MAILBAG - Oct. 31, 2006

Police and fire unions are ‘public interest’ groupsI take issue with anyone willing to call public safety unions and local newspapers special interest groups as Mr. Knipp did.

I was always under the impression that fire and police organizations as well as local newspapers were public interest groups, not special interest groups. There must be some confusion.

Josh Aden

Costa Mesa

Backing from firefighters and police is specialI find it highly amusing that Alan Mansoor’s supporters are complaining about “special interests” supporting Mansoor’s opponents. When it comes to special interest groups, I definitely prefer firemen and policemen to Minutemen. And I also prefer the Costa Mesa-based and Costa Mesa-enriching Segerstroms over out-of-town developer William Lyons, who supports Mansoor. All candidates represent a variety of interests, special or otherwise. Arnold Schwarzenegger learned a year ago that most voters do indeed think teachers, firefighters, and police officers are pretty special, far more special than narrow and divisive politicians.

Mark Gleason

Costa Mesa

Condo project votes were not reasonableBesides ball fields and public safety, other issues matter to the people of Costa Mesa. Put over-development and traffic at the top of my list. All Costa Mesa City Council candidates say they are against increased traffic congestion, support careful growth and respect our General Plan, but look at their voting records.

The 1901 Newport condo project is one example. Mike Schaefer, Bruce Garlich and Return to Reason member Katrina Foley enthusiastically backed this project. Garlich recently claimed the project “met all the requirements of our code.” Did it? The property was fully built out under the General Plan and zoning in place. How is it that 145 condominiums are now being built on what was the parking lot for the Pacific Federal Building, poised to dump about a thousand new car trips daily onto the intersection of Newport, Harbor and Nineteenth?

The developer’s proposal was far outside what the General Plan designated, so Garlich and friends voted in a series of site-specific General Plan and zoning amendments to allow more than 40 units per acre on the former parking lot, more than double the maximum density allowed anywhere else south of the 405; grant additional building height for a five-story parking structure; and radically increase the building intensity allowed on the bit of land left under the office building. Although the General Plan does not allow building height over 30 feet if nearby homes would be harmed by shadows or loss of privacy, the Planning Commission decided that as long as the homes across the street got as little as three hours of sun a day, it would be OK.

There’s more. The Planning Commission recommended allowing fewer parking spaces than code required. Then the project was allowed to encroach into the required setback. Even the Redevelopment Agency amended its plan to accommodate the project.

Previously, Garlich, Foley and Return to Reason backer Linda Dixon voted to double the density and traffic allotment for the Home Ranch property. Garlich and Foley also voted to put a traffic-spewing Kohl’s Department Store at the Mesa Verde Center. The Return to Reason folks don’t have any desire to return Costa Mesa to a sane, reasonable growth policy. Their philosophy: If a proposed project doesn’t conform to the rules, change the rules to conform to the project.

Allan Mansoor opposed these projects, and Wendy Leece joined citizen groups urging the council to deny excessive traffic-generating projects. Based on the record, Leece and Mansoor seem more likely to proceed with a plan that carefully manages growth, and less likely to give away the store to the next developer to come along. They show genuine concern about how new development will negatively or positively impact those of us who call Costa Mesa home.

Robin Leffler

Costa Mesa

Measure V is not a residents’ planThank you for publishing today’s letter from George Jeffries, which is a sorely needed clarification of the Measure V-Measure X stand-off. As Mr. Jeffries says, “[Measure V] is proposing major growth and being sold with misrepresentations and half-truths to defeat our residents’ proposal to approve major projects and keep our rubber-stamp City Council in check.” The public is confused, and that is the intent of Measure V’s proponents.

The claim by Measure V’s proponents, and on its sign, that it is a residents’ plan put me in mind of something I heard while on vacation in Russia this summer. Asked about planning decisions in St. Petersburg, our local guide said, “The city council holds some public sessions and then in due course the mayor announces: ‘We’ve talked with the people and here’s what they want.’ ” Echoes of this kind of cynicism now resound throughout Newport Beach.

Measure V is not a residents’ plan, it is a developers’ plan. Measure X is the residents’ plan. It has no real estate backers. Designed by the authors of Greenlight, Measure X is a plan to restore the Greenlight controls on sprawl that Measure V would abolish.

Tom Moulson

Corona del Mar

Agreement great, but fight not overThank you, thank you, thank you Newport Beach City Council; Bob Burnham; City Manager Homer Bludau; Supervisors Bill Campbell, John Moorlach, and Jim Silva; and I’m sure others who have been working hard on our behalf.

Those people just gave the gift of a better quality of life to those of us affected by the approaching or departing flight paths at John Wayne Airport. They negotiated an agreement that allows the city of Newport Beach veto power to stop any further expansion plans at John Wayne.

That is a huge victory for all the concerned citizens who have struggled for years to keep their neighborhoods from being further abused by increases in air and noise pollution. Now we have a measure of peace knowing plans for any further airport expansion is highly unlikely.

Can we all completely relax now? No! Those of us affected by the airport haven’t that luxury. There will always be people whose interests are opposite ours, who will plot and plan ways to increase the number of flights at John Wayne. Fortunately, we have dedicated officials and “watch-dog” citizens groups who will work to keep that from happening.

BONNIE O’NEIL

Newport Beach

Voters need to strike down XGreat job on your No on X editorial from Oct. 7. Newport Beach voters are faced with a very full ballot in November, and we cannot afford to have X slip through the cracks. Just as you said, Measure X is a flawed measure that will have terrible consequences for this community if it is enacted by the public.

After reading the text of Measure X, I could not believe something as simple as a room addition potentially would have to go to a citywide vote, but it was true.

No matter what side of development issues you are on, we can all agree this is a very flawed measure and can’t be enacted. I strongly recommend other Newport Beach residents read Measure X. Once they do, I’m sure they will vote no on it too.

SCOTT GOHL

Newport Beach