Mailbag: Related, Line in the Sand offer perspectives on condo referendum

Referendum has too many errors to be valid

We engaged one of the premiere election law firms in California, Sacramento-based Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk, to conduct a review of the referendum petition being circulated against Museum House.

The firm has vast experience on more than 100 state and local ballot measures over the last two decades. Based on their findings, we believe the referendum petition should be rejected because of its failure to comply with the California elections code’s mandatory requirements.

We are especially concerned that most of the petition is completely illegible. How can people be asked to sign a petition that is unreadable? At its heart, the petition is an informational document. Our attorneys have never seen a petition that is formatted like this one, where every page is essentially scaled down to one-half or smaller of its original size. Additionally, the referendum petition does not contain the full text of the City Council’s action that is subject of the referendum.

The rules that govern the circulation of petitions in California are there for a reason. Efficiency over compliance is not a reason to skirt the laws. And we have seen firsthand how these non-compliant petitions have caused confusion and become the basis for the public being told false statements.

Plus, the Newport Beach City Council was very clear that to aide in transparency, all information should be provided to citizens being asked to sign the petition. The size of the petition was not intended to be burdensome. It was intended to literally and symbolically impart the amount of work and due diligence that went into the project’s approval by the Planning Commission and City Council.

Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk has provided a legal analysis to the Newport Beach City Clerk for their review and action on this matter.

Further, we have diligently documented many instances of both volunteer and paid “circulators” misstating facts, lying to potential signers, and attempting to generally mislead the voters. These videos, logs and statements will be submitted for review should the petition be filed.

And, finally, it is well known that a major campaign, funded by secret money, is actively working to oppose Museum House. Ironically, while citywide mailers, TV ads and other expensive activities have been used against Museum House, it seems that opponents have chosen to save money and time by not printing the petition correctly.

After four public hearings, the Planning Commission and City Council’s near unanimous approvals, we continue to stand by the facts. Museum House is 100% compliant with Greenlight, is designed by one of the world’s finest architects and brings important public benefits, including West Coast Highway landscaping, a new Junior Lifeguards Headquarters, library lecture hall and money for public schools.

Gino Canori

Irvine

The writer is executive vice president of Related California.

Museum House should have triggered Greenlight

On Nov. 29, the Newport Beach City Council approved the 25-story Museum House condo tower over the opposition voiced by several thousand residents. Line in the Sand’s plans to run a referendum putting the Museum House to a citywide vote were well known, and the way the City Council vote was structured would dictate the form of the referendum petition.

Democratic institutions work best when there is respect for the process. Councilman Keith Curry, aided by Councilman Tony Petros, made an impassioned plea to his colleagues not to explicitly structure their vote requiring the referendum petition to include 3,800 extraneous pages, but the council ignored Curry. Councilman Kevin Muldoon said that “transparency” was required, and Councilman Scott Peotter said that adding the extra pages was justified because “SPON had lied.”

My query to the council to clarify what lies had been told was met with silence, so I will speculate that the “lie” was that SPON and Line in the Sand had pointed out that there would be traffic and water impacts from the Museum House, whereas the City Council had concluded that such impacts would be insignificant.

The result of the council’s vote was a phone book-sized petition that took nine days and cost $46,506 to print. Their intent could not have been more chilling: squash Line in the Sand’s referendum before it could begin and clear the way for the construction of the Museum House. If you are looking for a word to describe this, “bully” would be a good one.

Out of the scrum of blockers, deceitful flyers and a 10-pound petition, Line in the Sand has emerged carrying the ball. We recently delivered signatures to the City Clerk for verification, far more than the required 5,800 signatures required and a clear measure of the outrage felt by residents for the totality of this process.

The Museum House will get the vote it has always deserved under Greenlight. The residents have seen an ugly side of city politics, and the city as a whole has drawn a line in the sand against over-development. Working together, we can protect our quality of life in this beautiful slice of paradise.

Susan Skinner

Newport Beach

The writer is a member of Line in the Sand and SPON.