OC Political

A right-of-center blog covering local, statewide, and national politics

  • Custom Campaigns

    Custom Campaigns
  • DMI

  • No On Yorba Linda Recall

  • Allen for Assembly

  • Ming for Supervisor

  • Ramos for Costa Mesa

  • Bennett for Fullerton

  • Lalloway for Irvine

  • Sachs for Mission Viejo

  • Grangoff for Orange

  • Alexander for CUSD

  • Glasky for IUSD

  • Contact Us to Purchase an Ad

  • Lincoln Club of Orange County

Text of Mission Viejo’s June 2010 Measure D

Posted by Newsletter Reprint on September 7, 2012

There’s been lots of discussion and hate emails regarding the OCGOP Endorsements Committee’s recommendations for Mission Viejo City Council and the battle over Measure D.

Here’s the text of Measure D, which was on the Mission Viejo ballot in June 2010.  Read it for yourself:

SECTION 1. TITLE.

1.1. This initiative measure shall be known as the Mission Viejo Right-to-Vote Amendment.

SECTION 2. PLANNING POLICY DOCUMENTS COVERED.

2.1. After this measure becomes effective, no repeal, amendment or adoption of all or part of the following land use planning policy documents of the City of Mission Viejo may become effective unless and until the requirements of Section 4 are met:

a. The text of the Mission Viejo General Plan’s Land Use Element,
b. The Land Use Policy Map of the Mission Viejo General Plan (also called “Land Use Diagram”),
c. The text of the Mission Viejo Land Use/Zoning/Subdivision Regulations (Title 9 of the Mission Viejo Municipal Code),
d. The Official Zoning Map of the City of Mission Viejo,
e. Any Specific Plan for a geographic area within the City, or
f. Any Development Agreement granting rights to develop private or public land.

2.2. In this initiative measure the above six items are referred to as the “Planning Policy Documents.”

SECTION 3. TYPES OF AMENDMENTS COVERED.

3.1. A “Major Amendment” of any of the Planning Policy Documents means any amendment that results in any of the following changes to the development standards for any parcel of land affected by the proposed amendment:

a. Increases the number of residential units that may be constructed on a parcel designated for residential uses.
b. Increases the number of separate parcels which may be created from an existing parcel.
c. Changes any residential land use to allow any other land use.
d. Changes any non-residential land use to allow any residential land use greater than six and one-half (6.5) net dwelling units per acre.
e. Changes any non-residential land use to allow a mix of commercial and residential uses.
f. Provides for the private development of land owned by a government entity within five years of the date of the approval to develop the land.
g. Repeals any of the Planning Policy Documents.
h. Changes any commercial or industrial land use to allow any other land use, if the aggregate size of all the parcels being changed exceeds 2 acres.
i. Changes any open space land use to allow any other land use.
j. Changes any recreation land use to allow any other land use except open space.

3.2. A “Regular Amendment” of any of the Planning Policy Documents includes any amendment that is not a Major Amendment.

SECTION 4. AMENDMENTS TO MISSION VIEJO GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP.

4.1. No Major Amendment of any of the Planning Policy Documents shall be effective unless and until it is approved by a majority vote of the electorate of the City of Mission Viejo voting “YES” on a ballot measure proposing the Major Amendment at a regular or special election. The entire text of a Major Amendment and an easily readable map of the geographic area affected shall be included in the sample ballot materials that are mailed to registered voters prior to the election. The applicant may choose to have the measure put before the voters at either a special election or a regular election. Any cost of a special election shall be completely paid by the applicant requesting the Major Amendment. If the applicant chooses to wait until the next available regular election, the additional costs of adding the measure approving the Major Amendment to the ballot shall be paid by the applicant, except that the City Council may vote by simple majority to have the city pay all or some of the additional costs of adding the measure to a regular election ballot.

4.2. No Major Amendment and no Regular Amendment of any of the Planning Policy Documents shall be effective unless and until they are approved by an ordinance adopted by the City Council, but no such amendment shall be considered until a public hearing is conducted on the proposed amendment at both the Planning Commission and at the City Council in the manner provided by state law and advance notice is given as required by section 4.3 below.

4.3. No public hearing to consider an amendment of any of the Planning Policy Documents shall be conducted less than 20 days after the date a notice accurately describing the proposed amendment is sent by First-Class mail to the owners of each parcel of land, and a notice is sent by First-Class mail addressed to the occupant of each lawful unit on each parcel of land, located within a radius measured outward 1,500 feet from the boundaries of each parcel of land affected by the proposed amendment. These notices are in addition to any notices required by state law.

4.4. The notice described in Section 4.3 shall include at least all the following information in not less than 14-point type:

a. The name of the applicant proposing the amendment.
b. The total acreage of the area proposed for amendment.
c. An easily readable map of all parcels affected by the amendment, including all street names.
d. The land uses and building density currently allowed for each parcel affected.
e. The land uses and building density proposed to be allowed for each parcel affected.
f. The date, time and place of the upcoming public hearing.
g. A concise history of the land use classifications of the proposed area since January 1, 1989.

SECTION 5. THIS MEASURE AMENDS EXISTING POLICY DOCUMENTS.

5.1. Once adopted by the voters, this measure shall amend and become a new part of the Mission Viejo General Plan’s Land Use Element, and the Mission Viejo Land Use/Zoning/Subdivision Regulations (Title 9 of the Mission Viejo Municipal Code).

5.2. After the date this measure becomes effective, the entire text of this measure shall be printed within all copies of the Mission Viejo General Plan Land Use Element and also within all copies of the Mission Viejo Land Use/Zoning/Subdivision Regulations, and it shall appear immediately following the table of contents of each such document.

SECTION 6. CITY HOUSING OBLIGATIONS.

6.1 Nothing in this ordinance shall be applied to preclude City compliance with housing regulations under State law. In providing required housing, the City shall protect environmental values, enhance the quality of life of affected persons, and comply with this ordinance to the maximum extent feasible.

SECTION 7. EFFECTIVE DATE.

7.1. The provisions of this initiative measure shall become effective after it is approved at an election of the voters of the City of Mission Viejo and 10 days after the result of the election is declared by the Mission Viejo City Council, as specified in Section 9217 of the California Elections Code.

SECTION 8. PRIORITY.

8.1. Once this initiative measure becomes effective, its provision shall prevail over and supersede all provisions of the municipal code, ordinances, resolutions and administrative policies of the City of Mission Viejo which are in conflict with any provisions of this measure.

SECTION 9. SEVERABILITY.

9.1. In the event a final judgment of a court of proper jurisdiction determines that a provision of this initiative measure, or a particular application of a provision, is invalid or unenforceable pursuant to a state or federal law or constitution, the invalid or unenforceable portion or application shall be severed from the remainder of this measure, and the remaining portions of this measure shall remain in effect without the invalid or unenforceable provision or application.

SECTION 10. CONFLICT WITH OTHER BALLOT MEASURES.

10.1. In the event that any other ballot measure is proposed for voter approval on the same election ballot as this initiative measure, and that other measure contains provisions that deal with the same or similar subjects, it is the intent of the voters in adopting this measure that it shall prevail over any such other ballot measure in its entirety to the extent that this measure is approved and receives a greater number of votes for approval of the other measure. In such case, no provision of the other measure shall become effective.

SECTION 11. AMENDMENT OR REPEAL.

11.1. Once this initiative measure becomes effective, no provision of this measure may be amended or repealed except by a majority of the voters of the City of Mission Viejo voting on a ballot measure for that purpose.

SECTION 12. REQUEST FOR SPECIAL ELECTION.

12.1. In the event that the initiative petition is signed by not less than 15 percent of the voters of the city according to the last report of registration by the county elections official to the Secretary of State, a special election to approve this ordinance is hereby requested pursuant to Section 9214 of the California Elections Code.

6 Responses to “Text of Mission Viejo’s June 2010 Measure D”

  1. larrygilbert said

    Without evaluating the Measure, that I did not participate in its creation, let’s simply cut to the chase. Check the trial transcript and Judge Rodriguez’s opinion at page 129 and read lines 17-25. This is one of the areas in which Frank Ury lied to get the OCGOP endorsement stating that “the lawsuit changed only two minor words” (as reported by Chris Nguyen in his article). The bar is very high with respect to the petitioner to prevail. Frank Ury lied and that’s the current issue, not a debate on the merits of the Measure. That debate occured two years ago at the full Central Committee meeting in which two 2010 OC GOP endorsed MV candidates were asked and confirmed their voting in support of Measure D. Don’t deflect Frank Ury’s lack of integrity with this post. From what I recall hearing at the time Measure D was basically taken from an earlier voter approved Measure in Yorba Linda.

  2. Greg W said

    Thanks to OC Political for publishing the text of Measure D, a local measure Mission Viejo residents rejected in 2010. I think the Measure D issues were lost on the Endorsements Committee on Wednesday because there was too little time, and the issues were too complex for a discussion that evening. I was intimately involved with Measure D, and a strong opponent. In a nutshell, Measure D was a ballot-box zoning measure – meaning that it would have taken many of the City’s land use decisions out of the hands of the Council and required a full vote of the residents of Mission Viejo. More problematic, it would have required the applicant for a project to pay for the vote. I engaged in many debates with the Yes on D folks, and I always provided them with this example – my previous church was located in Mission Viejo. They had a school there in temporary buildings and were ultimately going to have to build a permanent school. If Measure D had passed, my chuch would have been required to pay approximately $200,000 to $250,000 just for the election in order to even have the right to ask to build a school. That is unacceptable to me. However, I think the conversation on Wednesday was focused on high density housing, and the actual import of Measure D was lost in the shuffle. City Councils were created so that duly-elected council members would make zoning and other land use decisions on behalf of the residents. If the residents are unhappy with those decisions, they either vote the bums out, or they qualify a referendum to repeal the Council action. Both of these methods are provided for under state law. While the conversation Wednesday about Measure D revolved around the golf course and high-density housing, the real impact of Measure D would have been to restrict the ability of the Council to make a decision on many significant projects in Mission Viejo.

    • larrygilbert said

      While Greg and I have had follow up discusisons on Measure D my current focus is on the dishonest response by Frank Ury to Cathy Schlicht’s litigation to change his misleading ballot document that our city clerk chose to ignore upon reading Frank’s original text that is NOT shown above. Cathy’s request to the City Clerk to challenge that original text was denied. Here again we have a problem in the FINAL text posted above is AFTER the court mandated changes. Every word in any agreement or ballot measure is critical . What if the word was vote YES and was changed to vote NO?
      As I reference Cathy Schlicht’s successful litigation let me give everyone an opportunity to read it themselves. Notice the court use of “misleading” in reference to Frank Ury’s Ballot argument. This is a pattern known by those of us closer to him over the past decade plus.

      Superior Court Case # 30-201-003527765, Dept C -27 March 29, 2010. I previously mentioned page 129 starting at line 17 which reads: “THE COURT FINDS THAT THE THIRD PARAGRAPH, THE SECOND SENTENCE, “UNDER STATE LAW”, COMMA, “IT COULD NEVER BE DEVELOPED WITH HOUSING EVER,” EXCLAMATION POINT, IS SUBJECT TO BEING STRICKEN BY THIS COURT AND FOUND TO BE MISLEADING IN THAT THE PETITIONER PRESENTED, AS ITS BURDEN, AND OFFERED THAT THE LANGUAGE WOULD–AND OFFERS AND INDICATES THAT THE LANGUAGE THAT THERE IS EXISITNG STATE LAW THAT PRECLUDES AD INFINITUM, OR WITHOUT AND LIMITATION THE DEVELOPMENT OF HOUSING WITH REGARD TO THAT AREA
      WHAT IS AND HAS BEEN SHOWN BY PETITIONER IS THAT THERE IS 4.3 OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT, ALSO THE WATER CODE PROVISIONS, WHICH THE COURT TOOK JUDICIAL NOTICE, WHICH WERE ARGUED TO THE COURT, THAT THERE DOES NOT EXIST A SPECIFIC STATUTE OR STATE LAW IDENTIFYING THE PRECLUSION IN THE MANNER THAT IS STATED IN THE LANGUAGE.

      Moving ahead to line 12 on page 130: .
      ..THAT THIS LANGUAGE UNDER STATE LAW CAN NEVER BE DEVELOPED WITH HOUSING EVER IS ONE THAT RAISES OR LOOKS TO THAT INTERPREATION AS A MATTER OF OPINION AS IT REFERENCES A SPECIFIC FACTUAL CONTEXT, WHICH IS IDENTIFICATION OF A SPECIFIC STATE LAW OR ACTUAL PROVISION ,WHICH IS NOT THE CASE. SO THE COURT WILL STRIKE ON THAT BASIS THAT PROVISION.

      WITH REGARD TO THE CONTROVERTED ISSUES IN THE BULLET POINTS, THE COURT FINDS THAT BULLET POINT NUMBER TWO, THAT THE TERM, “FORCES MISSION VIEJO TAXPAYERS PAY FOR IT,” THAT THE WORD “FORCES” IS ONE THAT THE COURT LOOKED TO DELETE.THAT IS ONE THAT PETITIONERS ARGUE AND OFFERED AS 6.1 EVIDENCE TO MEET ITS BURDEN OF PROOF THAT THAT IS A STATEMENT OF A CHANGE OF STATUS QUO AND SUGGESTS AND IN THE COURTS VIEW IS MISLEADING THAT A NEW ACTION WILL OCCUR THAT WILL IMPACT TAXPAYERS.
      AND THE USE OF THE TERM —OR THE WORD FORCES, IN THE COURTS VIEW, IS ONE THAT DENOTES A VERY POSITIVE AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION THAT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH 6.1 AND THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS ARGUED TO THE COURT. SO ONLY THE WORD “FORCES” THE COURT IS DELETING FROM THE ARGUMENT.

  3. Larry Gilbert's Long Lost Mind said

    I have to laugh. Larry Gilbert worked for and promoted Measure D, a NIMBY initiative that infringes on property rights. It was supported by his puppet, Cathy Schlicht, and opposed by Frank Ury. Nonetheless, Larry claims Schlicht is a conservative and Ury is not.

    Now Larry is trying to change the subject, but claiming Ury is dishonest due to his hyperbole, when Ury’s point is the changes were not significant and didn’t change the thrust of his argument.

    This is the same Larry Gilbert who urged support for the MacLean recall, which was run by his friends who were involved in a several illegalities in the course of qualifying the initiative and how they disclosed the financing of it — enough to justify an investigation by the District Attorney.

    This is the same Larry Gilbert urging Republicans to supprt Dale Tyler for MV City Council — the same Tyler who had been dishonestly avoiding the car taxes the rest of us pay by registering hhis vehicles out of state.

    If you Larry is going to run around accusing his opponents of being dishonest, he should take a look at his friends first.

    Or to quote Our Lord:

    “You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye”

  4. larrygilbert said

    How can any serious reader be expected to side with, or trust remarks posted by the Village Idiot who refuses to use his (or her) real name. It’s not worth much time and loses reader acceptance to debate someone who refuses to own up to his comments with hard facts when no one knows who he or she is thereby raising doubts of the authors arguement. Unless you are one of the attorneys or a member of the court staff, you were NOT in the courtroom when the Judge explained why they do permit hyperbole and deciding not to remove some of Frank’s ballot language. HOWEVER, on three points in which Cathy prevailed, he called Frank’s Ballot argument MISLEADING the voters and “stricken by this court.” I don’t blame you for hiding your identity. It’s tough blindly defending a proven liar. That’s assuming its not Mr Ury himself posting the prior comment. Notice the author’s efforts to change the topic. My remarks were based solely on false statements made by Frank Ury to the Central Committee subcomittee. Frank Ury is in the target, not myself. He is one who lied on two points last Wednesday. And lastly be careful quoting scripture.

  5. larrygilbert said

    PS: This is the first time I have been to this web site over the past few days. It didn’t take me four days to add the above response. This blog is not one that I frequent.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 990 other followers