Wake Up! Newport Forum -My Answers

My answer: Yes!

I have lived here, at the same address overlooking the Upper Back Bay from above Irvine Avenue, since 1980.

My answer: Yes.

I believe e-bikes are a new mobility option that many have found attractive. Their use as an alternative to cars should be encouraged. But we have all seen examples of reckless use endangering others.

Given their ability to stop and accelerate much like a car, there is no excuse for the riders to blow through stop signs and red lights. Our police need to ticket such behavior.

Reckless behavior on the Peninsula Boardwalk needs to corrected through strict enforcement of the speed limit. As a (conventional) bike rider, I know it is difficult to gauge one's speed, and I have advocated for installation of electronic speed signage that would flash an "OVER LIMIT" warning whenever an exceedance is detected.

My answer: Yes.

I answered "yes" because I am a strong advocate of public access to coastal resources. The Balboa Peninsula was actually originally subdivided in 1902 with a vision that in addition to a central road there would be a "Bay Avenue" on what is now the harbor (back then Santa Ana River estuary) side, and an "Ocean Avenue" on the ocean side, with the private homes lining the inland sides, so the public could enjoy the views of each.

The vision for a Bay Avenue promenade has been almost entirely lost through the actions of long-ago City Councils, with public enjoyment confined mostly to street-ends.

The modern-day boardwalk on the ocean side seems but a vestige of what was planned for what is still the City-owned 30-foot wide right of way.

That said, the question was confusingly worded because there are no jetties at the present-day mouth of the Santa Ana River (which constitutes the northwestern City limit), and discussion has usually been about extending the boardwalk to the "West Jetty" at the Harbor mouth (the Wedge area).

However the question was intended, I would support extension of the boardwalk in both directions to create a continuous public bike and pedestrian path along the full length of the Peninsula.

My answer: Yes.

The western part of Newport Beach is singularly lacking in community meeting rooms and programs of the sort offered at OASIS, and to a more limited extent at the Newport Coast Community Center and at Marina Park.

The previous West Newport Community Center, originally part of a former Christian high school, was lost when the facility was leased back to Pacifica Christian High School in 2014.

The idea of a new community center, possibly with a public pool, in the West Newport Mesa area north of Hoag Hospital was floated in 2015, but died for reasons that are not entirely clear -- other than projected cost and lack of follow-through on the part of staff and the City Council.

Community centers are valuable assets contributing to the health and vitality of a neighborhoods. We are a wealthy city and can afford more.

West Newport Mesa made slightly more sense as a location when residential development was expected to extend onto the Banning Ranch property. But it still makes sense.

The Newport Heights area remains underserved. I only recently discovered that the agreement for operation of the City-owned Newport Theatre Arts Building on Cliff Drive requires it be made available for community meetings.

My answer: Yes.

This is an issue I feel passionately about.

The more nuanced answer is I favor either: (1) switching to "by district" voting, in which the voters in a district, and only they, select the representative from their district OR (2) doing away with the districts entirely.

Both would require amending the City Charter which set up the present system, starting in 1955, of all voters participating in the separate races for each of the districts up in a particular year.

My belief is that the Charter's establishment of districts was intended only to allow the creation of a candidate residency requirement, whose purpose was simply to ensure we would have geographic diversity on the Council, while citywide voting would ensure every Council member would understand that wherever they were from, they were expected to represent the whole City equally.

Since 1955, two things have gone wrong with this.

First, nearly every elected Council member sees themselves, and the staff, public and press see them, as the representative "for" (rather than "from") the district in which they live (see, for example, "yes or no" Question 11 at the present forum: "will you be holding regular town hall meetings in your District?"

This has led to the very strange situation in which the person seen as "representing Corona del Mar" is chosen almost entirely by people living outside Corona del Mar. It is as if Californians selected the US Senator from Vermont.

Second, the population of Newport Beach was less than 20,000 in 1955. It is now over 80,000 and expected to grow as housing is added.

Effectively representing the wishes of 3,000 people must have been difficult. Representing the wishes of 80,000 people is not realistic at all.

The cost of campaigning to 80,000+ is also far greater than that of reaching out to a single district.

The downside of by-district voting is that it can might lead to parochialism on the Council, with representatives not being interested or engaged in votes affecting areas outside their district.

The other extreme is eliminating the districts (and hopefully all memory of them) entirely, so that no Council member, elected citywide, becomes associated with any well-defined geographic area.

My answer: Yes.

Our Public Works staff's proposal to proceed with dredging by disposing of contaminated dredging spoils in a Confined Aquatic Disposal facility within the harbor seems like a good one to me.

The material in question is already on the harbor floor, and we have been assured that while contaminated it is not dangerously toxic. Their proposal consists of moving it from its present locations to a new and more protected one.

Not proceeding with the CAD proposal would pointlessly delay dredging, jeopardize federal funding and likely increase costs.

My answer: Uncertain.

I am ambivalent about our City's response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Our City staff regularly updated the Council and public with reports at public meetings. That was much better than some neighboring cities, such as Costa Mesa, where it appears status updates were given only to the Council in private closed sessions (under the questionably applicable banner of "Threat to public safety") and nothing was shared with the public.

Our Fire Department stepped up to provide vaccines as soon as they became available.

City staff instituted a business relief program to disburse federal funding received.

All those are good.

On the other hand, Council members frequently made pronouncements contradicting state health guidance, convened "emergency" meetings to challenge state orders and presented comments from seemingly random doctors at Hoag Hospital, who were not epidemiologists, as if they were better informed than state health officials.

I felt such actions were counterproductive, and may even have cost lives.

In addition, I understand the response to the business relief program was small, and much of the funding went unallocated.

My answer: Yes.

I see little difference between fractionally-owned homes and residential time shares, which we do not allow. And little practical difference between fractional ownership and short term lodging units, which we regulate.

I believe fractional ownership should be regulated at least as strongly as STL's.

At the November 16, 2021, study session on this subject, there was some pushback from staff as to a lack of legal authority to regulate them any differently than traditionally-owned properties. But in my experience City staff's advice is not always accurate, and as a candidate some years ago said, after staff tells the Council the many reasons why they can't do a thing, the Council should be asking how can we do it?

Our staff would seem well-advised to study actions taken in other cities to limit the proliferation of these facilities.

My answer: Uncertain.

I am aware some Council members and members of our Harbor Commission are anxious to see City staff purchase a fire boat and take over the law enforcement function in Newport Harbor, much as we previously took over administration of the mooring permits.

I have not studied this in detail, but I would assume there is a fundamental difference in that the City was paying the County Harbor Patrol to administer the mooring permits, but County funds are paying for the law enforcement services they provide.

If that is correct, changing to a City-provided patrol would appear to involve large one-time and ongoing costs to duplicate the County's existing function and then operate it.

While people often imagine they can do things better than others, I am doubtful there would be enough improvement to justify the likely very large costs involved.

Since the current County-provided service seems adequate, I would think the City could find better ways to spend its revenues.

If the City is currently paying the County for its service, or the County would pay the City for replacing them, my answer would be different.

My answer: Yes.

Our Council recently limited the number of STL permits to 1,550, in an action that was approved by the California Coastal Commission.

I think this was an appropriate action given the disruption short-term use can cause to residential neighborhoods.

On the other hand, given their newly-limited availability, I believe the Council made a grave mistake in allowing the surviving permits to be perpetually-renewable at a given address, and even transferable with sale of the property. This creates a special privilege, available to some and not to others (who could join a waiting list, but may never be able to obtain a permit).

My answer: Yes.

I am a strong advocate for public engagement, and see town halls as an essential part of that. But see my answer to Yes or No question 5: I also believe the Council members are "from district" not "for district," so each is expected to represent the entire city equally.

For the last eight years, one Council member has been holding town halls for the benefit of the residents who live in the same district she happens to, while they are held in the other districts very rarely, if at hall. To me, that does not seem fair to the residents of the City as a whole.

Since the burden of providing the Town Halls falls entirely on the paid staff, I believe the Council should adopt a policy of rotating them around the city.

Another form of outreach that has been long neglected is sending City Manager newsletters or citizen feedback surveys to all residents. The latter could be accomplished, nowadays, at less expense than it once took by means of postcard announcing a link to an online form.

My answer: Yes.

Development Agreement fee exactions, especially because of the arbitrary nature of the amount, are seen by many, including me, as a sort of government extortion. But they serve a useful purpose and are necessary to mitigate the impacts of the development.

Some years ago, I brought the state Mitigation Fee Act to the City's attention. After some initial pushback as to whether it applied, that has since produced some small measure of accountability as to the fees being used for the purposes stated.

My answer: Yes.

It would be foolhardy to think that sea level rise is not a threat to low-lying areas of Newport Beach, including Balboa Island, which is already below sea level.

While sea level rise along our stretch of the West Coast has, to date, been much less than the rise on America's East Coast, projections still show the Peninsula (in addition to Balboa Island) underwater before the end of the century.

My understanding is that the City has installed an accurate digital tide gauge in the harbor, and since knowledge of actual water levels is necessary for rational short-term planning, it would seem desirable to publicly post the data produced by it.

More importantly, the agency with ultimate control over the City's response to sea level rise will be the California Coastal Commission. The City needs to work cooperatively with them, not as adversaries. The first step is updating the sea level rise policies in our Local Coastal Plan.

My answer: Yes.

The Civic Center Park was originally conceived as a passive nature park with some low-key sculptural accents.

Its current use for the rotating Sculpture Exhibition was a bit unexpected, but has proved a well-enjoyed cultural amenity.

Two years ago, a state grant unexpectedly paid for a couple of years of it.

I believe City staff should be encouraged to continue to seek such grants, but in their absence the Council should continue to authorize the expenditures we have been making on it.

My answer: Uncertain.

I did not, and still do not, fully understand this question.

I have always thought the City's attitude toward the Banning Ranch property was a bit hypocritical. The City has covetously kept it in its "sphere of influence" and expressed an interest in annexing it if it were to be developed with tax-generating uses. But apparently uninterested in annexing it otherwise.

My understanding is that with completion of the purchase from the private owner, and with the City apparently showing no interest, it will become land managed by the state Conservation Authority.

Should the Conservation Authority invite the City to participate in the park planning, I would certainly think it should do so. But absent that, I don't see what authority the City could have to inject itself into the process unbidden.

Full question: At two recent meetings of the Chamber’s WAKE UP! Newport program, the subject of the extension of John Wayne Airport’s runways came up. In May, Supervisor Lisa Bartlett expressed her belief that if the runways were extended an additional 500 feet, larger and quieter airplanes could land that can carry more passengers. Two weeks ago, new Airport Director, Charlene Reynolds said that she was not advocating for an expansion of the airport but that the decision is up to the Board of Supervisors. What is your position on extension of the runways at John Wayne Airport and how do you intend to protect Newport beach residents from airport noise, pollution, and traffic impacts?

My answer: Like all the candidates, I am absolutely opposed to extension of the runway.

I do not know what "larger and quieter airplanes" Supervisor Bartlett may be thinking of, but I do not that the extended runway would also low older, heavier and noisier aircraft to land and depart, and there would be nothing anyone could do to prevent airlines from using them if they don't exceed the Settlement Agreement noise limits.

I have heard the impetus for Supervisor Bartlett's proposal may be Disneyland's wish to be able to fly in guests directly from Asia and other more distant locations. That would be disastrous for Newport Beach, likely subjecting us to noise levels from individual flights not seen since the 1980's.

Currently, the noise level from individual departures has been decreasing as technological improvements to the planes are made, but the number per day has been increasing, offsetting any gain. While the volume of commercial air traffic is somewhat capped by the Settlement Agreement, the number of non-scheduled General Aviation jets has been steadily increasing.

The steps to protect Newport Beach are: (1) to protect and extend the Settlement Agreement; and (2) to push back on any increases in General Aviation jet activity.

The latter includes trying to correct the provisions in the General Aviation Improvement Program leases that would allow storage of jets in the "small plane" area that are under either a weight or wingspan ratio, rather than having to be under both.

Beyond that, with my Caltech PhD in physics, I seem to be one of the few residents with the technical know-how to question, and even audit, the airport's noise reporting.

I think it is important for the public to understand the modifications to departure paths and procedures can be expected to provide only marginal relief.

The only long term hope, other than relocating the airport, is technological improvement of the fleet operating out of JWA, with the distant hope of transitioning from gas powered to electrically-driven jet turbines.

Full question: Recently, the subject of group homes has bubbled to the surface once again in Newport Beach. Some say that the City is not doing enough to regulate these homes under their existing ordinances and that perhaps we should pass more stringent laws similar to what surrounding cities have done. What is your impression with regards to the group home business in Newport Beach and how do you intend to address the concerns of Newport Beach residents?

My answer: The state may have deemed group homes to be compatible with traditional residential uses. I share the view that many are not, especially multiple ones operating illegally as integral facilities.

Newport Beach needs to continue championing state legislation that would provide stronger regulation of them.

At the same time it needs to reexamine its own regulations. At one time they were claimed to be at the leading edge of what was legally permissible. But residents have suggested the newer regulations in Costa Mesa are stronger. I recall the City Attorney saying they had merely copied ours, but comparing them, it did not appear that way to me. Newport should take a second look at its, and see if they can be improved.

Full question: Homelessness has surged over the last several years as Newport Beach and communities throughout the state grapple with the issue. The City of Newport Beach has been spending millions of dollars each year in additional staffing, hiring of outside contractors like City Net and Be Well, and placing homeless people in the Costa Mesa Bridge Shelter. However, a visit to McFadden Square, Corona del Mar, the Fashion Island bus depot and other areas spread around the City indicates that a significant problem still exists. Is this a result of not enough financial resources, not enough enforcement or something else and what actions do you propose to take to solve the problem?

My answer: Homelessness is a human tragedy, and a regional one, not an entirely localized one, that must we dealt with with compassion.

I don't find it realistic to expect the homeless to disappear entirely from Newport Beach. My understanding is that our complement of shelter beds is fully occupied most of the time, so, with no where to go, the City cannot legally force the homeless off the streets. In theory, that might mean that they could be removed with enough spending by simply acquiring more beds. But I would suspect that no matter how many beds were acquired, the vacuum would be filled by homeless from other areas moving in.

Plus, simply forcing people into temporary shelters sidesteps the fundamental problem that most homeless individuals need help of some sort. Permanent supportive housing is the only effective solution that has been suggested by the experts, but given the vast numbers of homeless regionally, even that is unlikely to make the problem go away entirely.

Beyond the frustrating search for solutions, the City's approach to homelessness emphasizes its ambivalent attitude toward public engagement.

In 2019, with considerable fanfare, the Council created a Homeless Task Force consisting of 3 Council members and 7 experts, which was required by California's Brown Act to hold all its meetings in public. However, after just five months it was dissolved because allowing the public to attend and comment was regarded as making the meetings too contentious.

The Task Force was reformed, supposedly with just the 3 Council members, which would allow them to meet privately if its sole purpose was to advise the Council as a whole. The new committee was supposed to conduct occasional public input meetings, which it never did. And it was supposed to provide its report back to the City Council by December 31, 2020, which it also did not do. Instead, there is strong evidence the original 10-member group continued to meet, illegally, as the "ad hoc committee" well into 2021.

When the 3- (or 10- ?) member committee was called out for continuing to meet after its previously announced expiration date, it was reformed yet again on March 8, 2022, as 3-member committee with a new "report by" date of December 31, 2022. The committee has never invited the public to attend any of its meetings.

As a result, homeless policy is being developed (or guided?) by an obscure group operating without benefit of public input or criticism.

While I can appreciate the committee may not want to hear criticism, that does not seem to me a healthy way to develop policy.

As a Council member, I would embrace public input, however critical, not reject it.

As a supplement to this, the Orange County Grand Jury has recently released a report on homelessness to which the City Council must respond by its first meeting in September. The response will undoubtedly be written by staff, and it seems unlikely to me that any of the Council members other than the three on the Task Force will have much influence over the direction it takes.

Full question: Crime has been on many Newport Beach residents’ minds. One only has to look on Next Door Newport or other social media platforms to read about multiple instances of bicycle thefts, stolen catalytic converters, car break ins, package theft, youth vandalism, and home burglaries. Are people’s perception of crime in Newport Beach reality or is the issue being blown out of proportion due to information they receive on their phones and computers? What is your perception and how do you intend to alleviate fear of crime in our community?

My answer: From my scientific background, I prefer to reason based on facts. My tendency would be to be skeptical of the reliability of crime statistics from any source, but especially perceptions based on social media where distortions, misinterpretations and even fabrications can become scarcely distinguishable from fact. Even the official statistics rely on reporting, which may be inconsistent. And for the most serious crimes, the numbers are so low that seeming variations may have arisen by chance.

As to alleviating the public's fears, at the monthly meetings of the Corona del Mar Residents Association, the Police Department's Watch Commander for the area reports on the statistics for the preceding month. The reports are presented in a very professional, honest, factual-sounding manner. I would think broader dissemination of reports of that sort would have a reassuring effect on most.

Full question: The State of California has been experiencing a chronic housing shortage which is partially responsible for the high cost of housing. Pursuant to the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), the City of Newport Beach was allocated 4,845 new housing units to plan for in the 2021-2029 planning cycle. Roughly half of these units are designated as affordable units. Should you be elected, the changes to the Housing Element and the General Plan will occur while you are in office. Are you satisfied with the City’s planning process to date and is it your preference that the affordable units be integrated with market rate units or be in separate housing?

My answer: The changes to the Housing Element are actually expected to be approved before the November election. The question probably meant to refer to the Land Use Element, which will need to be changed to implement the Housing Element.

As I said at the forum, separate structures for affordable housing would be appropriate in some instances, such as a senior affordable housing complex. But in other cases, such as work force housing, it would blend into the neighborhood better if integrated with market rate units.

The problem with the latter approach is that if structures contain only a small fraction of affordable units, a vast number of market rate ones will be needed to meet the lower income RHNA quotas.

As to the planning process to date, I am not happy with it.

We are on the verge of adopting a new Housing Element filled with policies written not by the people or their Council, but by staff as directed by a state agency.

And the remaining process is now being guided by a three-member General Plan Update Steering Committee. That seems far to small and non-inclusive to me.

If we indeed have to add all this housing, then it seems to me the most important thing is to do it in a way that preserves our City Charter Section 423 (Greenlight) measure. Yet staff seems moving down a path in which a Land Use Element will be presented for a Greenlight vote with no plan for what happens after, as seems likely, it is rejected. It seems likely that would cause the state to sue the City over its noncompliance,, which could, quite possibly lead to a court declaring Greenlight null and void. That does not sound like a good plan.

At the forum, I said that after the most recent GPUSC meeting, an idea had occurred to me by which the City might be able to comply with the state mandate while preserving Greenlight.

That thought was predicated on the following observations:

• The fundamental purpose of the Greenlight measure was to ensure voters have at least some say over land use planning in Newport Beach and especially amendments to the General Plan.

• The Charter section concludes with an escape valve for situations like this: "This section shall not apply if state or federal law precludes a vote of the voters on the amendment."

• Approval of a new Land Use Element will require preparation of an Environmental Impact Report, and EIR's are required to assess not only the the proposed plan, but alternatives to it.

My suggestion is:

• Direct staff to identify at least two possible revisions to the Land Use Element (a proposal and alternative, as in the EIR) adding the minimum amount of housing absolutely required by state law.

• Explain to voters that state law prevents a normal Greenlight vote, with possible rejection of all plans, but they will, nonetheless, be invited to vote, separately, on two alternative ways of complying with state law.

• Adopt the plan receiving the highest number of "yes" votes even if it is not the majority that Greenlight would normally require.

• In the future, apply Greenlight, strictly as written, to any requested deviations from voter-selected plan.

Such a procedure would give Newport Beach voters at least some say in how the state's RHNA mandate is complied with, while preserving Greenlight for continued use in the future.

Full question: The City has recently negotiated new multi-year contracts with its various labor unions locking in two percent increases for the next 3-4 years. Meanwhile, a visit to the gas station or grocery store will demonstrate that inflation is currently running at 8 to 9 percent and economists are predicting that inflation will run above two percent over the next few years as the Federal Reserve attempts to get it under control. There is talk of the City Council increasing employee labor contracts increases by one percent across the board. How would you address this problem as well as the potential for employees to leave for other Cities or jobs in the private sector that pay better?

My answer: I was quite surprised by this question because after publicly approving new agreements with all the employee bargaining units, the June 14 Council agenda contained an unexplained Closed Session Item IV.A noticed as a discussion with negotiators with all those groups. What happens at closed sessions is supposed to be kept strictly secret absent a statement by the City Attorney at its conclusion, of which there was none in this case. But most likely the employee groups knew what it was about, and either one of their members or one of the Council members must have told someone at the Chamber. Why was only the public at large kept in the dark about this? The public is invited to comment on the closed session items, but they obviously can't do that in any meaningful way when they don't know the subject that will be discussed.

In answer to the question, I support paying City employees a fair wage, and if inflation is eating away at what was previously agreed to, that needs to be corrected.

That said, I believe our employees are very well paid, especially those in "safety" positions, and I don't see them fleeing for jobs at other cities or in the private sector. My understanding is, as an example, we turn away hundreds of applicants for openings as fire fighters. Just as it is an attractive city to live in, Newport Beach is an attractive City to work for, and the defined benefit retirement program is better than anything offered by private companies.

Follow-up: A few hours after this forum concluded, the City posted the agenda for the August 23 City Council meeting which included an Item 3 on the consent calendar, recommending approval to increase the previously agreed to 2% in each of the three coming years to 3%.

There is rarely any Council comment on consent calendar items, but in this case, Mayor Kevin Muldoon asked the City Manager for a brief explanation, after which Mayor Muldoon said (see video at 1:52:10) he wanted to emphasize the complete transparency with which the City had approached the employees' request for raises: the proposed increases had been reviewed and recommended by the Council's "labor group" also known as their "labor subcommittee" (Council members O'Neill, Blom and Dixon) and unanimously approved by the full Council at an earlier closed session.

Among the problems with this:

1. The public did not know the Council had a "labor subcommittee," let alone that they were meeting or considering a request for employee salary increases. Hence he public had no opportunity to provide input to them .

2. Even now, the public does not know how the "labor subcommittee"'s members were chosen or by whom.

3. The public was not told the subject of the closed session, so, again, had no chance to provide input.

4. No announcement was made at the end of the closed session, so the public was unaware any decision had been made, let alone who voted for it.

Whatever the merit (or lack of merit) of the pay raises, it is hard to see why the Mayor would hold up as an example of "complete transparency" the public affirmation of a decision pre-decided in private.

Full question: The San Clemente City Council recently met to discuss a resolution declaring San Clemente a “Sanctuary for Life” and banning permitting or zoning which would allow abortion facilities. Without addressing the abortion issue, if you are elected, what is your position on using your office to advance causes or issues that are not within the purview of the City to regulate or control?

My answer: I have been strongly and consistency against our City Council adopting resolutions on matters they have no power to legislate on, such as child marriage.

It is completely inconsistent with my idea of the limited role for which Council members are elected: namely, to oversee, on behalf of their fellow citizens, the management of the our professionally-run municipal corporation, and to decide the matters their policies require the staff to bring to them for a vote.

I am also opposed to City Council's adopting resolutions taking a position on state or county ballot measures. I believe that at most they should adopt informational findings about the effects such measures would have on the operation of the City government, and leave it to the voters to decide if they should vote yes or no because of that.

Full question: This past Tuesday the Costa Mesa City Council on a 6-1 vote agreed to place a measure on the ballot that would amend its 2016 Measure Y limits on development in specified areas within the City to take them out of City-wide voting requirements for approval of new projects. Over two decades ago, Newport Beach voters approved a slow growth ballot measure similar to Measure Y, commonly referred to as Greenlight. Do you think that the Greenlight measures passed by the voters have served us well or would you favor changes to Greenlight to facilitate development in Newport Beach?

My answer: See answer to Question 5, above.

I am one of the staunchest supporters of Greenlight, which I believe has served the public well since its adoption in 2000.

Greenlight's entire purpose is to limit physical development in the City, much as the Settlement Agreement is intended to limit airport growth. I do not believe growth is an inherently good thing, Greenlight is not a "no growth" measure, but rather a "slow growth" one. I would not favor changes to facilitate more or more rapid development.

Full question: On June 6, Newport Beach voters were asked by a majority vote of the City Council to vote on Measure B which would have made significant changes our City Charter with regard to how we elect a Mayor and the duties of the Mayor. One of the claims by the residents opposed to Measure B was that this issue had not been previously discussed when the proponents of Measure B ran for City Council. Do you anticipate any needed changes to our City Charter and if so, what would they be?

My answer: Probably yes.

I believe the Mayor's role is, and should be, purely ceremonial: acting as the moderator at the meetings, and the spokesperson for the Council, articulating the majority's views, not their own personal ones.

The City Charter is the people's document dictating what our government can and cannot do. Section 404 currently empowers the Council to select the Mayor, and requires they reconsider their selection every time a new Council member is seated, which is typically once every two years.

Past Council's have adopted a policy whereby the selection is reconsidered every December (twice as often as the people require in the Charter).

The process is rife with backroom deal making and Brown Act violations as members jockey to get four votes supporting them.

I would like to see the Council replace that with a policy adopted by some other cities of strict annual rotation based on seniority: the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem positions would be offered, with right of refusal, to the longest-serving Council members who had not previously held the positions. This would eliminate the backroom politics and ensure the meetings are presided over by someone familiar with how they are conducted.

Adopting such a policy would not require any change to the Charter.

However, if the Council is unwilling to institute such a policy, or the public is afraid future Councils will not follow it, then the voters can force it on the Council by amending Section 404.

Measure B also raised questions about who should have the power to set the Council agendas, something our Charter is currently silent about.

The Council currently has, by policy, a "rule of three" requiring at least three Council members to agree to put an item on the agenda. Measure B proposed giving a special agenda setting power to the Mayor, superseding even that of the City Manager.

I don't think either of these promotes good and open government. Not only does the "rule of three" invite Brown Act violations, but in Anaheim, the "rule of three" has been cited as a major contributor to the recent scandal over the proposed sale of Angel Stadium: the Council members who wanted to publicly question the deal were unable to get the three votes necessary to agendize it for discussion.

I recommend changing the policy to allow any Council member to place an item on a future agenda.

Again, changing the policy would not require changing the Charter, but if the Council is unwilling, or the public fears future Councils reneging, then amending the Charter to include such a policy would be the only way of requiring them to follow it.

Full question: The current General Plan allows for a significant increase in the number of housing units and commercial development in the Mariner’s Mile area of Newport Beach. We have already seen one highly dense development approved by the City Council with several others in various planning stages. How do you intend to protect Newport Beach residents and business owners from intensification of development on this corridor with regard to traffic, noise and view impacts?

My answer: The ultimate protection from over-intensification is the people's Greenlight initiative, which requires voter approval of major additions to the General Plan.

Voters wittingly or unwittingly approved increases in the Mariners Mile area, which they may not have approved if presented with the choice individually, when, in 2006, with a single vote they approved a comprehensive set of land use changes for all parts of the City.

One aspect of the 2006 General Plan that staff has never adequately implemented was, and is, a requirement to publish up-to-date information on the amount of development that could be added in each area without amending the Plan. Absent that information, it is difficult to know how much further intensification is likely. But even if the numbers were known, Greenlight authorizes the Council to add a certain amount every 10 years without further voter approval. So it is always a problem.

The immediate solution, then, is to use the Council's discretionary latitude to reject proposals that will have objectionable impacts. At least in my view, that is what Council members are elected to do on behalf of the people they represent.