/rebuttal)argue:nty(4w4aver-of/againr,)kbaliot proposition(name or number)at the (title of election)election for the ()urisdiction) to be held on , 19 hereby state that the argument is true and correct to the best of(his/her/thelt) knowledge and belief, Sign Name Print Name Date Cro rDl�I c yy aLL2 lL ,oEi✓ �/-Zs�9� JJ� �LUOt��- ZMAN 190CcrD w1 J,li�o`Z`l e-14AIR C>/L,CaCyttr4crL Jtr -2� "l �a��a Have authors sign this form AND t Rebuttal t; §sue•E.C. Statement of Authors of Arguments Form 10 Martin&Chapman Co. 1951 Wright Circle*Anaheim,GA 92806-6028*7141939-9866*Fax 714f0me7o (fni�E\H:'AUNVAL8WAn066owia94J1E30.aq R•- 10 REBUTTAL. TO ARGUMENT FOR INITIATIVE A"NO"vote on Measure keeps the Crest View Site commercial. A"NO" vote on Measure produces an income to the school district of$68 million in lease payments and matching funds. This money, by law, cannot go to teachers or administrators salaries. It goes to kids. A"NO" vote on Measure means the school district will retain title to the land, it cannot be sold for high-density residential tracts. A"NO"vote on Measure guarantees the city will earn over $400,000 annually for police protection, paramedics, youth sports, parks, libraries, beaches, and for seniors. A"NO"vote on Measure means NO tax increase. A"NO" vote on Measure says we don't lose another opportunity like we lost when the Price Club (now Costco) moved to Fountain Valley. A"NO"vote on Measure supplies 300 new local jobs. A"NO"vote means $100 million, a combination of lease payments, matching funds, sales taxes, and property tax,to the children and citizens of Huntington Beach with no tax increases to us. National respected experts have verified these facts. Join us in voting `PTO" on Measure It helps us all. 1 ..C;J 08/22/1994 03:59 7148468907 RALPH H BAUER PAGE 01 FORM OF STATEMENT TO BE FILED BY AUTHOR OF ARGUMENT All arguments concerning measures filed pursuant to Division 9, Chapter 3(beginning with 9200)of the Elections Code shall be accompanied by the fallowing form statement to signed by each proponent and by each author, if different, of the argument � A�+�� 4 The undersigned proponent(s)or author(s)of the( /rebuttal)argument,.(in favor o against) ballot proposition (name or number)at the(title of election)election for the Ourisdiction) to be held on , 19 hereby state that the argument is true and correct to the best of(his/her/their) knowledge end belief. Sign Name Print Name n Dane C.r1,�12,at Ohl J� �t �u Wa- ke r ///t;;2q 114/41� FOa U L)tVZ, , s t Cu4 c--c bs Have authors sign this form AND !he,Arqtomna4 an Rebuttal §9000, E_G, Statement of Authors of Arguments Form 10 Martin do Chapman Co.*1951 Wright Circle*Anaha9m,CA 9280"028 x 714/939-9866.Fax 714/939-9870 (f 4LM E:4MNVASSnNvOBO0i1f 4a7Yt650.99t A— 10 to� 7 0 7 VA A YES vote on Initiative Measure will rezone the Crest View School site to residential use. The sale of this property at today's value of almost $10 million will qualify the OVSD for an additional $27 million in State matching funds. Therefore, a YES vote on Initiative Measure will result in a total of $37 million going immediately to the district. This is enough to do all the needed repairs and upgrades AND ESTABLISH A LARGE RESERVE FUND. The Wal-Mart plan limits the District to an annual income starting at only $400,000 dollars. The project will produce LESS THAN HALF the income projected. Is that enough money to justify destroying an area of our city with traffic gridlock? Can the Council majority be trusted to use the meager profits for youth and seniors? No! These are the same empty promises that are used in every election. If the public wants a Wal-Mart, the proper location is at the Huntington Center. There is no reason that a Wal-Mart could not go in this nearly vacant mall. Don't be fooled by the "no new taxes" deception. Due to Propositions 13 and 218, only YOU the voter can increase local taxes. Vote YES on Measure and Vote NO on Advisory Measure bZ � t The undersigned proponents or authors of the rebuttal argument in favor of ballot measure INITIATIVE MEASURE at the Special Municipal Election for the City of Huntington Beach, to be held on March 7, 2000, hereby state that the rebuttal is true and correct to the best of their knowledge and belief. QjTE-1 Date Peter Green, Mayor, Huntington Beach City Council Date Debbie Cook, Environmental Attorney, Author of Measure C Date Bob Biddle, Huntington Beach Planning Commissioner Date John Jankowski, Member, Council on Aging Date Marvin Josephson, Crest View United The undersigned proponents or authors of the rebuttal argument in favor of ballot measure INITIATIVE MEASURE at the Special Municipal Election for the City of Huntington Beach, to be held on March 7, 2000, hereby state that the rebuttal is true and correct to the best of their knowledge and belief. Date Peter Green, Mayor, Huntington Beach City Council Date Debbie Cook, Environmental Attorney, Author of Measure C 14 Date ���) _./61 'v Bob Biddle, Huntington Beach Planning Commissioner Date 9�5 9? John Jankowski, Member, Council on Aging Date Marvin Josephson, Crest View United yt1A67p4 : OFFICE OF ---- CITY ATTORNEY P.O. Box 190 2000 Main Street Telephone Gail glutton Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 536-5555 City Anorney Fax (714) 374-1590 December 30, 1998 Daniel E. Kittredge 5332 Glenstone Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Re: Withdrawal of Petition for Initiative Dear Mr. Kittredge: This letter is to confirm that you have withdrawn your initiative petition concerning the General Plan Amendment recently adopted on the Crest View site. We intend no further action on this matter at this time. Sincerely, GAIL HUTTON City Attorney c: Honorable Peter Green,Mayor, and Members of the City Council Connie Brockway, City Clerk ✓ Ray Silver, City Administrator Melanie Fallon,Assistant City Administrator 4/s:4-981-etters:Kitt 1230 LA, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY CITY CLERK Date: December 24, 1998 To: Gail Hutton, City Attorney From: Connie Brockway, City Clerk Re: Notice of Intention To Circulate Petition and Written Request that a ballot title and summary be prepared by the City Attorney - submitted by Daniel Kittredge Attached is a notice of intention consisting of the written text of an initiative, the name and address of the person proposing the measure and a request that a ballot title and summary be prepared by the City Attorney. Also attached is the optional written statement giving the reasons for the proposed ordinance. Pursuant to State Elections Code I am transmitting a copy of the proposed measure to your office to prepare an impartial statement and ballot title. Please return the ballot title and summary to me within 15 days (by January 8, 1999) I have attached a copy of the state elections code as well as informal material on this subject for your use should you require it. This Request for Legal Services has been assigned to extension His/her secretary is extension Notes: Date Completed: 1 7 __-_ - _ _ _- _ -__ _ _ __-_ ____�-_ __ ale-- __ lee, a /7- 714 Z. 77'1�ee-I 6 Dx ---------- ------- ....... -------------- -------------- ------------- ------- .........------- --------------- -------------- s7n ----------- ----------- .......... —----- TO: City Clerk of Huntington Beach FROM: Dan Kittredge, Huntington Beach resident RE: INITIATIVE PETITION Date: Dec. 24, 1998 I file herewith a proposed initiative petition and request that the City Attorney prepare a ballot title and summary, as required to do within 15 days by Cal. Elections Code §9203. 33, 6 J tf ce INITIATIVE MEASURE TO BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO THE VOTERS: INITIATIVE TO AMEND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION OF CRESTVIEW SCHOOL SITE FROM HIGH-DENSITY COMMERCIAL TO MIXED USE 1. The people of the City of Huntington Beach hereby amend the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan to change the general plan designation for the 13 .89 acre site located on the south side of Talbert Avenue described in City Council Resolution 98-95 from CG-F1 (General Commercial with a Floor Area Ratio of .035) to M (Mixed Use) . 2. The above may not be amended except by vote of the people. < F " C_ .'h C.'M G C9" Z:) ' NOTICE OF INTENT TO CIRCULATE PETITION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN by the person(s) whose names appear hereon of their intention to circulate a petition within the City of San Huntington Beach for the purpose of amending the City's General Plan. A statement of the reasons for the proposed action contemplated in the petition is as follows: For many years, the community has relied on the Crestview school site for park and educational uses. Because it is located near a residential neighborhood, it should not be the site of a large discount store, which would add thousands of cars to the area. Such a store would likely add enormous traffic to our streets and add air pollution. Such a store would unfairly compete with existing stores by not providing family health benefits. Existing stores therefore would end up laying off their employees, and unable to keep up the appearance of their stores. This would have a negative ripple effect on our whole area. We're not trying to prevent all development: let' s just make sure that commercial development is scaled appropriately for our community. We also recognize the school district wants more revenue, but this desire can be accombdated by a smaller-scale, mixed-use development. Dan Kittredge Address: ` 33,�- F M7-77 e_ fi .�.. 1v THIS HASTILY DRAWN MEASURE REEKS OF SHADY, BACK-DOOR POLITICKING. O.C. Weekly has revealed that the developer of the proposed Wal-Mart has invested $100,000 in a Huntington Beach bank — the very same bank in which 3 City Council members are shareholders. These same 3 City Council members approved this project and opposed the citizen's measure. This advisory measure has been placed on the ballot by the Council majority only to deceive the voters. A YES vote on companion Measure WILL NOT result in a tax increase. Propositions 13 and 218 insure that ONLY you, the voter, can raise local taxes. The City Council does not need your approval to spend money on youth sports and seniors. That power has always belonged to them. This isn't about youth sports or seniors. Rather, these are the same empty promises that are used in every election to defeat the hard work of the voting public. But the most repulsive aspect of this Advisory Measure is its intent to confuse voters. Don't be fooled. Vote YES on Measure and NO on Advisory Measure Y, :_ 51 L 7.7 The undersigned proponents or authors of the rebuttal argument against ballot measure ADVISORY MEASURE at the Special Municipal Election for the City of Huntington Beach, to be held on March 7, 2000, hereby state that the rebuttal is true and correct to the best of their knowledge and belief. r r :�..._ ..... "�...... Date f i 2 40/5 Peter Green, Mayor, Huntington Beach City Council Date Debbie Cook, Environmental Attorney, Author of Measure C Ail, / ; Date Bob Biddle, Huntington Beach Planning Commissioner Qvv���P Date John Jankowski, Member, Council on Aging Date Marvin Josephson, Crest View United f� The undersigned proponents or authors of the rebuttal argument against ballot measure ADVISORY MEASURE at the Special Municipal Election for the City of Huntington Beach, to be held on March 7, 2000, hereby state that the rebuttal is true and correct to the best of their knowledge and belief. Date E l �Z�Jn Peter Green, Mayor, Huntington Beach City Council Lywl &10'k— Date Debbie Cook, Environmental Attorney, Author of Measure C : 7 G 0 i Date Bob Biddle, Huntington Beach Planning Commissioner l V' a c, Date l�'O��S /Q� John Jankowski, Member, Council on Aging Date If 1,919 Marvin Josephson, Crest View United H Ege A N G I grc 0 U N T V This space is for the County ClerWs Filing Stamp _J 625 N. Grand Ave., Santa Ana, CA 92701 PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015.5 C.C.P.) WE OF CALIFORNIA, ss. )unty of Orange, Proof®f Publication of m a citizen of the United States and a resident of County aforesaid; I am over th"ge of twenty 11111ECRYAl RN To e years, and not a party to or Interested in Me _TKE,F0LL01*N0 ove entity matter am tWdmkof the , ISTP'oNTENT ` s�uotatne " O CUtl LOT C MOGNJMINE :ftSIGNE' P1 5EJ�T HOO'SITE -Y -, _ .na appeal inter of The orange County Registerp a =4 whoseNOTICEJS ROT�E Ck EM, of-tfietr,int6nPn"t0cIrC ER I Al -0 66 late RATIO A�MAXI.MIRWIL RARE the qq-of Hur,flaig- u", I ,_!J�Qg%_�2ah,for",PuW purpose ITJAL H'�J U wspaper of general circulation, published in the- 01"a , WITH M to OF "'"M iys�'Genera! )t4G-UNlT§,PER,,NE`T*ZRE 0 Plan and Zonng c?rd Hance CHANGE"THE H Q'NO v IDIRSIGNA- TH�!�CIEST!ME 'SCHbod SITE",-,,ER6M,,-0 ;(OOMWRQJAL of Santa Ana, County of Orange, and which 'fated wspaper has been adjudged to be a newspaper of hps relied ao�th&Crbs Y side for hoo _qI use ond neral circulation by the Superior Court of theinend me egad use;Ee. -mentof perqf to oil Noted to rezone the land,and change;the-GeiTeral Plan des= )unty of Orange, State of California, under the amend ilia_,gqiierai plan to.qlow Tbi=lj�odd tfipu�onds,of cars F 1; to of November 19, 1905, Case No.A-21046 that to, Cf!Boulevard andthe died -PaTitner'00 %ith`_,�a surrounding,-"#-16��sit6l-l�'6,c�jgihg mq)ofl)1`um,,'floor-qrqa�roqflo of M§), streets-with Araffic-and qdoflr�;�dr to,RL--7 JRd§ldqn#ol'_*fl!YA.TZ notice, of which the annexed is a true printed pollution.; Mqmof.7,0we#ing,��jnflsfpeir,ne P would,onfairly corn, rrg, :e)asfing,,,,stores,by;not Ofcl!Pclna .01, :C 0 '7 Pete with 9� flhe Ity0ftl providing JqMfly,heqlth -ton�,�eachj`-.,would *art 90 e,py. has been published in each regular and entire �'�fdr�ngstOF w9dI0i0nq,UPIaynd -arnein J9,,,coorg tho;zoning � oc- School ,:. dosignghon of"the Crest:Chew "a;ue of said newspaper and not in any supplem Wecla_h6t oppose all develop ent ment: th6Aevel6bment should fionwould be,chq6gbd,from CG simply be'cofi:ist6ritw"ith the char- (Commercicfl-Genbral)to RL_(L6w 'Derils!rY,Resict&"ha!);-A,v6t6-qf-'the people would Crank h6nge the g6nerdv.plon�ond ?reof on the Wowing dates, to wit® Robe c 18372 zoning designation -am 1-1661noto,n`Becic,h,,"CA 92646 2 z,I s9s amended' I by,this rneasure.,ff`a courfliivdf- INITIATIVE"MEASURE,T0 BE-S -IT- dates-a�p6rff66_oftheprop6i6d1 TED,DIRECRY J9,1HEWOTERS; measure, that;poition,',shall',,be IN I ITIAT V,E TO AMEND 2ONIN6'AND severedI ,and have:no effecton GENERAL,PLAN DESIGNATION OF' the remainder of th,,pr6rb a , CREST MEW SCHOOL SITE,TO,PRO- measure, H I 1131T COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTI AND PERMIT, RESIDENTIAL USES This�,proposed ballot- Measure ONLY, wouid'amend'the`Cliys General FebruarX_JJL9_9_q The P6apJe bf,the City of Huirrfih6 Plan and,ZoQtng Ordinance as,it ton Boa h do ordain as follows: pertains to the Cr6st�View:Sch6ol'l 'C, I site.The General Plan designation 1:The L�nd6lse Elemeht'of fhe, 'for.ifie site:wdUld`be.,.dhqrrJed CWs-,"General Plan,is hereby 1 fforriCG-Fl(C6mnn6ia[al_,G&nerd 1 amended to change the general, with-ci maximum floor area rofioofI plan designation.f6r,the 1189 0.35)to-RL-7,(Residential with,a acre site located on the South moDamum of 7-dwelling units mere s ide'of Talbert Avenu6,clesbrib6d net acre].The zoning.ddslgndtion in City Cou6cil,R66olution 98-95: of,the site-would,be''cha666dj from CG+V[ComrneTciQi General from,CG,[CorririiqfdaI-,G6neral) with 0 maximum floor area rafi6'of to'RL(Low,Denisity'Riasidential). 0.35):jo,RL-7'(residenfial with a These- the"'futur@ certify (or declare) under the penalty of pequry manmumof 7 dwelling unfls,per i development of net I acre).' dbnsit der the laws of the State of California that the ry_reside�tiqf _, yofe'of 2, The,:Citys466h6,`66d_`Subdk ffiejDeople,wobld be required in vIsi6ri."Ordinanceis', hereby aide,t.0 c tht,general plan -egoing is true and Correct'-. amended,by-amending District I and zoning " igndfions of.the r site from 67 those provided, by this Map 40(Sectional Disirict Map 3 measure.'If,d court,in,validates a I 5-11)to rezone the pro d scribed above from CGperly portion of the proposed measure ite February 1 1 , 1929 (General I I — Commercial)to�R-L,(LowDensity, that portion sholl.be,severed an� , ; J have no,eff6crbi. Residentfal),1 ofthe pr6bosed,r-6e! re remainder l 3., The'above may not. be! Pu i blish:,6range,Codn YZ amended except try vote of the 199`9", .people. February 11 - I C, R-239 A.Sh'6u'Id,'cny�bay_isi apple- '91301100 aZ�on of ap I Callon of ft-re e be 'nv 'ou rtof low,it shall Ze PROOF OF PUBLICATION dated have no'6ffett on the remainder of:this ordinance. lie CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: CONNIE BROCKWAY, City Clerk FROM: GAIL HUTTON, City Attorney SUBJECT: IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS— CREST VIEW SITE RLS 99-052, 99-086, and 99-110 DATE: FEBRUARY 10, 1999 Thank you for your memorandum dated regarding the impartial analysis for the above referenced petition. It was provided in advance of the required date as a convenience to you. Naturally, it is not required until the measure actually qualifies for the ballot. Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have any questions. GAIL HUTTON City Attorney. BalloC BALLOT TITLE A BALLOT MEASURE TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION OF THE CREST VIEW SCHOOL SITE FROM CG-FI (COMMERCIAL GENERAL WITH A MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO OF 0.3 5) TO RL-7 (RESIDENTIAL WITH A MAXIMUM OF 7 DWELLING UNITS PER NET ACRE), AND TO CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF THE CREST VIEW SCHOOL SITE FROM CG(COMMERCIAL GENERAL) TO R-L (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) SUMMARY This proposed ballot measure would amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach to change the General Plan designation of the Crest View School site. The General Plan designation would be changed from CG-Fl (Commercial General with a maximum floor area ratio of 0.35)to RL-7 (Residential with a maximum of 7 dwelling units per net acre). The Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach would also be amended to change the zoning designation of the Crest View School site. The zoning designation would be changed from CG(Commercial General)to RL (Low Density Residential). A vote of the people would be required to change the general plan and zoning designations as amended by this measure. If a court invalidates a portion of the proposed measure, that portion shall be severed and have no effect on the remainder of the proposed measure. BalloC CHATTEN-BROWNT AND ASSOCIATES JAN CHATTEN-DROWN 10951 NEST PICO BOULEVARD KIMBERLY E.LEWAND THIRD FLOOR LESLIE V.WALTON DOUGLAS CARSTENS LOS ANGELES,CALIFORNIA 90064 Legal Assistant TELEPHONE:(310)474-7793 FACSIMILE:(310)474-8504 E-mail:jchattenCearthlink.net February 4, 1999 Honorable Bill Lockyer, Attorney General Attn: Theadora Berger Deputy Attorney General 300 South Spring Street, Suite 500 Los Angeles, California 90013 Re. Save the Open-space and Parks Alliance v. City of Huntington Beach, et al. Dear Attorney General: Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedures section 389.6, please find enclosed a copy of the Petition for Writ of Mandate filed in the above-captioned matter. Petitioner Save the Open-space and Parks Alliance ("STOP") challenges the approval by the City of Huntington Beach of General Plan and zoning amendments, and a Conditional Use Permit for a Wal-Mart at the site of Ocean View School. The challenge is based upon violations of the California Environmental Quality Act and Government Code provisions relating to the requirement for consistency between various elements of a General Plan. Sincerely, , :/, �:�-2_ Jan Chatten-Brown Enclosure FILNGNOT.AG CHATTEN-BROWN AND ASSOCIATES ✓.u,'� �`' JAN CHATTEN-BROWN 10951 WEST PICO BOULEVARD KIMBERLY E.I EWAND THIRD FLOOR LESLIE V.WALTON DOUGLAS CARSTENS LOS ANGELES,CALIFORNIA 90064 Legal Assistant TELEPHONE:(310)474-7793 FACSIMILE:(310)474-8504 E-mail:jehatten@earthlink.net February 4, 1999 z Connie Brockway, City Clerk Y =a CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH _ �- 200., !1 Mair, Street Huntington Beach, California 92646 Re: Save the Open-space and Parks Alliance v. City of Huntington Beach, gLal..- Dear Ms. Brockway: > Please take notice that Save the Open-space and Parks Alliance ("STOP") intends to commence an action against the City of Huntington Beach to challenge the approval by the City of Huntington Beach of General Plan and zoning amendments, and a Conditional Use Permit for a Wal-Mart at the site of Ocean View School. The challenge is based upon violations of the California Environmental Quality Act and Government Code provisions relating to the requirement for consistency between various elements of a General Plan. The notice is provided pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21167.5. Sincerely, Jan Chatten-Brown FILNGNOT.CTY 1 DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY NZAIL 2 ` r 3 4 Re: Save the Open-space and Parks Alliance v. City of Huntington Beach et al 5 I, Leslie V. Walton, declare: 6 I am employed in the City and County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of eighteen and am not a party to the within action; 1%Sy business address is 10951 7 West Pico Blvd., Third Floor, Los Angeles, California 90064. 8 On February 4, 1999, I served the foregoing document described as: 9 NOTICE OF INTENT TO COMMENCE ACTION 10 on interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Los Angeles, California addressed 11 as follows: 12 Honorable Bill Lockyer, Attorney General. Attn: Theadora Berger 13 Deputy Attorney General 300 South Spring Street, Suite 500 14 Los Angeles, California 90013 15 I am "readily familiar" with this office's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. It is deposited with U.S. postal service on that same day in the 16 ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than 1 day after date of deposit for 17 mailing in affidavit. 18 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 19 Executed on February 4, 1999, at Los Angeles, California. 20 21 c 22 Leslie V.Walton NTPREPAR.S RV 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY MAIL 2 3 4 Re: Save the Open-space and Parks Alliance v. City of Huntington Beach, et al. 5 I, Leslie V. Walton, declare: 6 I am employed in the City and County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of eighteen and am not a party to the within action; My business address is 10951 7 West Pico Blvd., Third Floor, Los Angeles, California 90064. 8 On February 4, 1999, I served the foregoing document described as: 9 NOTICE OF ELECTION TO PREPARE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD 10 on interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope 11 with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Los Angeles, California addressed as follows: 12 Connie Brockway, City Clerk 13 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 Main Street 14 Huntington Beach, California 92646 15 I am "readily familiar" with this office's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. It is deposited with U.S. postal service on that same day in the j 16 ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than 1 day after date of deposit for 17 mailing in affidavit. 18 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 19 Executed on February 4, 1999, at Los Angeles, California. 20 21 .6L ,V/ 22 Leslie V. Walton NTPREPAR.SRV 23 24 25 26 27 28 `,!-v rI` rh;l 1 Jan Chatten Brown, Esq. SB # 50275 F j OF Kimberly E. Lewand, Esq. SB # 161891 CA 2 Douglas P. Carstens, Esq. SB # 193439 I4 � _ l ?t: + CHATTEN-BROWN AND ASSOCIATES 0 3 10951 West Pico Boulevard, Third Floor Los Angeles, California 90064 4 Tel: (310) 474-7793 Fax: (310) 474-8504 5 Annabel Cook, Esq. SB #193138 6 LAW OFFICES OF ANNABEL COOK 820 South Yorba Street 7 Orange, California 92869 Tel: (714)246-1755 8 Fax: (714) 744-9049 9 Attorneys for Plaintiffs: SAVE THE OPEN-SPACE AND PARKS ALLIANCE 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 COUNTY OF ORANGE 12 SAVE THE OPEN-SPACE AND PARKS) Case No. 13 ALLIANCE, a unicorporated association, ) NOTICE OF ELECTION TO 14 Petitioners, ) PREPARE ADMINISTRATIVE VS. ) RECORD BY PETITIONER 15 ) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, a municipal ) (CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL 16 corporation, ) QUALITY ACT) 17 Respondent, ) Date:- Time: 18 WAL-MART, Inc.; ARNEEL RETAIL GROUP, and ) Dept: OCEAN VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT, organized ) 19 pursuant to the state laws of California, ) 20 Real Parties in Interest. ) 21 22 By this notice,Petitioners give notice pursuant that Petitioners elect to prepare the 23 administrative record in the above entitled action. 24 DATED: February 4, 1999 CHATTE . -BR L AND ASSOCIATES 25 ,` '_ By: Jan C a en- rown 26 Attorneys for Plaintiffs SAVE THE OPEN-SPACE AND 27 PARKS ALLIANCE 28 Printed on Recycled Paper • i 1 DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY MAIL 2 3 4 Re: Save the Open-s-pace and Parks Alliance v. City of Huntington Beach, et al. 5 I, Leslie V. Walton, declare: 6 I am employed in the City and County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am_ over the age of eighteen and am not a party to the within action; My business address is 10951 7 West Pico Blvd., Third Floor, Los Angeles, California 90064. 8 On February 4, 1999, I served the foregoing document described as: 9 NOTICE OF ELECTION TO PREPARE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD 10 on interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope 11 with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Los Angeles, California addressed as follows: 12 Connie Brockway, City Clerk 13 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 Main Street 14 Huntington Beach, California 92646 15 I am "readily familiar" with this office's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. It is deposited with U.S. postal service on that same day in the 16 ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than 1 day after date of deposit for 17 mailing in affidavit. 18 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 19 Executed on February 4, 1999, at Los Angeles, California. 20 21 f 22 Leslie V. Walton NTPREPAR.SRV 23 24 25 26 27 28 I Jan Chatten Brown, Esq. SB # 50275 Kimberly E. Lewand, Esq. SB # 161891 2 Douglas P.-Carstens, Esq. SB # 193439 i i f CHATTEN=BROWN AND ASSOCIATES 3 10951 West Pico Boulevard, Third Floor Los Angeles, California 90064 4 Tel: (310) 474-7793 Fax: (310) 474-8504 5 Annabel Cook, Esq SB #193138 6 LAW OFFICES OF ANNABEL COOK 820 South Yorba Street 7 Orange, California 92869 Tel: (714) 246-1755 8 Fax: (714) 744-9049 9 Attorneys for Plaintiffs: SAVE THE OPEN-SPACE AND PARKS ALLIANCE 10 11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ' 12 COUNTY OF ORANGE 13 SAVE THE OPEN-SPACE AND PARKS ALLIANCE, an unincorporated association, Case No. 14 Petitioners, 15 vs. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 16 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, a municipal CALIFORNIA 17 corporation, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Respondent, and ACT) 18 WAL-MART, Inc., an Arkansas corporation 19 doing business in California; ARNEL RETAIL Date: GROU ,P and OCEAN VIEW SCHOOL Time: 20 DISTRICT, organized pursuant to the state laws Dept: of California, 21 Real Parties in Interest. 22 23 Petitioners, Save the Open-space and Parks Alliance (hereafter "Petitioners" or 24 "STOP") respectfully allege as follows: 25 INTRODUCTION 26 1. This action challenges the approval by the City of Huntington Beach ("City") 27 of a General Plan amendment; zone change and Conditional Use Permit ("CUP") for a 28 massive "big box" Wal-Mart at a location adjacent to single family residences and across tl 1 - 4 1 street from a cemetery and church. The basis for this challenge is that the Final 2 Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") is legally deficient, that various substantive and 3 procedural violations of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") occurred, and 4 that the approval of the project violates the City's own municipal code regarding the issuance 5 of variances and planning laws requiring that various parts of a General Plan be internally 6 consistent. 7 PARTIES 8 2. Save the Open-space and Parks ("STOP") Alliance is an unincorporated 9 association established in February of 1999 for purposes of challenging the project which is 10 the subject of this suit, and to work to establish and maintain a safe and healthful 11 environment for children, adults and the elderly,by preserving and enhancing open-space 12 and parkland areas. The organization includes,but is not limited to, residents, businesses and 13 taxpayers of the cities of Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley who live in close proximity 14 or have property ownership interests in the City of Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley, ii-_ 15 the County of Orange, the members of Crest View United. 16 3. Respondent City of Huntington Beach ("City") is a charter city and a political 17 subdivision of the State of California and the County of Orange and a body corporate and 18 politic exercising local government power functions, as specified by the Constitution and the 19 laws of the State of California. 20 4. Real Party In Interest Wal-Mart, Inc. ("Wal-Mart") is an Arkansas corporation 21 doing business in the State of California, including the County of Orange. 22 5. On information and belief, Petitioner alleges that Real Party In In Amel 23 Retail Group ("Arnel") is a limited partnership doing business in the County of Orange and 24 in the State of California, with offices in Costa Mesa. Amel is the proposed developer of the 25 property at issue. 26 6. Real Party In Interest Ocean View School District ("OVSD") is a school 27 district organized in the County of Orange pursuant to the state laws of California. OVSD i 28 the owner of the property at issue. 2 1 7. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate or otherwise, of 2 DOES 1 through X are unknown to Petitioners who therefore sue said respondents by such 3 fictitious names and will seek leave to amend this Complaint when they have been 4 ascertained. 5 STATEMENT OF FACTS i 6 8. The property at issue is a 13.89 acre site located at 18052 Lisa Lane, in the City 7 of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California. The site is located on the south 8 side of Talbert Avenue approximately 300 feet east of Beach Boulevard. Nine of the 9 property's 13.89 acres are currently open space, with the remainder consisting of a closed 10 school. 11 9. The project contemplates that the property will be leased and that Arnel will 12 build and Wal-Mart operate 134,740 square foot Wal-Mart retail store and a 8,158 square 13 foot garden center, along with three retail/restaurant pads ranging from 3,500 square foot to 14 5,500 square foot. Wal-Mart proposes to have 325 employees to operate the proposed store. 15 10. Although there are commercial projects located on Beach Boulevard adjacent 16 to the proposed Wal-Mart site, twelve residences are located within 100 feet of the proposed 17 site. These residences abut the proposed site on the south and east of the site. There is a 37 18 acre Good Shepherd Cemetery directly to the north of the proposed site, across Talbert 19 Street. The Cemetery has been there since 1910, and averages 12 burials per week. There is 20 also a church located just 250 feet to the east of the cemetery, with 1600 registered families. 21 11. Pursuant to the approval of the proposed project, up to 12 inches of ponding of 22 surface/storm water is allowed in remote areas of the proposed project's parking lot during 23 major storms. The proposed project site is on a bluff, where surface/storm water could flow 24 downhill from the site, which are already subject to serious flooding. 25 12. The City's own Design Review Board recommended denial of the proposed 26 project, primarily on the grounds that the project is too commercial for the surrounding 27 residential community. 28 13. As part of the environmental review process, the Huntington Beach 3 1 Environmental Board sent a comment letter stating that the Draft Environmental Impact 2 Report ("DEIR") was inadequate with regard to analyzing impacts to open space and 3 recreational uses, incompatibility with adjoining uses, and use of the proposed project site for 4 commercial use. The Board specifically requested a Mitigation Monitoring Plan ("MMP"). 5 14. On October 27, 1998, the City's Planning Commission ("Planning 6 Commission") recommended denial of the applicant's request to amend the General Plan's 7 land use designation for the proposed site from P (RL-7) (public with an underlying land use 8 designation of Low Density Residential) to CG-F1 (General Commercial-maximum floor 9 ratio of 0.35), and to amend the zoning designation of the proposed site from PS (Public- 10 Semipublic) to CG (General Commercial) ("hereinafter, General Plan Amendments"). The 11 Planning Commission also recommended denial of the certification of the accompanying 12 Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"). 13 15. The proposed EIR and General Plan Amendments were automatically 14 forwarded to the City Council for review while the applicant appealed the Planning 15 Commission's denial of the General Plan Amendments so that it could be heard concurrent1v 16 with the other requested entitlements. Since the Planning Commission recommended denial 17 of the General Plan Amendments, the Planning Commission never acted on the actual 18 development proposed for the site. 19 16. On December 14, 1998, the City Council adopted resolutions/ordinances 20 approving the requested General Plan Amendments and adopting and certifying the EIR. A 21 second reading was held on January 4, 1999, and confirmed the City Council's action to 22 change the General Plan and zoning to General Commercial. The new General Plan 23 designation became effective immediately upon approval and the new zoning becomes 24 effective on February 4, 1999. 25 17. The City Council's action did not include approval of the conditional use 26 permit or tentative parcel map associated with the proposed project. The review and 27 consideration of those applications were conducted by the Planning Commission at a public 28 hearing on January 26, 1999. The Planning Commission approved the project on that date. 4 i 1 18. A Notice of Determination for the approval of a General Plan amendment and 2 Zoning Map amendment and certification of the EIR for the project Nvas posted on January 8, 3 1999. The NOD specifically states that mitigation measures were not made a condition of 4 approval. A copy of the notice of determination is attached as Exhibit A to this petition. 5 19. Pursuant to City procedures, the decision of the Planning Commission can be. 6 appealed to the City Council, the deadline for such an appeal being February 5, 1999. On 7 information and belief, it is alleged that Arnel has filed an appeal from some of the 8 conditions imposed by the Planning Commission. On information and belief, it is also 9 alleged that the neighboring City of Fountain Valley will file an appeal. STOP will either 10 join the appeal filed by the City of Fountain Valley or file their own appeal. 11 20. Despite the fact that the issuance of the Conditional Use Permit is being 12 appealed, this action is filed within thirty days of the filing of the NOD on the General Plan 13 amendment and zone change because of the thirty day statute of limitation provided by 14 CEQA. Petitioner will amend this petition to conform with the facts after the appeal is heard 15 unless the City Council reverses the Planning Commission and denies the Conditional Use 16 Permit. 17 EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REINIEDIES 18 A\D INADEQUATE REMEDIES AT LA«' 19 21. Petitioner has exhausted all available administrative remedies and objections to 20 the General Plan and zone change by comments presented orally and in writing to the City b, 21 members of STOP, as required by Public Resources Code Section 21177. Petitioner is still i_ 22 the process of exhausting its administrative remedies with respect to the approval of the 23 Conditional Use Permit and tentative tract map for the Wal-Mart project. 24 22. Petitioner has complied with the requirements of Public Resources Code 25 Section 21167.5 by mailing a written notice of commencement of this action to the City, a 26 copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 27 23. Petitioner has advised the City that Petitioner elects to prepare the record of 28 the proceedings relevant to the approval of this project, as modified, in compliance with 5 i 1 Public Resources Code Section 21167.6. A copy of that notice is attached as Exhibit C. 2 24. s Petitioner has complied with Public Resources Code Section 21167.7 by filing 3 a copy of the 7original petition with the California Attorney General. A copy of the letter of 4 notification is attached as Exhibit D. i 5 25. Petitioner has no adequate remedy at law unless the Court grants the requested f o set aside its certification of the EIR and the approval of 6 writ of mandate requiring the City t i 7 the General Plan amendment of December 14, 1998. With'regard to the Planning 8 Commission's approval of the CUP on January 26, 1999, Petitioner has no adequate remedy 9 at law unless the Court grants the requested writ of mandate setting aside the CUP. In the 10 absence of such remedies, the respondent's approval will remain in effect in violation of 11 State law; and Petitioners will suffer irreparable harm in their community because of the 12 significant adverse environmental impacts caused by the loss of open space and the approval i 13 of the Wal-Mart project. 14 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 15 (FAILURE TO PREPARE AND CONSIDER AN ADEQUATE EIR; 16 CEQA VIOLATION) 17 26. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by this reference as though the same 18 were fully set forth herein each and every allegation and Exhibit set forth in Paragraphs 1 19 through 25, inclusive, of this Petition. 20 27. The City's approval of the EIR constituted a prejudicial abuse of discretion in 21 that the EIR is not in accord with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and case law, but rather 22 is legally inadequate and insufficient in numerous respects, including, but not limited to, the 23 following: 24 a. The failure to consider a reasonable range of alternatives, including a 25 smaller Wal-Mart and an alternative site for the Wal-Mart; 26 b. The failure to address the environmental impacts of changes to the project 27 including requiring all right lane turns for trucks leaving the property and information on the 28 truck delivery times of outside vendors; 6 I c. An inadequate analysis of loss-of open space and recreational resource, and 2 comparability with surrounding uses; 3 d. An inadequate analysis of visual impacts on cemetery across the street; 4 e. An inadequate traffic analysis, including an analysis of traffic impacts that 5 maybe inconsistent with the Fountain Valley General Plan; 6 f. An inadequate analysis of air quality and noise; 7 g. An inadequate analysis of cumulative effects; 8 h. An inadequate analysis of public safety; 9 i. An inadequate discussion of the consistency of the General Plan amendment 10 with other sections of the City's General Plan; 11 j. An inadequate discussion of mitigation measures, including but not limited 12 to air quality, traffic and noise impacts; and 13 k. An inadequate response to comments. 14 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 15 (IMPROPER DEFERRAL OF MITIGATION MEASURES; CEQA VIOLATION) 16 28. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by this reference as though the same 17 were fully set forth herein each and every allegation and Exhibit set forth in Paragraphs 1 18 through 25, inclusive, of this Petition. 19 29. The City has improperly deferred the adoption of various mitigation measures, 20 including but not limited to: 21 a. a noise study which will determine whether the wall is ten or twelve feet, 22 which will significantly impact air and light to neighboring homes; 23 b, an archeological study of Lambert Park, a recognized significant Indian 24 burial site which will be utilized as a mitigation for the loss of open space as a result of the 25 Crest View School site; and 26 c. an archeological survey of the Crest View School site. 27 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 28 (FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS NOT 7 y I SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE; CEQ A VIOLATION) 2 30. f Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by this reference as though the same 3 were fully set forth herein each and every allegation and Exhibit set forth in Paragraphs 1 I 4 through 25, inclusive, of this Petition. ` 5 31. There is not substantial evidence to support a number of the findings, including 6 but not limited to the findings that: 7 a. the determination in the initial study that impacts on cultural resources 8 would be less than significant, despite the fact that the majority of the property has not 9 previously been disturbed and is in close proximity with a major Native American 10 archeological site; and 11 b. that various impacts had been mitigated below the level of significance by 12 imposition of mitigation measures. 13 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 14 (PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITIES; CEQA VIOLATION 15 32. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by this reference as though the same 16 were fully set forth herein each and every allegation and Exhibit set forth in Paragraphs 1 17 through 25, inclusive, of this Petition. 18 33. The City Council improperly bifurcated approval of mitigation measures for 19 the project when it amended the General Plan and zoning code, based upon the EIR for the 20 Wal-Mart project, without adopting mitigation measures. 21 34. The City Council failed to adopt a Mitigation Monitoring Plan as a part of the 22 approval of the General Plan amendment and Zone change. 23 35. The Planning Commission failed to certify the Environmental Impact Report 24 for this project when they approved the Conditional Use Permit on January 26, 1999. 25 36. The Planning Commission failed to adopt a Mitigation Monitoring Plan as a 26 part of the approval of the Conditional Use Permit. 27 37. The findings adopted by the Planning Commission and the City Council fail to 28 show that they have adopted all feasible measures. 8 I FIFTH CAUSE,OF ACTION 2 = (IMPROPER GRANT OF VARIANCE; 3 VIOLATION OF CITY MUNICIPAL CODE.) 4 38. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by this reference as though the same 5 were fully set forth herein each and every allegation and Exhibit set forth in Paragraphs 1 i 6 through 25, inclusive, of this Petition. 7 39. The Planning Commission improperly granted a variance from the provisions 8 of Huntington Beach Municipal Code §231.18, in violation of Huntington Beach Municipal 9 Code §§241A and 241.10, as there,,vas not substantial evidence to support their findings. 10 - SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 11 (THE AMENDMENT VIOLATES GOVERNMENT CODE 65300.5 AND § 65302(a). 12 e and , REQUIRING CORRELATION AND CONSISTENCY OF 13 ELEMENTS OF THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN.) 14 40. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by this reference as though the same 15 were fully set forth herein each and every allegation and Exhibit set forth in Paragraphs 1 16 through 25, inclusive, of this Petition. 17 41. In adopting the General Plan Amendment for this project, the City violated 18 Government Code §§ 65300.5 and 65302(a), (e), and (f), requiring consistency and 19 correlation of the land use, open-space, and noise elements, respectively, with other elements 20 of the General Plan. 21 XII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 22 WHEREFORE, petitioners pray for relief as follows: 23 1. For alternative and peremptory writs of mandate,.commanding respondent to set 24 aside and vacate the City Council's December 14, 1998, certification of the EIR on 25 December 14, 1998; the approval of the General Plan and Zoning amendments made for the 26 Wal-Mart project on that date; and the Planning Commission's approval of the Conditional 27 Use Permit and Tentative Tract Map on January 26, 1999; 28 2. For costs of the suit; 9 1 3. For reasonable attorneys' fees; and 2 4. For such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper. 3 4 DATED: February 5, 1999 CHATTENT-BROWN AND ASSOCIATES 5 6 y: anCMtten-Brown 7 Attorneys for Plaintiffs SAVE THE OPENSPACE AND 8 PARKS ALLIANCE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 D:\FILES`STOP\PLEADI.G\PETITnON.NVPD 26 27 28 10 1 Verification 2 3 j. 4 I, Craig Carter, say: 5 6 I am the Chairman of Save the Open-space and Parks Alliance, petitioner in this action. All 7 facts alleged in the First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate, not otherwise supported by citations 8 to the record, exhibits, other documents, are true to of my own knowledge. 9 10 I declare under penalty of perjury that the above is true to the best of my knowledge. 11 Executed on February 1999, in Orange County, California. 12 13 14 Craig Carter 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 F:\FILES\STOP\PLEADING\CARTER.VER 25 26 27 28 Appendix D Page 1 of 2 Notice of Determination To: X Office of Planning and Research From: (Public Agency) City of Huntington Beach 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Department of Community Develooment Sacramento, CA 95814 2000 Main Street (Address) Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Filed in the County of orange, California Gary L. Granville, Clerk/Recorder - III11111lII!llllllillllllllillllllllllll�lll�ll'Ililll111111111 38-00 - 6185985 es e ! 0 S T E sg533500013 2, 12pm 01/03I99 r 856 J- ILE, 9 Z01 'I 38.00 GAR -Recc Subject: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Pu CEP Code. Crest View School Site Project Project Title: 97081046 Jane Madera (714) 536-5596 State Clearinghouse Number Lead Agency Area Code/Telephone Extension (If submitted to Clearinghouse) Contact Person Project Location (include county) Closed school site addressed as 18052 Lisa Lane, Huntington Beach, California. The site is located on the south side of Talbert Avenue approximately 300 feet east of Beach Boulevard, City of Huntington Beach County of Orange. Project Description: The City Council's action of December 14, 1998 consisted of resolutions/ordinances approving the following: • General Plan Amendment No. 97-1 (Resolution No. 98-95). Amend the general plan designation of the 13.89 acre site from P(RL-7)(Public with an underlying land use designation of Low Density Residential)to CG-F1 (General Commercial-maximum floor area ratio of 0.35) • Zoning Nlap Amendment No. 97-1 (Ordinance No. 3408). Amend the current zoning designation of PS (Public-Semipublic) to CG (General Commercial). • Environmental Impact Report No.97-1(Resolution No.98-94). Adoption and certification of EIR No.97-1 which represents an analysis of potential environmental impacts and recommended mitigation measures associated with the proposed general plan amendment, and zoning map amendment for up to a maximum of 175,000 sq.ft. of commercial development as well as analysis of a conditional use permit, and tentative parcel map to allow development of a WalMart and three ancillary retail/restaurant pads. The City Council's action did not include approval of the conditional use permit or tentative parcel map associated with the proposed project. The review and consideration of these applications will be conducted by the Planning Commission at a subsequent public hearing (tentatively scheduled for January 26, 1999). Mitigation Measures set forth for the proposed development project(an approximate 135,000 square-foot WalMart and three other retail/restaurant pads ranging in size from 3,500 to 5,500 square feet)are included in the EIR certified for the project. Since the City Council, however, considered and approved only the General Plan Amendment , Zoning Map Amendment and Certification of the EIR, conditions of approval for the development project were not -I- -- , _. - ,.__�:.:.,.,,. „f —., nuni and mecific mitigation measures will be reviewed as part of the -------------- CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH. AND GAME CERTIFICATE OF FEE EXEMPTION De Minimis Impact Finding Project Location: 18052 Lisa Lane (Closed Crest View School located on the south side of Talbert Avenue,approximately 300 feet east of Beach Boulevard, City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange) Project Description: . General Plan Amendment No. 97-1: To amend the general plan designation of the 13.89 acre site from P (RL-7) (Public with an underlying land use designation of Low Density Residential)to CG-F1 (General Commercial-maximum floor area ratio of 0.35). Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-1: To amend the zoning designation of the 13.89 acre site from PS (Public-Semipublic)to CG General Commercial). Environmental Impact Report No. 97-1: Analyzes potential environmental impacts and recommends mitigation measures associated with the proposed general plan amendment and zoning map amendment for up to a maximum of 175,000 square feet of commercial development as well as analysis of a conditional use permit and tentative parcel map to allow development of a Wal-Mart and three ancillary retail/restaurani pads. Findings of Exemption- The City of Huntington Beach has prepared an initial study for the project to evaluate the potential for adverse environmental impacts and has determined the following: There is no evidence before the City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department that the proposed project has any potential for individual or cumulative adverse effects on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. Certification: I hereby certify that the public agency has made the above finding and that the project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. Howard Zelefskv Planning Director By: r �i�LQ,�. Vi�.fi��(0 ® T D Signa e JAN �g ; :: Title GARY L.(.GRAN E,Clerk Recorder Citv of Huntington Beach DEPM Lead Agency 5, LJ DA • JA CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION . HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: Gail Hutton, City Attorney Paul D'Allesandro, Deputy City Attorney FROM: Connie Brockway (� City Clerk DATE: January 29, 1999 SUBJECT: Revised Notice of Intent to Circulate an Initiative Petition — Robert Cronk (Wal-Mart) Transmitted is a revised Notice of Intent to Circulate an Initiative Petition, a Statement of Reasons, the proposed ordinance text and a Request for the City Attorney to prepare a Ballot Title and Summary. Please notice that the ordinance has been revised to omit the word "Floodplain" which was in the title of the original ordinance. I have not received a response to my transmittal to your office of Mr. Josephson's inquiry as to the status of the ordinance relative to the need for a re-reading of the ordinance. The deadline for your office to provide the Ballot title and Summary for the previously filed Notice of Intent is February 5. For this revised Notice of Intent; the date due for the:Ballot Title and Summary to my office is February 12, 1999, as 1 delivered the Revised Notice of Intent to your office on January 28, 1999. As stated before, I would appreciate a clarification of Mr. Josephson's inquiry to your office. If the error in the title is found not to be a problem and a re- reading of the Ordinance is not necessary, the Clerk's Office will require a corrected ordinance page. I will also re-publish the corrected ordinance in the newspaper. If you find the error to be substantial I would appreciate direction, as it would relate in regard to this Notice of Intent. cc: Ray Silver, City Administrator Melanie Fallon, Assistant City Administrator Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director Attachments: 1. Revised Notice of Intent to File an Initiative Petition 2. January 14, 1999 communication from Marvin Josephson, Co-Chair, Crest View United 3. Memo to City Attorney from City Clerk dated January 15, 1999 4. Memo to City Attorney transmitting original Notice of Intent cbmemos/99-32vm r+nck p G�e It u et`°e.D t CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Inter-Department Communication TO: Connie Brockway, City Clerk FROM: Gail Hutton, City Attorney DATE: February 5, 1999 SUBJECT: Ballot Title and Summary—Crest View Site RLS 99-052 and 99-086 Attached hereto are the proposed ballot title, summary and impartial analysis for the above referenced petition. Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have any questions. Gail Hutton City Attorney Attachment c: Ray Silver, City Administrator Melanie Fallon, Assistant City Administrator Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director David Biggs, Director of Economic Development -A = ,-, M r r7i U r- v 4/s/4-99 Memos:99-086 f w P 4 BALLOT TITLE: A BALLOT MEASURE TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION OF THE CREST VIEW SCHOOL SITE FROM CG-F1 (COMMERCIAL GENERAL WITH A MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO OF 0.35) TO RL-7 (RESIDENTIAL WITH A MAXIMUM OF 7 DWELLING UNITS PER NET ACRE), AND TO CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF THE CREST VIEW SCHOOL SITE FROM CG (COMMERCIAL GENERAL) TO R-L (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) SUMMARY: This proposed ballot measure would amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach to change the General Plan designation of the Crest View School site. The General Plan designation would be changed from CG-F1 (Commercial General with a maximum floor area ratio of 0.35) to RL-7 (Residential with a maximum of 7 dwelling units per net acre). The Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach would also be amended to change the zoning designation of the Crest View School site. The zoning designation would be changed from CG (Commercial General) to RL (Low Density Residential). A vote of the people would be required to change the general plan and zoning designations as amended by this measure. If a court invalidates a portion of the proposed measure, that portion shall be severed and have no effect on the remainder of the proposed measure. IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS: This proposed ballot measure would amend the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance as it pertains to the Crest View School site. The General Plan designation for the site would be changed from CG-F1 (Commercial General with a maximum floor area ratio of 0.35)to RL-7 (Residential with a maximum of 7 dwelling units per net acre). The zoning designation of the site would be changed from CG (Commercial General) to RL(Low Density Residential). These changes limit the future development of the site to low density residential uses. A vote of the people would be required in order to change the general plan and zoning designations of the site from those provided by this measure. If a court invalidates a portion of the proposed measure, that portion shall be severed and have no effect on the remainder of the proposed measure. Tj 4/s/4-99 Memos:99-086 -77 it '� w Date TO: City Clerk of Huntington Beach FROM:Huntington Beach Residents RE: INITIATIVE PETITION We file herewith a proposed initiative petition and request that the City Attorney prepare a ballot title and summary, as required to do within 15 days by Cal. Elections Code Section 9203. F NOTICE OF INTENT TO CIRCULATE PETITION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN by the person (s) whose names appear hereon of their intention to circulate a petition within the City of Huntington Beach for the purpose of amending the City' s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. A statement of the reasons for the proposed action contemplated in the petition is as follows : For many years, the community has relied on the Crestview school site for educational uses and a park. This site is near a residential neighborhood. However, recently the City Council voted to rezone the land and amend the general plan to allow a huge discount store on this site . This would add thousands of cars to Beach Boulevard and the area surrounding the site, clogging streets with traffic and adding air pollution. Such a store would unfairly compete with existing stores by not providing family health benefits . Existing stores would end up laying off employees . We do not oppose all development : the development should simply be consistent with the character o r community. Name Address : 1,63/,2- q1�y� r INITIATIVE MEASURE TO BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO THE VOTERS : INITIATIVE TO AMEND ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION OF CREST VIEW SCHOOL SITE TO PROHIBIT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND PERMIT RESIDENTIAL USES ONLY. The People of the City of Huntington Beach do ordain as follows : 1 . The Land Use Element of the City' s General Plan is hereby amended to change the general plan designation for the 13 . 89 acre site located on the South side of Talbert Avenue described in City Council Resolution 98-95 from CG-Fl (Commercial General with a maximum floor area ratio of 0 . 35) to RL-7 (Residential with a maximum of 7 dwelling unites per net acre) . 2 . The City' s Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance is hereby amended by amending District Map 40 (Sectional District Map 36-5-11) to rezone the property described above from CG (General Commercial) to R-L (Low Density Residential) . 3. The above may not be amended except by vote of the people. 4 . Should any provision or application of the above be invalidated by a court of law, it shall be severed and have no effect on the remainder of this ordinance . ry ti,w .yra '01/15/99 13:08 FAX [a01 January 14, 1999 Marvin Josephson Crest View United 18162 Pemberco Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646 To: Connie Brockway City Clerk 2000 Main St Huntington Beach, CA 92 64 8 Dear Connie; It has come to the attention of Crest View United that an error has occurred with the past two votes of the City Council with regard Zone Map Amendment No. 97-1, The Agenda's for the City Council Meetings dated Dec 14, 1998 and Jan 4, 1999 have stated that. the Crest View School property be rezoned from FS (Public-Semi Public) to CG (General Commercial-Floodplain) . This new addition of "Floodplain", has not appeared on other documents, and does not appear in the text of Ordinance No. 3408, We feel that what the Council has passed is not in full agreement with what was presented to the public as an agenda item; that their vote should be voided; and request that the City Council re-vote on this item. Sincerely, Marvin Josephson Co-Chair a`.1 Crest View United toy —� Y.3 '� ORDINANCE NO. 3408 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ZONING AND SUBDIVISION CODE BY AMENDING DISTRICT MAP 40 (SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 36-5-11) TO REZONE THE REAL PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF TALBERT AVENUE APPROXIMATELY 300 FEET EAST OF BEACH BOULEVARD FROM PS (PUBLIC-SEMI PUBLIC) TO CG(GENERAL COMMERCIAL-FLOODPLAIN) (ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 97-1) WHEREAS,pursuant to the California State Planning and Zoning Law, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission and Huntington Beach City Council have held separate, duly noticed public hearings to consider Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-1, which rezones the property generally located on the south side of Talbert Avenue approximately 300 feet east of Beach Boulevard from PS- (Public-Semi Public-) to CG (General Commercial); and After due consideration of the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission and all other evidence presented, the City Council finds that the aforesaid amendment is proper and consistent with the General Plan, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. That the real property that is the subject of this Ordinance (hereinafter referred to as the"Subject Property") is generally located on the south side of Talbert Avenue approximately 300 feet east of Beach Boulevard, and is more particularly described in the legal descriptions and sketch attached hereto as Exhibits A and B,respectively, and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 1 4/s:PCD:Ordinance:Amd97-1 RLS 98-454 12/1/98 SECTION 2. That the zoning designation of the Subject Property is hereby changed from PS (Public-Semi Public) to CG(General Commercial). SECTION 3. That Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Code Section 201.04B District Map 40 (Sectional District Map 36-5-11) is hereby amended to reflect Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-1 as described herein. The Director of Planning is hereby directed to prepare and file an amended map. A copy of said District Map, as amended, shall be available for inspection in the Office of the City Clerk. SECTION 4. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 4th day of A 1998. \Xt�7tuu� Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: '54,- � — City Clerk City Attorney - - '`�qg REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: City Adiqlnistrator r&ctor of Pladnitig ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Legal Description Exhibit B: Sketch 2 4/s:PCD:0rdinance:Amd 97-1 RLS 98-454 12/1/98 ENHIBIT A Aw Pwn ®R-96322 T=OFFICER.Ow ALL THAT CERTAIN LAND SrrUATED IN THE STATE OF-CALIFORNIA. COUNTY OF ORANGE, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH,.DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: : . PARCEL I: THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION THIRTY-SIX, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE ELEVEN WEST, IN THE RANCHO LAS BOLSAS, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 51, PAGE 13 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. EXCEPTING THEREFROM ONE-HALF OF ALL OIL, PETROLEUM, NATURAL GAS,MINERAL RIGHTS AND OTHER HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES IN,ON OR UNDER THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY, BUT WITHOUT THE RIGHT OF ENTRY ABOVE A DEPTH OF 500 FEET FROM THE SURFACE OF SAID LAND FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXPLORING FOR, EXTRACTING, MINING, BORING, REMOVING OR MARKETING SAID SUBSTANCES AS RESERVED IN DEED FROM SARAH G. GROVES, A WIDOW, TO BEN G. GAUTIER AND WIFE RECORDED DECEMBER 1, 1954 IN BOOK 2882, PAGE 346 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM ONE-HALF OF ALL OIL, PETROLEUM, NATURAL GAS, MINERAL RIGHTS AND OTHER HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES IN, ON OR UNDER THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY, BUT WITHOUT THE RIGHT OF ENTRY ABOVE A DEPTH OF 500 FEET FROM THE SURFACE OF SAID LAND FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXPLORING FOR,EXTRACTING, MINING,BORING, REMOVING OR MARKETING SAID SUBSTANCES, AS RESERVED BY BEN G. GAUTIER AND WIFE BY DEED RECORDED JANUARY 20, 1960. PARCEL 2: THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION THIRTY-SIX, TOWNSHIP FIVE SOUTH, RANGE ELEVEN WEST, IN THE RANCHO LAS BOLSAS, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 51, PAGE 13 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. EXCEPTING THEREFROM ALL OIL, PETROLEUM, NATURAL GAS, MINERAL RIGHTS AND OTHER HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES IN, ON OR UNDER THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY, BUT WITHOUT THE RIGHT OF ENTRY ABOVE A DEPTH OF 500 FEET FROM THE SURFACE OF SAID LAND FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXPLORING FOR, EXTRACTING, MINING, BORING, REMOVING OR MARKETING SAID SUBSTANCES, AS RESERVED BY DONALD M. SMITH AND OTHERS BY DEED RECORDED JANUARY 20, 1960. EXHIBIT B .,• f1:+. is •.!�?�t�Ig3 f�' i8T 4.4 M. //Z NW//4,/1/W114,SEC 36, T•5S, R.//W. 167-GO r iy is A MBERr AWVUE ? ACh ass.. �9 111• n�• L PaR t } nee, � SUBJECT SITE 04 too dw ucsr virw eT curivaRY scmool 00 o O M �♦PAR VA 3 O 48( PV 36-11 lei PAR.e4 • 1 I 49 „N A/ARCN /982 PARCEL MAP PA( 56-33, 93•/3 NOTE-ASSESSOR'S ®LOCK 8 ASSESSOR'S AW CD PARCEL NUMERS BOOK157 PACE40SHOWN IN CIRCLES COUNTY OF ORANGE • � yyrst .tericaaa 7Yd`ic Insurance Company T1119 MAP 19 Pon INFORMATION ONLY AND IS HOT A PART OF THIS 4TTLf:MOMCH 2 � Ord. No. 3408 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing ordinance was read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 14th day of December, 1998, and was again read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 4th day of January, 1999, and was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council. AYES: Julien, Bauer, Garofalo, Dettloff NOES: Green, Harman, Sullivan ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None I,Connie Brockway CITY CLERK of the City of Huntington Beach and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council,do hereby certify that a synopsis of this ordinance has been published in the Independent on 19 In accordance with the City Charter of said City City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk Connie Brockway City Clerk of the City Council of the City Deputy City Clerk of Huntington Beach, California G/ordinanc/ordbkpg 1/6/99 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL. OF THE � = 7 Ap CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH �C fi t, -//,?1P NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, December 14, 1998, at 7:00 PM in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main-Street, Huntington Beach,the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following item: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 97-1/GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 97-1/APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 97-1 (Crest View School Site/Wal*Mart): Applicant/Appellant: Greg McClelland, Arnel Retail Group Request: EIR: To analyze and address potential environmental impacts associated with the general plan amendment and zoning map amendment. GPA: To amend the current general plan designation on a 13.89 acre site from P (RL-7) (Public with an underlying land use designation of Low Density Residential) to CG-F1 (General Commercial-maximum floor area ratio of 0.35). ZMA: To amend the current zoning designation of PS (Public-Semipublic) to CG (General Commercial). Planning Commission's Action: The Planning Commission recommended denial of EIR No. 97-1 and GPA No. 97-1 which are automatically forwarded to the City Council for review. The Planning Commission also denied ZMA No. 97-1,which was appealed by the applicant so that it could be heard concurrently with the other entitlements. Location: 18052 Lisa Lane (closed Crest View School/south of Talbert Avenue, approximately 300 feet east of Beach Boulevard) Project Planner: Jane Madera NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that this item is covered by Environmental Impact Report No. 97-1,which is also to be considered by the City Council. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Planning Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at City Hall or the Main City Library(7111 Talbert Avenue) after December 10, 1998. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit, , evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to,the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Department at 536-5271 and refer to the above item. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk. Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, 2nd Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 536-5227 (gaegals:council:98CC1214) ; M4,ir�,� L, Dated: .9 /5; i TO: City Clerk of Huntington Beach FROM: Huntington Beach Residents RE: INITIATIVE PETITION I file herewith a proposed initiative petition and request that the City Attorney prepare a ballot title and summary, as required to do within 15 days by Cal . Elections Code §9203 . c RLS 99-052 Assigned to P DA DATE 1/22/99 REQUEST FOR LEGAL SERVICES FOLLOW-UP MEMORANDUM To: C o n n i e From: City Attorney Subject: Your Request for Legal Services Date: 1/2 2/9 9 This will acknowledge receipt of your Request for Legal Services, outlined below. Dated: 1/21/9 9 Type of Legal Service Requested: [ ] Ordinance [ ] Insurance [ ] Resolution [ ] Bonds [ ] Contract/Agreement [ J Opinion [ ] Other: Description: 'Remo requesting analysis be prepared re Pdotice of Intent to Circulate Petition (Wal Mart project) from I%obert Cronk This Request for Legal Services has been assigned to PA U L D ' A L E S S A IJ D RO extension 5 615 His/her secretary is S a r a j a n e , extension 5558 Notes: ` Date Completed: I a NOTICE OF INTENT TO CIRCULATE PETITION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN by person(s) whose names appear hereon of their intention to circulate a petition within the City of Huntington Beach for the purpose of amending the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. A statement of the reasons for the proposed action contemplated in the petition is as follows: For many years, the community has relied on the Crest View school site for educational uses and a park. This site is near a residential neighborhood. However, recently the City Council voted to amend the general plan to allow a huge discount store on this site. This would add thousands of cars to the area, clogging streets with traffic and adding air pollution. Such a store would unfairly compete with existing stores by not providing family health benefits. Existing stores would end up laying off employees. We're not trying to prevent all development: let's just make the development consistent with the character of our community. Residential development would still make money for the school district. It's a fair compromise. Name c,<o A � Address �`� '- Q S 7 i./ INITIATIVE MEASURE TO BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO THE VOTERS: INITIATIVE TO AMEND ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION OF CREST VIEW SCHOOL SITE FROM HIGH-DENSITY COMMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL The people of the City of Huntington Beach do ordain as follows: 1. The Land Use Element of the City's General Plan is hereby amended to change the general plan designation for the 13.89 acre site located on the south side of Talbert Avenue described in City Council Resolution 98-95 from CG-F1 (General Commercial with a Floor Area Ratio of .035) to R-7.0 (Residential with maximum 7 units per acre). 2. The City's Zoning and Subdivision Code is hereby amended by amending District Map 40 (Sectional District Map 36-5-11 to rezone the property described above from CG (General Commercial-Floodplain) to R-1 (Residential). 3. The above may not be amended except by vote of the people. 4. Should any provision of application of the above be found invalid by a court of law, it shall be answered and have no effect on the remainder of this ordinance.