Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Notices Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges Newport Beach to broaden public notices for land‑use hearings
Summary
At the Jan. 28 Newport Beach City Council meeting, resident Jim Mosher urged the city to expand how it notifies the public about land‑use hearings, citing a recent Planning Commission item that he said raised substantial height increases in Newport Center and was not widely noticed.
Jim Mosher, a Newport Beach resident, told the City Council on Jan. 28 that the city should improve how it alerts the public to hearings when land‑use changes may affect them. Mosher singled out a recent Planning Commission agenda item he said sought height increases in Newport Center, including a proposed 50‑foot height opposite the council chamber on Avocado and an adjacent proposal for residential towers of 270 feet.
Mosher said the city currently “defaults to the state requirement, which is to mail notice to properties within 300 feet of those being changed,” and that peer cities use broader standards. He also criticized a state allowance the city uses: when more than 1,000 notices would be required, the city may publish notice in its official paper — the Daily Pilot — in lieu of mailing.
Why it matters: Mosher argued that the combination of a narrow mailed radius and substitution of a newspaper notice can leave many residents and renters unaware of major zoning or height changes. He told the council that only two people attended the Planning Commission hearing and that one of them had been notified personally by him.
Details Mosher offered at the meeting include that some residents reasonably assume new housing overlays would allow heights up to 65 feet, but the specific Planning Commission materials he reviewed proposed different figures: a 50‑foot increase on Avocado and a 270‑foot residential tower next to it. Mosher said those details were available only by reading the staff report, not the plain agenda notice, and called that “a matter of some public interest.”
Mosher outlined alternatives other cities use: a larger mailing radius, inclusion of apartment dwellers and commercial tenants in notices, and automated increases in the noticing area when proposed building heights rise. He recommended the city review the Planning Commission notice practices and the council’s consent calendar process to ensure the public has a reasonable opportunity to comment.
No formal action or vote followed Mosher’s remarks during the Jan. 28 meeting. The Planning Commission item he referenced was reported to council on the consent calendar; the council did not deliberate on that particular land‑use matter in open session that night.
Ending: Mosher asked the council to review past planning‑session formats and to consider changes that would bring identified priorities and notices to the public earlier in the process. The council did not take immediate action on Mosher’s suggestions during the meeting.
