Laserfiche WebLink
Recieved After Agenda Printed <br />July 11, 2017 <br />Item No. 10 <br />July 11, 20179 City Council Agenda Item 10 Comments <br />The following comments on an item on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: <br />Jim Mosher (IimmosherCa�yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) <br />Item 10. Local Coastal Program Clean-up Amendment (LC2017-002) <br />As indicated in my previous written comments on this item, found in Attachment E, I object <br />strongly to these so-called "clean-up" amendments, particularly to the proposed backing away <br />from the 35 -foot Shoreline Height Limitation that has existed in Newport Beach since 1972. <br />For the reasons explained briefly in the comment letter reproduced on staff report pages 10-74 <br />through 10-75, and in more detail in the one on pages 10-84 through 10-85, amending CLUP <br />Policy 4.4.2-1 to add an exception to the 35 -foot limit for "planned communities" is not a "clean- <br />up" at all, but rather a major departure from the existing policy, and a departure incompatible <br />with other policy promises made in the CLUP, specifically Policies 4.4.2-3 and 2.2.2-4 – which, <br />oddly, the City does not seek to change. <br />While it's true the policy statement in the Coastal Land Use Plan is not as clear as it might have <br />been, and the Coastal Commission has misunderstood that the 35 -foot limit is for flat roofs, and <br />a 5 -foot overage (to 40 feet) has always been allowed to the peak of sloping roofs, the concept <br />has never included most of the broad array of exceptions stated in the new policy, and it most <br />certainly never contemplated special treatment or exemption for so-called planned communities. <br />As I added in oral testimony when this matter was before the Planning Commission on May 4 <br />(see page 1-67), adoption of the proposed changes to height Policy 4.4.2-1 in the Coastal <br />Land Use Plan would not only create internal inconsistencies within the CLUP, but a major <br />inconsistency between the CLUP and the newly -certified Implementation Plan. In particular, <br />there would no longer be any policy justification in the CLUP for how the IP could allow over - <br />height construction at the Lido House Hotel site. It is neither a planned community nor a <br />government facility nor any of the new exceptions added to the policy statement. In short, the <br />Hotel's existence would be in conflict with the CLUP, which currently carves out a very specific <br />height exception for it. I thought that might give the Planning Commission pause, and inspire it <br />to examine the amendments more carefully, but it did not. <br />At least to me, the present report lacks credibility in many other respects as well. <br />The Noticing statement on page 10-6 assures the Council that the proposed amendments have <br />been available for public review through a Notice of Availability for at least six weeks prior to the <br />hearing. Not only does the NOA present the amendments with no explanation of what is being <br />changed in the amendment passages, or why, but the NOA lists only 11 amendments. Yet the <br />Planning Commission recommended 12 to the Council and the present resolution proposes 14. <br />Clearly not all of this has been available for review. <br />The effort to make it maximally difficult for the public (and perhaps the Council) to understand <br />the nature and significance of the proposed changes continues by numbering the amendments <br />