DISCREPENCY IN PETITION/SIGNATURE COUNTS

At the Ventura City Council Meeting of 1/14/08 an official protest letter over the missing bundle of 100 petitions (representing 310 voter signatures) was submitted for the record.   The signed testimony (under the penalty of perjury) of the ten petition counters, verifying that 10,972 voter signatures were in fact submitted to the City Clerk’s office, was submitted for the record.  VCORD has a receipt from the City Clerk’s office stating that 2,419 petitions were submitted.  Before that receipt was given, Camille Harris witnessed four people from the City Clerk’s office twice perform a careful count of these submitted petitions.  (At the City Clerk’s office these petitions were in bundles of 500, when they returned from the random sampling process at the County Elections Division they were in bundles of 100.)  From the random sample of 500 the Election Division stated that 389 were valid, qualifying the Initiative for the next scheduled election, but not hitting the mark of 15% of registered voters that would have brought the View Resources Initiative to the ballot before the Nov. 2009 election.

A later protest was also recorded that the random sample of 500 signatures was tainted because the sample is required by law to be randomly selected from all of the submitted voter signatures, with 310 signatures presently unaccounted for the validity of the sample is fatally flawed.

To address the petition/signature discrepancy the City Clerk has directed the County Elections Division to perform a full recount.  If the full recount shows qualified registered voter’s signatures surpass the 15% mark the City Council will be obligated to call a special election.

VENTURA CITY ATTORNEY REPORT ON VIEW RESOURCES INITIATIVE

The City Attorney first defined his role in this initiative process.  His pre-election role is to analyze the measure objectively.  Once the measure is passed by the voters, it becomes the City Attorney’s role to “zealously” defend the measure no differently than if it was a City Council based ordinance. 

The Ventura City Attorney defined the three steps authorized in the View Resources Initiative:

1)      Temporary 2 Year 26 foot Height Limit Moratorium on New Building (citywide except exempt areas)

2)     Establish View Resources Board to Draft General Plan Amendment View Protection Ordinance

3)     Place General Plan Amendment View Protection Ordinance on the Ballot

The City Attorney concluded the height limit moratorium was above legal reproach and is an often-used and accepted legal stopgap measure to avoid irrevocable harm.  He believes that any problems that the temporary height-limit moratorium might cause with the State Housing Law regarding Least Cost Zoning could be worked through.

Continuing the City Attorney opined that having the private public-benefit 501-C4 VCORD Board of Directors appoint the 23-member citizen-volunteer View Resources Board had questionable legal standing in that he believes that Section 700-702 of the Ventura City Charter states only the City Council has the authority to appoint a City Board.

It could be argued that the VCORD Board of Directors can appoint the community citizen View Resources Board that is authorized by this Initiative without need of any legislative power granted through the initiative power.  Or, it could be argued that just because the Initiative instructs that the City Council “shall” appoint three of the twenty-three representatives (1 City Council Member, 1 Planning Commissioner, and 1 Community Development Staff Member) it in no way elevates this community board to a City Board.   Or, it could also be argued that by passing this View Resources Initiative that the voters of Ventura are granting this one time power to use initiative granted legislative power to appoint the View Resources Board which is a necessary step in order to write the direct legislation of the View Protection Ordinance that when approved by the voters will become a General Plan amendment establishing a view protection overlay zone.  

In any case, it is the City Attorney’s considered legal opinion that it is unlawful for the VCORD Board of Director’s to appoint the View Resources Board; however it is the initiative-crafting private attorney’s opinion that it is lawful.  These differing legal opinions would have to be battled out in the court system; however, as the City Attorney pointed out, the Courts tend to be liberal in their interpretation when ruling in such cases because the Courts expect initiatives to be resolved politically.  Also there is a standard severability clause in this Initiative stating if any portion is invalid or unconstitutional it shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the ordinance.

The City Attorney had some concerns regarding the final View Protection Ordinance that will be crafted by the View Resources Board as an amendment to the General Plan establishing a view protection overlay zone, but he did not conclude that it was unlawful.  His concern centered on case law out of San Clemente where a direction to write a General Plan amendment was put forth in an initiative. He was concerned that if the final View Protection Ordinance was not written correctly it could cause problems. The Courts have said Initiatives have to be legislative—granting the ability to put direct legislation into law.

It is the intention of this Initiative to make sure that the final View Protection Ordinance will be put forth as direct legislation not as a direction for legislation.  

The City Attorney’s review was very objective and very thoughtful.  He concluded his review by saying that even if portions of the Initiative were flawed or even if there were significant drafting errors, the City Council would still be required to place it on the ballot. The law assumes defects would be addressed in good faith by the City Council and the Court expects initiative to be solved politically.

The fact that, when written, the View Protection Ordinance will be placed on the ballot for a vote of the citizens of Ventura should put most reasonable concerns to rest.  California law demands that local government trust the voters.

01/29/2008