missed its obligations to the Coastal Commission prior to the
annexation and needed this special law.
Newport Beach has had a very good process for Vision 2025 and the
update of the general plan, but the local coastal plan was excluded
from that process although it has many parallel issues, including
land use and completing the bicycle trail along the beach from 36th
Street to the Santa Ana River, which is part of the California
Coastal Trail. Meetings related to the plan were held with too-short
notice and minutes were not kept for these public meetings. It was
very difficult for the public to be informed or to be part of the
process. It was very easy for the public to be involved with the
process for the general-plan update.
The Coastal Commission has been very open to public input and the
staff of the Coastal Commission has also been very helpful. The
Newport Beach manager, Patrick Alford, has also been very helpful on
any issues related to the plan when asked. It would have been helpful
to the public if the city would have made the coastal-plan process
part of the Vision 2025 and general-plan update process and shared
the volumes of public information gathered with both projects.
Opening the Vision 2025 and general plan update process to the
coastal plan may have saved time and created a more unified result.
The plan is a very important document. We should take the Coastal
Commission staff recommendations seriously and not rush to a
stand-off. In the end, the coastal plan and the general-plan update
will have to be reconciled anyhow.
Thank you for covering the local coastal plan hearing scheduled
for today in San Diego. The question posed should be: What do you
think of the city of Newport Beach's proposal for coastal bluff and
wetlands definition compared to the Coastal Commission's proposal?
Or: Do you think the local coastal plan provides adequate protection
for coastal resources in Newport Beach?
This is the appropriate question, for two reasons: