HomeMy WebLinkAbout - Correspondencei
1
Central Newport Beach Community Association
PO Box 884 • Newport Beacn, CA • 92661 -0884
www.Central Newport.Org
Date: February 3, 2011
To: Mayor Henn, Members of the City Council
From: Central Newport Beach Community Association (CNBCA)
Subject: Annual City Council Priorities Meeting, February 5, 2011
Central Newport Beach Community Association, which represents over 350 member households on
the Balboa Peninsula, is pleased to provide input to the Council's Annual Priorities Meeting.
We are delighted with progress toward 2010 Goal 5 — Environmental Sustainability — Dredge the
Rhine Channel. The considerable effort to secure funding, negotiate a disposal site with the City of
Long Beach, and obtain the California Coastal Commission permit in a short 3 months period is very
much appreciated by all peninsula residents.
Unfortunately, we are very disappointed with progress on the Council's 2010 Goal 6 — Community
Enhancements — Start construction of Marina Park (phase I or all phases). We would like to
share our perspective on how the project has progressed in recent years.
• It's been approximately 38 months since the Council approved the Marina Park Concept Plan.
• For 34 of the past 38 months, the City has had complete control over the project.
• A Coastal Development Permit application submitted 4 months ago to the California Coastal
Commission (CCC) has yet to be accepted due to deficiencies.
• The CCC has pro - actively communicated what it needs to process the application, and City staff is
currently working hard to provide the information.
• But, the CCC requested information should have been anticipated and could have been worked at any
time since the Marina Park Project Concept was approved by the Council, over 38 months ago.
• Construction of Marina Park did not begin in 2010. We don't even have an accepted permit application.
We ask the Council to make Marina Park both a Management Priority as well as a Community Enhancement
Priority so that it garners the appropriate attention by both City management and staff.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. We hope you will consider our thoughts as you work
through your priorities for the year 2011.
Central Newport Beach Community Association
Louise Fundenberg, President
Brown, Leilani
From: Laura Curran [lauracurran @me.com]
Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 3:29 PM
To: Dept - City Council; Brown, Leilani; Brown, Leilani; Kiff, Dave; Hunt, David
Subject: City Council Priorities for 2011 -Sat. Feb. 5 Meeting
For the Public Record:
To City Council members:
Please continue to address this item, Group Homes, in your 2011 priorities.
The 2010 Priorities included the following item.
• Group homes: implement group home regulations to minimize adverse impacts on residential neighborhoods
while preserving appropriate treatment options.
Some progress was made in 2010, particularly the ruling in federal court that the City's 2008 Group Homes
ordinance is non - discriminatory. The City's efforts on this front are positive. The City and residents has made
significant investments in understanding and addressing the issue of Group Homes. It is criticial to continue to
focus on this item to ensure that key objectives are met, such as ending overconcentration, and ending the
operation of facilities which are operating in conflict with the City's 2008 Group Home ordinance.
Re Group Homes, 2 items are of particular concern:
1. the Development Agreement with Momingside Recovery contains multiple defects, including contradictory
language, elmination of the public hearing process, and conclusion with Momingside Recovery of an agreement
related to physical assets, i.e. future homes, which is did not own, possess, or control, at the time of the
Agreement. The City needs to acknowledge the defects of the Agreement, which have been documented by
residents from neighborhoods across Newport Beach at multiple public Hearings, and work in good faith to
address them.
2. The Integral Facilities provision of the 2008 Group Homes Ordinance is a key provision which recognizes
that 6 and unders on adjoining lots with co- operation are operating essentially as 7 and over facilities, and
should be subject to the same regulation. The Integral Facilities provision offers protection to neighborhoods,
neighbors, and Group Home patients, by ensuring a safe environment which meets fire codes, does not subject
nearby residents to excessive smoking, or other code violations which ensue with commercial uses in
residential neighborhoods, such as lack of parking and use of garages as permanent smoking rooms. Given
recent events, such as the Settlement Agreement, which closed the Preliminary Injunction on Integral Facilities,
and the Federal court ruling, it is time for the City to move forward with enforcement of the Integral Facilities
provision of the Group Homes ordinance.
N.B. The Staff Report was not available at 2:30PM so I am forwarding this email now so that you have an opportunity to
read it prior to the meeting. If this is already addressed in the priorities, thank you in advance.
Thank you for your continued service and for your attention to this matter.
Best regards,
Laura C. Curran