Newport Heights Forum -My Answers

My answer: I think few people were aware of the new number of dwelling units made possible along Mariners Mile through the "mixed use" designation assigned to many of the properties in the General Plan land use tables approved by voters in 2006.

Regarding the approved 35-unit 2510 West Coast Highway project, I thought the Planning Commission should have required the parking to be below grade, so the building height could be reduced, thereby reducing impacts from John Wayne Park.

Regarding the 150-unit plus "Newport Village" proposal for the "Ardell Properties," I think the public needs to be vigilant it is, in fact, consistent with the General Plan, and not rely on staff's interpretation of that.

The public then needs to be sure they know how many more, if any, are being added in the pending comprehensive update of the General Plan.

I believe the goal of most residents is to create a village feel for the village part of Mariners Mile. It is not clear these projects contribute to that.

My answer: Yes. I support recreational and public meeting spaces in the Newport Heights/West Newport Mesa portion of town, which is currently mostly lacking in them.

As to meeting rooms, it is hardly an ideal venue, but as I said at the forum, few people, including City staff, seem aware the City's agreement with the Newport Theatre Arts Foundation requires the City-owned and City-maintained facility on Cliff Drive to be made available for community and business meetings.

My answer: Like undergrounding of utilities, this is an issue regarding which there appear to be deep disagreements among residents.

Although one of the oldest subdivisions in the City, Newport Heights was laid with very broad streets and boulevards, only a portion of which are currently paved. The City has right-of-way available to add bike lanes and sidewalks. I believe those would improve circulation, but I don't think they should be forced on neighborhoods that don't want them.

My answer: According to Council member Brenner, the Orange County YMCA, which currently operates a facility near the Muth Center on University Drive, has approached the City with plans to move that facility to Lower Castaways -- although what may have been a Council closed session to discuss that proposal was noticed as relating to 700 Dover Drive (which is the bluff-top upper Castaways passive park) rather than 100 Dover Drive (which is Lower Castaways).

As I pointed out at the forum, some years ago, 2014 to be precise, a joint Parks, Beaches and Recreation - Harbor Commission committee was created to explore possibilities for Lower Castways, and under their direction, Dan Volz landscape architects drew up a detailed conceptual park plan. I am not sure why it was not pursued.

More recently, a team associated with Lido Isle resident Palmer Luckey suggested using Lower Castways as a dumping ground for harbor dredging spoils unsuitable for ocean or beach disposal. I do not think that is good idea.

My answer: Yes.

My answer: My understanding is the area under the PCH bridge near the foot of Dover Drive is Caltrans property over which the City has at best limited jurisdiction.

The City does, of course, have control over its parks and could, in theory, use anti-camping laws to clear them of homeless encampments. However, it can do so only if it has places for the evicted to stay, and I do not believe it has enough shelter beds currently available (all those it has are full).

In addition, according to experts, putting the homeless in shelters is doing little more than putting them in a revolving door, from which they will emerge back on the streets or in the parks. The far better solution, the say, is permanent supportive housing, making available to these unfortunate souls the care they need. I support that solution.

My answer: I assume this is a reference to the recently-approved 2510 West Coast Highway project, which, when build, will impact views of the harbor from John Wayne Park, especially at locations down the slope -- and Coastal Commission staff's failure to see a problem with it.

I agree that views are precious, and as provided as an answer to one of the questions above, I would have advocated lowering the height of that building by putting the parking, above which it sits, below grade.

My answer: I am not aware of plans to widen Cliff Drive.

I know the Circulation Element of our General Plan has long recommended increasing Pacific Coast Highway from four to six lanes.

I do not support the widening as it would likely attract more traffic, negating any gains realized.

A six-lane PCH is also inconsistent with the overarching goal of creating a cohesive and attractive walkable village.

My answer: Yes. I favor treating fractionally-owned homes the same as timeshares, which means they would be allowed only on commercially-zoned land. A study session at the September 13, 2022, City Council meeting confirmed such regulation is possible.

My answer: This is a statement rather than a question, but I agree with it.

My answer: To date, I have accepted the City's position that it would be an improvement on the current situation to bury in a pit material currently on the harbor bottom but unsuitable for disposal on beaches or at sea.

But recently, I have heard concerns that seem based not so much on environmental concerns as on the idea that use of the pit would not be made available to all potential users on a equal basis. -- in particular, not properly helping residents needing to find a place to dispose of such material. So my support would be tempered with a wish to find an equitable solution to that problem.

My answer: See preceding answer. I would want to listen carefully to those on all sides of this issue.

My answer: This, again, is statement rather than a question, but it is statement I agree with (although I do not personally know of the absence of patrol cars).

My answer: Yes. As I said at the forum, if elected I would see myself as serving as a representative for the residents rather than "residents and businesses." And when commercial interests conflict with the wants of the residents, I would side with the residents.

As to being "not opposed" to development, I do not believe in sustainability, and I do not believe perpetual growth (i.e., a constant flow of new development) is either necessary or desirable.

My answer: Yes. I support increased noticing.

My answer: Yes. But since school districts receive a much larger fraction of our property tax revenues than do cities, I would hope the school district would offer to pay part of the cost of providing the extra service.

My answer: I am not an attorney, but this appears to be a legal question that is worth pursuing. I would guess this one of the kinds of variations on uniform state law that cities are not allowed to impose, but I don't know.

My answer: I am unfamiliar with this poll, which I assume was conducted by telephone, and that sounds from the description like a "push poll."

I do not condone or plan to engage in negative campaigning, although I do believe an honest disclosure of differences between candidates is useful to voters. For example, one of the other candidates from District 3 has been on the Planning Commission for eight years. During that time items have come before the Commission that I believe required a Greenlight vote or amendments to our Coastal Plan, and spoke up with that criticism. The other candidate accepted City staff's assurances that there was no problem with the proposals. That difference between questioning and blindly accepting seems to me a key consideration for residents to weigh in deciding who to vote for.

My answer: Yes. I am very aware of this, and have commented on it repeatedly to the City Council.

We the citizens of Newport Beach have a voter-enacted ordinance requiring the City to pay the full cost of curbside residential trash collection and disposal out of our basic 1% property tax levy. Yet for some years it has been charging residents a "recycling fee" and is now limiting the amount of trash that can be collected without extra charges from the contractor, CR&R.

Despite those comments, it seems unlikely City staff has even bothered to read the ordinance, since they refer to it as "a City Charter provision," which it is not.

The voter-enacted ordinance actually assumes the residents will provide the containers in which they will put (most of) their trash, so it would not be unreasonable for the City to allow the contractor to sell the carts to residents at cost. However, they are not proposing to do that, but instead charging a monthly fee in perpetuity which has no rational connection to the cost of the container.

The Council and staff and supposed to be bound by voter-enacted ordinances, so this should not be happening, and it should not take litigation to end it.

My answer: In part to avoid such entanglements, I have pledged to self-fund my campaign and not accept contributions form anyone.

As to the candidates who do accept contributions, I think state law is defective in this regard. Appointed officials, like Planning Commissioners, are required to recuse themselves when the receive contributions, but elected officials, like Council members, are exempt from that requirement.