HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-08-20_1_2013Aug20_LUEAAC_AgendaComments_JimMosherAugust 20, 2013 LUEAAC Agenda Item Comments
Comments on the Newport Beach Land Use Element Amendment Advisory Committee agenda from:
Jim Mosher ( limmosher(a)yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949- 548 -6229)
2) Approval of Minutes (August 6, 2013 Meeting)
The following minor corrections are suggested:
1. Page 1: "Members Present: Edward Se fi h C,..,nGil ne....,ber (Chan)" (Ed was not at the
meeting and is correctly listed a bit lower on the page under "Members Absent. ")
2. Page 2, under "Lido Village ": "... to be reconstructed of with pre- existing floor area and
parking spaces..."
3. Page 3:
a. Under "Congregate Care': "Mr. Tescher r-eW ed a summary provided an overview
and summary of..."
b. Under "Public Comment on Non - Agendized Items':
i. "Staff will le follow up with them directly."
ii. "Public comments were heard both for and against ...
c. Under "Adjournment ":
i. The date for posting of the agenda, given as "August 13, 2013," could not
possibly be correct, since that would be a week after the meeting. August 3 is
also unlikely since that would be a Saturday. Possibly August 1 (the Thursday
preceding the meeting) is meant?
The reference to a "City Hall Bulletin Board" is not quite correct. The physical
copy of the agenda is "posted" by placing it in a three -ring binder in the
Council Chambers lobby. It is also displayed, along with other agendas, on an
electronic screen in the lobby, although the latter is not yet fully functional.
3) Traffic Findings of Potential Land Use Change Areas
Is Location 5, where 1022 rooms of Visitor Serving Commercial are being proposed to be removed
from "Newport Coast Hotel Rooms' in the Coastal Zone? If so, won't this, by making the Newport
Coast portion of the Coastal Zone increasingly available to permanent residents only, create a
tremendous obstacle to a finding of consistency with the Coastal Act?
4) Other Area Updates
I find it interesting that according to the minutes and materials posted to date, only the possible
inclusion of these few "add -on" amendments seems to have been thought controversial enough to
require Issue Papers and deliberation by the Committee. Are staff's original eight recommendations,
including the huge Irvine Company proposals, thought to be of such obvious necessity and merit that
any changes to them would be unthinkable? Or is discussion of those still to come?