MAILBAG:City Hall needs a more centralized location

Newport Beach has a clear and understandable problem. Our City Hall, built around 1949, has, after almost 60 years of major growth in this city, become too small to allow our city staff and leadership to serve the public in an efficient and effective way.

The existing City Hall has the typical associated problems of parking, access, limited public meeting space and an unacceptably crowded workplace environment. We need an appropriate City Hall at a more centralized location.

Several alternate sites have been considered and for various legitimate reasons have been found unacceptable.

Solution: Bill Ficker, world-class architect, yachtsman and former Newport Beach Citizen of the Year, proposes an alternate site and, in effect, is told by the City Council majority, “We don’t want to hear about it.”

What is going on here?

How can this city, which has just gone through a general planning exercise that involved hundreds of residents and professionals and was absolutely transparent and successful in every way, now choose to dismiss a promising City Hall proposal by one of its leading citizens with the back of its hand?

I have been in the building and development business for more than 60 years, and my company has built in more than 50 communities in California and Hawaii, certainly including Newport Beach. I cannot remember a single time when a city, county or state agency denied us a hearing on what we wanted to do on a certain piece of property. Obviously, we had to advocate our position very strenuously, but always — always — they allowed us a public hearing so that all sides of the argument could be presented. Through negotiations, we were usually able to arrive at decisions that benefited all sides.

Now we hear the decision on this matter was made long before it was brought to the City Council, so don’t bother us with the facts!

Here are some of the facts that would become apparent with a legitimate council and public review:

The location is more central and better serves our community.

The land is owned by the city, so it is available to us at no cost.

The views of the closest neighbors, across MacArthur Boulevard, would not be impacted in any way.

City open space is not endangered since the existing city site will offer a much-needed park and community meeting place (and speaking of open space.

Let’s remember that recreational area in the city, which includes beaches, 58 parks, the bay and the harbor, amounts to 26.54 square miles of our total 50.5 square miles within the city limits; that is about 52% open space).

In other words, half of the city is open space!

And finally, let’s recognize that it is an exceptionally appropriate and representative site for Newport Beach’s central focus-ocean views, open space, walking trails and a place for native plants and landscaping.

These are not insignificant community benefits.

As a taxpayer and long-time resident, all I am asking for is a chance for the public to participate in this decision-making process which that will impact us for another 60 years. What is wrong with that?

BILL LUSK

HOW TO GET PUBLISHED

Mail to the Daily Pilot, 1375 Sunflower Ave., Costa Mesa, CA 92626. Send a fax to (714) 966-4667 or e-mail us at dailypilot@latimes.com. All correspondence must include full name, hometown and phone number (for verification purposes). The Pilot reserves the right to edit all submissions for clarity and length.