Long-awaited coastal plan approved

Lolita Harper

It took two years, 17 public meetings and about $11,000 in late

fines, but on Tuesday the City Council finally approved a

state-mandated plan allowing city officials to gain more control over

coastal development, officials said.

The City Council approved the plan 4 to 2, with Councilman Gary

Adams absent and Councilmen Dick Nichols and John Heffernan

dissenting because they wanted more time for public input.

Council members garnered applause from the audience after it

approved a final Local Coastal Plan -- a long-awaited document

required by state law for all cities along the coast. The vote marked

forward motion on an issue weighing on the city since Newport Beach

missed the June 30, 2003 application deadline -- a misstep that has

cost the city $1,000 per month since.

The plan, which will be submitted to the California Coastal

Commission for review, consists of two major components: a land-use

plan and an implementation plan.

The land-use portion outlines the location of certain properties

within the coastal boundary, the type and intensity of the properties

and applicable resource protection, as suggested by the Coastal

Commission. Maps of the coastal boundary, determined long ago,

encompassed a jagged border of various shoreline, bayside and cliff

properties.

Residents whose property falls inside the area must currently deal

with the California Coastal Commission when developing their

property. What the city has done with the proposed Local Coastal Plan

is define for itself -- taking into consideration suggestions from

the Coastal Commission, which will ultimately give the plan the

thumbs-up -- which properties should be subject to what type of

development guidelines.

Once a final Local Coastal Plan is formally adopted the city can

handle that process, officials said.

“We are really getting local control over the issuing of coastal

permits in the city and that is a benefit,” Councilman Don Webb said.

Webb recounted having to drive as far as Eureka and San Diego to

gain approval for previous projects in which he was required to get

Coastal Commission approval. He said this plan would reduce that

inconvenience for Newport Beach residents.

While the plan was highly anticipated, only a handful of people

attended the meeting to give their final input. Council members

disagreed as to why: whether it was a lack of public notice or that

people have already had their say at other meetings on the issue.

Nichols said residents did not know enough about the plan and that

they should be given more time to figure out how it would effect

them, if at all.

“This document is as important as the general plan,” Nichols said,

adding that it should receive as much consideration from the public.

“I got [a copy of the proposed plan] earlier, and I still haven’t

been able to go through it.”

Residents in attendance shared the concern that not enough people

knew of the final meeting and asked for one more public hearing to

make sure the bases were covered. Heffernan agreed, acknowledging

there may be no additional input, but the issue was important enough

to dedicate another meeting to.

“I don’t know what would be the harm,” Heffernan said.

Mayor Tod Ridgeway and Councilman Steve Bromberg, who both worked

very closely on this project, said enough time had been spent and

that it was time to move forward so a plan could be approved by the

Coastal Commission and formally adopted by the city.

That would bring about the implementation process -- the second

phase of the plan -- that has been a stumbling block in years past. A

land use plan was adopted by the city in 1981 and certified by the

commission in 1982. The land use plan was revised and re-certified in

1990 but the implementation portion was never completed, according to

a staff report.

As a result of Senate Bill 516, the Coastal Act now requires

coastal cities, such as Newport Beach, to adopt a Local Coastal Plan.

If they don’t, the Coastal Commission will adopt one for them, as was

the case in Malibu, said Senior Planner Patrick Alford.

“We didn’t ask for this task, we didn’t want this task,” Bromberg

said. “It was thrown at us. We were mandated to do this. We have put

our heart and soul into this [Local Coastal Plan], but it can’t be

everything to everyone.”

Resident Jan Vandersloot, a vocal environmental activist, warned

against exempting properties that clearly fall within the coastal

boundary from the additional development standards. The city argues

in the proposed plan to exempt Irvine Terrace because it is a bluff

significantly altered by development that no longer requires resource

protection.

“I am opposed by any type of categorical exclusion,” Vandersloot

said, adding that this apparent favoritism has kept previous plans

from garnering final approval. “There isn’t one [bluff] in this city

that hasn’t been modified.... We need to have an even-handed policy.”

Cliff Drive resident Gary Ziesche said if Irvine Terrace were

excluded, his property should be as well.

“I live on a manufactured slope,” he said. “My slope is not

natural either.”

* LOLITA HARPER is the enterprise and investigative reporter for

the Daily Pilot. She may be reached at (949) 574-4275 or by e-mail at

lolita.harper@latimes.com.