HomeMy WebLinkAbout14 - General Municipal Election - Ballot Measure - CorrespondenceReceived After Agenda Printed
Item No. 14
July 8, 2014
July 08, 2014, City Council Agenda Item 14 Comments
The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by:
Jim Mosher ( iimmosher(awahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949 -548 -6229)
Item 14. November 4, 2014 General Municipal Election - Ballot
Measure
1. With regard to proposed Resolution 2014 -61 (Calling Election and Setting Ballot Language):
a. I believe that the ballot language (any of the three options provided in the resolution)
is deceptive and contrary to the clear intent of the residents as expressed in Newport
Beach City Charter Section 423.
i. Section 423 requests and requires that a General Plan amendment putting a
statistical area over the stated thresholds "be submitted to a public vote as a
separate and distinct ballot measure notwithstanding its approval by the
city council at the same time as one or more other amendments to the City's
General Plan" [emphasis added]. In other words, the City Council may
approve this set of amendments as a package, but the voters have a right to
be informed of, and consider separately, the changes to the Newport Center
statistical area and (separately) to the Airport Area statistical area.
ii. Combining amendments affecting different statistical areas in such a way as
to suggest traffic or development is being reduced overall when in fact they
are being increased in the statistical area being voted on (which is the entire
reason for the election), is neither contemplated nor allowed by Charter
Section 423.
b. Beyond the deceptive, and in my view impermissible, ballot language, the resolution
does not clearly indicate how those wanting to know more about what they are being
asked to vote "yes" or "no" on will find that information. I doubt it is the City Clerk's
intention to pay to print the full 197 pages of Exhibit 1 in every sample ballot, but if
not, I don't know what is being suggested.
c. As to Exhibit 1, even as one has followed this fairly closely, I'm not sure why some of
the sections in Table LU2 (pages 3 -20 through 3 -22, or 771 through 773 of the full
Council agenda packet) are highlighted in yellow and other changes are not. And
speaking of those pages, on page 3 -20, under Anomaly Number 33, shouldn't
"Facilitates" be "Facilities "? Who proofreads this stuff?
2. With regard to proposed Resolution 2014 -63 (Setting Priorities for Filing Written Arguments),
it might be noted that the similar Resolution 2012 -72 from 2012 was signed without filling in
the names specifying who was to do what. Hopefully the names will be filled in this time.
3. Under "Funding Requirements" on the second page of the staff report, I don't find the
statement "Funding has been budgeted to conduct the November 4, 2014 General Municipal
Election" very informative. The draft FY2014 -15 budget shows $100,000 of expenditures
earmarked for "elections." Is that the right number? How much of that is related to voting on
this ballot measure?