Mailbag: Newport Beach should get going on channel dredging

Through the productive efforts of members of the City Council and city staff, Newport Beach has a commitment of roughly $15 million from the Army Corps. of Engineers secured in the last two years by U.S. Reps. Michelle Steel and Ken Calvert for harbor dredging. This project is important and will return much of the harbor to its original design depth, siltation having reduced these depths over time.

Disposal of the dredged material is a problem, as the main channel dredging will expose some sediment that is deemed unsuitable for ocean disposal. Through extensive study by the city’s engineers, the proposed solution is to dispose of the material in a Confined Aquatic Disposal site. This means digging a big, deep hole somewhere in the bay, depositing the dredged material in the bottom of the hole and covering it up with clean material. This is not new technology. CADs have been used successfully in a number of locations in the US.

The city has gone forward with this plan, has obtained all necessary approvals and has certified the Environmental Impact Report. In other words, we should be ready to go. But not so fast. A handful of residents have convinced the City Council that further study is needed of a project that has already been studied to death. The problem seems to be that some residents living close to the proposed disposal site are basically saying “Not in my backyard,” as if there is some potential hazard to having the site nearby.

The location of the site, off the east end of Lido Isla, was chosen so as to minimize disruption of harbor boat traffic and other activity. I am fortunate to live on the bay front on Balboa Island. I would welcome the disposal site in front of my house. I think it is fun to watch big dredging equipment at work and I’m not the least bit worried about tiny amounts of “unsuitable” material in the bottom of a hole. But this is not to be, since I live on the busiest channel in the harbor.

My parting shot is that the city should get on with it and take advantage of the grant money. If the project is completed as planned, we will have deeper channels and a filled-in hole we can all forget about.

Seymour Beek, former chairman
Newport Beach Harbor Commission

Say ‘No!’ to billboards in the middle of Costa Mesa

The owner of Triangle Square wants to use large signage for third-party advertising, turning the property into a giant billboard. Costa Mesans are wholly opposed to this! Third-party advertising does nothing for existing tenants, nor attract new ones, and there are no guarantees that monies received would go towards maintaining the property.

Turning Triangle Square into a giant billboard would be visual blight. It’s not up to Costa Mesa to bail out the owner to maintain the condition of his property, which some say is in the worst shape it’s been in 27 years. Are we prepared to bail out other struggling businesses? Third-party advertising violates our existing sign ordinance, and a “revenue sharing” venture doesn’t guarantee how much money the city would receive or when.

In addition, the ability to control content is not guaranteed. There’s legal precedent, per Scenic America out of Washington D.C., that third-party advertising content is guaranteed as a 1st Amendment right.

Costa Mesa residents opposed similar requests from Triangle Square in 2011 and 2021. Last year, the Planning Commission voted to deny the request in part because of third-party advertising.

The Costa Mesa City Council, which is expected to hear this topic on Tuesday, March 15, should not allow the owner to turn Triangle Square into a massive billboard!

Katie Arthur
Costa Mesa

Support our coverage by becoming a digital subscriber.