HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC - Public Comments.P11111 u,l� - s I ,10_0
City of Newport Beach
Proclamation
WHEREAS, the city intends to control hazards to the physical and mental health of the public; and
WHEREAS, the city intends to promote the protection of animals; and
NOW, THEREFORE, I, John Noyes, Mayor of the City of Newport Beach, do hereby proclaim that the
City of Newport Beach will continue not to display" or exploitatkw wild or exotic animals' for public
entertainment or amusement in the city, and I urge all citizens to continue to support this.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have been hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the City of
Newport Beach to be affixed this ninth day of May 2000.
`Display means to undertake any exhibition, act, circus, public show, trade show, photographic
opportunity, carnival, ride, parade, petting zoo, race, performance or similar undertaking in which
specific animals are required to perform for the amusement or entertainment of an audience. Display
shall not include the use or exhibition of animals for educational purposes by institutions that are
accredited by the American Zoological Association or by The Association of Sanctuaries.
'Wild or exotic animal means any or all of the following animals, whether bred in the wild or in
captivity, and also any or all of their hybrids with domestic species:
1. Non -human primates and prosimians (such as chimpanzees, monkeys);
2. Felids, except of domesticated cats;
3. Candids, including wolf hybrids and except domesticated dogs;
4. Ursids (bears);
5. Elephants;
6. Marine mammals (such as seals, sea lions, dolphins, otters);
7. Crocodillans (such as alligators and crocodiles);
8. Marsupials (such as kangaroos and opossums);
9. Snakes and reptiles;
10. Ungulates (such as hippopotamus, rhinoceros, giraffe, camel, zebra, deer);
11. Hyenas;
12. Mustelids (such as skunks, weasels, otters, and badgers);
13. Procyonids (such as raccoons and coatis);
14. Endentates (such as anteaters, sloth, and armadillos);
15. Viverrids (such as mongooses, civets, and genets);
16. Camels; and
17. Cetaceans.
John Noyes
Mayor
.� Q)5, � - 5 N OIo
Allan Beek
2007 Highland
Newport Beach CA 92660
May 9, 2000
Honorable Mayor and members of the Council:
There is now being circulated in the City a petition to amend the City Charter, formally known as
"Newport Beach Traffic Planning and Improvements; Traffic Phasing Ordinance," and commonly known
as " Redlight." It is. not at all clear what effect this measure would have if it were adopted. I am sure the
people signing it don't know how it works. I suspect the people who wrote it don't know how it works,
or they wouldn't have made it deliberately ambiguous. I am sure that you don't know how it works, and
that I don't know how it works. The only person who does know how it works is the City Attorney, who
understands all legal matters, but he did not address the problem in the summary that he prepared.
The problem is this: Redlight gives special status to three details of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance.
I'll pick just one of these details for an example, but the same problem applies to the other two. Redlight
amends the Charter to say, "Section 15.40.040 (F) of the TPO shall not be amended or repealed except by
a majority vote of the people of the City of Newport Beach."
So far, so good. If we wanted to change Section (F) we could circulate petitions, and if 10% of the
voters signed them, you would have to put our proposal on the ballot.
Section (F) establishes a one percent traffic increase as the trigger level for an impacted inter-
section. So we could presumably change this trigger level to, say, two percent if we thought that desirable.
Now here's the rub. Redlight doesn't stop with what I just quoted to you. Redlight also amends
the Charter to say, "That threshold is where Project trips increase the volume of traffic on any leg by one
percent or more during any Peak Hour Period."
So if we voted to change the law to two percent, the law would disagree with the Charter, because
the Charter says it is one percent. The question for the City Attorney is this: Is it OK for the law to say
two percent while the Charter still says one percent? Or must the law agree with the Charter? In that case,
we can vote to make it anything we want, as long as we make it one percent. This is rather like Henry
Ford's rule that you could buy a model T in any color you wanted, as long as you wanted it black.
This is not an academic question. If the law and Charter must agree, then the people can't just vote
on amending the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. They must also amend the Charter. And that means using a
different section of the Elections Code, writing the petitions in a different format, and getting half again
more signatures on them; a formidable job, as I am sure your signature contractor is finding.
The City Attorney's summary does not say anything about having to amend the Charter again if we
want to amend the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, so I presume it is OK for the law and the Charter to
disagree. If not, voters signing the petition are being misled. They are not being told that further
amendments to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance can only be made by amending the Charter.
This matter should be cleared up. I urge you to request a ruling on the question from the City
Attorney as soon as possible, so that the voters may make an informed decision whether or not to sign.
Sincerely, l &&