Speak Up Newport Forum -My Answers

My answer: I have been paying close attention to City Council agendas since 2009, and have spoken at and written in expressing concerns about Council actions at most of them.

One of the other candidates from District 3 has been involved in Newport-Mesa Unified School District matters for years, but this appears to be her first foray in Newport Beach City matters.

The other candidate has been on the City Planning Commission for six years.

Despite their civic involvement, a search of the City Council minutes indicates neither has ever bothered to speak to the City Council, let alone advise it or express a concern about a pending action.

To the extent I know their views on substantive issues, we certainly have different values. For example, the Planning Commissioner has seen no problem approving residential development on a property designated for visitor-serving commercial, or a General Plan amendment adding more than the Greenlight limit of development with a recommendation it does not require a Greenlight vote. I thought both decisions were wrong.

My answer: The most unique skill I have is knowing how to independently research the issues before the Council, using primarily the City's amazing online database of documents. It is a skill honed over 13 years of practice, and one that allows me to question City staff's conclusions rather than accepting them on faith.

My answer: This is the question I was asked at the forum.

My answer was and remains that Council members have no power as individuals. They can act only as part of a seven-member body making decisions at public meetings.

Success, therefore, is bringing ones colleagues around to one's way of thinking when that way results in a decision benefitting the City's residents.

My answer: See previous question. Council members govern collectively, not as individuals. And most of that governing consists of acting as watchdogs, for their fellow citizens, over proposals presented by the professional staff hired to run the government.

My answer: My most qualifying trait comes from my scientific training, and that consists of: a healthy skepticism about the information presented to me, a dogged persistence in ferreting out the salient facts to the extent they can be deduced, and a willingness to accept a result that does not match my preconceived expectation. Indeed, the cornerstone of scientific training is being constantly on the watch for the slightest observation that contradicts (rather than affirms) our current world view.

My most disqualifying traits are a pathological shyness and lack of assertiveness. However, both of those can, at times, actually be beneficial in slowly winning people over.

My answer: I expect to continue the citizen watchdog role I have played for the last decade.

My answer: As a retired person without children or wife, I expect to have as much time available as the job requires, which I expect to be a great deal. My role to date as a citizen watchdog has left little time for anything else, and being a good and responsible Council person would require all of that and more.

Every other week, Thursday night (when the agenda is released) to the following Tuesday night would be spent researching the issues to be dealt with at that week's Council meeting. Other days would be occupied attending other meetings, studying the longer term issues one knows are coming up and responding to resident concerns.

My answer: My main civic involvement is as a self-appointed citizen watchdog advocating for better and more transparent government since 2009.

I have applied to be on the Board of Library Trustees since 2009 and the Planning Commission since about 2013, but never been appointed.

I have attended SPON Board meetings for many years, but have never been a formal members.

I participated in the Line in the Sand PAC that defeated Measure Y in 2014 and the Museum House project. I served on its Board when it subsequently incorporated.

My answer: My supporters are the many people who have seen me at the City Council meetings and thanked me for saying what they think needed to be said. Many of those have said they are telling their friends and neighbors I am needed on the Council.

Many others I have never met and do not know, but I hope they are doing the same.

Quite a few people have asked to contribute money, but I have refused.

A few have asked for yard signs to advertise their support and I expect to provide them to them.

My answer: My key documents are the California Constitution, the City Charter and the Brown Act.

Beyond those, actions are obviously constrained by the Municipal Code, the Council Policies and the General Plan, all of which the Council can change if they are not serving the residents well; and our Local Coastal Program, which the Council must seek Coastal Commission approval to modify.

In considering modifications to them, I have always found it useful to consult the codes and policies of other cities.

And on specific issues, there are countless external reports and analyses that may be of interest, depending on the subject.

My answer: I am most interested in transparency and creating a welcoming environment for the citizens who wish to become engaged in their governance.

On the Council, I would try to convince my colleagues to modify their policies and protocols to increase transparency and make the meetings more welcoming to the members of the public who wish to provide input. That would include things like scheduling meetings at a more predictable and accessible hour, clearer noticing of matters to be discussed in closed session and reporting out of results from them, and providing remote access options for participating in City meetings, including those of the Council, to name just a few.

My answer: The former Council member I have the closest personal relationship with is Jean Watt. But the advice I would be seeking would likely be about how decision making takes place in Newport Beach, for much of it seems to take place out of public view, and Jean's experience of that would be from a different era.

My answer: My campaign is about volunteering to do the tedious work it takes to research complex issues and make the best decisions. But I said at the forum (for this is the question that was asked of me), I said that there are other qualities to being a Council member, and those I have most admired during my time of close watching are not necessarily the ones particularly notable for doing what I think I could do.

So I named Nancy Gardner, who I thought did an excellent job (other than presiding over Measure EE) and with whom I had a sense of shared values.

And Joy Brenner, who I have found very approachable and devoted to doing what she thinks is best for the residents.

My answer: It is the 13 years spent reading City codes, policies and agenda packets.

My answer: My campaign strategy relies on the belief that most voters will base their decision on what they read in the sample ballot.

Beyond that, I am attend all the events to which I am invited, and try to direct those interested to this website where they can explore my thinking on a wide variety of issues, including my answers to questions such as these.

My answer: Since I believe our government should generally do what the majority of residents want it to do, such conflicts should be rare.

Ideally, they would arise only when what the majority wants to do tramples on the rights of the minority. In those cases, I would tend to side with the minority and explain to the majority why that is what needs to be done.

My answer: My best tool is well developed analytical skills.

I would use those to weigh the many sides of complex issues.

My answer: "Non-partisan" actually means nothing more than that a party affiliation cannot be listed next to the candidate's name on the ballot.

But since I have never affiliated myself with any party, I am likely the least partisan of the current choices.

However, lack of party affiliation does not mean one lacks political beliefs. Should a conflict arise, I think it is the duty of a Council member to set aside their personal beliefs, and try to resolve conflicts in favor of these they have been elected to represent.

My answer: I am deeply concerned that the way City Council meetings are currently run gives the impression much, if not most, decision making in Newport Beach takes place out of public view.

Among the things that bother me are the Consent Calendar of items typically approved without any Council questions or discussion, and without viewers knowing what is being approved. I would want all items on the Consent Calendar to at least be announced, and the public be allowed to request a separate discussion and vote on any of them.

Equally disturbing are the closed session items discussed without the public knowing what is being discussed or what the outcome is. I would want to see the noticing and reporting to be improved and go beyond the bare minimum that is legally required.

My answer: Town Halls, at which City staff updates the public on what they are working on, have been held sporadically and mostly by a single Council member focusing on issues of interest to residents of the district that member happens to live in.

Given the burden holding town halls places on City staff, I would like to see them held more equitably throughout the city, perhaps every two months, rotating from district to district.

Personally, I would also want to make myself available to the public at regular "office hours" -- although I appreciate building attendance at them would be a challenge.

My answer: The most difficult question I have struggled to answer has been: why am I not accepting monetary contributions?

I appreciate many people actually seem to enjoy showing their support by contributing money to a campaign. And I appreciate many candidates feel they need money to introduce themselves to voters.

But weighed against this I sense some of those contributing may have unrealistic expectations of those they contribute to, and feel their contribution creates an obligation on the part of the candidates to treat the contributors differently from other people. I am uncomfortable with that, since I feel those elected have an obligation to, to the best of their ability, represent the whole public, not just those who voted for or contributed to them.

Additionally, I feel serving on the City Council is a tedious task candidates are offering to do for their fellow citizens, not something one would want to pay to do.

As a result, and since I have enough financial resources to fund my modest campaign, the complications resulting from the acceptance of contributions simply seems like something best to avoid.

My answer: I am "running," or more precisely "offering" to serve my fellow citizens on the City Council because I believe I have the knowledge and experience to do the job of being a Council member better than either of the other choices from District 3.

I am motivated by 13 years of seeing Council members do less than the job I would like to see them doing for me.

My answer: Engaging residents in the decisions impacting them is a far more daunting task than one might guess. But one that has to be attempted.

For those who wish to be engaged, making the Council's meetings more accessible and welcoming is important. I would hold them at an evening hour, such as 7:00 p.m., and event then, provide opportunities for remote access (such as speaking via Zoom).

But the bigger problem is knowing the wishes of the many who assume those they elect to the Council should be making decisions in their best interests without any need to be personally involved. To gauge what that large portion of the public wants, I think City staff's former efforts to communicate through mailed newsletters and surveys were helpful. I would advocate for resuming those, although with improvements in technology, a postcard linking to an online survey might be more cost efficient.

My answer: This is the question that was asked of me at the forum.

My response was that an earlier forum I had stated that if elected, I would feel it my responsibility to represent the residents, and all of them, but not "residents and businesses" (as some other candidates had suggested they would).

By that I meant I would not feel an obligation to support business when what they might wish to do conflicts with the wishes of our residents.

As a Council member, I would expect businesses to reach out to me and I would attempt to guide them to conclusions acceptable to residents. But if an acceptable result cannot be agreed on, I would side with the residents.

My answer: It is hard to imagine anyone would believe Newport Beach has not changed greatly, and continues to change.

While change is inevitable and often includes positive aspects, as a Council member I would not be allied with the idea that change and growth is either always desirable or necessary for the vitality of a community. On the contrary, I believe sustainability is more proper goal.

My answer: From my experience as a citizen watchdog, I expect doing well the job of a Council member will take as many hours as there are in the week.

As a retired person without children or a spouse, I believe I am the only candidate from District 3 with enough time to spare.

My answer: I have no political goal, other than assisting my fellow citizens in making sure their government functions for their benefit.

I believe being on the City Council would give the suggestions for better government that I have been making since 2009 far more effective than offering them as a member of the public.

My answer: As someone who lives overlooking the Back Bay from immediately above Irvine Avenue, the ongoing issues that most impact me are airport noise and traffic.

Although I believe the Council would be best served by seeking advice from completely independent citizens panels, like the boards and commissions established by the City Charter, it presently has a few consisting of a mix of Council members and non-Council members. One of those is the Aviation Committee, and I think both with my personal experience of airport noise and with my PhD in physics I would have quite a lot to contribute to it.

Regionally, I think continued participation in the South California Association of Governments is important, and the City dropped the ball by not being more actively involved in th development of SCAG's Connect SoCal regional transportation plan.

My answer: My campaign is self-funded, so I have raised no money from contributors.

Of my own money, the present Google website is free, but having an easily-recognized web address for it costs $12/year.

Additionally, I have spent about $20 copying handouts for distribution at the candidate forums.

The largest expense I anticipate is fulfilling some of my supporters repeated requests for yard signs with which to show their support. Since the minimum order seems to be 100 signs at $10 each, I expect to spend about $1,000 on that.

My answer: Charter Section 404 says only that every time there is a change in the membership of the Council, the Council must select from among those members the ones to fill the almost entirely ceremonial positions of Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem. Through policy, past Councils have decided to make new selections each years, not just when new members have been elected. That is OK. What is not OK is the positions seem to have become political plums dispensed, out of the public view, through back room horse trading.

I believe Newport Beach City Councils would be wise to modify its policy, as other cities have done, to take the politics out of these positions by pledging to fill the positions with the longest-serving Council members who have not yet held them.

My answer: Since the City Council votes unanimously on the great majority of the decisions placed before it, it is difficult to establish the presence of a voting bloc.

But there is certainly the impression that there is a "Team Newport" that votes in lock step on issues of importance to them.

My answer: I am not specifically familiar with issues in Santa Ana Heights, but I would assume they include: (1) airport noise; (2) paying for trash service that residents elsewhere in Newport Beach received, until recently, for free; (3) residential densification in West Santa Ana Heights, specifically along Santa Ana Avenue; (4) completion of the Mesa Drive horse trail, and possibly (5) revitalization of the commercial districts along South Bristol and Irvine Avenue.

The most easily addressed, next to completion of the horse trail, would be correcting the inequity in trash service. That would require either adding the area to the City's contract, or subsidizing the Costa Mesa Sanitary District for the service they currently provide.

My answer: Probably the inadequate noticing and reporting as to what the Council discusses and decides in closed session.

Although I have been speaking about it forums, the biggest issue no other candidate has been speaking about is the possibility that City staff, who have never been fans of our Greenlight voter initiative, are setting the City's citizens up for a failed Greenlight vote to approve the state's housing mandates, which could in turn lead to invalidation of Greenlight. I seem to be one of the very few people who think this vote should be avoided.

My answer: I am not a candidate for District 1 because I live well outside it, specifically overlooking the Upper Back Bay from the bluff of the first street north of the Irvine Avenue/Santiago intersection.

My answer: It is not entirely clear what portion of "West Newport" this refers to: western part of Peninsula and Newport Shores? The West Newport Mesa area north of Hoag Hospital? Or even Newport Heights?

Assuming it is the western part of the Peninsula, current issues I am aware of are: (1) Sand replenishment; (2) FEMA requirements for houses ocean-facing homes to be elevated on stilts; (3) enforcement of uses allowed around the County flood control area at mouth of Santa Ana River; as well as the perennial Newport Beach problems of traffic and parking.

I would be pleased to hear what the question submitter sees them as.

My answer: Street trees are the province of the City's Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission.

From more than a decade of attending PB&R meetings, I know City staff has shown a great propensity for recommending magnolias in City landscaping.

However, the lack of biodiversity has come back to bite with the magnolias in the Corona del Mar area becoming infested with the sap-producing but somewhat mis-named "Tulip Tree Scale" insects. I was not aware it had spread to the Peninsula, but despite the City's best efforts, the scale has proven difficult to control and impossible to eradicate.

The best solution would appear to be replacing the magnolias with other species.

My answer: In the first question, I am not sure if the author is asking about the people who lobby staff and Council members to approve projects, or about the campaign consultants hired by most candidates.

If it is about lobbyists, the current Council's efforts, under the guise of "election reform," to bring greater transparency to their efforts through a system of lobbyist registration has been an abject failure. It seems an example of regulation the Council enacted as a sop to the public without the slightest intention to follow through. Or alternatively, as example of City staff choosing to ignore laws created by the Council rather than by the staff itself.

The lobbyist registration system began in March 2020, with the intention there would be a sort of one-year trial period, after which the Council would set a registration fee and staff would begin enforcement. Two years into the program, no filing fee has been set and there has not been a single enforcement action, even though is just one lobbyist currently registered and even she provides no explanation of what she has been hired to lobby about. No one has registered in the last nine months, despite there being a constant stream of lobbyists appearing before the Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission and Council. When I bring this up at the Zoning Administrator hearings, the Administrator acknowledges there is a registration system, but tells the lobbyists they should check it out because they may be exempt. To date, not a single person has registered as a result of these ambiguous admonishments, and there is no reason they should, for they are safe in the knowledge City staff will do nothing to enforce the City's ordinance.

If the question is about campaign consultants, I do not have one, but I don't see anything unethical about candidates hiring one if they wish. However, problems arise when the campaign consultant is also a lobbyist, especially an unregistered one. In such cases, I think the candidate such recuse themselves from participating in any decision regarding a matter their former campaign manager has been lobbying for or against.

Monetary contributions create similar ethical problems.

I think the Council should adopt stronger rules requiring non-participation in decisions affecting major campaign donors.

My answer: I believe Newport Beach markets itself as a tourist destination, and does not need government intervention.

As a resident, I do not see the advantages of tourism to me.

Many claim tourism is an economic driver the tax revenue from which helps residents pay for services they want. However, the tourists create the need for many of those services.

Since the 1980's the City Council has authorized the collection of a surcharge on short-term visitors that is funneled to what was originally a private tourism-promoting organization called the "Conference and Visitors Bureau," but now called "Newport Beach & Company/Visit Newport Beach." This was originally approved on a 4:3 vote, and has since grown to a roughly $6 million dollar a year subsidy, including the City contracting for a sales effort booking conference room stays at major hotels participating in what is called the "Tourism Business Improvement District." Yet, strangely, the number of annual visitors cited -- 10 million (and apparently mostly beachgoers) -- remains the same as it was in the 1980's.

There are some indications sentiment on the Council about continuing the subsidy to Visit Newport Beach may be changing. I would not have supported creating it, originally, and my current preference would be to discontinue it.

My reasons are:

1. Although tourism generates revenue, other business activities do as well (most notably, sales tax from luxury auto sales). I see no reason for the City government to be acting as the marketing agent for one commercial interest and not others.

2. If the claims that the tourism subsidy generates net income to the City and of benefit to the residents, then the logical conclusion would be that increasing the subsidy to attract even more visitors would be even more beneficial to residents. But as indicated at the many, however much income it generates, I cannot see how a unchecked tidal wave of visitors improves my quality of life.

My answer: The question refers to three bills signed by Governor Newsom in September 2021.

SB 8 extended the so-called Housing Crisis Act of 2019 and added a needed clarification regarding its prohibition on projects that reduce existing residential density. The clarification prohibited use of what the City claimed was exception purportedly allowing removal of existing units if the end result was zero or one unit. While I do not agree with the imposition of the "Housing Crisis Act" on our City, I am equally troubled by laws that can be misread, as I think the City was clearly doing. So I object to the overall bill, but applaud the clarification.

SB 9 requires cities to allow R-1 (single family) lots to be divided with potentially up to three units constructed on each. I view this as overreach by the state government, but support Newport Beach's approach which has been to allow this activity, as required, but make it as unattractive an option as possible, including limiting the number of units that can be developed on each new lot to two.

I think the City should support the right of people who bought into R-1 neighborhoods to have them remain in their original configuration, but short of seeking the repeal of SB 9, I don't know what more the City can do.

SB 10 is bill that allows, but does not require, cities to adopt relaxed regulations for automatic approval of multifamily development. Again, this seems like state overreach to me, and I support the City's decision not to implement this.

Regarding the state mandate to plan for at least 4,845 new housing units in the next eight years, see my comments on RHNA.

My answer: I am greatly concerned about these issues, in which Council members blindly accept staff assurances that voter-enacted constraints don't apply.

Like street sweeping, according to an ordinance adopted by voters in 1959 and renewed in slightly more limited form in 1996, curbside residential trash collection and disposal is supposed to be provided as basic municipal service covered by the basic 1% property tax, and not an extra service for which fees can be collected (see my repeated written comments to the Council on this).

Unless they are invalidated by a court, the City government is bound to respect the voters' will.

I, therefore, have felt the "recycling fee" collected since the 1990's is illegal. It was originally imposed, without asking for voter approval, when the state required cities to meet recycling quotas and the Council thought residents would prefer paying someone else to extract the recyclables rather than sorting them themselves. A recent increase in the fee has made it even more problematic, for the current Council accepted staff's proposition that the ordinance applied only to "trash," not to what the state may declare to be recyclable, and so the full cost of disposing of recyclables should be passed on to residents in direct contradiction to the ordinance.

Still more recently, the current Council has accepted staff's proposition that the ordinance ensures free collection of only what the Council deems a "reasonable amount" of trash, so extra fees can be imposed. Doing any of this without having the courage to ask voters to change the ordinance is wrong.

***

As to the Newport Beach voters' right to reject, via a Greenlight (City Charter Section 423) vote, major projects requiring a General Plan amendment, City staff has a long history of going to extraordinary lengths to evade it, and the Council of blindly accepting staff's evasions. Most often staff recommends simply declaring the project to be consistent with the existing General Plan even when it very clearly is not.

Recent examples include the Council allowing the Planning Commission to approve a 159-unit luxury residential tower (very similar to the infamous "Museum House") on the Marriott property in Newport Center without amending the General Plan, in which voters had designated the property exclusively for visitor-serving commercial uses, and specifically for a hotel. Staff did not want to see a General Plan amendment because it would clearly have required a Greenlight vote, and the Council allowed it. I would not, if I had been on Council.

Currently pending is a vote on a development proposal for the Tennis Club at Newport Center (adjacent to the Newport Beach Country Club). A previous iteration evaded a Greenlight vote in 2012 by Council accepting the above trick that it did not require a General Plan amendments. Now, with still more development being proposed that clearly does require a General Plan amendment, a Greenlight vote is being evaded by claiming what happened in 2012 was a General Plan amendment (since the totality of what is now finally being added to the General Plan would clearly need voter approval, but the new incremental amount would not).

My answer: I believe short-term uses detract from the quality of life in residential areas, so I support the Council's recent action to cap the number of short term lodging permits, although in doing so I believe it has improperly created a new asset class (properties with short term lodging permits) not available to all. I think it was especially improper to make the right to a permit transfer with sale or inheritance of properties currently having one.

Fractionally-owned homes are generally not allowed to operate as short-term lodgings (without a permit), but act as the function equivalent of timeshares. I support the current Council's direction to regulate them as timeshares, which would limit them to visitor-serving commercial properties.

The additional dwelling units allowed in R-1 areas through construction of Accessory Dwelling Units or SB 9-sanctioned lot splits are similarly problematic, but since the property owners' "right" to develop them has been imposed by the state legislature, the only solution is to seek repeal of that legislation.

My answer: This sounds like a police traffic enforcement issue.

Some Council members have said that because of our Council-Manager form of government they are powerless to tell the police how to enforce the laws.

However, while it is true the Police Chief reports to the City Manager and only the City Manager reports to the Council, the Council sets the policy framework within which all City employees work, and if the Police Chief is not adhering to the policies they set, they can order the City Manager to ensure he does, and if the City Manager refuses, they can hire a City Manager who will do as instructed.

That said, the rules applicable to vehicles on public roads are generally set by the state and cities have limited ability to impose stricter rules. But their police departments can and should enforce the state laws.

My answer: Since we have "from" rather than "for" district elections, if elected my constituents would be all 80,000+ residents of Newport Beach, and I would regard it as my duty to represent the best interests of a majority of them.

Although my phone number and email address are widely available, knowing what those 80,000 people want is a daunting task.

I would make myself available to anyone or any group that wants to speak with me, and would additionally try to publicize "office hours."

And I would encourage staff to hold citywide "town halls" to collect input on issues of the day.

But such efforts have historically attracted very limited audiences, so I would try to get my Council colleagues to authorize the expense of sending occasional mailed surveys to all residents.

My answer: Since I live on the Back Bay, I was not aware Peninsula residents have been having this problem.

In response, it should first be noted that individual Council members have no powers different from those of any other citizen. They are simply part of a seven-member decision-making body that acts only collectively.

While they can direct constituent to appropriate members of the professional staff who provide services, the Council members are not themselves the service providers or even the supervisors of the service providers. But they do set the policy framework within which the City employees and contractors work for the benefit of the residents.

It is unclear from the question if the outages are believed to be due to City government activities, such as road construction, or problems with Southern California Edison's infrastructure.

If the problem is with SCE, about all the Council could do is to ask for a report from the City Manager on the arrangement by which SCE operates in the City and whether it offers avenues to put pressure on them to provide better service.

If the outages are being caused by City activity, the Council should again ask for a report from the City Manager on what activities are creating the problem, and what policy changes might be necessary to allow her to correct them.

My answer: As indicated in my response to an earlier question, individual Council members have no more power than any other citizen to direct the provision of City services. They act only collectively by making decisions at the noticed meetings of the full Council.

The issues cited appear to be at bottom budgetary ones related to the optimum allocation of a limited pool of resources. For example, what is the best mix of police patrol cars versus motorcycle officers? Or the best balance of resources deployed on the Peninsula compared to the other areas of the city?

I think it is unrealistic to believe any of the problems cited will ever be eliminated entirely. And unless new revenue sources are discovered, I think the proper balance of allocations has to be approached from a citywide perspective, not just one area.

My answer: I think the Council should pursue staff's proposal for a split boardwalk, with one path for pedestrians only and a separate path for wheeled transportation.

My answer: As explained in the next answer, I do not think this is an issue the City Council should take a position on, but my personal answer is "yes."

My answer: I personally expect to vote "yes" if Proposition 1 is as described.

At the same time I would not support the City Council taking a position either way, on this or many other issues, for I do not think it is proper for city councils to claim to be able to speak for the residents of the city they represent. In my view, the Council is elected to speak for the government as an entity, not to usurp the right of the residents to speak for themselves.

At most the Council should play an informational role, announcing their best estimate of the effects a county or state proposition will have on the operation of City government and leaving it to the residents to decide how to vote.

My answer: The Mayor of Newport Beach is a ceremonial position, in which the holder moderates the Council meetings and articulates the results of its collective decisions.

The Mayor is selected by the Council from among its members.

So the only way to sign up to become Mayor is to first seek election to the Council, after which you would have to convince a majority of your colleagues that you would be the best choice in a given year.