HomeMy WebLinkAboutIV(b)_Additional Materials Received_Mosher_Land Use Element Policy RevisionsAugust 21, 2023, GPAC Agenda Item IV.b Comments
These comments on a Newport Beach General Plan Advisory Committee agenda item are submitted by:
Jim Mosher ( jimmosher@yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229)
Item IV.b. Land Use Element Policy Revisions for Housing Element
Implementation
The two-paragraph, 209-word agenda announcement for this item appears to be the
announcement/report intended for the Steering Committee. A more GPAC-specific report
appears in the attachment.
The reference in it to the remainder of the attachment representing revisions recommended by
“the members in attendance” at a July 26, 2023, Land Use Element Subcommittee meeting
seems a little sly to me. In the absence of any kind of agendas, minutes or other documentation
of subcommittee meetings, it is certainly difficult to verify who was there or what happened.
Although the Land Use Element Subcommittee consists of 15 members (I recently asked to be
added), the hastily-called July 26 meeting seems to have been poorly advertised, for based on
my recollection, only five members were present (GPAC members Brady, Maniscalchi, Rader,
Stevens [had to leave at 5:50 p.m.], and Mosher, plus GPUSC Chair Gardner). Considering the
many concerns about the policies that had been raised at the July 19 GPAC meeting (which
prompted the July 26 meeting), it comes as a surprise to me to learn, now, that the purpose of
the July 26 subcommittee meeting was limited to discussing “Banning Ranch” (which I believe is
now called the “Randall Preserve”) and increasing density limits.
“Banning Ranch” and the density limits in proposed Policy LU 4.21 were indeed discussed,
although I recall other things were as well.
With respect to Policy LU 4.2, while it is true that two of “the members in attendance” suggested
justifications for increasing the density limits, I do not recall any universal agreement about that.
I, for example, found the numbers (both old and new) quite arbitrary, and would like to see some
research supporting the validity of the justifications and the benefit to residents of various
alternatives before forming an opinion about them.
And while none of “the members in attendance” suggested “changes to the maximum overall
unit caps” for the individual named “focus areas,” larger questions such as where the proposed
caps came from, how the geographic areas of the overlays would be defined, what criteria there
would be for eligibility for the overlays within an area, and whether eligibility was supposed to
terminate if the City as whole reached its RHNA quotas, were raised but not discussed in
enough depth to reach any conclusion.
1 The existing General Plan already has a Policy LU 4.2 called “Prohibition of New Residential
Subdivisions.” Since the Policy Matrix says “N/A” in the “Current Policy/Goal” column, I have never known
if staff is aware of the duplication of numbers and proposes to replace the existing policy with this
unrelated new one, or is unaware of the duplication.
General Plan Advisory Committee - August 21, 2023
Item No. IV(b) - Additional Materials Received
Land Use Element Policy Revisions for Housing Element Implementation
August 21, 2023, GPAC Item IV.b comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 2
For example, many may think the 512-unit cap for the “Dover/Westcliff” in the proposed Policy
4.2 is intended for the existing commercial strip across Dover Drive from Bob Henry Park, and
possibly the additional non-residential areas along Dover between 16th Street and Cliff Drive.
However, in the new Housing Element, the “Dover/Westcliff focus area” appears to be a catch-
all for any part of the City not included in the other areas. The “Dover/Westcliff focus area”
includes Mariners Mile, the entire Peninsula, and even, it appears, the property on the Bayside
Drive of the Balboa Island Bridge (currently reserved for Marine Commercial uses, although it
does not seem to be primarily used for that).
Even “Coyote Canyon” includes more than Coyote Canyon (namely, the Sage Hill High School
site and a 5-acre site on the canyon top east of Newport Coast Drive2).
So, the questions of where the numbers came from, whether they are correct and whether
criteria need to be established for eligibility for them are not trivial. Nor is the question of
whether the same high density limit is appropriate for all these diverse areas.
“The members in attendance” on July 26 did not resolve these questions, or questions about the
many other policies in the matrix other than LU 4.2.
Nor do I recall any discussion as to whether at this stage in the General Plan update it is
appropriate to advance what staff identifies as “nice to have” policies, or just those “necessary”
to support the Housing Element – and whether the latter are both truly necessary and all the
necessary changes.3
2 Inexplicably, like much else in the new Housing Element, listed there as an ownerless property having a
“MU-W3” designation in the existing General Plan.
3 To me, simply inserting new policies without updating the narrative portion of Land Use Element to
explain why they are present makes little sense.
General Plan Advisory Committee - August 21, 2023 Item No. IV(b) - Additional Materials Received Land Use Element Policy Revisions for Housing Element Implementation