The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutNovember 5, 2024 General Municipal Election - Administrative (2) Section Ballot Measures - U 11 U City of Huntington Beach, Charter Amendment Measure Environmental Protection Shalt proposed Charter Amendment No. 1,which would amend the City Charter to state that City Planning and Zoning is a local, municipal affair, and require voter approval of City initiated general plan amendments or zoning changes when such items present significant and unavoidable negative impacts to the environment, be approved? What your vote means YES NO A "yes"vote on this Measure would add new Section 807 A "no" vote on this measure would not add new Section to the Charter. 807. For and against FOR AGAINST Gracey Van Der Mark ; Patrick Brenden Mayor, City of Huntington Beach j Former City Councilmember Pat Burns Barbara Delgleize Mayor Pro Tempore, City of Huntington Beach 3 Former Mayor Casey McKeon Connie Boardman City Council Member, City of Huntington Beach Former Mayor Debbie Cook Former Mayor of HB ApIvQc g73o(2o2q _ BaL[otFleasüres- ii Sect€,. az ion Full Text of Measure U • City of Huntington Beach EXHIBIT A CHARTER AMENDMENT PROPOSED ADDITIONS SHOWN AS UNDERLINED PROPOSED DELETIONS SHOWN AS STRIKETI IROUGI I Charter Amendment Measure No.1 Section 807.ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. No City initiated general plan amendment or zoning change may be approved by the City where the related environmental review(EIR)finds the same proposed general plan update or zoning change presents significant and unavoidable negative impacts to the environment,without first receiving approval by the affirmative vote of at least a maioritv of the electors voting on such proposition at a general or special election at which such proposition is submitted_City Planning and Zoning is a local,municipal affair,beyond the reach of State control or interference,a local activity reserved for the City and its people,not the State. Impartial Analysis City of Huntington Beach • Measure U This proposed Charter amendment, referred to as"Environmental Protection,"would require voter approval of certain general plan amendments or zoning changes in Huntington Beach that present significant negative impact to the City's environment. If adopted,this Measure would amend the Huntington Beach City Charter to add new Section 807 entitled"Environmental Protection." New Section 807 would require voter approval of City-initiated general plan amendments or zoning changes,which may include zoning changes for commercial or housing development,where the related environmental review contemplated by the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA')finds that the proposed general plan or zoning changes would present"significant and unavoidable"negative environmental impacts in the City. This Measure would also amend the Charter to expressly state that City Planning and Zoning is a"municipal affair,"beyond the reach of State control or interference,and is a Local activity reserved for the City and its people,not the State. A"yes"vote on this Measure would add new Section 807 to the Charter;a"no"vote on this measure would not add new Section 807. ..� Section Y BaLLot Measures- U 11 Argument in Favor of Measure U Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of Measure U NEW ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS FOR HUNTINGTON BEACH: VOTE 1 The proponents of this measure continue to spread disinformation. In "YES" TO PROTECT OUR ENVIRONMENT AND TO ASSERT OUR LOCAL 1990, the voters of Huntington Beach passed a Charter Amendment — CONTROL OVER DEVELOPMENT!!! Measure C to protect our beaches and parks. Passing this Charter Amendment is critical to the ENVIRONMENTAL ' The proponents' professed concerns about clean air, water and PROTECTION of Huntington Beach —to protect our precious beaches,to greenhouse gases, are yet another ploy to mislead. They dissolved the protect our.pristine wetlands and their unique wildlife,to protect against ( Environmental Board,scrapped the sustainability master plan,and have an increase in greenhouse gas emissions, to protect our groundwater failed to take any action to help decrease traffic or air pollution. They supply,to protect our clean air and water,to protect our infrastructure, refuse to pass a Climate Action Plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to protect against increasing traffic and congestion. We must protect our and address rising sea levels that will bring salt-water intrusion into our City from high-density over-development of Huntington Beach!!! freshwater wells. This Charter Amendment requires City initiated General Plan and Zoning It should be noted proponents of this amendment are the same Council Amendments that present a "substantial and unavoidable" negative members that gave away untold millions of taxpayer dollars in their impact to our City's environment to go to a VOTE OF THE PEOPLE. With Airshow Settlement and who tried to outsource our library,transferring this Charter Amendment, residents will have a say in the future of the public taxpayer money to private for-profit companies. Why trust them City's development,rather than simply leaving those important decisions with yet another poorly crafted Charter Amendment likely to create more (which have lasting impacts on our City for generations to come) to a litigation? simple vote of City Council. Some things,like this,are too important to not ask the voters of Huntington Beach for their input. Make no mistake,this measure will give up local control to Sacramento and let Gavin Newsom's policies dictate what gets built in Huntington By voting "yes" on this proposed Charter Amendment, the people ; Beach. of Huntington Beach gain the power to protect Huntington Beach's environment from rapid over-development by legislators, builders, and Voting No, maintains local control by allowing the City Council to developers. determine development,not Sacramento. Those who are opposed to this proposal use scare tactics and In 2018 when the Council failed to comply with State Laws and had to pay fearmongering falsely claiming that the State or State laws "mandate" S4.5million in attorneys fees. Failure to comply comes with a cost;this high-density development,or that if the City does not comply,it will face measure will create that failure. litigation, fees, fines, penalties. From a recent outcome in the State's It's time to restore common sense to Huntington Beach government:Vote lawsuit against the City over high-density housing,we know this is not No on Measure U. true. In fact,to date, no fees,fines,or penalties have been imposed on - the City for failing to update its zoning to accommodate high-density s/Debbie Cook development. Voters,PROTECT OUR CITY—VOTE"YES." Leader of Measure C s/Gracey Van Der Mark s/Judith Huck Mayor,City of Huntington Beach Board Secretary,Amigos de Bolsa Chica s/Pat Burns s/Connie Boardman - Mayor Pro Tempore,City of Huntington Beach Former Mayor s/Casey McKeon City Council Member,City of Huntington Beach - i 33 3 • Section Ballot Measures- U 11 Argument Against Measure U Rebuttal to Argument Against Measure U Vote NO to Protect Local Governance Councitmembers Kalmick, Moser and Bolton didn't vote for this ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION for the City-and,they didn't vote to give This proposed Charter Amendment has been brought to the voters by ! the VOTERS A CHOICE in proposed General Plan and Zoning changes that the same council majority that established a book banning committee, would certainly lead to MASSIVE HIGH-DENSITY DEVELOPMENT. This is wanted to privatize the libraries, and negotiated a scandalous multi- wrong! million-dollar secret legal settlement that required a citizen lawsuit to be made public. I This City belongs to the people of Huntington Beach. Mayor Gracey Van I Der Mark, Tony Strickland, Casey McKeon, and Pat Burns voted to give Don't be fooled by the supposed concern for the environment expressed j YOU,the people of this great City,this Ballot Measure so that YOU have by the council members who placed this on the ballot.If they cared about a choice of whether the City should adopt General Plans and Zoning our environment,the Environmental Board wouldn't have been dissolved, changes that might lead to "substantial and unavoidable" long-term our Sustainability Master Plan would have been completed, and the city or permanent damage to our environment. Of course, these plan and would have a Climate Action Plan. zoning decisions that massively and sometimes permanently impact our This measure will: environment and the quality of life in our City,should involve the vote of people and are a matter of local control- not for developers or the State Affect ALL land in Huntington Beach: ; itself. A new and costly process wilt be required when commercial and industrial zoning needs to be changed to better meet community needs. This Vote YES on this Ballot Measure- PROTECT OUR ENVIRONMENT!!! measure is not business friendly and wilt delay community improvements. s/Gracey Van Der Mark Undermine Representative Democracy: Mayor,City of Huntington Beach We elect officials to make informed decisions on our behalf.White public s/Casey McKeon input is vital,excessive referendums on technical matters risk eroding the ! City Councilmember,City of Huntington Beach effectiveness of our council members. This measure shifts power away from our elected officials and towards special interests. s/Pat Burns Mayor Pro Tem,City of Huntington Beach Create More Red Tape and Unnecessary Costs: This amendment imposes significant administrative and legal burdens on our city.The costs associated with organizing frequent elections and defending decisions in court will divert resources from essential services and programs that benefit all residents. Requiring elections for zoning changes and General Plan updates will cost the city millions at a time when we are facing budget deficits. • A-rprovQ(A • Let's preserve the ability of our elected officials to govern effectively, conserve our fiscal resources and reject this Measure. s/Patrick Brenden Former City Councilmember s/Barbara Delgleize 4,e Former Mayor s/Connie Boardman Former Mayor s/Debbie Cook Former Mayor of HB (IIV (ItY(N I UNIINGTON COACH tafrinalm City Council Vole for no rnur than iMre OSUTCH Tvw*ING iiimmeioniimiiiinrcion ow. Commagases AXIOM'HANSON C r t r Ii..onc Annurci.ttaw.rot ,t1'O,tty of Huntington It+ath► QNATA1t/f MOSIR Charter Amr.idroset Me CAry CarCAPROMPlbet aw to 'Ifitvfmorarrientail Prat",tlr.r ► ffivargson am& �y Shall p101l.".41,i(Irl f i A I4.'cadincrit Q MARISSA JACKSON No 1.which would amend the City mama Charter to state let City Planning _ Q kIIONDA IKII ION and Zoning is a loc*,municipal Cr°r�'r" r'laws A o 4 utr altar,and rcqe VOW approval of 1 6ourantantraber City initiated general plan Q DON KMNN#OY amendments or toning dsanges howativniawstawinown Sea* when saxh gems present significant ,wwwwwwr ` G and unavoiCiable negative mpacts Q:'AN K.AIANCK : i to the environment.be approved/ (AtiCokovatoentet Caret i Supports=Graccy Van Der Mark, lirainglos k*c t Maya;Pat Rural Maytx Pro lertt; Q IIAD WIt.IAMS Caley McKeon Coulci»emtxr Navy StAt Scooter Oppots.nt%:Patrick Brendert Q formes(.truric*nenibev Barbara ____ ___.__ _____ __. Oelgieirte,Fenner Mayor;Connie 0 ,Boxdrm Forster Mayor,Debbie ____._____.�.._.. ___ Cook former Mayor Q 01tts CITY Of HUNTINGTON(MACH 9 � I City Clark %7 \ir wcr Ira Or* A DRfCANA M BLANK1M4O9j o,V,Il C Yregir Groom Caadnator JJ pttsAtAiiM *S SLOAIVIMICIMPOUNISAWIA•rwt` rcerinsanner CITY Of HUNTINGTON BEACH (iy treasurer Q.'•.ISA eatxS1ROM • lraa C�ly twl .tv 0 I ABEL �aUfpPDillT ElSrw�PP l�l 1NT TO B'lr LIS�E1D ��t{pl 5hal rid with a `,'.C;' AlI Lew.r" rlrC lr:"5 •y� S..C ty G•s"r'�1 G r rl7f.'d5llfe5 c7n a GCU"Iy ;.51 t ry r,:,v,v•y�T�rlt till (8'JCf(x �7yairsk kt;[' rt'8d5Ur1t The list of S�+pD ers er�t '�'at� AF.e� r the s: h supparters'dapononta ah>ttl not exceedd�� a s�«•r,i�avan.l ►n n AsQtlatllorrtllnor3p of iso organization,ertt sfia I not s,f� a179nQ}pondnt 5hr111 be sYp rtOpposo the maalturo. A SUp rtaflf?pA 1-,.'r Individual shall not b+haled unless they super be.listed if l s al .. e. err",t b •o.,_,_al .a or is re•relarlln• i fllltlt:al a ..-, t "t5 c:++;('-''L',,$:r1i•55e�,-.r" �fi, 4.1i.ti SUPPORTERS a1PP4�NENT$ t; 4;� � 1\_ e tc.. /...,,,,, 1 • ,': e sk tat. 1+ a i (r'r31,:Ct!I fo'fhd r_ � <.-. ~y L :plc . . _r Kew :Eh l �' al atl4in!Ce,,T,aonp vldedisttLe v<1 arc!,ot'te test dfPtV. erti*'nlf."Nielge 31c.Slief A St... •or Opponent shall not be listed unless ' s arse of the rowing (A)An as::m:181,on ranp-nfd nr+gergat:on pr:.,, -t_34'tat Wei.MI origif alfy created as a corm it'.r e desnnbed in Sact'r 820'3 o1 vie Government Cool)and Thal has boon in extster.co'ar al Ie:ast four years (8)A�arrent:orlon-nee ele4:'ed ofc:lat,v.1- , -9 i,•�1•• --. :',, otfir.:rl'n !ili•{u.g , 'Stale Senator Mary smith. 'A:.st:rnb`y Mt,riber Ca105 Sa•Li.: r.•+:k:: :y Co:." t rrrnber Airy Lee'). These Gans Pray hO shc'ter:td leg "Se ratr;- .. - : ;'-3:t:5..r•go,'or'r..•n.'for'Assn.11134y Member') t2I Al irdivldu.a1 wtro in riot a cuiefit or(Cr/._• • ..:•.•_+ ::'f Pia' rr.iy be sled c my wi J• I• t.rndividual's f•rst titre test rune and an noror*it.(e.g.,'Or •" _ '' P "or'I" ::.rite'; w.tt"t no ot",•�t •or+osognahon, rmIes&It IS s tide representing an assoc..::. cre•m- ;r• tl I:; -ess ih,a:r,le)ett:;the requirements of(A)or(BI above and that . . '; at ::,'•:. t no...PAUr:.rl!seaports the measl.re or •t !Ye aldivrival(*Poses the measure pm;i. t: :• - ::• .rrs Ccx; • -i 1..0{a i. the!A space t►_vw IA shoot Me Met CI tqr s.r't,ks •,.• • ', ,,) -•. Harp&Ck9dn aat.ees.amity Bus+na..us.,;nor 13 rc:r!4 125 aor, rs 1 •., r kng }sown t '. tiC!=+": _Tprrr 5 may t18 p-i'tr.3 E3dr$�,ry�arierllxr,er t 5h;aiiba -14y a sr-1.0=0, 1 '. , r''r-,'e k- 18 r e 1 e e., `r'ril:.'`.r' _G vc +r tf n"►Cr3'1 " di 2. e)hr .ctA_ •' f� i _ C ,_ e- l_are_ o y 6!-r-1, e )et _a f t 'Eeo el the eor,,e bled mutt to.vitta a `` e J (fI' ! rJ,iK :e -tl:'q••'6 ar•j si.trr a.1 .;t ,1' / } SUPPORTERS!OPPONENTS TO BE LISTED ON BALLOT LABEL l� b,;il�t"•t"e Co'cerr r 3 ccunti. ate,c str:c C>'s: :::••••'as{urr,S on a CGt.rty b3 `^ end with a lost of Sup;xart..rrt,drnd Cpporer.ts taken trcr^ ere s jrtl $c` a• *True n favor cf.ig3^st 1 c 7e a. e. The list cf Supporters:Opponents shall not exceed 125 csaratten in length including spaces. Each Suppcttor+Opponent shall be separated by a sern'cotcn.An association.nonprofit organization,business. or individual shalt not be listed unless they supportoppose the measure.A Supporter:Opponent shall not be listed if the Su. •ortoriO•••rent is a •ol tical • or is ro•resentin• a •olaical •a AssO .•na 'e o'l . :"S arce EJS,res es '`! SUPPORTERS G OPPONENTS o oP q?aC�l ,/,�/ /, i n �l/`.o hed on 11J11-- of t•ai*�:rr�ss�.'r � at ihr,Gsr��I J♦r t1 n a C�i,�e'EYCM!0+'tr4 � Da r>9 ,•1 ..r ;Die .',eryrt� t[UhClrr•tUl'Y,, hc:teay State tf•:+t;,t'the rittrtatott prorded s the ay d OOrreCt t t?re best O!!'f S1'41.tee r k^:h'.09 a^d bele! A Supporter or O0ponent'0'41 rct to I+steC unless is one of era!c:ox rag: • (A)An z:soOabon.nOnproft organ.zaton•or bus Hess:rat was rot cog natty created as a cc•'nmiftre Orr.crbod in Section 820'3 of tho Go.ommort Cate a^d that has teen in existence for at least'our yeas. (8)A currant or forme(etnctod official.who may be 1.01C n,:r try+ottic at's tide(e g,'State Sonator Mary Sera an'•k,;nrnbly Member Carlos Gatos.'or'Sormer Eureka CID, Cot.nc•r Member Amy Leo'). Those ter:rr\sy be shortened(o.g.'Senator'or'Sen'far'State Sera:•r••':r'A.em'fa••Assembty Member'). (C) u*Svb.al who.S not a current or form*Y c*h;tcd o'cwt may be listed o.nty with tie individuals first and last r arno arxd an honorl (o g.•'Or.''M Q'"Ph O. or Tv:lure).with no Other trttO or dOS••)nabon, wens it is a We representing an a450Catiy) re dhow''•orgar2atlon•or bumete`.s that moots tho reouto,ncnts c4(A)or(8)above and that t•.r •t'C to on lister 'tho rntaysdual supports the measure or if the rdrottval opposes the measure pur,;a:;^•'. E ect,ohs Colo 9170(a). t,se t e:we t+no*to six*tr»ride•N the 1st c!' :. '.is/lsscOs:n•s,Nonproft Or„rdzster, arr4;e:L.sno:ses'(not k cr'rwl 125 ch.a• ;.xis an tergtll Spots t?t.ten retry be omrsed Fact+S,pocr••txsu,cnt sr41/1 Oe +:a'srot ts,3 rr".400n. qrxi ce a' r/ P?4 r k ILrC71 r n_ j,•() ! e zr - /7411 ,-- 2 7? golf firr716.; __j 1 /t�,l �fr- r�o I�-�>•/i a 0"�'Y /?7e Kc'c'ri tKr 4 &I4•iei r)I'/) c' Tpr�raY Y?Or Gt U.YJ69tlr1 QV' •Each oleo abon"Cu:must cor Pve a Synstre Co wit Fcr.1 and subrrtt aeon.'tn Ytis yr. Impartial Analysis City of Huntington Beach Measure_ This proposed Charter amendment, referred to as"Environmental Protection," would require voter approval of certain general plan amendments or zoning changes in Huntington Beach that present significant negative impact to the City's environment. If adopted,this Measure would amend the Huntington Beach City Charter to add new Section 807 entitled"Environmental Protection." New Section 807 would require voter approval of City-initiated general plan amendments or zoning changes,which may include zoning changes for commercial or housing development,where the related environmental review contemplated by the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA")finds that the proposed general plan or zoning changes would present"significant and unavoidable"negative environmental impacts in the City. This Measure would also amend the Charter to expressly state that City Planning and Zoning is a"municipal affair,"beyond the reach of State control or interference,and is a local activity reserved for the City and its people,not the State. A"yes"vote on this Measure would add new Section 807 to the Charter;a"no"vote on this measure would not add new Section 807. gv1;‘ ett, r4- yl � _ rt).9" ?c ,3 Full Text of Measure 4 City of Huntington Beach \g-O EXHIBIT A �l t CHARTER AMENDMENT \gr PROPOSED ADDITIONS SHOWN AS UNDERLINED PROPOSED DELETIONS SHOWN AS STRIKCTI IROUCII \v/ Charter Amendment Measure No.1 Section 807 . ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. No City initiated general plan amendment or zoning change may be approved by the City where the related environmental review(EIR)finds the same proposed general plan update or zoning change presents significant and unavoidable negative impacts to the environment, without first receiving approval by the affirmative vote of at Least a majority of the electors voting on such proposition at a general or special election at which such proposition is submitted.City Planning and Zoning is a local,municipal affair,beyond the reach of State control or interference,a local activity reserved for the City and its people,not the State. CITY ATTORNEY'S IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS OF MEASURE This proposed Charter amendment, referred to as "Environmental Protection,"would require voter approval of certain general plan amendments or zoning changes in Huntington Beach that present significant negative impact to the City's environment. If adopted, this Measure would amend the Huntington Beach City Charter to add new Section 807 entitled"Environmental Protection." New Section 807 would require voter approval of City-initiated general plan amendments or zoning changes, which may include zoning changes for commercial or housing development, where the related environmental review contemplated by the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") finds that the proposed general plan or zoning changes would present"significant and unavoidable"negative environmental impacts in the City. This Measure would also amend the Charter to expressly state that City Planning and Zoning is a"municipal affair," beyond the reach of State control or interference, and is a local activity reserved for the City and its people, not the State. A"yes" vote on this Measure would add new Section 807 to the Charter; a"no" vote on this measure would not add new Section 807. N c. Gar, —p > co •, , Ce CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY CLERK COMMUNICATION TO: Michael Gates, City Attorney FROM: Robin Estanislau, City Clerk DATE: July 9, 2024 SUBJECT: CITY CLERK'S TRANSMITTAL OF REQUEST FOR IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS ON PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT MEASURE APPROVED FOR THE NOVEMBER 5, 2024 GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL AT THEIR JULY 8, 2024 SPECIAL MEETING Pursuant to the provisions of California Elections Code Section 9280 (attached), please prepare and return to my office no later than Monday, July 22 an Impartial Analysis on the following Charter Amendment Measure approved by the City Council for placement on the November 5, 2024 General Municipal Election ballot: "Shall proposed Charter Amendment No. 1, which would amend Yes the City Charter to state that City Planning and Zoning is a local, municipal affair, and require voter approval of City initiated general plan amendments or zoning changes when such items present No significant and unavoidable negative impacts to the environment, be approved?" Let me know if you have questions. Att: Article 4. Arguments Concerning City Measures. 9280 Impartial Analysis. c: Mayor and City Council Members Eric Parra, Interim City Manager Travis Hopkins, Assistant City Manager Jennifer Carey, Interim Deputy City Manager Paul D'Allessandro, Acting Chief Assistant City Attorney ELECTIONS CODE- ELEC DIVISION 9. MEASURES SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS [9000- 9611] (Division 9 enacted by Stats. 1994, Ch. 920, Sec. 2. ) CHAPTER 3. Municipal Elections[9200- 9295] ( Chapter 3 enacted by Stats. 1994, Ch. 920, Sec. 2. ) ARTICLE 4. Arguments Concerning City Measures [9280 - 9287] (Article 4 enacted by Stats. 1994, Ch. 920, Sec. 2. ) 9280. Whenever a city measure qualifies for a place on the ballot, the governing body may direct the city elections official to transmit a copy of the measure to the city attorney, unless the organization or salaries of the office of the city attorney are affected. The city attorney shall prepare an impartial analysis of the measure showing the effect of the measure on the existing law and the operation of the measure. The analysis shall include a statement indicating whether the measure was placed on the ballot by a petition signed by the requisite number of voters or by the governing body of the city. If the measure affects the organization or salaries of the office of the city attorney, the governing board may direct the city elections official to prepare the impartial analysis. The analysis shall be printed preceding the arguments for and against the measure. The analysis shall not exceed 500 words in length. If the entire text of the measure is not printed on the ballot, nor in the voter information guide, there shall be printed immediately below the impartial analysis, in no less than 10-point bold type, a legend substantially as follows: "The above statement is an impartial analysis of Ordinance or Measure . If you desire a copy of the ordinance or measure, please call the elections official's office at (insert telephone number) and a copy will be mailed at no cost to you." (Amended by Stats. 2016, Ch. 422, Sec. 45. (AB 2911) Effective January 1, 2017.) ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF CHARTER AMENDMENT MEASURE 1 NEW ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS FOR HUNTINGTON BEACH: VOTE "YES"TO PROTECT OUR ENVIRONMENT AND TO ASSERT OUR LOCAL CONTROL OVER DEVELOPMENT!!! Passing this Charter Amendment is critical to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION of Huntington Beach—to protect our precious beaches, to protect our pristine wetlands and their unique wildlife, to protect against an increase in greenhouse gas emissions, to protect our groundwater supply, to protect our clean air and water, to protect our infrastructure, to protect against increasing traffic and congestion. We must protect our City from high-density over-development of Huntington Beach!!! This Charter Amendment requires City initiated General Plan and Zoning Amendments that present a "substantial and unavoidable" negative impact to our City's environment to go to a VOTE OF THE PEOPLE. With this Charter Amendment, residents will have a say in the future of the City's development, rather than simply leaving those important decisions (which have lasting impacts on our City for generations to come)to a simple vote of City Council. Some things, like this, are too important to not ask the voters of Huntington Beach for their input. By voting"yes" on this proposed Charter Amendment, the people of Huntington Beach gain the power to protect Huntington Beach's environment from rapid over-development by legislators, builders, and developers. Those who are opposed to this proposal use scare tactics and fearmongering falsely claiming that the State or State laws "mandate" high-density development, or that if the City does not comply, it will face litigation, fees, fines, penalties. From a recent outcome in the State's lawsuit against the City over high-density housing, we know this is not true. In fact, to date, no fees, fines, or penalties have been imposed on the City for failing to update its zoning to accommodate high-density development. Voters, PROTECT OUR CITY—VOTE "YES." The undersigned proponent(s) or author(s) of the primary argument in favor of Charter Amendment Measure 1 at the General Municipal Election for the City of Huntington Beach to be held on November 5, 2024 hereby state that the argument is true and correct to the best of(his/her/their) knowledge and belief. Signed: Q \, Date: 7-14d N e Title Signed: � .� i"'/itYpA.4 rlru Date: 1 ao2 '44N Name, Title c Signed: Date: 7 2-2/20ZY t. c ame, T e FORM OF STATEMENT �� r , TO BE FILED BY AUTHORS OF ARGUMENTS2024 -- =-' All arguments concerning measures 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 primary argument in favor of Charter Measure 1 at the General Municipal Election for the City of Huntington Beach to be held on November 5, 2024 hereby state that the argument is true and correct to the best of(his/her/their) knowledge and belief. Print Name_Gracey Van Der Mark_ Si. ature Title_Mayor ..9 1 taM^kk.1-4/r/V-4-' (If applicable):Submitted on behalf of: Date_07/22/2024 _City of Huntington Beach (name of organization) Print Name_Pat Burns Signature Title_Mayor Pro Tempore_ .� /ems (If applicable):Submitted on behalf of: Date_07/22/2024 City of Huntington Beach (name of organization) Print Name_Casey McKeon Signature Title City Council Member (If applicable):Submitted on behalf of: Date_07/22/2024 City of Huntington Beach (name of organization) Print Name Signature Title (If applicable):Submitted on behalf of: Date (name of organization) Print Name Signature Title (If applicable):Submitted on behalf of: Date (name of organization) Argument in Favor of Measure U NEW ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS FOR HUNTINGTON BEACH: VOTE "YES" TO PROTECT OUR ENVIRONMENT AND TO ASSERT OUR LOCAL CONTROL OVER DEVELOPMENT!!! Passing this Charter Amendment is critical to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION of Huntington Beach —to protect our precious beaches,to protect our pristine wetlands and their unique wildlife,to protect against an increase in greenhouse gas emissions, to protect our groundwater supply, to protect our clean air and water, to protect our infrastructure, to protect against increasing traffic and congestion. We must protect our City from high-density over-development of Huntington Beach!!! This Charter Amendment requires City initiated General Plan and Zoning Amendments that present a "substantial and unavoidable" negative impact to our City's environment to go to a VOTE OF THE PEOPLE. With this Charter Amendment, residents will have a say in the future of the City's development,rather than simply leaving those important decisions (which have lasting impacts on our City for generations to come) to a simple vote of City Council. Some things, like this, are too important to not ask the voters of Huntington Beach for their input. By voting "yes" on this proposed Charter Amendment, the people of Huntington Beach gain the power to protect Huntington Beach's environment from rapid over-development by legislators, builders, and developers. Those who are opposed to this proposal use scare tactics and fearmongering falsely claiming that the State or State laws "mandate" high-density development,or that if the City does not comply,it will face litigation, fees, fines, penalties. From a recent outcome in the State's lawsuit against the City over high-density housing, we know this is not true. In fact,to date, no fees,fines,or penalties have been imposed on the City for failing to update its zoning to accommodate high-density development. Voters,PROTECT OUR CITY—VOTE"YES." s/Gracey Van Der Mark Mayor,City of Huntington Beach s/Pat Burns Mayor Pro Tempore,City of Huntington Beach s/Casey McKeon City Council Member,City of Huntington each v Argument in Favor of Measure_ NEW ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS FOR HUNTINGTON BEACH: VOTE "YES" TO PROTECT OUR ENVIRONMENT AND TO ASSERT OUR LOCAL CONTROL OVER DEVELOPMENT!!! Passing this Charter Amendment is critical to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION of Huntington Beach —to protect our precious beaches,to protect our pristine wetlands and their unique wildlife,to protect against an increase in greenhouse gas emissions, to protect our groundwater supply, to protect our clean air and water, to protect our infrastructure, �> to protect against increasing traffic and congestion. We must protect our v o City from high-density over-development of Huntington Beach!!! //1 n This Charter Amendment requires City initiated General Plan and Zoning ) /�j" Amendments that present a "substantial and unavoidable" negative �/ /�, impact to our City's environment to go to a VOTE OF THE PEOPLE. With T./y.this Charter Amendment, residents will have a say in the future of the 1 City's development,rather than simply leaving those important decisions (which have lasting impacts on our City for generations to come) to a simple vote of City Council. Some things, like this, are too important to not ask the voters of Huntington Beach for their input. By voting "yes" on this proposed Charter Amendment, the people of Huntington Beach gain the power to protect Huntington Beach's environment from rapid over-development by legislators, builders, and developers. Those who are opposed to this proposal use scare tactics and fearmongering falsely claiming that the State or State laws "mandate" high-density development,or that if the City does not comply,it will face litigation, fees, fines, penalties. From a recent outcome in the State's lawsuit against the City over high-density housing, we know this is not true. In fact,to date, no fees,fines, or penalties have been imposed on the City for failing to update its zoning to accommodate high-density development. Voters,PROTECT OUR CITY—VOTE"YES." s/Gracey Van Der Mark Mayor,City of Huntington Beach s/Pat Burns Mayor Pro Tempore,City of Huntington Beach s/Casey McKeon City Council Member,City of Huntington Beach ARGUMENT AGAINST CHARTER AMENDMENT MEASURE 1 Vote NO to Protect Local Governance This proposed Charter Amendment has been brought to the voters by the same council majority that established a book banning committee,wanted to privatize the libraries, and negotiated a scandalous multi- million-dollar secret legal settlement that required a citizen lawsuit to be made public. Don't be fooled by the supposed concern for the environment expressed by the council members who placed this on the ballot. If they cared about our environment, the Environmental Board wouldn't have been dissolved, our Sustainability Master Plan would have been completed, and the city would have a Climate Action Plan. This measure will: Affect ALL land in Huntington Beach: A new and costly process will be required when commercial and industrial zoning needs to be changed to better meet community needs. This measure is not business friendly and will delay community improvements. Undermine Representative Democracy: We elect officials to make informed decisions on our behalf. While public input is vital, excessive referendums on technical matters risk eroding the effectiveness of our council members. This measure shifts power away from our elected officials and towards special interests. Create More Red Tape and Unnecessary Costs: This amendment imposes significant administrative and legal burdens on our city. The costs associated with organizing frequent elections and defending decisions in court will divert resources from essential services and programs that benefit all residents. Requiring elections for zoning changes and General Plan updates will cost the city millions at a time when we are facing budget deficits. Let's preserve the ability of our elected officials to govern effectively, conserve our fiscal resources and reject this Measure. The undersigned proponent(s) or author(s) of the primary argument against Charter Amendment Measure 1 at the General Municipal Election for the City of Huntington Beach to be held on November 5, 2024 hereby state that the argument is true and correct to the best of(his/her/their)knowledge and belief. IL(.44%.e_iigwv/444eiz/ Signed. Date: ! �.,Z 2J'r' ` Name, Title / Qom_ n - , r 1lT3.VflL.L, 7f 2.7 rc: Signed: Date: me, Title l v- - r. M -7)=r-- Signed. I M Dr Date: 7)2-2- 210-1i c:7 k. -10 Name, Title .-r} Signed: Date: Name, Title Signed: Date: Name, Title ARGUMENT AGAINST CHARTER AMENDMENT MEASURE 1 Vote NO to Protect Local Governance This proposed Charter Amendment has been brought to the voters by the same council majority that established a book banning committee,wanted to privatize the libraries, and negotiated a scandalous multi- million-dollar secret legal settlement that required a citizen lawsuit to be made public. Don't be fooled by the supposed concern for the environment expressed by the council members who placed this on the ballot. If they cared about our environment,the Environmental Board wouldn't have been dissolved, our Sustainability Master Plan would have been completed, and the city would have a Climate Action Plan. This measure will: Affect ALL land in Huntington Beach: A new and costly process will be required when commercial and industrial zoning needs to be changed to better meet community needs. This measure is not business friendly and will delay community improvements. Undermine Representative Democracy: We elect officials to make informed decisions on our behalf. While public input is vital, excessive referendums on technical matters risk eroding the effectiveness of our council members. This measure shifts power away from our elected officials and towards special interests. Create More Red Tape and Unnecessary Costs: This amendment imposes significant administrative and legal burdens on our city. The costs associated with organizing frequent elections and defending decisions in court will divert resources from essential services and programs that benefit all residents. Requiring elections for zoning changes and General Plan updates will cost the city millions at a time when we are facing budget deficits. Let's preserve the ability of our elected officials to govern effectively, conserve our fiscal resources and reject this Measure. The undersigned proponent(s) or author(s) of the primary argument against Charter Amendment Measure 1 at the General Municipal Election for the City of Huntington Beach to be held on November 5, 2024 hereby state that the argument is true and correct to the best of(his/her/their)knowledge and belief. g Signed: ceL 049'4 Date ?[,AALO.(J'19 a � -1(' Name, Title Signed: Date: Name, Title Signed: Date: Name, Title Signed: Date: Name, Title Signed: Date: Name, Title ARGUMENT AGAINST CHARTER AMENDMENT MEASURE 1 Vote NO to Protect Local Governance This proposed Charter Amendment has been brought to the voters by the same council majority that established a book banning committee,wanted to privatize the libraries,and negotiated a scandalous multi- million-dollar secret legal settlement that required a citizen lawsuit to be made public. Don't be fooled by the supposed concern for the environment expressed by the council members who placed this on the ballot. If they cared about our environment,the Environmental Board wouldn't have been dissolved, our Sustainability Master Plan would have been completed, and the city would have a Climate Action Plan. This measure will: Affect ALL land in Huntington Beach: A new and costly process will be required when commercial and industrial zoning needs to be changed to better meet community needs. This measure is not business friendly and will delay community improvements. Undermine Representative Democracy: We elect officials to make informed decisions on our behalf. While public input is vital, excessive referendums on technical matters risk eroding the effectiveness of our council members. This measure shifts power away from our elected officials and towards special interests. Create More Red Tape and Unnecessary Costs: This amendment imposes significant administrative and legal burdens on our city. The costs associated with organizing frequent elections and defending decisions in court will divert resources from essential services and programs that benefit all residents. Requiring elections for zoning changes and General Plan updates will cost the city millions at a time when we are facing budget deficits. Let's preserve the ability of our elected officials to govern effectively, conserve our fiscal resources and reject this Measure. The undersigned proponent(s) or author(s) of the primary argument against Charter Amendment Measure 1 at the General Municipal Election for the City of Huntington Beach to be held on November 5,202 here y stat that the argument is true and correct to the best of(his/her/their)knowledge and belief. 7 •,, g va- Signed: kW/I ` �2 ' ) Date e7'da Name, Title Signed: Date: Name, Title Signed: Date: Name, Title Signed: Date: Name, Title Signed: Date: Name, Title FORM OF STATEMENT TO BE FILED BY AUTHORS OF ARGUMENTS 2024 JU'. 22 p`'1 3: 30 All arguments concerning measures 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 primary argument against Charter Amendment Measure 1 at the General Municipal Election for the City of Huntington Beach to be held on November 5,2024 hereby state that the argument is true and correct to the best of(his/her/their)knowledge and belief. Print Name c e Title aJ 'op re 6)'-4/1'ic'eX1 (If applicable):Submitted on behalf of: Date 2,2 ,o Z, (Dame of or anizatiop) Print Name Yt" M A ^ O natur , C Title Iv 1 (If applicable):Submitted on behalf of: Date,Imo'2�+ (name of rganization) J Print Name dl9l'1le- f i'YiC�✓) Sig ature Title Coerce R. Gc o �ol Qp athtiJ (If applicable):Submitted on behalf of: Date Z Zvzy, (name of organization) Print Name Signature Title (If applicable):Submitted on behalf of: Date (name of organization) Print Name Signature Title (If applicable):Submitted on behalf of: Date (name of organization) p ; t i i r FORM OF STATEMENT 2024 ..)"1 22 P 3: 32 TO BE FILED BY AUTHORS OF ARGUMENTS All arguments concerning measures filed pursuant to Division 9, Ctiepfer` 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 primary argument against Charter Amendment Measure 1 at the General Municipal Election for the City of Huntington Beach to be held on November 5,2024 hereby state that the argument is true and correct to the best of(his/her/their)knowledge and belief. ��,,({�� Print Name I)eAk�pX TitleC Sig•ature �� _'C it '� � (If applicable):Submitted on •-half of: Data, i d.,„ra-o.11¢ (name of organization) / I _ Print Name Signature Title (If applicable):Submitted on behalf of: Date (name of organization) Print Name Signature Title (If applicable):Submitted on behalf of: Date (name of organization) Print Name Signature Title (If applicable):Submitted on behalf of: Date (name of organization) Print Name Signature Title (If applicable):Submitted on behalf of: Date (name of organization) FORM OF STATEMENT 2024 .-1I11 22 P;: 3: 3 TO BE FILED BY AUTHORS OF ARGUMENTS All arguments concerning measures 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 primary argument against Charter Amendment Measure 1 at the General Municipal Election for the City of Huntington Beach to be held on November 5,2024 hereby state that the argument is true and correct to the best of(his/her/their)knowledge and belief. ,(� lJJJ Civ � ^1 ? /�c Print Name e. Ala. �Title, c \ c E bk. ` c` .aturee &Last, (If applicable):Submitted on half of: Dat21t2,-e- U g8r 1 (name of organization) CJ' Print Name Signature Title (If applicable):Submitted on behalf of: Date (name of organization) Print Name Signature Title (If applicable):Submitted on behalf of: Date (name of organization) Print Name Signature Title (If applicable):Submitted on behalf of: Date (name of organization) Print Name Signature Title (If applicable):Submitted on behalf of: Date (name of organization) Argument Against Measure U Vote NO to Protect Local Governance This proposed Charter Amendment has been brought to the voters by the same council majority that established a book banning committee, wanted to privatize the libraries, and negotiated a scandalous multi- million-dollar secret legal settlement that required a citizen lawsuit to be made public. Don't be fooled by the supposed concern for the environment expressed by the council members who placed this on the ballot.If they cared about our environment,the Environmental Board wouldn't have been dissolved, our Sustainability Master Plan would have been completed,and the city would have a Climate Action Plan. This measure will: Affect ALL land in Huntington Beach: A new and costly process will be required when commercial and industrial zoning needs to be changed to better meet community needs. This measure is not business friendly and will delay community improvements. Undermine Representative Democracy: We elect officials to make informed decisions on our behalf.While public input is vital,excessive referendums on technical matters risk eroding the effectiveness of our council members. This measure shifts power away from our elected officials and towards special interests. Create More Red Tape and Unnecessary Costs: This amendment imposes significant administrative and legal burdens on our city.The costs associated with organizing frequent elections and defending decisions in court will divert resources from essential services and programs that benefit all residents. Requiring elections for zoning changes and General Plan updates will cost the city millions at a time when we are facing budget deficits. Let's preserve the ability of our elected officials to govern effectively, conserve our fiscal resources and reject this Measure. s/Patrick Brenden Former City Councilmember /�, Si Barbara Delgleize /.,PSG. Former Mayor "V s/Connie Boardman Former Mayor r s/Debbie Cook Former Mayor of HB Argument Against Measure_ Vote NO to Protect Local Governance This proposed Charter Amendment has been brought to the voters by the same council majority that established a book banning committee, wanted to privatize the libraries, and negotiated a scandalous multi- million-dollar secret legal settlement that required a citizen lawsuit to be made public. Don't be fooled by the supposed concern for the environment expressed by the council members who placed this on the ballot.If they cared about /61/ our environment,the Environmental Board wouldn't have been dissolved, our Sustainability Master Plan would have been completed,and the city -"itif/ would have a Climate Action Plan. ' This measure will: 7j d v Affect ALL land in Huntington Beach: Cp 4\v A new and costly process will be required when commercial and industrial \` zoning needs to be changed to better meet community needs. This (� measure is not business friendly and will delay community improvements. 43 Undermine Representative Democracy: Vt \ We elect officials to make informed decisions on our behalf.While public input is vital,excessive referendums on technical matters risk eroding the effectiveness of our council members. This measure shifts power away from our elected officials and towards special interests. Create More Red Tape and Unnecessary Costs: This amendment imposes significant administrative and legal burdens on our city.The costs associated with organizing frequent elections and defending decisions in court will divert resources from essential services and programs that benefit all residents. Requiring elections for zoning changes and General Plan updates will cost the city millions at a time when we are facing budget deficits. Let's preserve the ability of our elected officials to govern effectively, conserve our fiscal resources and reject this Measure. s/Patrick Brenden Former City Councilmember s/Barbara Delgleize Former Mayor s/Connie Boardman Former Mayor s/Debbie Cook Former Mayor of HB REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF CHARTER AMENDMENT MEASURE 1 The proponents of this measure continue to spread disinformation. In 1990, the voters of Huntington Beach passed a Charter Amendment- Measure C to protect our beaches and parks. The proponents' professed concerns about clean air, water and greenhouse gases, are yet another ploy to mislead. They dissolved the Environmental Board, scrapped the sustainability master plan, and have failed to take any action to help decrease traffic or air pollution. They refuse to pass a Climate Action Plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address rising sea levels that will bring salt-water intrusion into our freshwater wells. It should be noted proponents of this amendment are the same Council members that gave away untold millions of taxpayer dollars in their Airshow Settlement and who tried to outsource our library, transferring public taxpayer money to private for-profit companies. Why trust them with yet another poorly crafted Charter Amendment likely to create more litigation? Make no mistake, this measure will give up local control to Sacramento and let Gavin Newson's policies dictate what gets built in Huntington Beach. Voting No, maintains local control by allowing the City Council to determine development, not Sacramento. In 2018 when the Council failed to comply with State Laws and had to pay $4.5million in attorney's fees. Failure to comply comes with a cost; this measure will create that failure. It's time to restore common sense to Huntington Beach government: Vote No on Measure 1. The undersigned proponent(s) or author(s) of the rebuttal to argument in favor of Charter Amendment Measure 1 at the General Municipal Election for the City of Huntington Beach to be held on November 5, 2024 hereby state that the rebuttal argument is true and correct to the best of(his/her/their) knowledge and belief. "Li4,61_ d� Signed: (`'" 4 ` -- _ Date: 31) Name, Title G�fi Signed: ,� / - Date: -2- 31 g � Boas-d �� a Fe, Tie Signed: Date: Name, TitleMob )0 Signed: Date: —. rn Name, Title .-4 c—) CZ ;-�c� — rr1 Signed: Date: ='an- -o < Name, Titlern w REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF CHARTER AMENDMENT MEASURE 1 The proponents of this measure continue to spread disinformation. In 1990, the voters of Huntington Beach passed a Charter Amendment— Measure C to protect our beaches and parks. The proponents' professed concerns about clean air, water and greenhouse gases, are yet another ploy to mislead. They dissolved the Environmental Board, scrapped the sustainability master plan, and have failed to take any action to help decrease traffic or air pollution. They refuse to pass a Climate Action Plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address rising sea levels that will bring salt-water intrusion into our freshwater wells. It should be noted proponents of this amendment are the same Council members that gave away untold millions of taxpayer dollars in their Airshow Settlement and who tried to outsource our library, transferring public taxpayer money to private for-profit companies. Why trust them with yet another poorly crafted Charter Amendment likely to create more litigation? Make no mistake, this measure will give up local control to Sacramento and let Gavin Newson's policies dictate what gets built in Huntington Beach. Voting No, maintains local control by allowing the City Council to determine development, not Sacramento. In 2018 when the Council failed to comply with State Laws and had to pay $4.5million in attorney's fees. Failure to comply comes with a cost; this measure will create that failure. It's time to restore common sense to Huntington Beach government: Vote No on Measure 1. The undersigned proponent(s) or author(s) of the rebuttal to argument in favor of Charter Amendment Measure 1 at the General Municipal Election for the City of Huntington Beach to be held on November 5, 2024 hereby state that the rebuttal argument is true and correct to the best of(his/her/their) knowledge and belief. Signed: Cfl\-A-/—neC1.K---\ Date: Name, Title Signed: Date: Name, Title Signed: Date: Name, Title Signed: Date: Name, Title Signed: Date: Name, Title a C") Cr) rr 74 a, ril FORM OF STATEMENT RECEIVED TO BE FILED BY AUTHORS OF ARGUMENTS 2024 AUG - I PM 3: 37 . All arguments concerning measures 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, off,CIT Y OF the argument: The undersigned proponent(s) or author(s) of the rebuttal to argument in favor of Charter Amendment Measure 1 at the General Municipal Election for the City of Huntington Beach to be held on November 5, 2024 hereby state that the rebuttal argument is true and correct to the best of(his/her/their) knowledge and belief. Print Name e� 6.).s_tv Title d—e_ al-114-- Sign re (If applicable):Submitted on behalf of: Date49,td". 3/, .O o2.9/ (name of organization) Print Name (AT,i T1-1 aL. Signat Title-joct�c( at.C.Ire - (If applicable):Submitted on behalf of: Date 1 P)dasa. Ci (name of organization) Print Name Signature Title (If applicable):Submitted on behalf of: Date (name of organization) Print Name Signature Title (If applicable):Submitted on behalf of: Date (name of organization) Print Name Signature Title (If applicable):Submitted on behalf of: Date (name of organization) _ REOFIVEE FORM OF STATEMENT TO BE FILED BY AUTHORS OF ARGUMENTS2024 AUG ' I PM 2: 02 All arguments concerning measures filed pursuant to Division 9, ChaptbE Y CL F F (beginning with§ 9200)of the Elections Code shall be accompanied by the follovO ' 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 to argument in favor of Charter Amendment Measure 1 at the General Municipal Election for the City of Huntington Beach to be held on November 5, 2024 hereby state that the rebuttal argument is true and correct to the best of (his/her/their) knowledge and belief. Print Name Connie Rnarriman i nature Title Former MaynrMi207-11 (If applicable):Submitted on behalf of: Date Aug 1 2024 (name of organization) Print Name Signature Title (If applicable):Submitted on behalf of: Date (name of organization) Print Name Signature Title (If applicable):Submitted on behalf of: Date (name of organization) Print Name Signature Title (If applicable):Submitted on behalf of: Date (name of organization) Print Name Signature Title (If applicable):Submitted on behalf of: Date (name of organization) ARGUMENTS AUTHORIZATION FOR ANOTHER PERSON TO SIGN REBUTTAL ARGUMENT The following majority of authors of the Argument Against Charter Amendment Measure 1 authorize the following person(s) to prepare, submit or sign the Rebuttal to the Argument In Favor of Charter Amendment Measure 1 for the City of Huntington Beach Election to be held on November 5, 2024. Signatures of a majority of the authors of the Argument Against Charter Amendment Measure 1 are required: Vecobie_ C®c C�� 3(a-aa Name (Print) ignature Dat ( 2 44;,e' 3 r in 69/At c eJ 6a,cckma, atl Name (Print) Si ture Date Ot67ar0( ie) e `Z&211 Name (Print) ignature Date The following author(s) are authorized to prepare, submit or sign the Rebuttal to the Argument In Favor of Charter Amendment Measure 1. Print Name Sign ur 0 //�� J u p 1.+ Title iS /0 5 Erg 6r/a , A(7)6o Dat g— tf--7/1 ate -of 6'A Cr--ICA Attach this form to the Form of Statement of Authors Form submitted with the Argument Against Charter Amendment Measure 1. § 9285, E.C. Authorization for Others to Sign Rebuttal Argument _ a C l �► C m r '� A N Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of Measure U The proponents of this measure continue to spread disinformation. In 1990, the voters of Huntington Beach passed a Charter Amendment — Measure C to protect our beaches and parks. The proponents' professed concerns about clean air, water and greenhouse gases, are yet another ploy to mislead. They dissolved the Environmental Board, scrapped the sustainability master plan, and have failed to take any action to help decrease traffic or air pollution. They refuse to pass a Climate Action Plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address rising sea levels that will bring salt-water intrusion into our freshwater wells. It should be noted proponents of this amendment are the same Council members that gave away untold millions of taxpayer dollars in their Airshow Settlement and who tried to outsource our library, transferring public taxpayer money to private for-profit companies. Why trust them with yet another poorly crafted Charter Amendment likely to create more litigation? Make no mistake,this measure will give up local control to Sacramento and let Gavin Newsom's policies dictate what gets built in Huntington Beach. Voting No, maintains local control by allowing the City Council to determine development,not Sacramento. In 2018 when the Council failed to comply with State Laws and had to pay 54.5million in attorney's fees. Failure to comply comes with a cost;this measure will create that failure. VA))41/4j-i) It's time to restore common sense to Huntington Beach government:Vote 0 No on Measure U. s/Debbie Cook _ r l Leader of Measure C `� / Board Secretary, Boarar S d Secretary,Amigos de Bolsa Chica s/Connie Boardman Former Mayor REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST CHARTER AMENDMENT MEASURE 1 Councilmembers Kalmick, Moser and Bolton didn't vote for this ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION for the City -and, they didn't vote to give the VOTERS A CHOICE in proposed General Plan and Zoning changes that would certainly lead to MASSIVE HIGH-DENSITY DEVELOPMENT. This is wrong! This City belongs to the people of Huntington Beach. Mayor Gracey Van Der Mark, Tony Strickland, Casey McKeon, and Pat Burns voted to give YOU, the people of this great City, this Ballot Measure so that YOU have a choice of whether the City should adopt General Plans and Zoning changes that might lead to "substantial and unavoidable" long-term or permanent damage to our environment. Of course, these plan and zoning decisions that massively and sometimes permanently impact our environment and the quality of life in our City, should involve the vote of people and are a matter of local control - not for developers or the State itself. The opposition claims there will be increased red tape and additional costs. This is not true. There is no additional cost to asking the people of the City how it should be zoned and developed -just like there was no additional cost to the fruitful fight against the State over high-density housing mandates, the City for successfully withdrawing from the OCPA at no cost, and adopting a Voter ID requirement at no cost. Vote YES on this Ballot Measure - PROTECT OUR ENVIRONMENT!!! N c, ;_+ I 0 "‹0 -- rn ▪ nl • 24 ; rn N � The undersigned proponent(s) or author(s) of the rebuttal to argument against Charter Amendment Measure 1 at the General Municipal Election for the City of Huntington Beach to be h rd on November 5, 2024 hereby state that the rebuttal argument is true and correct to the best of(his/her/their) knowledge and belief. CigbaH Signed: Date: V r 1 ( 2-4 Name, Title (C(ACif 1la rAtP1bCP Date: ame, Title Signed:jef-c ego / lity#2(to lit Date: J ' / - 7iOZ y Name, Title Signed: Date: Name, Title Signed: Date: Name, Title RECEIVED FORM OF STATEMENT ?p24 AUG - I PM 2: 0 TO BE FILED BY AUTHORS OF ARGUMENTS All arguments concerning measures filed pursuant to Division 9, Chap4ec x C`t F (beginning with 9200)of the Elections Code shall be accompanied bythe fdlktiwi nY OF lr 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 to argument against Charter Amendment Measure 1 at the General Municipal Election for the City of Huntington Beach to be held on November 5, 2024 hereby state that the rebuttal argument is true and correct to the best of(his/her/their) knowledge and belief. Print Name ezielle.A.I k .1r ,d►VIC \ Sign re 11(\coilbr Title (If applicable):Sub Itted on behalf of: i Y� ��, Q..._ a Date VA5Ss- ` (2 I tk name of or ation) Print Name CASey !McKeon Signature Title COUnCil OlZM b-er __& _ /y' (If applicable):Submitted on behalf of: C, ti A - n Qe-aG� Date g . aoa (name of organization) Print Name A.r44,,/2.i5 �J 7� /Signature , j �j Title /174 !Ai"- 1 .• j L-� (If applicable):Submitted on behalf of: ,�/ Date C ,i A /.✓�.i✓G^04.1,e tc-4 I 2 - 7 • Z.o Z v (name of organization) Print Name Signature Title (If applicable):Submitted on behalf of: Date (name of organization) Print Name Signature Title (If applicable):Submitted on behalf of: Date (name of organization) Rebuttal to Argument Against Measure U Councilmembers Kalmick, Moser and Bolton didn't vote for this ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION for the City-and,they didn't vote to give the VOTERS A CHOICE in proposed General Plan and Zoning changes that would certainly lead to MASSIVE HIGH-DENSITY DEVELOPMENT. This is wrong! This City belongs to the people of Huntington Beach. Mayor Gracey Van Der Mark, Tony Strickland, Casey McKeon, and Pat Burns voted to give YOU,the people of this great City,this Ballot Measure so that YOU have a choice of whether the City should adopt General Plans and Zoning changes that might lead to "substantial and unavoidable" long-term or permanent damage to our environment. Of course, these plan and zoning decisions that massively and sometimes permanently impact our environment and the quality of life in our City,should involve the vote of people and are a matter of local control- not for developers or the State itself. The opposition claims there will be increased red tape and additional costs. This is not true. There is no additional cost to asking the people of the City how it should be zoned and developed -just like there was no additional cost to the fruitful fight against the State over high-density housing mandates,the City for successfully withdrawing from the OCPA at no cost,and adopting a Voter ID requirement at no cost. Vote YES on this Ballot Measure-PROTECT OUR ENVIRONMENT!!! s/Gracey Van Der Mark Mayor,City of Huntington Beach 61.)/ s/Casey McKeon /� City Councilmember,City of Huntington Beach �C U s/Pat Burns ' Y Mayor Pro Tern,City of Huntington Beach 64: \I,y y�tV a et)\\C‘ l • • SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER MINUTE ORDER DATE: 08/28/2024 TIME: 01:30:00 PM DEPT: C31 JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Kimberly A. Knill CLERK: K. Wilson REPORTER/ERM: BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT: J. Rodriguez Almaraz CASE NO: 30-2024-01418760-CU-WM-CJC CASE 1NIT.DATE: 08/09/2024 CASE TITLE: Cook vs. Robin Estanislau, Huntington Beach City Clerk CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited CASE TYPE: Writ of Mandate • EVENT lD/DOCUMENT ID: 74366676 EVENT TYPE: Order to Show Cause APPEARANCES Brett Murdock, from The Law Offices of Brett Murdock, present for Petitioner(s). Andrew Kornoff from Robin Estanislau, Huntington Beach City Clerk, self represented Respondent, present. Bob Page, Orange County Registrar of Voters, self represented Respondent, present remotely. Hearing held, participants appearing remotely and in person. Petition for Writ of Mandate • The court has read and considered the parties' briefs and supporting documents. The court gives its tentative ruling. The court has read and considered respondent Robin Estanislau, Huntington Beach City Clerk objections. The court sustains objections Nos 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. The court overrules objections Nos 1, 3. • Request for judicial notice filed by petitioners on 8/27/2024 (ROA 34) is granted. The court hears oral arguments. The petition for writ of mandate is GRANTED. Respondents are ORDERED to delete the following text in the Rebuttal to Argument Against Charter Amendment Measure 1: "The opposition claims there will be increased red tape and additional costs. This is not true. There is no additional cost to asking the people of the City how it should be zoned and developed —just like there • DATE: 08/28/2024 • MINUTE ORDER Page 1 DEPT: C31 Calendar No. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE Central Justice Center 700 W.Civic Center Drive Santa Ana,CA 92702 SHORT TITLE:Cook vs.Robin Estanislau,Huntington Beach City Clerk CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING/ELECTRONIC CASE NUMBER: SERVICE 30-2024-01418760-CU-WM-CJC I certify that I am not a party to this cause.I certify that that the following document(s),dated,was transmitted electronically by an Orange County Superior Court email server on August 28,2024,at 2:21:29 PM PDT.The business mailing address is Orange County Superior Court,700 Civic Center Dr.W,Santa Ana,California 92701.Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1013b,I electronically served the document(s)on the persons identified at the email addresses listed below: BOWER LAW GROUP LEON J.PAGE,COUNTY COUNSEL LEE@BROWERLAWGROUP.COM REBECCA.LEEDS@COCO.00GOV.COM LEON J.PAGE,COUNTY COUNSEL MICHAEL E.GATES,CITY ATTORNEY SUZY.SHOAI@COCO.00GOV.COM ANDREW.KORNOFF@SURFCITY-HB.ORG MICHAEL E.GATES,CITY ATTORNEY MICHAEL E.GATES,CITY ATTORNEY MICHAEL.GATES@SURCITY-HB.ORG PEGGY.HUANG@SURFCITY-HB.ORG THE LAW OFFICES OF BRETT MURDOCK BRETT@MURDOCKLAW.COM t Pi+�JJL'�ayty�tUf' r�i Clerk of the Court, by: , Deputy CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING/ELECTRONIC SERVICE V3 1013a(June 2004) Code of Civ.Procedure,§CCP1013(a) • • • • CASE TITLE: Cook vs. Robin Estanislau, Huntington CASE NO: Beach City Clerk 30-2024.01418760-CU-WM-CJC was no additional cost to the fruitful fight against the State over high-density housing mandates, the City • for successfully withdrawing from the OCPA at no cost, and adopting a Voter ID requirement at no cost." Court orders clerk to give notice. if IT IS SO ORDERED Judge of the Superior Court • • DATE: 08/28/2024 MINUTE ORDER Page 2 DEPT: C31 Calendar No. Rebuttal to Argument Against Measure U Councilmembers Kalmick, Moser and Bolton didn't vote for this ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION for the City -and,they didn't vote to give the VOTERS A CHOICE in proposed General Plan and Zoning changes that would certainly lead to MASSIVE HIGH-DENSITY DEVELOPMENT. This is wrong! This City belongs to the people of Huntington Beach. Mayor Gracey Van Der Mark, Tony Strickland, Casey McKeon, and Pat Burns voted to give YOU, the people of this great City,this Ballot Measure so that YOU have a choice of whether the City should adopt General Plans and Zoning changes that might lead to "substantial and unavoidable" long-term or permanent damage to our environment. Of course, these plan and zoning decisions that massively and sometimes permanently impact our environment and the quality of life in our City, should involve the vote of people and are a matter of local control-not for developers or the State itself. Vote YES on this Ballot Measure- PROTECT OUR ENVIRONMENT!!! 5/Gracey Van Der Mark Mayor,City of Huntington Beach 5/Casey McKeon City Councilmember,City of Huntington Beach 5/Pat Burns Mayor Pro Tem,City of Huntington Beach rave 1371. d zo Z �( I��i��N�IN G r� %s„..AN F9�, City of Huntington Beach t„:-ram;Q�r 2000 Main Street ♦ Huntington Beach, CA 92648 z ` \`�2cF.-* ............./c '•••l� (714) 536-5227 ♦ www.huntingtonbeachca.gov =.COUNTY 0', August 9, 2024 Lee K. Fink Brower Law Group, A Professional Corporation 100 Pacifica, Suite 160 Irvine CA 92618 Re: Request to Strike Language in Rebuttal to Argument Against Charter Amendment Measure 1 Mr. Fink, Consider this a formal reply to your email communication of August 9, 2024 (Att#1), requesting my assistance to strike the first and third paragraphs found in the Rebuttal to Argument Against Charter Amendment Measure 1 filed on August 1, 2024 (Att #2), and forwarded on that same date to the Orange County Registrar of Voters for publication in the November 5, 2024 General Municipal Election Voter Information Guide. Pursuant to the California Elections Code, Article 6. Public Examination, Section 9295(b)(1), "During the 10-calendar-day public examination period provided by this section, any voter of the jurisdiction in which the election is being held, or the elections official, may seek a writ of mandate or an injunction requiring any or all of the materials to be amended or deleted. The writ of mandate or injunction request shall be filed no later than the end of the 10-calendar-day public examination period." I have considered your request, and respectfully decline. As noted in my response to your August 8, 2024 email regarding the public examination period for the rebuttal argument in question, it is August 2, 2024 through August 11, 2024. Sincerely, Robin Estanislau, CMC City Clerk c: Bob Page, Orange County Registrar of Voters Michael Gates, City Attorney Huntington Beach City Council Eric Parra, City Manager Travis Hopkins, Assistant City Manager Att: Fink Email(s) dated August 9, 2024 and August 8, 2024 Rebuttal to Argument Against Charter Amendment Measure 1 Estanislau, Robin From: Lee Fink <Lee@BrowerLawGroup.com> Sent: Friday, August 9, 2024 11:59 AM To: Estanislau, Robin Subject: RE: HB Charter Amendment Arguments Dear Ms. Estanislau, I represent voters in the City of Huntington Beach who believe that the Rebuttal to the Argument in Favor of Measure 1, signed by Ms. Van Der Mark and Messrs. McKeon and Bums, contains statements that are false, misleading, and inconsistent with the Elections Code, and should be stricken. We believe that the following paragraphs should be stricken: "The opposition claims there will be increased red tape and additional costs.Jll This is not true. There is no additional cost to asking the people of the City how it should be zoned and developed -just like there was no additional cost to the fruitful fight against the State over high-density housing mandates, the City for successfully withdrawing from the OCPA at no cost, and adopting a Voter ID requirement at no cost." "Councilmembers Kalmick, Moser and Bolton didn't vote for this ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION for the City - and, [sic] they didn't vote to give the VOTERS A CHOICE in proposed General Plan and Zoning changes that would certainly lead to MASSIVE HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT. This is wrong!" The basis for our position is below: 1. The Rebuttal contains the following false statements: The opposition claims there will be increased red tape and additional costs.[2] This is not true. There is no additional cost to asking the people of the City how it should be zoned and developed -just like there was no additional cost to the fruitful fight against the State over high-density housing mandates,the City for successfully withdrawing from the OCPA at no cost, and adopting a Voter ID requirement at no cost. 2. Despite the claims in the Rebuttal, there would be substantial costs to "asking the people of the city how it should be zoned and developed." Respondent BOB PAGE, who administers the elections pursuant as the County Registrar of Voters, pursuant to an agreement with the City, charges a substantial fee to administer the elections. In March 2024,the cost of the Special Election was $395,047.56. Special Elections that are not consolidated with a statewide primary or general election typically cost more than $1 million. Those are direct costs charged by the Respondent PAGE for administering the elections. In addition, there are additional costs that almost certainly arise. Such elections often cause ballot challenges (as has this election, as well as Charter Amendments proposed by the City Council for the November 2022 General Election and the March 2024 Primary Election. The City ended up paying opposing counsel (including the undersigned) attorneys' fees in excess of$60,000 for litigation over the charter amendments on the November 2022 ballot; litigation over the March 2024 ballot is still pending. In addition, the City in this case faces an additional significant risk that are likely to cost substantial sums. The City currently has a non-compliant housing element. In a matter before the San Diego County Superior Court,People Ex. Rel. Bonta v. Huntington Beach, OCSC Case No. 30-2023-01312235-CU-WM-CJC ("Bonta v. i Huntington Beach"),[31 the court has ordered the City to adopt a compliant housing element within 120 days, and thereafter to adopt compliant zoning amendments within 120 days. By imposing a ballot box zoning requirement,the City will be unable to follow the Court's mandates in time, subjecting it to orders of contempt and additional costs. 3. Despite the claims in the Rebuttal,there have been"additional cost[s] to the fruitful fight against the State over high-density housing mandates." In addition to the costs of suit in the Bonta v. Huntington Beach case,the City was sued by the Kennedy Commission over its refusal to provide affordable housing in the matter of Kennedy Commission v. City of Huntington Beach, OCSC Case No. 2015-00801675- ("Kennedy Commission v. Huntington Beach"). In that case, the City not only incurred its own defense costs, but was ordered to pay the opposing attorneys' fees of more than • $3.5 million. The City subsequently appealed, lost the appeal, and has paid the fees. The claim that the fight against the state has been"fruitful"is also false. The City has sued the Governor and other state officials over the housing element requirements in federal court in the matter of the City of Huntington Beach et al. v. Gavin Newsom, et al., Central District USDC Case 8:23-CV-00421 ("Huntington Beach v. Newsom"). The City's complaint in that matter was dismissed and the City has obtained no relief sought. Naturally,the City has incurred substantial costs and fees in litigating that matter too. 4. Despite the claims in the Rebuttal,there have been additional costs for"successfully withdrawing from the OCPA at no cost,"or at the very least the actual costs are not clear. The City's withdrawal from the OCPA(the Orange County Power Authority, a joint powers agency that provides community choice energy,which the City initially joined to replace Southern California for customers within the City)became effective on July 1, 2024. The City has hired outside counsel to deal with the results and City staff is working to"ensure cost mitigation,"meaning that there have been actual costs. 5. Despite the claims in the Rebuttal,there have been additional costs for"adopting a Voter ID requirement at no cost." Adoption of the City Charter amendment requiring Voter ID was placed on the ballot by the City for the March 2024 Primary Election. This was a special election for the City and was administered by Respondent BOB PAGE. The cost of the election was$395,047.56. In addition, the City is currently incurring ongoing costs litigating over the charter amendment in two cases pending before the Orange County Superior Court: Mark Bixby v. Robin Estanislau, et al., OCSC Case No. 30-2023-01366664-CU-WM-CJC ("Bixby v. Estanislau") and People ex rel. Rob Bonta and Shirley Weber v. City of Huntington Beach, et al., OCSC Case No. 30-2024-01393606- CU-WM-CJC ("Bonta and Weber v. Huntington Beach"). 6. The Rebuttal also states: Councilmembers Kalmick,Moser and Bolton didn't vote for this ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION for the City - and, [sic] they didn't vote to give the VOTERS A CHOICE in proposed General Plan and Zoning changes that would certainly lead to MASSIVE HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT. This is wrong! 7. This paragraph is false,misleading, and otherwise inconsistent with the Elections Code. 8. Councilmembers Kalmick, Moser, and Bolton are not mentioned in the argument Measure 1,nor are. they signatories to the argument. Referencing these councilmembers—currently candidates for re- election, is improper rebuttal as it has nothing to do with the original argument. 9. In addition, arguments or rebuttals to arguments to ballot statements are not supposed to reference candidates for office. (See, e.g., Elec. Code, § 13308.) Statements are supposed to be based on the merits of the measure and not used as an attack on a candidate for office. 10. Furthermore,the claim that Kalmick, Moser, and Bolton did not vote for Measure 1 is misleading. The statement is intended to make the voters believe that the three councilmembers opposed and voted against Measure 1. They did not. Because of the short notice for the special meeting at which Measure 1 was adopted, they were not present at the meeting. 11. Finally,the contention that Measure 1 is about environmental protection is misleading. Nothing about Measure 1 ensures that any environmental damage would be stopped. Rather, it appears to put the power to waive environmental harms in the hands of the voters instead of the City Council, as 2 the law currently requires. Thus, any environmental damage is just as likely to occur since the City Council is itself a representative body of the voters. Thank you, Lee K. Fink Brower Law Group, A Professional Corporation 100 Pacifica, Suite 160 Irvine, California 92618 Office: (949) 668-0825 Direct: (949) 328-1548 Lee@BrowerLawGroup.com BLG BROW R LAW GROUP BOA La - From: Estanislau, Robin<Robin.Estanislau@surfcity-hb.org> Sent:Thursday,August 8,2024 9:40 AM To: Lee Fink<Lee@BrowerLawGroup.com> Subject: Re: HB Charter Amendment Arguments We consider the 10-day examination period for rebuttal arguments to begin on August 2,and expire on Sunday, August 11. That said,our past practice in situations where a filing deadline falls on a non-business day would be to extend the filing deadline to the next business day,which in this case would be Monday,August 12. I'm not an attorney, and while I believe that the County would follow the same exception,there may be other factors to consider when filing a writ that would result in a different opinion. Robin Estanislau City Clerk Sent from my iPad On Aug 8,2024, at 9:06 AM, Lee Fink<Lee( browerlawgroup.com>wrote: Thank you. Is it the Clerk's office view that the 10-day period to file a writ petition expires on August 11, a Sunday? Or that the deadline is extended to Monday, August 12? I have copied Rebecca Leeds, County Counsel who generally represents the Orange County Registrar of Voters. I appreciate your assistance. 3 Best wishes, Lee K. Fink Brower Law Group, A Professional Corporation 100 Pacifica, Suite 160 Irvine, California 92618 Office: (949) 668-0825 Direct: (949)328-1548 Lee@BrowerLawGroun.com <image001.png> <image002.png> REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST CHARTER AMENDMENT MEASURE 1 Councilmembers Kalmick, Moser and Bolton didn't vote for this ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION for the City -and, they didn't vote to give the VOTERS A CHOICE in proposed General Plan and Zoning changes that would certainly lead to MASSIVE HIGH-DENSITY DEVELOPMENT. This is wrong! This City belongs to the people of Huntington Beach. Mayor Gracey Van Der Mark, Tony Strickland, Casey McKeon, and Pat Burns voted to give YOU, the people of this great City,.this Ballot Measure so that YOU have a choice of whether the City should adopt General Plans and Zoning changes that might lead to "substantial and unavoidable" long-term or permanent damage to our environment. Of course, these plan and zoning decisions that massively and sometimes permanently impact our environment and the quality of life in our City, should involve the vote of people and are a matter of local control - not for developers or the State itself. The opposition claims there will be increased red tape and additional costs. This is not true. There is no additional cost to asking the people of the City how it should be zoned and developed -just like there was no additional cost to the fruitful fight against the State over high-density housing mandates, the City for successfully withdrawing from the OCPA at no cost, and adopting a Voter ID requirement at no cost. Vote YES on this Ballot Measure - PROTECT OUR ENVIRONMENT!!! 6 0 Co ":"——< C) r 3 ''3 rn The undersigned proponent(s) or author(s) of the rebuttal to argument against Cliarter0 Amendment Measure 1 at the General Municipal Election for the City of Huntington Beach to be herd on November 5, 2024 hereby state that the rebuttal argument is true and correct to the best of(his/her/their) knowledge and belief. Signed: Ck...)0—NADate: V l 1 ( 2-0 Name, Title^^%��,9ame (ct' ,. p Si ned: i `� -►I rr �8(` Date: v , , Title Signed:e.1142-,_,.. ePse�o /"�•}yLEri�f Date: / - / - 7OZV Name, Title Signed: Date: Name, Title Signed: Date: Name, Title Estanislau, Robin From: Estanislau, Robin Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2024 9:40 AM To: Lee Fink Subject: Re: HB Charter Amendment Arguments We consider the 10-day examination period for rebuttal arguments to begin on August 2, and expire on Sunday, August 11. That said, our past practice in situations where a filing deadline falls on a non-business day would be to extend the filing deadline to the next business day,which in this case would be Monday,August 12. I'm not an attorney, and while I believe that the County would follow the same exception,there may be other factors to consider when filing a writ that would result in a different opinion. Robin Estanislau City Clerk Sent from my iPad On Aug 8,2024, at 9:06 AM, Lee Fink<Lee@browerlawgroup.com>wrote: Thank you. Is it the Clerk's office view that the 10-day period to file a writ petition expires on August 11, a Sunday? Or that the deadline is extended to Monday, August 12? I have copied Rebecca Leeds, County Counsel who generally represents the Orange County Registrar of Voters. I appreciate your assistance. Best wishes, Lee K. Fink Brower Law Group, A Professional Corporation 100 Pacifica, Suite 160 Irvine, California 92618 Office: (949) 668-0825 Direct: (949) 328-1548 Lee@BrowerLawGroup.com <image001.png> <image002.png> From: Estanislau, Robin <Robin.Estanislau@surfcity-hb.org> Sent:Thursday,August 8, 2024 7:50 AM To: Lee Fink<Lee@BrowerLawGroup.com> Subject: Fwd: HB Charter Amendment Arguments 1 Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: "Moore,Tania"<Tania.Moore@surfcity-hb.org> Date:August 8,2024 at 7:45:31 AM PDT To: "Estanislau, Robin" <Robin.Estanislauasurfcity-hb.org>, "Switzer, Donna" <Donna.Switzer@surfcity-hb-org> Subject: RE: HB Charter Amendment Arguments They were posted the same day,August 1st <image003.jpg> <image004.jpg> <image005.jpg> Sent from my iPhone Tania Moore, CMC Senior Deputy City Clerk City Clerk's Office 714-536-5209 tania.moore@surfcity-hb.org From: Estanislau, Robin<Robin.Estanislau@surfcity-hb.org> Sent:Thursday,August 8, 2024 7:28 AM To: Moore,Tania <Tania.Moore@surfcity-hb.org>; Switzer, Donna <Donna.Switzer@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Fwd: HB Charter Amendment Arguments Hi, Can you tell me when we posted rebuttal arguments on the web and bulletin board? Thanks, Robin Sent from my iPad 2 Begin forwarded message: From: Lee Fink<Lee(abrowerlawgroup.com> Date:August 7,2024 at 9:15:51 PM PDT To: "Estanislau, Robin" <Robin.Estanistau@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: HB Charter Amendment Arguments Dear Ms. Estanislau, I see that the rebuttal arguments for the HB Charter Amendments were stamped received by your office on August 1. Could you let me know the date that those documents were publicly posted? Thank you, Lee K. Fink Brower Law Group, A Professional Corporation 100 Pacifica, Suite 160 Irvine, California 92618 Office: (949) 668-0825 Direct: (949) 328-1548 Lee@BrowerLawGroup.com <image001.png> <image002.png> 3 Estanislau, Robin From: Lee Fink <Lee@BrowerLawGroup.com> Sent: Friday,August 9, 2024 11:59 AM To: Estanislau, Robin Subject: RE: HB Charter Amendment Arguments Dear Ms. Estanislau, I represent voters in the City of Huntington Beach who believe that the Rebuttal to the Argument in Favor of Measure 1, signed by Ms. Van Der Mark and Messrs. McKeon and Burns, contains statements that are false, misleading, and inconsistent with the Elections Code, and should be stricken. We believe that the following paragraphs should be stricken: "The opposition claims there will be increased red tape and additional costs.E13 This is not true. There is no additional cost to asking the people of the City how it should be zoned and developed-just like there was no additional cost to the fruitful fight against the State over high-density housing mandates,the City for successfully withdrawing from the OCPA at no cost, and adopting a Voter ID requirement at no cost." "Councilmembers Kalmick, Moser and Bolton didn't vote for this ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION for the City - and, [sic] they didn't vote to give the VOTERS A CHOICE in proposed General Plan and Zoning changes that would certainly lead to MASSIVE HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT. This is wrong!" The basis for our position is below: 1. The Rebuttal contains the following false statements: The opposition claims there will be increased red tape and additional costs.E2' This is not true. There is no additional cost to asking the people of the City how it should be zoned and developed-just like there was no additional cost to the fruitful fight against the State over high-density housing mandates,the City for successfully withdrawing from the OCPA at no cost, and adopting a Voter ID requirement at no cost. 2. Despite the claims in the Rebuttal,there would be substantial costs to "asking the people of the city how it should be zoned and developed." Respondent BOB PAGE, who administers the elections pursuant as the County Registrar of Voters,pursuant to an agreement with the City, charges a substantial fee to administer the elections. In March 2024, the cost of the Special Election was $395,047.56. Special Elections that are not consolidated with a statewide primary or general election typically cost more than$1 million. Those are direct costs charged by the Respondent PAGE for administering the elections. In addition, there are additional costs that almost certainly arise. Such elections often cause ballot challenges (as has this election, as well as Charter Amendments proposed by the City Council for the November 2022 General Election and the March 2024 Primary Election. The City ended up paying opposing counsel (including the undersigned) attorneys' fees in excess of$60,000 for litigation over the charter amendments on the November 2022 ballot; litigation over the March 2024 ballot is still pending. In addition,the City in this case faces an additional significant risk that are likely to cost substantial sums. The City currently has a non-compliant housing element. In a matter before the San Diego County Superior Court, People Ex. Rel. Bonta v. Huntington Beach, OCSC Case No. 30-2023-01312235-CU-WM-CJC ("Bonta v. i Huntington Beach"),[31 the court has ordered the City to adopt a compliant housing element within 120 days, and thereafter to adopt compliant zoning amendments within 120 days. By imposing a ballot box zoning requirement,the City will be unable to follow the Court's mandates in time, subjecting it to orders of contempt and additional costs. 3. Despite the claims in the Rebuttal, there have been "additional cost[s] to the fruitful fight against the State over high-density housing mandates." In addition to the costs of suit in the Bonta v. Huntington Beach case,the City was sued by the Kennedy Commission over its refusal to provide affordable housing in the matter of Kennedy Commission v. City of Huntington Beach, OCSC Case No. 2015-00801675- ("Kennedy Commission v. Huntington Beach"). In that case,the City not only incurred its own defense costs, but was ordered to pay the opposing attorneys' fees of more than $3.5 million. The City subsequently appealed, lost the appeal, and has paid the fees. The claim that the fight against the state has been"fruitful" is also false. The City has sued the Governor and other state officials over the housing element requirements in federal court in the matter of the City of Huntington Beach et al. v. Gavin Newsom, et al., Central District USDC Case 8:23-CV-00421 ("Huntington Beach v. Newsom"). The City's complaint in that matter was dismissed and the City has obtained no relief sought. Naturally,the City has incurred substantial costs and fees in litigating that matter too. 4. Despite the claims in the Rebuttal,there have been additional costs for"successfully withdrawing from the OCPA at no cost," or at the very least the actual costs are not clear. The City's withdrawal from the OCPA (the Orange County Power Authority, a joint powers agency that provides community choice energy, which the City initially joined to replace Southern California for customers within the City) became effective on July 1, 2024. The City has hired outside counsel to deal with the results and City staff is working to "ensure cost mitigation,"meaning that there have been actual costs. 5. Despite the claims in the Rebuttal,there have been additional costs for"adopting a Voter ID requirement at no cost." Adoption of the City Charter amendment requiring Voter ID was placed on the ballot by the City for the March 2024 Primary Election. This was a special election for the City and was administered by Respondent BOB PAGE. The cost of the election was $395,047.56. In addition, the City is currently incurring ongoing costs litigating over the charter amendment in two cases pending before the Orange County Superior Court: Mark Bixby v. Robin Estanislau, et al., OCSC Case No. 30-2023-01366664-CU-WM-CJC ("Bixby v. Estanislau") and People ex rel. Rob Bonta and Shirley Weber v. City of Huntington Beach, et al., OCSC Case No. 30-2024-01393606- CU-WM-CJC ("Bonta and Weber v. Huntington Beach"). 6. The Rebuttal also states: Councilmembers Kalmick, Moser and Bolton didn't vote for this ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION for the City - and, [sic] they didn't vote to give the VOTERS A CHOICE in proposed General Plan and Zoning changes that would certainly lead to MASSIVE HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT. This is wrong! 7. This paragraph is false, misleading, and otherwise inconsistent with the Elections Code. 8. Councilmembers Kalmick, Moser, and Bolton are not mentioned in the argument Measure 1, nor are they signatories to the argument. Referencing these councilmembers—currently candidates for re- election, is improper rebuttal as it has nothing to do with the original argument. 9. In addition, arguments or rebuttals to arguments to ballot statements are not supposed to reference candidates for office. (See, e.g., Elec. Code, § 13308.) Statements are supposed to be based on the merits of the measure and not used as an attack on a candidate for office. 10. Furthermore,the claim that Kalmick, Moser, and Bolton did not vote for Measure 1 is misleading. The statement is intended to make the voters believe that the three councilmembers opposed and voted against Measure 1. They did not. Because of the short notice for the special meeting at which Measure 1 was adopted,they were not present at the meeting. 11. Finally,the contention that Measure 1 is about environmental protection is misleading. Nothing about Measure 1 ensures that any environmental damage would be stopped. Rather, it appears to put the power to waive environmental harms in the hands of the voters instead of the City Council, as 2 the law currently requires. Thus, any environmental damage is just as likely to occur since the City Council is itself a representative body of the voters. Thank you, Lee K. Fink Brower Law Group, A Professional Corporation 100 Pacifica, Suite 160 Irvine, California 92618 Office: (949) 668-0825 Direct: (949) 328-1548 Lee@BrowerLawGroup.com BLG BROWER LAW GROUP LEE K.FINK 2024 Best Lawyers From: Estanislau, Robin<Robin.Estanislau@surfcity-hb.org> Sent:Thursday,August 8, 2024 9:40 AM To: Lee Fink<Lee@BrowerLawGroup.com> Subject: Re: HB Charter Amendment Arguments We consider the 10-day examination period for rebuttal arguments to begin on August 2, and expire on Sunday, August 11. That said, our past practice in situations where a filing deadline falls on a non-business day would be to extend the filing deadline to the next business day,which in this case would be Monday,August 12. I'm not an attorney, and while I believe that the County would follow the same exception,there may be other factors to consider when filing a writ that would result in a different opinion. Robin Estanislau City Clerk Sent from my iPad On Aug 8,2024, at 9:06 AM, Lee Fink<Lee@browerlawgroup.com>wrote: Thank you. Is it the Clerk's office view that the 10-day period to file a writ petition expires on August 11, a Sunday? Or that the deadline is extended to Monday, August 12? I have copied Rebecca Leeds, County Counsel who generally represents the Orange County Registrar of Voters. I appreciate your assistance. 3 Best wishes, Lee K. Fink Brower Law Group, A Professional Corporation 100 Pacifica, Suite 160 Irvine, California 92618 Office: (949) 668-0825 Direct: (949) 328-1548 Lee(ai BrowerLawGroup.com <image001.png> <image002.png> From: Estanislau, Robin<Robin.Estanislau@surfcity-hb.org> Sent:Thursday,August 8, 2024 7:50 AM To: Lee Fink<Lee@BrowerLawGroup.com> Subject: Fwd: HB Charter Amendment Arguments Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: "Moore,Tania"<Tania.Moore@surfcity-hb.org> Date:August 8,2024 at 7:45:31 AM PDT To: "Estanislau, Robin" <Robin.Estanistau@surfcity-hb.org>, "Switzer, Donna" <D_o_n na_.Switzer«_surfc hb.org> Subject: RE: HB Charter Amendment Arguments They were posted the same day,August 1st. <image003.jpg> <image004.jpg> <image005.jpg> Sent from my iPhone Tania Moore, CMC Senior Deputy City Clerk 4 City Clerk's Office 714-536-5209 tania.moore( surfcity-hb.orq From: Estanislau, Robin<Robin.Estanislau@surfcity-hb.org> Sent:Thursday,August 8, 2024 7:28 AM To: Moore,Tania<Tania.Moore@surfcity-hb.org>; Switzer, Donna <Donna.Switzer@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Fwd: HB Charter Amendment Arguments Hi, Can you tell me when we posted rebuttal arguments on the web and bulletin board? Thanks, Robin Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Lee Fink<Lee@browerlawgroup.com> Date:August 7,2024 at 9:15:51 PM PDT To: "Estanislau, Robin"<Robin.Estanislauasurfcity-hb.org> Subject: HB Charter Amendment Arguments Dear Ms. Estanislau, I see that the rebuttal arguments for the HB Charter Amendments were stamped received by your office on August 1. Could you let me know the date that those documents were publicly posted? Thank you, Lee K. Fink Brower Law Group, A Professional Corporation 100 Pacifica, Suite 160 Irvine, California 92618 Office: (949) 668-0825 Direct: (949) 328-1548 Lee@BrowerLawGroup.com <image001.png> <image002.png> Di This sentence is true; it is prelude to the false statements that follow. [2]This sentence is true; it is prelude to the false statements that follow. 5 [3]The Case carries an Orange County Case Number because it was originally filed in Orange County and then transferred to San Diego. 6 • REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF CHARTER AMENDMENT MEASURE 1 The proponents of this measure continue to spread disinformation. In 1990, the voters of Huntington Beach passed a Charter Amendment-Measure C to protect our beaches and parks. The proponents' professed concerns about clean air, water and greenhouse gases, are yet another ploy to mislead.They dissolved the Environmental Board, scrapped the sustainability master plan, and have failed to take any action to help decrease traffic or air pollution. They refuse to pass a Climate Action Plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address rising sea levels that will bring salt-water intrusion into our freshwater wells. It should be noted proponents of this amendment are the same Council members that gave away untold millions of taxpayer dollars in their Airshow Settlement and who tried to outsource our library, transferring public taxpayer money to private for-profit companies. Why trust them with yet another poorly crafted Charter Amendment likely to create more litigation? Make no mistake, this measure will give up local control to Sacramento and let Gavin Newson's policies dictate what gets built in Huntington Beach. Voting No, maintains local control by allowing the City Council to determine development, not Sacramento. In 2018 when the Council failed to comply with State Laws and had to pay $4.5million in attorney's fees. Failure to comply comes with a cost; this measure will create that failure. It's time to restore common sense to Huntington Beach government: Vote No on Measure 1. The undersigned proponent(s) or author(s) of the rebuttal to argument in favor of Charter Amendment Measure 1 at the General Municipal Election for the City of Huntington Beach to be held on November 5, 2024 hereby state that the rebuttal argument is true and correct to the best of(his/her/their) knowledge and belief. 064.0 � �, " J�il� ( Signed: .C, Date: 3/J Name, Titleainth= Boa-d-�./Signed: N� Date: 1- 31 9 a e, Ti Signed: Date: 1,0 Name, TitleCa Signed: Date: C' r,c)—+ G" Name, Title 174-‹ 0 0 — m Signed: Date: ''or" -n ,C Name, Title " xa -r m CA) I declare,under penalty of perjury,that I am employed by the City of Huntington Beach,in the Office of the Ci Clerk and that I posted this public notice on the posting bulletin board at the Civic Center on-Thilde ' at yl'S� a.m) Date c///POdY/ Signature Senior Deputy City' lerk • REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF CHARTER AMENDMENT MEASURE 1 The proponents of this measure continue to spread disinformation. In 1990,the voters of Huntington Beach passed a Charter Amendment—Measure C to protect our beaches and parks. The proponents' professed concerns about clean air,water and greenhouse gases, are yet another ploy to mislead. They dissolved the Environmental Board, scrapped the sustainability master plan, and have failed to take any action to help decrease traffic or air pollution. They refuse to pass a Climate Action Plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address rising sea levels that will bring salt-water intrusion into our freshwater wells. It should be noted proponents of this amendment are the same Council members that gave away untold millions of taxpayer dollars in their Airshow Settlement and who tried to outsource our library, transferring public taxpayer money to private for-profit companies. Why trust them with yet another poorly crafted Charter Amendment likely to create more litigation? Make no mistake, this measure will give up local control to Sacramento and let Gavin Newson's policies dictate what gets built in Huntington Beach. Voting No, maintains local control by allowing the City Council to determine development, not Sacramento. In 2018 when the Council failed to comply with State Laws and had to pay$4.5million in attorney's fees. Failure to comply comes with a cost;this measure will create that failure. It's time to restore common sense to Huntington Beach government: Vote No on Measure 1. The undersigned proponent(s) or author(s) of the rebuttal to argument in favor of Charter Amendment Measure 1 at the General Municipal Election for the City of Huntington Beach to be held on November 5, 2024 hereby state that the rebuttal argument is true and correct to the best of(his/her/their) knowledge and belief. Signed: on � � Date: Name, Title Signed: Date: Name, Title Signed: Date: Name, Title Signed: Date: Name, Title Signed: Date: Name, Title o i - c ;■t I declare,under penalty of perjury,that I am employed '—+ I C) by the City of Huntington Beach,in the Office of the Ci Clerk and that I posted this public notice on the ar* < osting bulletin board at the Civic x r Center on /. ,i., at `7J.SV a.m./07m," N C7 Date cz:i Signature enior Deputy City C rk • REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST CHARTER AMENDMENT MEASURE 1 Councilmembers Kalmick, Moser and Bolton didn't vote for this ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION for the City -and, they didn't vote to give the VOTERS A CHOICE in proposed General Plan and Zoning changes that would certainly lead to MASSIVE HIGH-DENSITY DEVELOPMENT. This is wrong! This City belongs to the people of Huntington Beach. Mayor Gracey Van Der Mark, Tony Strickland, Casey McKeon, and Pat Burns voted to give YOU, the people of this great City, this Ballot Measure so that YOU have a choice of whether the City should adopt General Plans and Zoning changes that might lead to "substantial and unavoidable" long-term or permanent damage to our environment. Of course, these plan and zoning decisions that massively and sometimes permanently impact our environment and the quality of life in our City, should involve the vote of people and are a matter of local control - not for developers or the State itself. The opposition claims there will be increased red tape and additional costs. This is not true. There is no additional cost to asking the people of the City how it should be zoned and developed -just like there was no additional cost to the fruitful fight against the State over high-density housing mandates, the City for successfully withdrawing from the OCPA at no cost, and adopting a Voter ID requirement at no cost. Vote YES on this Ballot Measure - PROTECT OUR ENVIRONMENT!!! rT1 -+ I C, c) — rn 0 r-- ' n v N n1 c-+ The undersigned proponent(s) or author(s) of the rebuttal to argument against Cktarter Amendment Measure 1 at the General Municipal Election for the City of Huntington Beach to be herd on November 5, 2024 hereby state that the rebuttal argument is true and correct to the best of(his/her/their) knowledge and belief. Signed: QADO-NDk Date: C7 1 ( 2-� Name,Title Signed: �� Clote41 /'ter Date: off/ 1 / ame, Title Signed: ./fitygedLa/c.�,�i Date: I - /•Z02 Name, Title Signed: Date: Name, Title Signed: Date: Name, Title I declare,under penalty of perjury,that I am employed by the City of Huntington Beach,in the Office of the City Clerk and that I posted this public notice on the 4IClew posting bulletin oard at the Center on I, i .. at 7=it) a.m.C� Date I ...a ir Signature i.. _ Senior Deputy e"y Clerk REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST CHARTER AMENDMENT MEASURE 1 Councilmembers Kalmick, Moser and Bolton didn't vote for this ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION for the City -and, they didn't vote to give the VOTERS A CHOICE in proposed General Plan and Zoning changes that would certainly lead to MASSIVE HIGH-DENSITY DEVELOPMENT. This is wrong! This City belongs to the people of Huntington Beach. Mayor Gracey Van Der Mark, Tony Strickland, Casey McKeon, and Pat Burns voted to give YOU, the people of this great City, this Ballot Measure so that YOU have a choice of whether the City should adopt General Plans and Zoning changes that might lead to "substantial and unavoidable" long-term or permanent damage to our environment. Of course, these plan and zoning decisions that massively and sometimes permanently impact our environment and the quality of life in our City, should involve the vote of people and are a matter of local control - not for developers or the State itself. Vote YES on this Ballot Measure - PROTECT OUR ENVIRONMENT!!! a mow. The undersigned proponent(s) or author(s) of the rebuttal to argument against Charter Amendment Measure 1 at the General Municipal Election for the City of Huntington Beach to be held on November 5, 2024 hereby state that the rebuttal argument is true and correct to the best of(his/her/their) knowledge and belief. Signed: Date: Gracey Van Derk Mark, Mayor Signed: Date: Casey Mckeon, City Councilmember Signed: Date: Pat Burns, Mayor Pro Tern pore Signed: Date: Name, Title Signed: Date: Name, Title I declare,under penalty of perjury,that I am employed by the City of Huntington Beach,in the Office of the City Clerk and that I posted this public notice on the A. h. posting bulletin board at the Civic Center . i , at 3:3o a.m./ i Date • , , Signature ,� �•'� Seller 'A City Clerk �r <,v.NTINGT�4,�\ •City of Huntington Beach �•,� %<<, %, 2000 Main Street ♦ Huntington Beach, CA 92648 " " -- s (714) 536-5227 ♦ www.huntingtonbeachca.gov `cF , ,, ��o �l Office of the City Clerk , 1 rn cot/NTY•CPS,/i Robin Estanislau, City Clerk c% co ._... I. c L- NOTICE OF ELECTION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a General Municipal Election will be held in the City of Huntington Beach on Tuesday, November 5, 2024, for the following Measure: "Shall proposed Charter Amendment No. 1, which would amend the City Charter to state that City Planning and Zoning is a local, municipal YES affair, and require voter approval of City initiated general plan amendments or zoning changes when such items present significant and unavoidable negative impacts to the environment, be approved?" NO The polls (vote centers) in will be open from Saturday, October 26, 2024, through Tuesday, November 5, 2024 (hours vary by location). For a complete list of voting locations in Huntington Beach and Orange County, visit the Orange County Registrar of Voters website at https://www.ocvote.gov/voting. Detailed information on the proposed Charter Amendment Measure is available on the City's Elections webpage at https://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/government/election info/. 4-4401 ? , Robin Estanislau, CMC/City Clerk Dated: August 8, 2024 I declare, under penalty of perjury,that I am employed by the City of Huntington Beach, in the Office of the City Clerk and that I posted this public notice on the acA/ posting bulletin board at the Civic Center on , _ ,, .. at lR:4O a.m./ .m. Date . t:/o90- d ,, ,. Signature � ... /.f/l, Senior D- •u City Clerk Sister City: Anjo, Japan dOF \\\) •N/o7s. Ciudad de Huntington Beach �= • ••''••;-� 2000 Main Street ♦ Huntington Beach, CA 92648 _ - (714) 536-5227 • www.huntingtonbeachca.gov • `r►� '' fFe ��19• *�•-`�o�� Oficina del Secretario de la Ciudad FCoUNTY OP'j/#I Robin Estanislau, Secretario de la Ciudad AVISO DE ELECCION POR MEDIO DE LA PRESENTE SE DA AVISO que una Eleccion General Municipal sera celebrada en la Ciudad de Huntington Beach el martes 5 de noviembre de 2024, para la siguiente Medida: "e:,Debera la propuesta de Enmienda No. 1 a la Carta, que enmendaria la Carta de la Ciudad para establecer que la Planificacion y Si Zonificacion de la Ciudad es un asunto municipal local, y que requiere la aprobacion de los votantes para las enmiendas al plan general o los cambios de zonificacion cuando tales elementos presenten impactos negativos significativos e inevitables al medio ambiente ser aprobada?" NO Las casillas (centros de votacion) estaran abiertos desde el sabado 26 de octubre de 2024 hasta el martes 5 de noviembre de 2024 (horario varia segun la ubicacion). Para obtener una lista completa de lugares de votacion en Huntington Beach y el Condado de Orange, visite el sitio web de Registro de Votantes del Condado de Orange en https://www.ocvote.gov/voting. Informacion detallada sobre la Medida de Enmienda de la Carta propuesta esta disponible en la pagina de Internet de Elecciones de la Ciudad en https://www.huntincitonbeachca.gov/government/election info/. trif-ffti 9,44/714,41,14) Robin Estanislau, CMC/Secretario de la Ciudad Fechado: 8 de agosto de 2024 I declare,under penalty of perjury,that I am employed I . by the City of Huntington Beach, in the Office of the City Clerk and that I posted this public notice on the 1.A Gdv posting bulletin board at the Civic Center on 77 4.5da at !a%'!O Date s7e,, 5/J Signature (4,Senior Derk Sister City: Anjo, Japan } • 11/ \\ ZPN�Tc City of Huntington Beach fri •;7A 2000 Main Street • Huntington Beach, CA 92648 - (714) 536-5227 • www.huntingtonbeachca.gov V17,y•''•. "49 o Van Phong Thu KS' Thanh Pho ; = • c :::1909..... o cp -O'N- /0 Robin Estanislau, Thu Ky Thanh Pho y;. THONG BAO BAU CU' ri QUA DAY, CHONG TOI XIN THONG BAO RANG Cuoc Tong Tuyen Cu' Thanh Pho se duac to chu'c tai Thanh Pho Huntington Beach vao Thu° Ba, ngay 5 thang 11 nam 2024 ve Du Luat sau: "Co nen chap thuan de xuat Tu Chinh An Hien Chuang So 1, trong do se si'a doi Hien Chuang Thanh Pho de tuyen bo rang viec Quy Hoach CO va Phan Vung Thanh Pho la mot cong viec cua dia phuang, thanh pho va yeu cau phai co su chap thuan cua ci' tri doi vai cac su'a doi quy hoach chung hoac thay doi ve phan vung do Thanh Ph6 khai xuang khi cac hang muc do gay ra tac long tieu cu'c Bang ke va khong the KHONG tranh khoi vai moi truang?" Cac diem bo phieu (trung tam bo phieu) se hoat dong tir thu' Bay ngay 26 thang 10 nam 2024 cho den Thu' Ba ngay 5 thang 11 nam 2024 (gia lam viec khac nhau tuy theo dia diem). De biet danh sach day du cac dia diem bo phieu & Huntington Beach va Orange County, hay truy cap trang web cua Ca quan Hang ky Cu' tri Quan Orange tai https://www.ocvote.gov/voting. Thong tin chi tiet ve Du' Luet Tu Chinh An Hien Chuang co san tren trang web Bau Cu' cua Thanh Pho tai dia chi https://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/government/election info/. 44fit, e6hVistalflAd I declare,under penalty of perjury,that I am employed Robin Estanislau, CMC/Thu ky thanh pho by the City of Huntington Beach, in the Office of the City Clerk and that I posted this public notice on the Ngay: Ngay 8 thang 8 nam 2024 t / .R►dtt. posting bulletin board at the Civic Center on i at P:y6 a.m./p.m. Date Signature Senior Deputy City Clerk Thanh Ph6 Ket Nghia: Anjo, NI-at Ban I0#�\)NT.N io ; City of Huntington Beach �1 ` •''•.:-��\ 2000 Main Street • Huntington Beach, CA 92648 "' ..s s (714) 536-5227 • www.huntingtonbeachca.gov t .; : z11 _ .7. LLC • ;e_` 0..- k,' 1 Al A-]7 A R • .iti •• <' �• —e°UNT`i 0;//I Robin Estanislau, Al Al 7l r� ., r ,----= i -`- f71. `i7i 0 Cr' oli 20241,-1 11`il SU QFgz t oElHIXl11G11ii JII IL A121/I o L171O11k1 El"L d21011 CH�E °FLH ILICF.: " Al AIII 151 �� TI viol XI o, AI of dTo'z oAl-6F�, -H o osol _ oil ` 12 11 c E of L d 7C17C1 O I Od o k QRj Oil ❑I 17d o 117E W°I o f 3 F I z T tl l� IT 0 1 L_ O O Z � O Z O T a— i_ °z'dF Al i Toi [,EL �-cl xI of hi170011 CHoF � aX1- o°Iz g�oFL Al �0E( Toi6I-LXiloi€I .ol.-Ol aE 0i.... F ill-LI»Fr °I-LIR TTEi(TrE )ail E1)- 2024,1-1 lal 26 cA �- cA T E1 20241 11`i 5 z /F2 zU MFXI `o di LI EF(DE-011 «FzF AI ,2JF XFol O10). Huntington Beach Orange 7FL EI°I `I I1I TTEZL --z 1�OI oFz1°1 Orange 7F`EI 0 zF tFEl- (Registrar of Voters) IIIA1-01 (https://www.ocvote.govivotinq)* 0 L 6F4JAI4. X1I of l o1- 7H of d°FO11 CHi5J- XFA11�F .1 t- AI°I�I L171 d'u1L0lX1 https://www.huntinotonbeachca.00v/government/election info/O1I11 IE°I z - 1A d LI CF. 424144111 9/6?1444714,14A4-) ' Robin Estanislau, CMC/AI 1171 I declare,under penalty of perjury,that I am employed ! z�F: 2024`� 8 8 z by the City of Huntington Beach,in the Office of the i a Clerk and that I posted this public notice on the i i posting bulletin board at the Civic Center on /. . . 0.. at /a:9'0 a.m6 Date .A Signature .-7:f' e. Senior Deputy ty Clerk A/o//5A/. z'-- °ET_.(Anjo, Japan) 1 /IArouringralitip TIN �! �o ?:-`� •••Gr°. '‘\ City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street • Huntington Beach, CA 26 8 I °•� ; un 9 4 (714) 536-5227 • www.h tingtonbeach a.gov ....; •�'� OF Office of the City Clerk e°UNT`i•0,\", Robin Estanislau, City Clerk NOTICE TO VOTERS OF DATE AFTER WHICH NO ARGUMENTS FOR OR AGAINST A CITY MEASURE MAY BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY CLERK NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a General Municipal Election is to be held in the City of Huntington Beach on Tuesday, November 5, 2024, at which there will be submitted to the voters the following measure: "Shall proposed Charter Amendment No. 1, which would amend the City Yes Charter to state that City Planning and Zoning is a local, municipal affair, and require voter approval of City initiated general plan amendments or No zoning changes when such items present significant and unavoidable negative impacts to the environment, be approved?" 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, accompanied by the printed name(s) and signature(s) of the author(s) submitting it, or if submitted on behalf of an organization, the name of the organization, and the printed name and signature of at least one of its principal officers who is the author of the argument, for or against the City measure. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that, based upon the time reasonably necessary to prepare and print the arguments and Voter Information Guide for the election, the City Clerk has fixed Monday, July 22, 2024, during normal office hours, as posted, as the date 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, accompanied by the printed name(s) and signature(s) of the author(s) submitting it, or if submitted on behalf of an organization, the name of the organization, and the printed name and signature of at least one of its principal officers who is the author of the argument, at Huntington Beach City Hall, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California. Arguments may be changed or withdrawn until and including the date fixed by the City Clerk. Sister City: Anjo, Japan NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that the City Council had determined that rebuttal arguments, not to exceed 250 words in length, as submitted by the authors of the opposing direct arguments, may be filed with the City Clerk, accompanied by the printed name(s) and signature(s) of the author(s) submitting it, or if submitted on behalf of an organization, the name of the organization, and the printed name and signature of at least one of its principal officers who is the author of the argument, not more than 10 days after the final date for filing direct arguments. 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 City Clerk's office for not less than 10-calendar days from the deadline for the filing of the arguments and analysis. Any rebuttal argument filed under the authority of the elections code will be available for public examination in the City Clerk's office for not less than 10-calendar days from the deadline for filing rebuttal arguments. Robin Estanislau, Elections Official Dated: July 9, 2024 0 c r 1 o-tr; m rr- aC t^ rn 7►.� f rr I declare,under penalty of perjury,that I am employed O by the City of Huntington Beach,in the Office of the City Clerk and that I posted this public notice on the Ctt brie- d_e�posting bulletin board at the "vic Center on 7- Sd at :DD a.m. .m. Date 11 y Signature Senior Deputy City clerk Sister City: Anjo, Japan CITY ATTORNEY'S IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS OF MEASURE This proposed Charter amendment,referred to as `Environmental Protection,"would require voter approval of certain general plan amendments or zoning changes in Huntington Beach that present significant negative impact to the City's environment. If adopted, this Measure would amend the Huntington Beach City Charter to add new Section 807 entitled"Environmental Protection." New Section 807 would require voter approval of City-initiated general plan amendments or zoning changes, which may include zoning changes for commercial or housing development, where the related environmental review contemplated by the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA") finds that the proposed general plan or zoning changes would present"significant and unavoidable"negative environmental impacts in the City. This Measure would also amend the Charter to expressly state that City Planning and Zoning is a"municipal affair,"beyond the reach of State control or interference, and is a local activity reserved for the City and its people,not the State. A"yes"vote on this Measure would add new Section 807 to the Charter; a"no"vote on this measure would not add new Section 807. , I declare,under penalty of perjury,that I am employed by the City of Huntington Beach,in the Office of the City Clerk and that I posted this public notice on the a-/5/de posting bulletin board at the Civ' Center on at 4-'/0 a.m. Date a • Signature enior Deputy City Clerk ARGUMENT AGAINST CHARTER AMENDMENT MEASURE 1 Vote NO to Protect Local Governance This proposed Charter Amendment has been brought to the voters by the same council majority that established a book banning committee,wanted to privatize the libraries, and negotiated a scandalous multi- million-dollar secret legal settlement that required a citizen lawsuit to be made public. Don't be fooled by the supposed concern for the environment expressed by the council members who placed this on the ballot. If they cared about our environment, the Environmental Board wouldn't have been dissolved, our Sustainability Master Plan would have been completed, and the city would have a Climate Action Plan. This measure will: Affect ALL land in Huntington Beach: A new and costly process will be required when commercial and industrial zoning needs to be changed to better meet community needs. This measure is not business friendly and will delay community improvements. Undermine Representative Democracy: We elect officials to make informed decisions on our behalf. While public input is vital, excessive referendums on technical matters risk eroding the effectiveness of our council members. This measure shifts power away from our elected officials and towards special interests. Create More Red Tape and Unnecessary Costs: This amendment imposes significant administrative and legal burdens on our city. The costs associated with organizing frequent elections and defending decisions in court will divert resources from essential services and programs that benefit all residents. Requiring elections for zoning changes and General Plan updates will cost the city millions at a time when we are facing budget deficits. Let's preserve the ability of our elected officials to govern effectively, conserve our fiscal resources and reject this Measure. The undersigned proponent(s) or author(s) of the primary argument against Charter Amendment Measure 1 at the General Municipal Election for the City of Huntington Beach to be held on November 5,2024 hereby state that the argument is true and correct to the best of(his/her/their)knowledge and belief. V Signed Date: //t40717 Name, Title fr7edti Signed: L % 41 (M1'4z_ Date: me, Title fvka- Signed. M Dr Date: 7)2-2-1 .� Name, Title Signed: Date: ``' Name, Title Signed: Date: Name, Title I declare,under penalty of perjury,that I am employed by the City of Huntington Beach,in the Office of the City Clerk and that I posted this public notice on the e' posting bulletin board at the Civic Center on at "/.'qQ a.m./67 Date Z a0 Signature [ n 1 coninr flew"ar„r;.,rl,,.L :1..nw t ANY.C� ARGUMENT AGAINST CHARTER AMENDMENT MEASURE 1 Vote NO to Protect Local Governance This proposed Charter Amendment has been brought to the voters by the same council majority that established a book banning committee,wanted to privatize the libraries, and negotiated a scandalous multi- million-dollar secret legal settlement that required a citizen lawsuit to be made public. Don't be fooled by the supposed concern for the environment expressed by the council members who placed this on the ballot. If they cared about our environment,the Environmental Board wouldn't have been dissolved, our Sustainability Master Plan would have been completed, and the city would have a Climate Action Plan. This measure will: Affect ALL land in Huntington Beach: A new and costly process will be required when commercial and industrial zoning needs to be changed to better meet community needs. This measure is not business friendly and will delay community improvements. Undermine Representative Democracy: We elect officials to make informed decisions on our behalf. While public input is vital, excessive referendums on technical matters risk eroding the effectiveness of our council members. This measure shifts power away from our elected officials and towards special interests. Create More Red Tape and Unnecessary Costs: This amendment imposes significant administrative and legal burdens on our city. The costs associated with organizing frequent elections and defending decisions in court will divert resources from essential services and programs that benefit all residents. Requiring elections for zoning changes and General Plan updates will cost the city millions at a time when we are facing budget deficits. Let's preserve the ability of our elected officials to govern effectively, conserve our fiscal resources and reject this Measure. The undersigned proponent(s) or author(s) of the primary argument against Charter Amendment Measure 1 at the General Municipal Election for the City of Huntington Beach to be held on November 5,2024 hereby state that the argument is true and correct to the best of(his/her/their)knowledge and belief. nAe Signed: au/ le!Ls f Dat° WL-O,d‘d a vd-'( Name Title Signed: Date: Name, Title Signed: Date: Name, Title Signed: Date: Name, Title Signed: Date: Name, Title ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF CHARTER AMENDMENT MEASURE 1 NEW ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS FOR HUNTINGTON BEACH: VOTE "YES" TO PROTECT OUR ENVIRONMENT AND TO ASSERT OUR LOCAL CONTROL OVER DEVELOPMENT!!! Passing this Charter Amendment is critical to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION of Huntington Beach—to protect our precious beaches, to protect our pristine wetlands and their unique wildlife, to protect against an increase in greenhouse gas emissions, to protect our groundwater supply, to protect our clean air and water, to protect our infrastructure, to protect against increasing traffic and congestion. We must protect our City from high-density over-development of Huntington Beach!!! This Charter Amendment requires City initiated General Plan and Zoning Amendments that present a "substantial and unavoidable" negative impact to our City's environment to go to a VOTE OF THE PEOPLE. With this Charter Amendment, residents will have a say in the future of the City's development, rather than simply leaving those important decisions (which have lasting impacts on our City for generations to come)to a simple vote of City Council. Some things, like this, are too important to not ask the voters of Huntington Beach for their input. By voting"yes" on this proposed Charter Amendment, the people of Huntington Beach gain the power to protect Huntington Beach's environment from rapid over-development by legislators, builders, and developers. Those who are opposed to this proposal use scare tactics and fearmongering falsely claiming that the State or State laws "mandate" high-density development, or that if the City does not comply, it will face litigation, fees, fines, penalties. From a recent outcome in the State's lawsuit against the City over high-density housing, we know this is not true. In fact, to date, no fees, fines, or penalties have been imposed on the City for failing to update its zoning to accommodate high-density development. Voters, PROTECT OUR CITY—VOTE "YES." The undersigned proponent(s) or author(s) of the primary argument in favor of Charter Amendment Measure 1 at the General Municipal Election for the City of Huntington Beach to be held on November 5, 2024 hereby state that the argument is true and correct to the best of(his/her/their) knowledge and belief. Signed: 1Y Date: 1 a' N e, Title Signed: / I4_ . .._- /' ,.��;�,u Date: lad Name, Title 'c)' g 7 2 /ZO2' ?. :, ry i Si ned Date: -C7 ame, T e I declare,under penalty of p rjury,that I am employed : ."1 -" by the City of Huntington Beach,in the Office of the N City Clerk and that I posted this public notice on the cp 106 s►G posting bulletin board at the Civ' `— Center on l/M/i i .at y VO a.m. Date mI Signature 71iiv�-� �,nir r nor.t,rlh.(lade