Laserfiche WebLink
Received After Agenda Printed <br />November 7, 2016 <br />Item No. 11 <br />November 7, 2016, Council Agenda Item 11 Comments <br />The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: <br />Jim Mosher ( ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) <br />Item 11. Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan (PA2013-001) <br />This is a very frustrating item to deal with: a great volume of material has been provided with a <br />very short time to evaluate it. <br />Compounding that problem, the City has made the time available to the public shorter still by <br />holding the hearing on it a day earlier than would normally be expected, rather than a day later <br />(which would have given extra time, not less). <br />Compounding the frustration, neither the staff report nor the Coastal Commission cover letter <br />makes it clear if the City has any latitude to adjust the Plan, or is required to approve it exactly <br />as it was supposedly approved by the Coastal Commission on September 8t". If the latter is the <br />case, making the investment in time and effort to point out the flaws and inconsistencies in it — <br />when there is no chance to correct them — seems utterly pointless. <br />That said, of the small sections I have looked at, the map sections seem particularly inscrutable. <br />For example, probably the most fundamental document in the entire plan is the "Coastal Zoning <br />Map" referenced in proposed Section 21.14.010. But I am unable to find any such map being <br />offered for approval. On the other hand, I find a series of "Area Maps" in proposed Section <br />21.80.010, the purpose and significance of which I, at least, am unable to find explained. <br />Equally disturbing to me, as I pointed out to Coastal Commission staff in writing prior to the <br />September 8 hearing, the City's Coastal Land Use Plan contains a promise in Policy 4.4.2-3 to <br />continue to preserve the visual character of the city by ensuring development stays within the <br />building envelopes allowed under "the height, setback, floor area, lot coverage, and building <br />bulk regulation of the Zoning Code in effect as of October 13, 2005." Yet the proposed <br />Implementation Plan copies text from a later Zoning Code which is demonstrably inconsistent <br />with the rules in 2005, including text City staff now says exempts Planned Community Districts <br />from height regulations — even though that was explicitly not the case in 2005. <br />As best I can tell nothing was changed as a result of those comments. So, at least in my view, <br />the proposed IP remains inconsistent with the certified CLUP, and is not an accurate <br />implementation of it. <br />could enumerate additional flaws, errors, and inconsistencies on the few other pages I have <br />studied, but as indicated above, doing so may be entirely pointless. In addition, the present <br />time constraints would make it completely scattershot. <br />I believe the suggestion I made to the Coastal Commission on the morning of September 91" <br />remains a good one: public comment on something as complex as an LCP should be handled <br />in a manner similar to that used for public comment on Environmental Impact Reports. A <br />definite text should be made available for a 45 -day review period at the end of which written <br />responses to each and every comment submitted should be made available to decision makers <br />and the public for their evaluation. The public would then feel engaged (as they definitely do not <br />feel in the present process), and the result would clearly be a better document. <br />