The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAdditional MaterialsUURNS, MARLENE From: Wisneski, Brenda Sent: Monday, January 06, 2014 8:52 AM To: Burns, Marlene Subject: FW: Land Use Element Amendment Advisory Committee; Comments Additional materials for 1/7 meeting for distribution. From: Paul Watkins Jmailto:r aulPlawfriend.comj Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2013 8:34 AM To: Ramirez, Gregg Cc: Wisneski, Brenda; Brandt, Kim Subject: Land Use Element Amendment Advisory Committee; Comments Hi Gregg: I had a chance to take a look at the Agenda and its attachments for our upcoming meeting scheduled for Tuesday, January 7, 2014 in the Friends Room. If it's OK, I wanted to share a couple of thoughts: (1) December 3, 2013 Minutes: (i) Handwritten page 4, "Organization And Form of Uses", line 1: please correct the spelling of "cumulative". (2) December 16, 2013 Minutes: Handwritten page 5, Section II, Lido Village, line 2: please delete the period (.) after "Gateway". Handwritten page 5, Section II, Cannery Village, line 2: please delete the period (.) after "Uses". Handwritten page 5, Section II, McFadden Square, line 1: please do not initial capitalize "revise" and please delete the period (.) after "revise". Handwritten page 5, Section II, Airport Area, line 1: please change the word "exempt" to "exemption". Handwritten page 6, Section II, Mariners' Mile, first line: please revise the relevant portion of this line to read:" LU 6.19.10X---Proposed Policy Additions ---Guiding Development of a District Corridor." Handwritten page 6, Section 2, Mariners' Mile, second paragraph: please revise this paragraph to read: "The Committee and members discussed how to best address Mariners' Mile, including concerns with street widening of PCH to Caltrans standards. It was mentioned by a member of the public that a public walkway study was conducted from Balboa Bay Club to the bridge which would provide additional access along the frontage of the bay." (vii) Handwritten page 6, Section II, Public Comments, fifth paragraph, line 1: please change "we" to "were". (viii) Handwritten page 6, Section III, Public Comment on Non Agenda Items, second paragraph, line 2: please change "inform" to "perform". (3) Attachment 3, Climate Change Memo: many thanks to you and the other staff folks for doing a fine job on this Memo. I can certainly see the point of views expressed in the Memo. Many thanks, Gregg. See you on Tuesday, January 7. Best regards and Happy New Year, Paul Paul K. Watkins for Watkins, Blakely & Torgerson, LLP 535 Anton Boulevard, Suite 810 Costa Mesa, California 92626-7047 Telephone: (714) 556-0800, ext. 2108 Facsimile: (714) 641-4012 E-Mail: pauI lawfriend.com 2 BURNS, MARLENE From: Wisneski, Brenda Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2014 4:13 PM To: Brandt, Kim; Brine, Tony; Burns, Marlene; 'Craig Batley; Gardner, Nancy; 'Jim Walker; 'Karen Rogers'; Kory Kramer; Larry Tucker; Linda Chau; 'Marissa Aho'; 'Marlie Whiteman'; 'Michael Melby'; Mulvihill, Leonie; 'Patricia Moore'; 'Paul Watkins'; Ramirez, Gregg; Selich, Edward; Webb, Dave (Public Works); Wisneski, Brenda; 'Woodie Tescher' Subject: Additional Materials Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Committee members: Please see the following correspondence which will be included in the agenda packet. Brenda From: Tricia Moore [mailto:tricia@nbaor.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 9:56 AM To: Ramirez, Gregg Cc: Selich, Edward Subject: Fw: SB 375/AB 32 Hi Gregg : I have attached the below for a couple of reasons. At one of our meetings, someone stated that SB 375/AB32 had transportation funding attached to it. as you can see that was removed from the bill. So regarding Sustainable Development, I would like to remove from LU X the last five words from sentence (and impacts on climate change.) so a period after emissions. Under LU X.X, Promote and where appropriate, require new development and reconstruction to comply etc. And last — remove LU X.X2 in its entirety. Also the Institute for Local Government publication "Understanding SB375" states "Senate Bill 375 creates a formal process that builds on the experience of voluntary regional visioning initiatives in California, often referred to as "Regional Blueprints". The law coordinates three important planning activities into a new integrated planning process: The regional transportation plan (RTP)....this would be a SCAG issue since OTA is a part of that; The regional housing needs assessment (RHNA)...note "regional", and Updating the housing element of local general plans City. Anyway these are my thoughts. Please distribute. Thank you Tricia From: Jennifer Svec Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2014 3:55 PM To: tricia@nbaor.com Cc: Alex Creel 1 Subject: RE: SB 375/AB 32 Good Afternoon Tricia, It was great speaking with you this afternoon. Per our conversation, I have included the information and documents related to SB 375 that I referenced. C.A.R. Legislative Program Summary from the 2007-2008 Legislative Session SB 375 (Steinberg) Urban Infill Projects - As introduced, C.A.R. supported SB 375 which would have broadened the applicability of the existing CEQA exemption for urban infill developments and could have generated desperately needed housing. As amended, C.A.R. opposed SB 375 which would have provided $20 million from Proposition 1C, passed by the voters in 2006, for "smart growth" planning and incentives. While C.A.R. achieved amendments that removed the non -substantive term "smart growth" to describe the goals of the proposition, C.A.R. continued to oppose SB 375 because it would have impeded future suburban residential, commercial and retail development by creating restrictive urban growth limitations through transportation funding restrictions. The bill would have resulted in local governments losing control over land use planning decisions and placed the need for green house gas reductions above the need for housing. Due to coalition opposition, which included C.A.R., SB 375 was amended to continue local government control over development by removing the restrictive urban growth limitations and transportation funding restrictions from the provisions of the bill. With these amendments, C.A.R. removed its opposition. (see also, SB 303) Position: Watch as Amended Status: Signed by the Governor on September 30, 2008 (Chapter 728, Statutes of 2008) Additionally, here is the link to the final committee analysis for SB 375 prior to the bills enactment: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb 0351-0400/sb 375 cfa 20080903 100317 sen comm.html Please feel free to give Alex or I a call should you have any additional questions. Have a wonderful evening and we will see you in two weeks in San Diego. Thanks! Jennifer C. Svec Legislative Advocate California Association of REALTORS® 1121 L Street, Suite 600 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 492-5200 E-mail: jennifers(a)car.orq This e-mail message, together with any attachments, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain information that is confidential and prohibited from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the original sender at (916) 492-5200 and destroy this e-mail, along with any attachments. Thank you. From: Alex Creel <alexc@car.org> Date: January 9, 2014 at 12:06:18 PM PST To: "Tricia Moore ()" <tricia@nbaor.com> Subject: SB 375/AB 32 Tricia: HAPPY NEW YEAR!!! 2 Got your voice mail. I will call you this afternoon. While I am not the expert, Jennifer Svec a lobbyist on our staff is much closer to the issue than I have been. The developers were really the first string when this went through. We were originally supportive of SB 375, went to an oppose when the bill was amended to include unban growth boundaries and removed our opposition went they were removed. Best, Alex Alexander E. Creel Sr. V.P. and Chief Lobbyist Governmental Affairs California Association of REALTORS® 1121 L. Street #600 Sacramento, Ca. 95814 3 BURNS, MARLENE From: Wisneski, Brenda Sent: Monday, January 06, 2014 8:54 AM To: Burns, Marlene Cc: 'Woodie Tescher' Subject: FW: Policy LU 6.14.4 For distribution. From: Larry Tucker Jmailto:Tucker@GTPCenters.com] Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2013 12:32 PM To: Ramirez, Gregg Cc: Brandt, Kim; Wisneski, Brenda; Selich, Edward; Gardnerncy@aol.com Subject: Policy LU 6.14.4 Hi Gregg, I would suggest that the second sentence of revised Policy LU 6.14.4 be reworded to read: "But allow variations in height for hotels not located along main roads into Fashion Island." A hotel use will not have a smaller footprint since the bottom floor will have lobbies, reception area, restaurants, meeting spaces, shops and the like. But the tower will have smaller floor plates than office. Requiring both a reduction of building footprint and vertical mass, and in addition more ground level open space probably won't work. And I am not sure this type of use needs much open space. Also, it is not clear what the vertical mass will be reduced from, so I am not sure we need to refer to vertical mass at all. I think the Committee's goal was to accommodate a hotel as long as it was not built in too prominent of a location, like the entries into Fashion Island (which would primarily be off of Coast Highway, or even San Miguel Drive). Thanks and see you on the 7t". Happy New Year! Larry P.S. Please pass along to Woody as I don't seem to have his email address. 1 BURNS, MARLENE From: Brown, Leilani Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2014 7:03 PM To: Brandt, Kim Cc: Burns, Marlene Subject: Fwd: Spot Zoning rather than legimate Land Use Planning? Attachments: image002.jpg; image001.jpg Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Leilani I. Brown, MMC City Clerk City of Newport Beach Begin forwarded message: From: Denys Oberman <dho@obermanassociates.com> Date: February 2, 2014, 1:38:50 PM PST To: <Ibrown@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: FW: Spot Zoning rather than legimate Land Use Planning? PLEASE DISTRIBUTE TO THE GENERAL PLAN LUE AMENDMENT AND LCP COMMITTEES AND ENTER INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD. Thank you, Denys Oberman Regards, Denys H. Oberman, CEO OBERMAN Strategy and Financial Advisors 2600 Michelson Drive, Suite 1700 Irvine, CA 92612 Tel (949) 476-0790 Cell (949) 230-5868 Fax (949) 752-8935 Email: dho@obermanassociates.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The documents accompanying this transmission contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is legally privileged. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this telecopied information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately at 949/476-0790 or the electronic address above, to arrange for the return of the document(s) to us. 1 From: Denys Oberman[mailto:dho@obermanassociates.com] Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2014 11:41 AM To: eselich@roadrunner.com Cc: Ibrown@citynewport.ca.gov; ngardner@newportbeachca.gov Subject: Spot Zoning rather than legimate Land Use Planning? Ed, Did you really suggest this as an option --- What happened to the legitimate land use elements that residents requested by addressed in the GP LUE update, such as: - Compatible Mix of Uses(height is not the only factor in compatibility) - Concentration (alcohol establishments, other Uses) - "Opportunities for Change" —why is Mariners Mile the only coastal area called out to addressSpecific Plans/planning in the West Newport coastal areas?(Is the Committee only taking Mr. Ridgeway seriously, and not all of the other residents and groups). - The entire area along and adjoining the coastal highway west of Jamboree needs some serious plan Policy to Prevent Over -Intensification causing cumulative Traffic and other environmental and safety impacts that cannot be mitigated given inherent infrastructure constraints. Staff has addressed in its report the elimination of certain Specific Plans. Please clarify and confirm that the GPLUE Policy is NOT suggesting the elimination of Specific Plans en toto. Specific planning is needed to assure that , particularly in coastal areas ,economic revitalization is achieved without compromising environmental and residential neighborhood integrity . Once again, we respectfully request that these items be explicitly addressed by the Committee/the City . There are a number of specific elements that ARE included in the GP —why the inconsistency of approach? These elements DO need to be carefully considered and addressed, by the City with adequate public process. We would appreciate a response prior to or at the February 4th GP LUE Amendment Committee meeting. Thank you, Denys Oberman Regards, Denys H. Oberman, CEO 2 OBERMAN Strategy and Financial Advisors 2600 Michelson Drive, Suite 1700 Irvine, CA 92612 Tel (949) 476-0790 Cell (949) 230-5868 Fax (949) 752-8935 Email: dho@obermanassociates.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The documents accompanying this transmission contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is legally privileged. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this telecopied information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately at 949/476-0790 or the electronic address above, to arrange for the return of the document(s) to us. 3 City of Newport Beach - LUEAA Committee Mike Melby's Comments to LUE Policy Master - 01/06/14 LU 1 I apologize for missing the discussion here. The deletion of the ending subordinate clause (i.e., "through the recognition that Newport Beach is primarily a residential community") makes sense, if the intention is simplifying the language. However, I would suggest it remain, as such deletion would remove what is seemingly intended to be a key emphasis of the stated goal. The clause emphasizes that whether we are considering a residential, commercial or visitor -related matter, we principally maintain a common goal of preserving our identity as one of the most beautiful, pristine and prestigious residential beach communities. Understanding the need to also focus on commercial progress in order to foster optimal municipal success, Newport is, above all, a community that views itself as the ideal place to go home. LU 1.4 Growth Management Agreed on the strike of "conservative," as it is not even defined here (e.g., low beta, minimal capital risk, non -cyclical). Any strategy/plan should never be pegged and always undergo an approval process. LU 1.X2 Healthy Population Not sure we need the "physical" qualifier in front of "health," as am I am sure we don't condone practices that adversely affect "mental" or "spiritual" health either. Could simply say "healthy" or even "health and wellness," as a thorough catchall. LU 2.X Recreational Centers In the parenthetical, the listed examples are not technically "phases of life." Should read, "(e.g., childhood, family, senior citizenship)," or rephrase "phases of life." LU 2.X2 Healthy Foods Apologies for missing the discussion on this as well. I assume this was struck because it is implied in LU 1.X2 Healthy Population and/or LU.2X3 Locally -Grown Food or because it was decided the provision isn't relevant. I do think a goal of ensuring Newport doesn't become a haven for cupcake stores and grilled cheese sandwich shops would be nice, but the healthy lifestyle -centric community/market should tease this one out for us naturally. Following LU 6.7.2... Balboa Peninsula - Lido Village We interchange "the City Council" and "City Council." Consider making consistent (both used here in highlighted section). Following LU 6.13.6... Newport Center / Fashion Island Highlighted section is confusingly wordy. Consider re -wording. Following LU 6.18.4... Mariners' Mile In the highlighted section, end of first sentence, change punctuation to... "revitalization areas. 11 Periods and commas always go inside quotations. Thanks! BURNS, MARLENE From: Wisneski, Brenda Sent: Monday, February 03, 2014 9:19 AM To: Burns, Marlene Subject: FW: Revised - Land Use Element Agenda Packet Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged For distribution. Committee Members: Per Triacia's request, the following provides a link to the Orange County Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS). httb://occog.com/bdf/OCSCS20110614.PDF See you Tuesday afternoon. Brenda From: Tricia Moore [mailto:tricia@nbaor.com] Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 3:12 PM To: Garciamay, Ruby Cc: Selich, Edward; Paul Subject: Re: Revised - Land Use Element Agenda Packet Regarding Attachment 3 Memo from City Attorney's Office 1/30/14 No.:A13-00666 Hello, OK now I am confused as to "Sustainable Development"....we were told from the beginning and several times since this issue came up that what was presented to the committee was "mandatory". I asked specifically to be emailed the cliff note versions of these "mandatory" provisions, more than once, and received nothing. Now in attachment 3, page 2 (handwritten 52) last paragraph, first sentence you state "do not mandate General Plan updates at this time,". While I am not an attorney, it is my understanding that in order to develop a subregional SCS, this must first be filed with the state....so, if correct, has this been filed on behalf of Newport Beach or by Newport Beach? And if so what date? Would it be possible for you to provide the committee with a copy of the OC SCS as stated "was prepared by the Orange County Council of Governments (OCCOG)" attachment 3 page 2/handwritten 52/first paragraph?? As a final note regarding attachment 3 LU X.X Existing Structure Reuse, I would be happy to replace Encourage (last paragraph, page 4/handwritten 54) with Promote the retention, etc. My thoughts regarding this have to do with the price of land in the city and the age and state of older commercial structures which may not pencil out as far as ROI and may not be currently built to highest and best use. I further suggest that whether you 1 reuse or rebuild a structure, material manufacturing as well as transport shall occur in either situation. (I understand Goods Movement in the 2020 scoping plan specifically addresses shipping and port operations) Thank you again, Tricia From: Garciamay, Ruby Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 9:49 AM To: Brandt, Kim ; Brine, Tony ; Burns, Marlene ; Campagnolo, Daniel ; 'Craig Batley' ; Garciamay, Ruby ; Gardner, Nancy ; 'Jim Walker' ; 'Karen Rogers' ; Kory Kramer ; Larry Tucker ; Linda Chau ; 'Marissa Aho' ; 'Marlie Whiteman' ; 'Michael Melby' ; Mulvihill, Leonie ; 'Patricia Moore' ; 'Paul Watkins' ; Ramirez, Brittany ; Ramirez, Gregg ; Selich, Edward ; Webb, Dave (Public Works) ; Wisneski, Brenda ; 'Woodie Tescher' Cc: mailto:maho@planningcenter.com Subject: Revised - Land Use Element Agenda Packet Good morning Attached is revised LUEAAC agenda packet. Attachment No. 4 has been added to the packet and the Agenda (page 1) has been updated to show this addition. Ruby Garciamay I Department Assistant City of Newport Beach I Community Development Department 100 Civic Center Drive I P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Phone 949.644.3200 I Fax: 644.3229 Direct 949.644.3201 I rgarciamay@newportbeachca.gov From: Wisneski, Brenda Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2014 2:49 PM To: Brandt, Kim; Brine, Tony; Burns, Marlene; 'Craig Batley'; Gardner, Nancy; 'Jim Walker'; 'Karen Rogers'; Kory Kramer; Larry Tucker; Linda Chau; 'Marissa Aho'; 'Marlie Whiteman'; 'Michael Melby'; Mulvihill, Leonie; 'Patricia Moore'; 'Paul Watkins'; Ramirez, Gregg; Selich, Edward; Webb, Dave (Public Works); Wisneski, Brenda; 'Woodie Tescher' Cc: 'Woodie Tescher'; maho@planningcenter.com; Ramirez, Gregg Subject: Land Use Element Agenda Packet Attached is the agenda packet for next week's meeting. See you Tuesday. Brenda Wisneski, AICP Deputy Community Development Director (949) 644-3297 City of Newport Beach I Planning Division 1100 Civic Center Drive I Newport Beach, CA 92660 A responsive, knowledgeable team of professionals guiding community development in the public interest 2 January 7, 2014, LUEAAC Agenda Item Comments Comments on the Newport Beach Land Use Element Amendment Advisory Committee agenda from: Jim Mosher ( jimmosher@yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item 2. Approval of Minutes (December 3 & 16, 2013, meetings) In addition to the corrections recommended by Committee member Paul Watkins in his memo dated December 26, 2013, I would like to suggest the following extremely minor changes to page 2 of the draft minutes for December 16, 2013, as found on handwritten page 6 of the agenda packet: 1. Line 1 of paragraph 2 (continuing the "Mariners' Mile" section from the previous page): "The Committee and members of the public discussed how to ..." 2. Next to last paragraph under "Public Comments" (the first change already having been suggested by Mr. Watkins): "Additional comments on Mariners' Mile we were made including incorporation of the new Bicycle Master Plan, addressing public safety concerns and address addressing incongruent uses." I have the following general comments about the minutes: Large sections of these "minutes," particularly those for December 03, 2013, seem more in the nature of notes for minutes, rather than actual minutes comprehensible to someone who did not personally attend the meeting or listen to the recording. As such, they seem to serve mostly as a guide or index to what can be found in the recordings, including what appear to be a number of collective decisions or directions to staff given by the Committee. There are two problems with this. First, the Brown Act was modified effective January 1, 2014, by California Senate Bill 751, which prohibits this vague style of reporting for future minutes. Second, despite the motions to "to approve minutes as augmented by the audiotape," there is no guarantee the audio recordings will be preserved by City. Indeed there is every indication staff will be destroying the recordings as soon as the minutes based on them are approved. SB 751, which was unanimously adopted by both houses of the Legislature, augmented the existing prohibition against action by secret ballot with the following language in the California Government Code: "Section 54953(c)(2) The legislative body of a local agency shall publicly report any action taken and the vote or abstention on that action of each member present for the action" (with the LUEAAC being a "legislative body" in the peculiar language of the Brown Act). According to the bill's legislative history, its author, State Senator Leland Yee, was particularly concerned about minutes that "report that a motion received 27 ayes and 5 nays, without listing the votes of individual members." Under this new rule, such statements as the one in Section II of the December 3, 2013, LUEAAC minutes: "Motion (Watkins) to approve minutes as augmented by the November 5th audiotape with minor corrections submitted by Jim Mosher, and Paul Watkins. Approved as amended' [emphasis added] will no longer be acceptable. The minutes will need to clearly state if there were any dissenting votes or abstentions. January 7, 2014, LUEAAC comments by Jim Mosher Page 2 of 2 Likewise, but perhaps more arguably, I believe both minutes record a long series of directions to staff on various issues, which would seem to be "actions taken" under the definition of that term in the Brown Act. Although it is not clear from the minutes, I also believe there was not unanimous support for all of these actions. To comply with SB 751, future minutes will presumably need to more clearly spell out exactly what the action (in this case a direction to staff) was, and exactly which members of the Committee supported, and did not support, that decision. Regarding the second point about approval of minutes "as augmented by the audiotape," in "Public Comment on Non Agenda Items" at the end of the December 16, 2013, meeting I mentioned what I thought was the temporary and inadvertent disappearance from the City website of links to the LUEAAC audio recordings. I have since learned that the removal was not inadvertent, but rather quite intentional. It appears someone on the City staff has adopted a new policy of strict enforcement of the City's Records Retention Schedule which was prepared by an outside consultant, Gladwell Governmental Services Inc., and last approved by the City Council with Resolution 2011-18, which also gave certain members of City staff (City Manager, City Clerk and City Attorney, and possibly their deputies) the authority to change the Schedule without further City Council intervention. Although the original schedule is ostensibly copyrighted by Gladwell, and cannot be reproduced without their permission, a copy of the page relevant to audio recordings of LUEAAC meetings was provided to me this morning (with Gladwell's permission?) in response to a Public Records Act request. It states that recordings such as those of LUEAAC are to be kept for a "Total Retention" time of "30 days or after Minutes are approved (whichever is longer)." The comment appended is "City preference; State law only requires for 30 days; Council Policy A-11 allows destruction after 30 days; GC §54953.5(b)." As I understand it, the Schedule is now interpreted as turning the Council's "allows destruction" policy into mandatory destruction of records the moment the Total Retention time exceeds that stated in the Schedule. In addition, although not strictly part of the Schedule, it appears that City staff has unilaterally adopted a new policy of not providing publicly accessible internet links to the recordings of public meetings (other than those of the City Council) even during the brief period of their existence. Instead, those who missed an LUEAAC meeting, or merely want to verify what was said, will have to make an individual Public Records Act request to listen to them prior to their destruction. Since these new policies do not seem to be driven by any physical or cost impediment to storing digital records prepared at taxpayer expense, nor to providing future access to them, these seem to me to be terrible public policies. I hope the LUEAAC will agendize for discussion the way in which it wants the records of its meetings to be preserved, and will advocate for the City Council to retake public control of our records retention policy. UURNS, MARLENE From: Wisneski, Brenda Sent: Monday, February 03, 2014 8:24 AM To: Burns, Marlene Subject: FW: Agenda Packet for February 3, 2014 Meeting of Newport Beach Land Use Element Amendment Advisory Committee Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged For distribution From: Paul Watkins Jmailto:paul@ lawfriend.coml Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2014 6:04 PM To: Ramirez, Gregg Cc: Wisneski, Brenda; Brandt, Kim Subject: Agenda Packet for February 3, 2014 Meeting of Newport Beach Land Use Element Amendment Advisory Committee Hi Gregg: I had a chance to take a look at the Agenda and its attachments for our upcoming meeting scheduled for Tuesday, February 3, 2014 at 2:30 PM in the Friends Room. If it's OK, I wanted to share a couple of thoughts: January 7, 2014 Minutes: (i) Handwritten page 3, Section II, third line: please correct the spelling of "Mosher". (ii) Handwritten page 3, Section III, third paragraph, sentence reading: "The Committee asked staff to look at the definition of "reduce" and search for the words "reduce, reduction, reducing" to determine if any of the references are on a citywide basis." I may have misunderstood Mr. Tucker's requests but wasn't the gist of his requests as follows: (a) Would staff please provide to the Committee a clear simple definition of "reduce", "reduction", and "reducing" in the context of greenhouse gases ("GHG")? (b) Would staff please make a change throughout the "Goals and Policies" (i.e., on a "global" basis) to make it very clear that when the words "reduce", "reduction", and "reducing" are used with reference to GHG, the standard for "reduction" of GHG will be applied on an overall CITYWIDE basis as opposed to a PROJECT -BY -PROJECT basis (i.e., the concept here is that rather than imposing a nebulous undefined project condition that a particular project must "reduce" GHG emissions, perhaps a project condition could be added along the following lines: "The Project shall be designed and constructed where feasible to reduce GHG emissions on an overall citywide basis." (I noted in the "Goals and Policies" a few instances where the word 1 "reduce", "reduction", or "reducing" appear without the "citywide" qualifier; I will raise these inadvertent omissions at our meeting.) (c) Would staff please provide the Committee with a beginning baseline so that our policy makers will be able to determine the "reduction" of GHG from that specific beginning baseline? (d) Would staff please add the words "where feasible" or "lessen to the extent practicable" at appropriate places throughout the "Goals and Policies" in connection with GHG emissions "reduction"? Mr. Tucker may disagree with my interpretation of his requests and may suggest revisions/additions. (iii) Handwritten page 4, top line: please correct the spelling of "General". I look forward to seeing you next Tuesday, February 3 at 2:30 PM. Thanks, Gregg. Best regards, Paul Paul K. Watkins for Watkins, Blakely & Torgerson, LLP 535 Anton Boulevard, Suite 810 Costa Mesa, California 92626-7047 Telephone: (714) 556-0800, ext. 2108 Facsimile: (714) 641-4012 E-Mail: paulelawfriend.com 2 January 7, 2014, LUEAAC Agenda Item Comments Comments on the Newport Beach Land Use Element Amendment Advisory Committee agenda from: Jim Mosher ( jimmosher(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 3 129 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. MEMORANDUM Date: February 3, 2014 To: Members of the Newport Beach Land Use Element Advisory Committee From: Woodie Tescher, The Planning Center I DCEtE Subject: Clarification of Mandates for Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions —Citywide and Project Specific Applications By statute, regions are obligated to establish targets and strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (as discussed in the December 13, 2013 memorandum). In its review of draft general plans and their environmental impact reports, the State Attorney General extends this mandate to local communities requiring establishment of local reduction on a citywide basis'. Though a citywide obligation, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that development projects statutorily subject to CEQA analysis (i.e., preparation of a complete Environmental Impact Report, Subsequent or Supplemental EIR, Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Negative Declaration) must also must document their potential emission impacts and prescribe pertinent mitigation measures (see following text). Consequently, it would be inaccurate for the updated General Plan policies to limit their application for GHG emission reductions citywide, as in some cases, this requirement applies to development projects. By enacting SB 97 in 2007, California's lawmakers expressly recognized the need to analyze greenhouse gas emissions as a part of the CEQA process. SB 97 required OPR to develop, and the Natural Resources Agency to adopt, amendments to the CEQA Guidelines addressing the analysis and mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. Those CEQA Guidelines amendments clarified several points, including the following: Lead agencies must analyze the greenhouse gas emissions of proposed projects, and must reach a conclusion regarding the significance of those emissions. When assessing the significance of impacts from greenhouse gas emissions, a lead agency should consider the extent to which the project may increase or reduce greenhouse gas emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting. (See CEQA Guidelines § 15064.4.) • When a project's greenhouse gas emissions may be significant2, lead agencies must consider a range of potential mitigation measures to reduce those emissions. In the case of the adoption of a plan, such as a general plan.... mitigation may include the identification of specific measures that may be implemented on a project -by -project basis. (See CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(c).) • Lead agencies may significantly streamline the analysis of greenhouse gases on a project level by using a programmatic greenhouse gas emissions reduction plan meeting certain criteria. (See CEQA Guidelines 5 15183.5(b).) CEQA mandates analysis of a proposed project's potential energy use (including transportation -related energy), sources of energy supply, and ways to reduce energy demand, including through the use of efficient transportation alternatives. (See CEQA Guidelines, Appendix F.)3 Additionally, it is important to remember that Newport Beach's existing codes and ordinances mandate project - level reductions in energy and water consumption, as listed in the previous communication. 1 http://oag.ca.gov/environment/ceqa/litigation-settlements and http://oag.ca.gov/environment/ceqa/letters 2 Any project that does not reduce GHG emissions is considered to meet the criteria for significance and if mitigation measures are not identified achieving reduction, the community must adopt overriding considerations in certifying the CEQA document 3 http://oag.ca.gov/environment/ceqa/letters February 4, 2014, LUEAAC Agenda Item Comments Comments on the Newport Beach Land Use Element Amendment Advisory Committee agenda from: Jim Mosher ( jimmosher(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: 1. 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 Mes-ure 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 maintaining 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 maintaining 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: http://ecms.newportbeachca.gov/Web/O/doc/56370/Page1.aspx 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, I 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 posted 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. UURNS, MARLENE From: Ramirez, Gregg Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 10:26 AM To: Burns, Marlene Cc: Wisneski, Brenda Subject: FW: Newport Beach Land Use Element Amendment Advisory Committee; Meeting on Tuesday, February 4 at 2:30 PM; "Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions" Attachments: 020414 Section 15064.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions color scan.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Please distribute and post email and attachment. Thanks! From: Paul Watkins [mailto:i aul@lawfriend.comj Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 9:48 AM To: Ramirez, Gregg Cc: Wisneski, Brenda; Brandt, Kim Subject: Newport Beach Land Use Element Amendment Advisory Committee; Meeting on Tuesday, February 4 at 2:30 PM; "Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions" Hi Gregg: A few of the Goals and Policies in the proposed amended Land Use Element require that the City "reduce greenhouse gas emissions". (Please see Policies LU 1.X [Environmental Health], LU 3.2 [Growth and Change], LU X.X3 [Sustainable Sites and Land Development], LU X.X6 [Orange County Sustainable Communities Strategy], etc.) I sense that the Committee may be a bit frustrated by the State -based requirement that the City "reduce greenhouse gas emissions" but we don't seem to have a good roadmap as to how we accomplish the mandated reduction. I think the Committee is concerned that if our General Plan simply falls into lockstep with State -based requirements that are undefined or ill-defined, the City opens itself to challenges and lawsuits where a less -than -innocent plaintiff may claim that a project should be denied because it doesn't "reduce greenhouse gas emissions". As you know, these lawsuits cost our City's taxpayers and the project developers enormous legal fees and they may delay or disqualify meritorious projects. So the question becomes: can we provide a roadmap in our General Plan amendments which complies with the State -based requirement that the City "reduce greenhouse gas emissions" while providing our decision makers with language to help them reach good decisions while discouraging frivolous and expensive litigation. I believe Mr. Tucker has suggested that as projects are evaluated by our City policymakers, we apply a test to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions "on a Citywide basis". Woodie's helpful Memo of February 3 appears to discount the legality of the "Citywide basis" test. However, Woodie's Memo does allude to a possible roadmap for determining if a project "reduces greenhouse gas emissions". The roadmap is found in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(b) which became effective on March 18, 2010. A copy of that Section is attached. Section 15064.4(b) appears to offer cities (i.e., "lead agencies") a 3-step test which I believe we might incorporate into our sustainability General Plan amendments in order to guide our decision makers when they determine whether a project before them "reduces greenhouse gas emissions". Based on this Section, may I propose that we add clarity to the murky language mandating that we "reduce greenhouse gas emissions" by revising (for example) Policy LU 1.X (Environmental Health) to read as follows (the proposed revised language is in bold typing): "Promote sustainable land use and development practices that minimize the use of non- renewable resources and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by evaluating the following for a project within the City: (1) a reduction of emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting for the project and/or Citywide, (2) whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the City reasonably determines applies to the project, and (3) the extent to which the project complies with any regulations or requirements adopted by the City through a public review process which reduce or mitigate the project's incremental contribution of greenhouse gas emissions." No, this roadmap language is not perfect; however, the language provides badly needed guidance to our City officials in reaching the State -based required determination that a particular project "reduces greenhouse gas emissions." On a final note, our City's decision makers should not overlook that fact that a proposed project that will emit significant levels of greenhouse gases may still be considered to be an "acceptable" project if the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including Citywide or Statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 [Statement of Overriding Considerations]) Thanks for considering my point of view. Best regards, Paul Paul K. Watkins for 2 Watkins, Blakely & Torgerson, LLP 535 Anton Boulevard, Suite 810 Costa Mesa, California 92626-7047 Telephone: (714) 556-0800, ext. 2108 Facsimile: (714) 641-4012 E-Mail: paulelawfriend.com Title 14. Natural Resources Division 6. Resources Agency Chapter 3. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act Article 5. Preliminary Review of Projects and Conduct of Initial Study § 15064.4. Determining the Significance of Impacts from Greenhouse Gas Emissions. (a) The determination of the significance of greenhouse gas emissions calls for a careful judgment by the lead aaencv consistent with the provisions in section 15064. A lead agency should make a good -faith effort. based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe. calculate or estimate the amount of greenhouse as emissions resulting from a project. A lead agency shall have discretion to determine. in the context of a particular project, whether to: (1) Use a model or methodologv to quantify greenhouse eas emissions resulting from a project. and which model or methodolo<av to use. The lead aeencv has discretion to select the model or methodoloav it considers most appropriate provided it supports its decision with substantial evidence. The lead agency should explain the limitations of the particular model or methodologv selected for use: and/or (2) Rely on a qualitative analysis or performance based standards. (b) A lead agency should consider the following factors. among, others. when assessing the significance of impacts from greenhouse eas emissions on the environment: (1) The extent to which the project may increase or reduce ereenhouse gas emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting; (2) Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency ' determines applies to the project. '1 (3) The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to j implement a statewide. regional. or local plan for the reduction or mitieation of greenhouse / eas emissions. Such requirements must be adopted by the relevant public agency through a public review process and must reduce or mitigate the project's incremental contribution of greenhouse gas emissions. If there is substantial evidence that the possible effects of a particular project are still cumulatively considerable notwithstanding compliance with the adopted regulations or requirements. an EIR must be prepared for the project. Note: Authority cited: Sections 21083, 21083.05. Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections 21001. 21002. 21003. 21065. 21068. 21080. 21082. 21082.1, 21082.2. 21083.05. 21 100. Pub. Resources Code: Eureka Citi ensfor Responsible Govt. v. City of Eureka (2007) 147 Ca1.App.4th 357; Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 322; Protect the Historic Arnador Waterways v. Amaclor Water Agency (2004) 116 Ca1.App.4th 1099: Communities for a 6 Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98; Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Com. v. Board of Port Comm. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344; and City of Irvine v. Irvine Citizens AR-ainst Overdevelo,rment {1994) 25 Ca1.A. ,4th 868. 7 Land Use Element Amendment Advisory Lommittee Meeting 11 February 4, 2014 CHAPTER 3 Land Use Elemen ntersection Deficiencies FAIP OR. - ml LEGEND: = GENERAL PLAN BASELINE DEFICIENCY WITH EXISTING LANES = GENERAL PLAN BASELINE DEFICIENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN LANES O = PROJECT IMPACTED INTERSECTION WITH EXISTING LANES �� = PROJECT IMPACTED INTERSECTION WITH GENERAL PLAN LANES Deficient Intersection Summary INTERSECTION (NS/EW)1 2006 GENERAL PLAN GENERAL PLAN BASELINE GENERAL PLAN PROJECT EXISTING LANES2 GP LANES EXISTING LANES GP LANES EXISTING LANES GP LANES AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM 3. Superior Av. & Coast Hw. D C D C C � C C C 7. Riverside Av. & Coast Hw. C D D C D 1011 D C D 9. MacArthur BI. & Campus Dr. C C D D E A B E E B B 11. Von Karman Av. & Campus Dr. C E B D C D B C C D B C 13. Jamboree Rd. & Campus Dr. E F D D C F C D C F C D 14. Jamboree Rd. & Birch St. E D D C A A A A B B A A 15. Campus Dr. & Bristol St. (N) E F C D B E II A C B E A C 19. Irvine Av. & Mesa Dr. F F C D A B A B A B A B 20. Irvine Av. & University Dr. F F C C C E A C C E A C 29. MacArthur BI. & Jamboree Rd. E E D D B D B D C D B D 32. Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St. S. E D D C C B C B D B C B 49. MacArthur BI. & Ford Rd./Bonita Canyon Dr. C E C D C E C D C E C D 50. MacArthur BI. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. C F B D B D A B B D A B 53. SR-73 NB Ramps & Bonita Cyn. Dr. F C D B C B C B B A B A 57. Goldenrod Av. & Coast Hw. E B E B C D C D D D D D 59.Marguerite Av. & Coast Hw. E E E E C C C C D C D C 66. Newport Blvd (W) & Coast Hw. D C D C F D F D F D F D In addition to the deficient intersections mentioned above, 7 intersections with existing lanes and 2 with GP lanes in the City of Irvine experience deficient operations. Since 2006, additional lanes at several intersections have been constructed, resulting acceptable Level of Service (LOS). Newport @ Hospital, MacArthur @ Jamboree, Jamboree @ Bristol St. South. Traffic Volume Trends ■ General Plan Project changes result in the redistribution of peak hour directional traffic movements that generally do not degrade roadway system performance. ■ Introducing Residential into mostly Business area causes redistribution of travel patterns. This results in decreases on some movements. Calculated LOS would not necessarily increase. ■ Residential trips: primarily outbound AM, inbound PM ■ Office trips: primarily inbound AM, outbound PM ■ Completion of previously recommended intersection improvements (2006 General Plan) leaves only two deficient intersections in Newport Beach (with/without proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendment): ■ Superior Avenue @ Coast Highway ■ Newport Boulevard (West) @ Coast Highway Traffic Volume Trends Example • r� LEGEND: 100 = AM PEAK HOUR BASELINE 00 = AM PEAK HOUR PROJECT 00 = AM PEAK HOUR CHANGE imigagriim .Et -,-law tr. Public Comments ■ Adjourn to April 1, 2014 at 3:30 pm BURNS, MARLENE From: Burns, Marlene Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 3:09 PM Subject: FW: Lido Village Revitalization -Desired and Neccessary Mix of Uses Good afternoon, Please find the attached correspondence received related to the LUEAA Committee and the GP/LCP Committee. Thank you, mariene Administrative Assistant, Community Development Department, City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California 92660 Post Office Box 1768, Newport Beach, California 92658 T: 949-644-3232 I F: 949-644-3229 I E: MBurnsPnewportbeachca.gov I W: www.newportbeachca.gov From: Denys Oberman[mailto:dho@obermanassociates.comj Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 2:38 PM To: eselich@roadrunner.com; ngardner@aol.com; kcurry@newportbeachca.gov; Petros, Tony; Hill, Rush; Idaigle@aol.com; Mike Henn Cc: Brandt, Kim; Brown, Leilani Subject: Lido Village Revitalization -Desired and Neccessary Mix of Uses PLEASE DISTRIBUTE THIS CORRESPONDENCE TO : CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS and GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AMENDMENT COMMITTEE and LOCAL COASTAL PLAN UPDATE COMMITTEE AND ENTER INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD. Council: Yesterday evening, approximately 40 citizens interested in the Lido Village revitalization attended the City Council Study Session, at which the President of developer DJM Partners presented an overview of his plans for redevelopment of the Lido Marina Viillage. We appreciated the presentation, as well as the Council's thoughtful questions concerning The project. We are excited about the project and its prospective positive impact on the Lido/Balboa Penninsula area for both the Commmunity and the City. However, we have some significant potential concerns which we request be addressed. 1. The specific mix of uses as presented appears to be heading significantly "downscale" from those described previously by DJM, and those which the Community has repeatedly indicated are synergistic and compatible with how the city wishes to shop ,consume, entertain : -The specific retail and upscale edgy boutiques described previously and embraced by the community in prior presentations appear to have disappeared, in favor of "affordable eating and bakeries", other 1 more "downscale" concepts which the Penninsula area already has more than its fair share of. Brentwood Country Mart is NOT our vision of the Lido Village,while a nice modest strip. -An "apothecary" was exhibited at the apex of the village corner. There is already a pharmacy/trinkets shop right across the street. One is more than enough. We request of the City, and will do the same of the Developer ---NO BAIT AND SWITCH. The Penninsula area has more demand for Upscale than just Lido, as does the surrounding community. 2. For clarity, we wish the city to direct that there be No Bars in Lido Village ----there is already over - concentration of these uses in the Penninsula area, and the public and police have provided abundant evidence and testimony as to the impacts.( we do understand that dining will have alcohol served, but request no alcohol establishments serving food as ad hoc extension,which are in character and impact, Bars. The citizens of this community have been requesting for years that the city establish a Land Use plan at least defining compatible and incompatible uses, and regulating concentration of uses so that undesirable concentration is not permitted. This is a mature area in need of revitalization, not a blank massive plot of land available for single developer subdivision, so this will only happen if the City does what most cities do in terms of land use direction, to achieve a transformation and favorable outcome. The Council will be reviewing Land Use element recommendations shortly. We have already made specific testimony and recommendations to the Committees, which we request be passed along with the Committee's deliverables to the Council. We will be communicating the community's specific feedback and desires directly to the developer,DJM, and others as well. THE RIGHT MIX IS REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH A STRONG REVENUE BASE FROM THE RESIDENTS, TO COMPLEMENT DESIRABLE VISITOR BASE, AND PROMOTE SUSTAINABLE ECONOMIC RE, WHILE PRESERVING DESIRABLE CHARACTER AND DEMOGRAPHICS OF THE AREA. THIS DIRECTION IS THE WIN/WIN FOR ALL STAKEHOLDERS. Thank you for your consideration and assistance in facilitating a successful Revitalization outcome. Lido and Penninsula residents: Denys Oberman Linda Klein Cynthia Koller Diane Dixon Bettina Deininger Willis Longyear Drew Wetherholt Cc: Coastal land use collation participants 2 Regards, Denys H. Oberman, CEO OBERMAN Strategy arrd Financial Advisers OBERMAN Strategy and Financial Advisors 2600 Michelson Drive, Suite 1700 Irvine, CA 92612 Tel (949) 476-0790 Cell (949) 230-5868 Fax (949) 752-8935 Email: dho@obermanassociates.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The documents accompanying this transmission contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is legally privileged. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this telecopied information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately at 949/476-0790 or the electronic address above, to arrange for the return of the document(s) to us. 3