HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-02-04_6_2014Feb04_LUEAAC_AgendaItem_Comments_JimMosherFebruary 4, 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 2. Approval of Minutes (January 7, 2014, meetings)
In addition to the corrections suggested by Committee member Paul Watkins in his email dated
January 30, 2014 (posted with the present agenda materials) I would suggest the following
changes:
Handwritten page 3, section II, paragraph 1: "Watkins moved to approve the minutes
from December 3rd and 16th as augmented by the audio tapes and comments received
by from Walker Watkins and Jim Mesure Mosher."
2. Handwritten page 3, section III, paragraph 2: "• Goal LU1 -A request was made to
retain the existing policy. (Committee members Gardner and Melby were opposed to
changing the current General Plan language)."
3. Handwritten page 4, paragraph 2: "Action: 1) Record no vote from Council Member
Gardner and Committee Member Melby regarding n4aintainin g changing the existing
language in Goal LU1; ...."
Note: the reason for suggested changes 2 & 3 is that I think most people who did not attend the
January 7 meeting would assume "opposed to maintaining' means Committee members
Gardner and Melby were the only members who didn't want to maintain LU1 the way it reads in
the current General Plan. My recollection is the opposite of that: they are the only members
who wanted to maintain it as it currently exists.
I might also note that I find the minutes extremely sketchy, and that without reference to the
documents being voted on and the audio recording, I don't think the minutes would give anyone
who was not there more than the vaguest idea of what happened. Unfortunately, I don't believe
the City's current Records Retention Schedule calls for preserving either the recording or the
supporting documents.
February 4, 2014, LUEAAC comments by Jim Mosher Page 2 of 2
Item 4. Preliminary Traffic Analysis Findings
In connection with this item, I would like to call the Committee's attention to the 2006 ballot
language produced as a result of the previous citizens General Plan Advisory Committee effort.
It can be read in City Council Resolution 2006 -77, which can be found here:
hftp://ecms.newportbeachca.govMeb/O/doc/56370/Page1.asp x
The reason a "Greenlight" vote was needed is presumably that the new General Plan increased
traffic or development in some statistical areas. Yet voters were assured that overall a "yes"
vote would:
"provide for a reduction of an estimated 28,920 average daily vehicle trips, including
1,121 morning and 958 evening peak hour vehicle trips, by reducing non - residential
development square footage by 449,499 square feet while concurrently increasing the
number of residential dwelling NO units by 1,166 units."
I understand this does not mean exactly what many would assume it says, but considering the
development that has occurred in Newport Beach since November 2006, 1 think few who voted
,.yes" would feel the promised reductions in traffic and non - residential development have
occurred.
I hope the 2014 analysis will not be presented in a similarly deceptive manner
Item 5. Public Comments on Non - Agenda Items
I was intrigued by the email entitled "Spot Zoning rather than legitimate Land Use Planning ?"
that was received by City staff and op sted under "Additional Materials" related to the present
meeting.
The word "spot zoning" captures my sense of how the work product of the LUEAAC seems to
be a crazy quilt of responses to special interest requests rather than a true "general plan" vision
for the future of the City.
In this regard, the Committee may be interested in the recent opinion of California's Appellate
Court, filed on January 13 in the case of Foothill Communities Coalition v. County of Orange
(available at: http: / /www.courts.ca.gov/ opinions /documents /G047326.PDF) which says it was
published to clarify what constitutes "spot zoning" and when it is permissible (and when not) in
California.