Newport Heights Forum -My Answers

Photo by Lilly Nguyen, from her article in the Daily Pilot.

The following are my more nuanced answers to the questions asked at the September 12, 2022, candidate forum hosted by the Newport Heights at Cliff Haven Community Associations in the (very warm) Youth Center at Saint Andrews Church. Charles Klobe and Jed Robinson (pictured) moderated.

Please note that the answers provided below are those I would have given if the questions had been provided in advance and not restricted to an instant 1-minute, off-the-cuff response. They may not correspond to what I actually said on September 12.

At the actual meetings of the Council on which the candidates may serve, the topics to be discussed and the questions that need to be answered are known in advance -- usually five days in advance. Ideally, each of the seven Council members comes to those twice-monthly meetings with an initial personal response from which, at the meeting, and after hearing the other members' responses, and the public comments on them, they arrived at and approve the collective response that most accurately reflects the community's desires.

I believe candidate forums would be much more informative if they more closely aligned with this description of what the candidates will actually expected to do if elected. In other words, I believe the hosts should provide the candidates in advance with the questions their particular audience wants answered and then give the candidates an opportunity to provide a thoughtful, well-reasoned response, critique the responses they hear from the other candidates, and answer follow-up questions asked of them by the audience and other candidates.

Moderators' 1-Minute Questions

I do not have verbatim copies of the questions asked by the moderator (which were based on cards submitted by attendees), but this is by best recollection of what was asked. Click on the questions to see my response.

1. What are your thoughts on present and future proposals for residential development on Mariners Mile?

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.

2. Are you supportive of an OASIS-style community center for West Newport?

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.

3. What can be done to improve traffic and pedestrian circulation in Newport Heights?

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.

4. What should be done with the Lower Castaways site?

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.

5. Do you support stricter regulation of e-bikes?

My answer: Yes.

Additional Questions Submitted by the Public

The questions below are transcribed from the cards not selected by the moderator. They not asked or answered at the forum. Click on the questions to see my answer.

How are homeless encampments being controlled (in parks, Dover/PCH tunnel etc.)?

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.

How do you plan to protect public views from our parks as presented in the General Plan? Do you agree that a sliver of lost view is a lost treasure never to be regained?

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.

What's your position on the widening of PCH and Cliff Drive?

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.

Are you in favor of restricting fractional ownership of residential properties?

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.


For the safety of the kids we would like the bikes to be put back in the Cliff Drive bike lanes.

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


Should the City commence with dredging of the harbor under the currently approved plan to bury contaminated materials on the harbor bottom?

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.

What involvement will each of you have regarding the CAD? Whatever contaminants that cannot be disposed of in open ocean should not be disposed of in our harbor.

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

We want the bike lanes back on Cliff Drive and Irvine. It's so unsafe the way it is now. And no patrol cars to ever make anyone safe.

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).

The most impactful change on the horizon for Newport Heights/Cliffhaven is the redevelopment of Mariner's Mile. The neighbors are NOT opposed to development, but staff and our elected officials need to represent the community and protect the quality of life of the neighborhood. Are you committed to preserving neighborhood quality of life and listening to all constituents?

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.

With regards to major developments proposed (i.e., Mariners Mile) Newport Heights and Cliff Haven are never publically noticed given the distance between PCH and residential neighborhoods. Would each of you support directing staff to do so for major proposed projects?

My answer: Yes. I support increased noticing.

Newport Heights serves three public schools that floods 15th and Clay Streets with kids walking, bicycles and parents clogging 15th Street causing major traffic jams and safety issues. Would each of you support directing additional traffic patrol during peak hours?

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.

Kids riding electric bikes do not comply with basic vehicle code such as stopping at stop signs. Can City Council direct the Police Department to review citations with the Courts that either three warnings or citations will delay their drivers permit to 18?

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.

A very recent poll was emailed asking for responses that were clearly written to discredit each of the candidates. Are we to expect negative campaigning? And are any of you aware who paid for this poll?

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.

Are any of you aware that when the trash service was outsourced that any amount of trash cans and sizing were offered to residents for free. Now that a new contract has been executed wherein the City is no longer responsible for billing that additional cans beyond a bare minimum are now charged to the residents. Do any of you have an issue with this "switch and bait"?

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.

Mariners Mile is being confronted with major development proposals largely controlled by one property owner. Do you believe that accepting campaign contributions is ethical or would you excuse yourself from voting on projects if you accepted contributions?

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.