HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-10-01_4_2013Oct01_LUEAAC_AgendaComments_JimMosherOctober 1, 2013 LUEAAC Agenda 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 (September 17, 2013, Meeting)
The following minor corrections are suggested --
1. Page 1:
a. Location: "Oasis OASIS Senior Center ...
b. Item IV.a, sentence 3: "Gary Pieker Pickett. representing Ardell, ..."
2. Page 2:
a. Paragraph 3: "GaryRisket Pickett, representing Ardell, ..."
b. Item b.ii. Saunders:
i. "... including 1.2 M SF or of office and ..."
ii. The following "sentence" --"(An increase of 10,840 trips) (4,192 are
attributed to residential) (13,296 office trips) " - seems notes rather than
minutes and makes little sense as presented. Is 13,296 an increase or a
new total?
c. Paragraph 3 from end: "(ii) Patrick Strater Strader representing Saunders gave
an overview, ..."
3. Page 3:
a. Paragraph 2: "McDermott described potential options for moving forward through
TDR ..." [TDR = Transfer of Development Rights ? — might be helpful to spell out
what it stands for]
b. Item (iv): "... and an increase of FAR of to [ ?] approximately 2.0 FAR. Their
intent is to stay trip neutral on this site."
c. Item d.: "The Irvine Company— Requested removal of 357 residential units at
Newport ridge Ridge."
4. Page 4:
a. Last sentence: "... in the agenda binder and on the City Hall Bulletin Bea
electronic bulletin board located in the entrance of the Council Chambers at
100 Civic Center Drive."
October 1, 2013 LUEAAC comments by Jim Mosher Page 2 of 2
5) Finalize Land Use Changes to be Considered in Environmental
Impact Report
1. The pre- meeting handout ( "Attachment No. 3 : Potential Land Use Changes Chart") has
what appears to be a typo in the footnote at the bottom of the first page where it says
"Property owner has revised original request of a 1,200 hotel room reduction to retain 25
hotel rooms." I believe the original request was for a 1,022 room reduction, which would
have left zero remaining hotel room entitlement.
2. This document, like those that have preceded it, describes traffic impacts in terms of
"ADT which I believe stands for "Annual Daily Traffic." Since the Charter Section 423
voter approval requirement is based on the quite different "Peak Hour Trips" combined
with 80 percent of previous non - voter - approved increases in the preceding 10 years, it is
very difficult to assess which of the proposed General Plan changes would, by
themselves, require voter approval. City staff presumably keeps track of how much new
development is currently allowable in each statistical area without a Section 423 vote. It
would seem helpful to relate that information to the present chart in such a way that the
Committee could see which proposals actually need to be placed on the ballot, and
which do not.
3. 1 continue to have heard no explanation to the Committee, nor discussion by the
Committee, of how the proposed new Newport Center/ Fashion Island development
entitlements (first item on page 2 of Attachment No. 3) benefits the City's residents, or
how it would likely be used.