CdM Chamber Forum -My Answers

My answer: While I fully appreciate some candidates feel large sums of money are necessary to introduce themselves to voters, and while I am aware of the U.S. Supreme Court's position that "money is speech," I have long felt uncomfortable about the intrusion of money into politics. City Council seats, especially, seem to me as a kind of time-consuming volunteer position the candidates are offering to perform on behalf of their fellow residents. I don't see it as either a commodity or position of power one should seek to buy.

I am also uncomfortable about what donors may expect in return for their payment, including unrealistic expectations that the person they helped purchase the seat will side with them on every issue that comes before the Council -- coupled the absence of any requirement for those elected in California to publicly announce they have received contributions that might influence their decisions (leaving the public to comb through past and future copies of disclosure documents, some filed months after the decision).

As a result of those concerns, and more, when I filed my nomination paper to run for the District 3 seat, I not only vowed to myself not to accept contributions from anyone else, but instead of creating a candidate controlled "committee" bank account, I filed the FPPC Form 470 indicating my intention to keep total expenditures, even of my own money, to under $2,000.

As of the date of this forum, my only campaign expenditures have been $12 (1 year at $1 per month) to associate the address "JimMosher.com" with the otherwise free Google site you are reading, and a similar expense printing handouts for the forums.

I anticipate any further expenses, including possible purchase of yard signs, to be self-funded.

My answer: I have no political consultant other than myself, and I am not running in coordination with any other council candidate or sitting or former council member.

Full question: For 65+ years, the Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce has successfully served the local business community through a variety of strategic marketing campaigns, monthly workshops, events, and forums. Additionally, the annual CdM Christmas Walk and CdM Scenic 5K have become local traditions celebrating 40+ years bringing revenue & community spirit to the city.

1) Special Event Fee Waivers

Are you aware of the rising costs billed by the city to the event organizers for city services such as police, municipal operations, permits, trash and more? AND, are you in support of the city’s current program to preserve and assist these established community events with fee waivers for city services and in a manner that keeps up with increasing costs?

2) Attendance

Have you attended a CdM Chamber of Commerce Event?

My answers:

Part 1: I am not aware of the precise costs being charged to event organizers for these City services, or how much they have increased, but I would hope they are disclosed in the Master Fee Schedule approved by the City Council.

As to waiving the fees, I favor this it allows an event providing public benefit to be held at no or low cost to participants.

The current program involves staff consolidating the requests for waivers and presenting to the Council for approval as a "Community Programs and Special Events Grants Recommendation" item, usually once a year.

I support this approach which is much better than the previous one in which the City Manager privately granted waivers on a one-off basis with no public transparency.

Part 2: At the forum I mistakenly said I had not attended the CdM Chamber events, having heard the question as being only about the Chamber's two marquee events: the CdM Christmas Walk and CdM Scenic 5K.

The host corrected my error, for I have, for years, attended some, but not all , of their Good Morning CdM meetings (formerly called their Government Affairs Committee meetings), including all their election forums since 2010 or 2012.

Also, although it was not strictly a Chamber-created organization, when the City Council sanctioned the existence of a Corona del Mar Business Improvement District, I was for years one of the very few (often, only) members of the public to attend its monthly board meetings. Although I thought their activities were being conducted in good faith, I also advocated for the dissolution of the BID because although the idea came from just a few merchants, the City Council forced all the other merchants in CdM to pay into it. I thought there should be at least majority support before everyone was forced to join.

Full question: The Airport and the protection of the Bay are 2 big issues for the well-being of Newport Residents. Focusing on the Airport, we are aware that you all oppose the airport extension.

1) Fly Friendly Program: (1 Minute)

What would be your strategy or how can you help the new “Fly Friendly Program” for private planes & general aviation?

2) Airport Agreement (1 Minute)

What do you bring to the table in upcoming negotiations for the extension of our airport agreement in 2025 and proposed final termination in 2035?

My answers:

Part 1: The well-known 1985 Settlement Agreement between the County, City, SPON and the Airport Working Group, limits the number of regularly-scheduled commercial planes and passengers, and effectively prohibits them from operating between the hours of 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. (8 a.m. on Sundays). The remaining planes, called "General Aviation" (of which, "private planes" are a subset), are regulated only by the somewhat misnamed "General Aviation Noise Ordinance," which imposes noise standards only, and allows operation at all hours (with stricter noise limits during the commercial "curfew" hours). They, including GA jets, are not limited in numbers, so one of Newport's major concerns is JWA's General Aviation Improvement Program, which will significantly increase the number of GA jets that can be stored on the airfield. A key strategy to minimize this is to correct the definition of "small aircraft" that was adopted, over the City's objections for the designated small aircraft areas. The intention was to allow only aircraft that had both a weight and a wingspan under certain limits. But it was adopted to allow ones meeting just one of those stands. Hence, if this is not correct we can expect a proliferation of heavy (and therefore, noisy) but short-winged jets.

In addition, since domestic travel rarely requires late night takeoffs or landings, but foreign travel may, another strategy is to resist the creation of a customs facility operating during those hours.

As to JWA's just-launched voluntary "Fly Friendly" program, encouraging pilots to be more conscience of the noise-sensitive residents on the ground, that is certainly a positive approach, but I would not expect any huge reduction in noise.

In addition, while rewarding those who manage to fly quieter with public attention is good, I think there should also be more public transparency as to those who continue to violate the noise standards. Many airports post the violators names. I think JWA should -- certainly when they reach the three-strikes level barring them use of the airport. If nothing else, it would allow the public to verify they have, indeed, ceased operating.

Part 2: What I bring to the table for the next extension of the Settlement Agreement is I am one of the most knowledgeable persons in Newport Beach about the details of the present Agreement -- certainly the most knowledgeable of the candidates running this year. In addition, I have a PhD in physics from Caltech, and although I did not specialize in acoustics, that still means I am one of the few people with the technical background to understand and be able to review the strengths and weaknesses of JWA's noise reporting network and independently evaluate its accuracy.

Based on that knowledge, I should correct some of my fellow candidates who seem to misunderstand the significance of the 2035 date and have been telling audiences that if the Settlement Agreement is not renewed, the curfew will end it that year. The commercial curfew has never been in the Settlement Agreement. It is, instead, along with the noise limits for commercial and GA aircraft, in the County's General Aviation Noise Ordinance (GANO), which predates the Agreement. What the current Agreement does is to commit the County to retaining the curfew portion of the GANO, unchanged, through 2035. If the Settlement Agreement were to end, the curfew would continue after 2035 and until the Board of Supervisors voted to change the GANO -- and they would likely face a firestorm of opposition if they attempted to do that, not only from Newport Beach, but the northern parts of the County impacted by arriving jets.

Full question: The State of Calif has passed a law that has required 2.5 Million units statewide of housing which doubles obligations under the previous “Regional Housing Need Allocation”. As a result, Newport has been allocated to supply 4,845 new housing units of which ½ are required to be considered affordable?

1) Do you believe there are any further legal steps to reduce this allocating, if not what is would be your solution?

My answer: Newport Beach has joined other cities in trying to challenge the RHNA process and numbers allocated to them. Given governmental agencies (including Newport Beach's) reluctance to admit past errors, I do not personally think there is enough chance of legal success to justify the expense.

As to solutions, I think it would be best to ask Sacramento to subsidize the affordable housing they want built. That would be much less impactful than relying on a semi-free market to supply the need, for the free market would require a huge number of high-priced units to be allowed as an incentive to justify offering a few at low cost.

But, as I have stated elsewhere, my greatest fear is that City staff is setting up the public to have its slow-growth Greenlight initiative declared void. This could happen if a large RHNA-compliant development plan is placed on the ballot and rejected by voters. That rejection could be challenged by the state Attorney General or by any developer. To avoid that very unfortunate possible outcome, I recommend a more cautious approach to the public vote.

Full question: It appears there is some different viewpoints on how many police Newport hires.

1) Would you increase the number of police hired? YES or NO. If yes, by how many?

My answer: I am not entirely sure if this question was an attempt to gauge our reactions to the "defund the police" movement of 2020, or the rumors that the police association is telling council members the department currently has many vacancies due to non-competitive salaries. Others have suggested the vacancies are due to retirements, with many officers finding, as a result of extremely generous "defined benefit" pension plans, that after age 50 they make more retired than working.

My answer is I don't think a council member should have a recommendation until they have heard all the facts. If the police department believes they have a staffing problem, or the public feels they are receiving inadequate service, this should be the subject of an openly-held public study session, with both the alleged problems and possible solutions thoroughly discussed.

My answer: I have addressed this question elsewhere.

In addition, I predicted that when the September 13 City Council agenda came out at 4:00 p.m. on the day of the forum, the City would be posting a response to a recent Grand Jury report on the overall approach to homelessness throughout Orange County.

That has, indeed, come to pass, and the response appears as Item 14 on the consent calendar.

My answer: The moderator did not have time to ask this question.

Based on the number of complaints lodged at Council meetings and elsewhere, the City's handling of residential care facilities has clearly not been up to the public's expectations.

The City's Planning Commission held a study session regarding this issue on the evening of the forum day and will be reviewing a staff-revised revisions to the existing ordinance on September 22.