Newport Beach’s telescope logic just doesn’t...

Newport Beach’s telescope logic just doesn’t add up

I just read the article about changing our historic telescopes to

some binoculars (“Not seeing eye to eye,” Friday).

1. We live in a historic town, and these telescopes have been

around since I was a little boy, and that is a long time.

2. I have shown these telescopes to my grandchildren and held them

up to see. I also remember how good I felt when I learned how to

focus it. I was also looking forward to showing them to my

great-grandchildren.

3. If you use the city’s logic, we should pay more to get rid of a

known, reliable business and to hook up with an unknown, not to

mention the historical loss. If you use that logic next year, we

could replace the binoculars with video screens.

4. The reason for writing this letter to you is to get other

people to call the city of Newport Beach and voice their complaint.

LEO DEMPSEY

Newport Beach

Costa Mesa’s codes are already quite generous

The Daily Pilot is not doing a good service to the community in

asking the building code question on Wednesday without first

explaining to the readers what the Costa Mesa building codes are

(Question, “Are Costa Mesa’s building rules too strict?”).

I would like to see an article that explains just what our codes

cover and why they’re there, and then to ask that question would be a

little more responsible.

Many of your readers are not going to have any idea what the

actual rules are; they’re just going to know what they’ve heard from

rumor or innuendo, and the truth is that Costa Mesa codes are not

restrictive at all. They’re very generous compared to a lot of other

cities around here.

As was pointed out at the Planning Commission hearing last week,

out of 41 recent plans for two-story additions, only three of them

have been contested.

The new building code has a feature that requires notice be sent

to neighbors who live within 500 feet, and that’s really the only

substantial change to our code in I don’t know how many years, 20 or

something like that.

That notice is served to protect the neighborhood to some extent

because it gives the neighbors a chance to weigh in about whether the

project is or is not compatible with its surrounding area.

ROBIN LEFFLER

Costa Mesa

Coastal commission needs to provide more leeway

I would add my vote to those who have a negative perception of the

California Coastal Commission, and I know many others who would vote

the same, including several who need a little dredging around their

docks (“Survey reveals mixed opinion of commission,” Aug. 10).

You quoted Sarah Christie, of the commission staff, who encouraged

our Newport Beach planners to go ahead and craft their own coastal

plan, with the implication that the commission would approve it.

This is not consistent with the example cited in the article of

Rodolphe Streichenberger’s Marine Forest project.

Streichenberger’s project was approved by the Newport Beach City

Council, and by the state Fish and Game Department. However, after

several years of successful operation with no harm to the

environment, the coastal commission vetoed the project.

Environmentalist Susan Jordan, quoted in the article, mocked

Streichenberger for using man-made items in his marine forest, and

described his operation as a garbage dump on the ocean floor.

However, “man-made” would include:

1. steel and concrete piles used for fishing piers all along the

coast;

2. old rail cars and derelict ships that have been sunk along the

coast to form fishing reefs;

3. aquiculture projects all over the world (from Norway to New

Zealand).

Among other things, I would like to see the California Coastal

Commission give up their micromanaging of dredging in Newport, and

get out of the way of the marine forest experiment.

KEN HOLLAND

Newport Beach