HomeMy WebLinkAbout0.0d - Comments from Jim Mosher -Comments on June 20, 2013 Planning Commission Agenda
Comments by: Jim Mosher (iimmosher(a vahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949 -548-
6229). strikeout underline format is used to suggest changes to the passages quoted in italics
Item No. 1 Minutes of June 6, 2013
Page 2:
• Line 1: "...and a slide she prepared on behalf of a request by Commissioner Tueker
Toerge regarding Ocean Boulevard."
• Paragraph 2: "Discussion followed regarding a budget for the Civic Center and wondered
if whether it is not a stand-aleng stand -alone project with bond monies."
• Paragraph 3: "Sept' Public Works Director David Webb reported that..."
• Paragraph 8: "Jim Mosher expressed concern regarding the ability to understand the
supporting mate relevant law... "
o [note: I continue to think the state law under which the staff report said the Item 2
hearing was being held — California Government Code Section 65401 — requires an
annual General Plan compliance review of all planned public works projects within
the City, not just the City- funded ones.]
Page 4:
• Paragraph 4: "Jim Mosher addressed specific findings and reported that a the section of the
Municipal Code that was under discussion had been recently changed by Council. "
Item No. 2 Recommendation on Residential Lot Mergers (PA2012 -102)
In PC 1 (Draft memorandum) --
Page 2 (page 6 of PDF):
• paragraph 2: "... yet could still be in seepatibil incompatible with the lots that adjoin it ..."
• paragraph 5: "4. Increased setbacks and floor area restrictions apd for merged lots GFeates
create inequities."
• paragraph 6: "Modifying the development standard would create make several existing
structures nonconforming." [note: I still don't understand how this would happen if the
proposed code change were to affect future mergers only.]
• paragraph 7: 1 think a fuller explanation of regulation by "lot coverage" is needed. What is
it? And how would it negate the effect of increased setbacks?
• In the proposed Recommendation 1, it is unclear if items a, b and c are the only matters that
may be considered in making the required finding.
Page 3 (page 7 of PDF):
• In Recommendation 2, 1 believe there was testimony that the Ocean Boulevard lots, before
merging, were already larger than most in the area. Were they nonetheless non- conforming
in some respect, exempting the merger from further scrutiny under the suggested rule?