HomeMy WebLinkAbout21 - Museum House Referendum - CorrespondenceReceived After Agenda Printed
February 14, 2017
Item No. 21
From: Harp, Aaron
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 7:16 AM
To: Brown, Leilani
From: Roger Davisson <rcdavisson2gmail.com>
Date: Monday, February 13, 2017 at 5:42 PM
To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Museum House
Dear City Council members and City Manager Kiff,
I understand that tomorrow you will be discussing the next steps on the Museum House question.
I don't know how much discretion you have regarding the proposed initiative, but I would like to propose a way
to think about how yo handle it, if it is in your legal power.
We know the initiative process has been dogged with allegations (some proven) of misconduct and
misinformation, not limited to one side (although the misinformation is primarily the work of the project's
opponents). And it has turned a complicated issue into a political football, often with a lot of negative,
questionably accurate spin.
My assertion is that this is precisely why an issue like this is delegated to our elected representatives and their
qualified analytical staffs. We live not in a direct participatory democracy, but an elected -representative -based
one. Planning issues are a city-wide affair, with complex social, aesthetic, and financial aspects that must be
understood and weighed, often against each other.
You and the Planning Commission went through that analytical weighing process in a thorough and lengthy
process. It is simply not appropriate for that process to be reversed by an under -informed minority group of
anti-deveopment citizens who have presented, at best, an incomplete story, and, at worst, a deliberately
inaccurate set of false arguments.
If this project has to be presented to the citizenry for a vote, it will almost surely fail. The lack of most voters'
direct interest in the project will limit turnout, and the zealots will prevail. The result will be a tyranny of a
small but strident majority overcoming the rights of the Museum, the developer, the would-be residents, and, of
course, the City, which can certainly use the added revenue for pensions and other pressing needs.
Unless the law ties your hands, I respectfully ask that you take a stand against the no -growth agitators, and
reaffirm your approval of this highly meritorious project. We elected you to make the best decision for our city
and all its citizens. You did that late last year. I urge you to do it again.
Sincerely,
Roger Davisson
42 Via Burrone
Newport Coast
PS—The Daily Pilot was kind enough to print a letter I wrote them last week on Barbara Venezia's assertion
that you should rescind your approval to "hold out any hope of saving [your] seats ... in 2018." If you didn't
see it, and if you have time, I would appreciate your giving it a quick read:
It's abundantly clear that your columnist, Ms. Venezia, opposes the Museum House project. What is far
from clear is why she persists in failing to justify her position other than by repeatedly decrying the
"ugliness" of the petition process, which she bewilderingly attributes entirely to the project's
creators. Nor does she go near discussing the existential importance of the project for the Orange County
Museum of Art, nor the immense financial gain it will provide for our city. Instead, her piece cynically
argues that council members should reverse their near -unanimous approval of the project to retain "any
hope of saving their seats." What has happened to regard for fair debate and the integrity of our elected
representatives?
We've recently learned that the lion's share of the money that financed the petition process came from
the shadowy "Citizens Against High Rise Urban Towers." If you look at their website today, you'll find
perniciously false assertions that the new building would not be approved by the OC Airport, and that
"noise levels.. .would be intolerable for potential residents..." These pseudo -objections have long since
been debunked, but they remain on the organization's shoddy website, which avoids even a hint at what
the group is or who supports it. Don't we deserve to know the source of the "dark money" propounding
these lies, and supporting the project's opponents?
Opponents have raised other specious issues, which to an impartial eye look like excuses to adopt a
selfish "I've got mine, everyone else stay out" stance against any development that would provide value
to OCMA, our city, or an aspiring resident. The alleged negatives? Traffic impact (well -studied, and
negligible); turning the city into a Miami Beach/Santa Monica (nearest beach is 2 miles away); tallest
building in Newport (the most common falsehood of the hired petition -gatherers); sets a precedent for
other high-rises (development is not governed by precedent); will use too much water (104 residences
sharing a single landscaped area?) Overburdens police and fire protection (they support the project). The
bankruptcy of these alleged negatives shines a bright light on the true motivations of the anti -
development crowd.
Finally, about Ms. Venezia's comments about the "cautionary tale for developers" she believes this
whole affair represents. The Museum, and the (highly respected) developer they selected, and the
(nationally renowned) architect they jointly retained, went meticulously through the prescribed process to
design a project that met all the criteria our city's codes and Planning Commission (with its expert staff)
placed before them. They spent an enormous amount of time and money to get this right, as set out by the
rules our government has established. They paid for architectural plans, a thorough EIR, renderings, and
other descriptive materials. They offered generous financial benefits to our city. After a costly and
exhaustive process, they received unanimous approval from the Planning Commission and a unanimous,
save one, go-ahead from the City Council.
Now, some plainly false concerns have been alleged by a group of citizens, backed by who -knows -
whom. They want to override our elected representatives, and their expert staffs, who have vetted this
project at length and in depth (and mandated appropriate changes). How should the Museum and the
project's creators feel? How would you feel if this happened to a new home project you were pursuing?
So the cautionary tale instead seems to be that playing by the rules doesn't work in Newport
Beach. Incomplete information, or plain misinformation, supported by outside, dark money, can be used
to undermine the orderly, well-informed and thorough review process that a stable government promises.
Ms. Venezia thinks the Council should rescind their approval. I trust that the Council will retain its
objectivity and integrity, and continue to support a project that will greatly benefit both the Museum and
N0«LP0# BP_- ha