Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written Correspondence - Non-Agenda ItemsReceived After Agenda Printed X. Non - Agenda Items - Correspondence 10 -14 -14 October 14, 2014, Council Consent Calendar Comments The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( iimmosher(7a vahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949- 548 -6229) Item Xl. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON - AGENDA ITEMS Under public comment at the City Council's September 9, 2014, meeting, and again on September 23, 1 attempted, without any obvious result, to call to the Council's attention to what I believe to be a serious problem with what has come to be known as Measure Y, the citywide measure the Council ordered placed on the ballot as part of Item 11 on July 22, and the related General Plan amendments tentatively adopted by the Council as part of Item 10. Since the problem seems difficult to convey verbally, I am attempting here to explain it in writing. The problem is that two of the three numbers being presented to voters in the ballot question, and repeated in the City Attorneys impartial analysis, do not add up with anything in the full text of Measure Y or even in the larger package of changes adopted by the City Council. In particular, the ballot question promises the public a "yes" vote will increase "the number of residential dwelling units by 138 units, resulting in a reduction of an estimated 2,922 average daily vehicle trips." As the Council knows, these numbers are predicated on the assumption that 356 units are being removed from the land use plan for Newport Ridge. Indeed, the Rebuttal To Argument Against Measure Y, printed at taxpayer expense in the sample ballot and sworn to by two of the current City Council members and two former Mayors, assures the public a "yes" vote will "Remove 356 Coastal Commission approved residential units in Newport Ridge and remove 2,371 daily vehicle trips." While it is true that Attachment No. CC4 ( "Land Use Amendment and ADT Tables ") to July 22nd's Item 10 lists the removal of 356 homes from Newport Ridge, and with them 2,371 daily vehicle trips, as a potential change that had been studied in the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and which Council could include in the amendment, it appears that it, like four of the other items listed in the table, is an item the Council chose not to include in the ultimate amendment because, advertently or not, there is no indication in the materials adopted on July 22 and signed by the Mayor and City Clerk of any changes to the residential allocations in Newport Ridge or anywhere else in Statistical Area N (the 2001 annexation area). Moreover, adding to the public confusion, Attachment No. CC5 ( "Charter Section 423 Analysis — City Council Proposal ") suggests on page 10 -CC5 -5 that there may have been a proposal to add 72 single unit detached homes to Newport Ridge and remove 428 multi -unit residences for a net change of 356 units. Under the rules stated in Policy LU 5.1 of the proposed amended General Plan (Policy LU 4.1 of the present one) it is supposed to be possible to determine permissible development on any parcel by consulting the land use maps of the General Plan and the two associated land use tables. It therefore seems impossible that 356 homes could be removed (or 72 added and 428 removed) without any changes to those materials. Yet as best as I can tell, no changes are proposed, nor do I recall a map showing any specific residential changes at Newport Ridge to have been publicly presented at any time during the Land Use Element Amendment process. October 14, 2014, Council Item XI comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 2 To support this contention, I am attaching the current General Plan Land Use Map for Statistical Area N, as well as what purports to be the same map as posted to the previously linked to staff - generated web page showing the changes that result if Measure Y and the associated changes tentatively adopted by the Council contingent on the passage of Y were to go into effect. The arrows call attention to the Newport Coast Shopping Center, whose development limit is being capped by Measure Y at 200 square feet more than its existing size (which is less than would normally be allowed for a commercial parcel of this size) and the Pelican Hills /Marriot Villas resort area, which is being capped at 45 rooms more than the currently built development (which is substantially less than might be possible under the County's certified Local Coastal Program, which is, incidentally unaffected by Measure Y, although Measure Y would make the allocations in the City's General Plan inconsistent with the allocations in it). There is no arrow highlighting any changes to the subdivision or residential allotments for Newport Ridge, nor am I able to find any on close comparison of the two maps. Based on the preceding reasoning, I firmly believe the statement in the sample ballot that 356 dwellings, and with them 2,371 daily trips, are being removed from Newport Ridge by a "yes" vote on Y is erroneous, and the ballot question and impartial analysis should be corrected to read "494" where they now say "138" and "551" where they now say "2,922." 1 believe it is imperative for voters to cast their ballots based on accurate information as to the matter they are voting on. As a result, I urge the Council to schedule a special meeting to discuss this non - agenda item and develop a solution to it. Alternatively, if the preceding is wrong I urge the Council to direct City staff to point out to the public where the residential land use changes at Newport Ridge will occur, where they are referenced in the full text of Measure Y or how a "yes' vote on Y will otherwise cause them to occur. 1, for one, am baffled by the claim, which, as I said at the last meeting, in the absence of such an explanation leads me to believe Measure Y is a lie. Yet I would very much like to believe my City doesn't lie to me and my fellow voters. CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN Figure LU15 STATISTICAL AREAS N ResiaenUM NaghbwM1OWs SyleUaU�lrnla cemmee 9n0nnaf Rannnti naenee MoUntflsY]enYa - MIIple Urc anLd.n'al ® W d,ladd Fa'OennCl Uelsxe Cummaael gunrn ana comaon nagM1MnoMCmnmvicel �- come«com—1 �cea ac nnms,e" s oc ale and � aNa - nrne,da commatlel aMm DiWl= a wd, eweona cns.n a a arta Regio�loi onmmaaoiolnoe IMr .l USNCb Nq iw ., A,Daaaup0oNng DWcld uipon o r......pa" ra.ea- u:eolmm. Mnee cad w ml and eam. i =w� nsseeuravmaR.aw NEUa Semi- MEecana I ndn't -1l _jaee rnner� ®RS+n -os -- mcCyenSpec. IltlelaMf and LOrre10W lend B -ndid UrvponSmcx aiu a a N 1 -al m ITV of NEWPORT BEAD GENERALPLAN Figure LU15 STATISTICAL AREAS N wynn[m[[ec.�..�nM � wiW umro amm.a.i � wee mm. �4[reni WmmartW aa. Msfnl Gmm.�[W OT �p WgiwW Rmnwtivl nTu mamn.l wmlm Ay�l.�p'ye'n BupPodlnq wrtrl[h Sg /wpn OMaenE epq[r1q Mkee.lka wa[In. [.io�mive urv.xa I „— u[mb[aVr rovkeyu �y;`s c�ryyx.wone....n SW=lkm N LAW OFFICES OF GARY C. WYKIDAL & ASSOCIATES GARY C. WYKIDAL of Coamel JULIE A. DUNCAN October 14, 2014 Office of the District Attorney Tony Rackauckas 401 Civic Center Drive Santa Ana, CA 92701, California Mr. Aaron C. Harp City Attorney 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 �^ AP'(91n Rqq gg�2- "�3 t�l.'ytb i,viL 4�6 r. L:e aA riO.&Ba c Co7rnr Nory la -H -j� 245 FISCHER AVENUE, SUITE A -1 COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626 -4553 (714) 751 -8505 - Telefa (714) 751 -5428 gcwlaw@Rbcglabal.nea RE: Candidate Leslie Daigle's violation of the Government Code, Political Reform Act and the Newport Beach municipal code pertaining to her deceptive use of the city Seal. Dear Mr. Rackaukas and Mr. Harp, Ms. Daigle utilized the Seal of the city of Newport Beach in a mass email communication to support her election to the Orange County Water District. In a blatant campaign effort, Ms. Daigle intended to give the impression that the communication came was an official city email. The email included the following: • the official Seal of the City of Newport Beach • listed the return address as city hall, • used her phone number which is listed at city hall • included a contact link back to her city councilmember website • a picture taken from the official city of Newport Beach website. The text of the email itself blasted her opponent with negative commentary and touted why the voters should vote for her in the upcoming November 4, 2014 election. Tony Rackauckas Mr. Aaron C. Harp October 14, 2014 Page Two Violation of State Law: 1. Cal, Gov't Code §34501.5, provides: (a) Any person who uses or allows to be used any reproduction or facsimile of the seal of the city in any campaign literature or mass mailing, as defined in Section 82041.5, with intent to deceive the voters, is guilty of a misdemeanor. (b) For purposes of this section, the use of a reproduction or facsimile of a seal in a manner that creates a misleading, erroneous, or false impression that the document is authorized by a public official is evidence of intent to deceive. Ms. Daigle attempted to give the appearance through the structure of the email that it was an official city of Newport Beach mass electronic transmission. She wanted the receiver to believe that the email was coming from the City and her in her capacity as a councilmember, not a candidate for water board. Her deception was intended to bolster the credibility of her negative campaign message. 2. The Political Reform Act requires the following: that any mass mailing sent by a candidate, including electronically transmitted mass mailings. must contain among other things, the name. street address. and city of the candidate on each piece of mail and that the name of the candidate or committee is preceded with the words "Paid for by. "(Section 84305, Regulation I8435(d)(e).) Ms. Daigle intentionally omitted the required information because she wanted the email to appear as from the City; so that her defamatory negative campaigning would have more substance and be more believable. Violation of City of Newport Beach Charter (codified into the Municipal Code) 1.16.050 Use of the Official Seal. No person shall use or allow to be used the official seal of the City of Newport Beach, or any cut facsimile, or reproduction of said seal, or make or use any design which is an imitation of said seal or of the design thereof, or which may be mistaken for the seal of this City or the design thereof, for malicious or commercial purposes; or for any purpose other than for City purposes or for the purposes of any officer, board or department thereof, without the express consent of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach. (Ord. 1582 § 2, 1974) Tony Rackauckas Mr. Aaron C. Harp October 14, 2014 Page Three Ms. Daigle was not authorized in her capacity as a member of the council to send an election related email using the city Seal. Furthermore, since the email was for election purposes it could not be for City purposes. Ms. Daigle has blatantly violated the integrity of her position in the city of Newport Beach and mis -used taxpayer supported city resources. Using the city's Seal with the intent to deceive voters into thinking the communication is from the city is a violation of Newport Beach municipal code. Please let me know how you intend to investigate this matter.