HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-01-07_5_2014Jan07_LUEAAC_AgendaItem_3_Comments_JimMosherJanuary 7, 2014, 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)
Item 3. REVIEW OF GOALS & POLICIES
The following comments refer to passages highlighted in yellow in Attachment 2 to the agenda
packet.
LU 1.4 Growth Management: the adoption of a "conservative growth strategy' is prominently
featured on the title page of the Land Use Element. I don't think the word "conservative" should
be deleted from the text. In fact, it seems to me that Newport Beach, like many other cities, will
eventually reach a built out condition and need to adopt a no- growth strategy.
Handwritten page 30, last paragraph of Lido Village, sentence 2 should read: "After several
CAP several meetings, ..."
Handwritten page 31, last sentence: the Balboa Village Advisory Committee was formed in
2012, not 2013.
LU 6.8.X Access to Parking Facilities: LUEAAC should be aware BVAC is considering
recommending removal of all code requirements for provision of parking for commercial
development in Balboa Village, at least on a trial basis.
Handwritten page 39: The proposed "Airport Areawide" title seems redundant with the "Airport
Area' title on the previous page, and should perhaps be deleted, like the "Lido Village Areawide"
title that is proposed for deletion on handwritten page 33.
Handwritten page 45
• In the first highlighted block, I didn't know the intent of the landscape improvements was
"to warm up the corridor." Would "improve" or "enhance" be better than "warm up "?
• In the last highlighted block, I don't see the reason for deleting the parenthetical "(new)."
It seems helpful to distinguish the present SR 55 from Old Newport Boulevard.
Handwritten page 46: If, as was claimed at the last LUEAAC meeting, the Specific Plans
referred to in the current LUE have been replaced by equivalent provisions in the current Zoning
Code, it would seem helpful to cite those provisions, rather than delete the reference entirely.
Handwritten page 50:
• The first highlighted passage ( "Among 3 12 9 the area's primary') is not actually a
change to the current LUE. The "3 -129" is a page number and its appearance here is
simply a screw -up in what was copied for LUEAAC review.
• In the second highlighted block it would seem helpful to note that the proposal being
referred to involved narrowing PCH, the unworkability of which was a key reason for its
rejection.