HomeMy WebLinkAboutIV(b)_Additional Materials Received_MosherOctober 4, 2023, GPAC Agenda Item 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.a. Meeting Minutes of August 21, 2023
Task 1.6 of the Dudek contract (C-9358) suggests Dudek will be preparing the minutes for the
main GPAC meetings.
Did they prepare these? Or have they not yet begun that task?
I ask because in reading the minutes I have the impression they were prepared by someone
who either has trouble expressing ideas in clear English or had trouble understanding the
comments they were transcribing. That makes for hard reading, and if they are qualities of our
consultant, they seem worrisome.
Trying to make them more understandable for future readers would require extensive
amendments.
I will just note what seems like an obvious correction to the second paragraph from the bottom
of page 4 of 6: “Nancy Gardner stated that the owners of Banning Ranch would like the property
removed because they will not be adding housing to the property due to a dead deed
restriction.”
On page 5 of 6, I am guessing paragraph 3 under “c.” was intended to read “In response to
Committee Member Mosher’s question, Principal Planner Zdeba noted housing occupancy and
tenure date data in the demographics profile on page 33 of the agenda attachments and offered
to discuss offline turnover rates in different housing types and furnish the GPAC with housing
data.”
And the following paragraph may have been meant to end: “Deputy Community Development
Director Campbell relayed a 0.3 percent population reduction year-over-year for 2022-23 as per
the State Department of Finance - Demographics Unit.”
Item IV.b. Review and Acceptance of the Outreach and Engagement
Plan
The agenda announcement says the GPAC Outreach Subcommittee endorsed the draft plan “at
its last meeting on August 28, 2023.” While the subcommittee did review the draft plan at that
meeting, it also met on September 11 and I believe it suggested additional revisions then. As
others have commented, it is unfortunate there are no records of what happens at GPAC
subcommittee meetings.
I have these comments on the September 28 draft provided with the agenda packet:
•Page 3 begins “After 16 years, the City of Newport Beach (City) embarked on the
preparation of a comprehensive General Plan Update (GPU)” – a phrase that seems to
be modeled on the opening sentence of the General Plan Update page on the City’s
website. However, if the GP was last updated in late 2006, and the new update started
in early 2019, the “embarkation” started after less than 13 years.
GPAC - October 04, 2023 IV (b) - Additional Materials Received Review and Acceptance of the Outreach and Engagement Plan
October 4, 2023, GPAC agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 3
•The first paragraph of Section 1.3 on page 5 says the GPAC “has nine subcommittees.”
I am only able to identify eight on the roster included with the current agenda packet.
Am I miscounting?
•Regarding Figure 3 on page 7, it seems unfortunate we are unable to identify any
activities that would fall in the upper right quadrant, combining “more people” with
“higher impact.”
•I have a number of concerns about Section 3 (“Community Engagement Timeline”) on
page 13:
o Why are GPAC meetings identified as a form of community engagement in the
first row (“Vision Statement and Resiliency”), but not in any of the subsequent
rows, even though GPUSC meetings are identified as an engagement activity.
▪Is that intentional or a typo?
o Does the organization of the “timeline” into rows indicate that in Phases 1 and 2
the topics listed on the left will be pursued sequentially?
▪If so, how much time would be allotted to each row? One month in
Phase1 and one quarter in Phase 2?
o I remain troubled that no public engagement at all is planned for revisions to the
Noise Element, and no further engagement planned for the Circulation Element.
▪I appreciate there may be a problem with the Dudek contract, but the
statement that “The Noise Element is currently in the amendment
process” does not seem to justify this. The Land Use Element is also
currently in the amendment process, yet it remains an object of
engagement in the last row.
•In Section 4.1 (“Notification Methods”):
o Under “Mailer” the consultant should understand that not all residents or
businesses receive a water bill (many are in other water districts), and that no
one (as far as I know) receives the weekly City Manager’s newsletter by mail.
o Two commonly used methods of notification I don’t see listed are:
▪Announcements on the City website, including its online calendar.
▪Announcements at City Council meetings and at City board, commission
and committee meetings.
•On page 21, why would “Stakeholder Focus Group Meetings” be virtual?
GPAC - October 04, 2023 IV (b) - Additional Materials Received Review and Acceptance of the Outreach and Engagement Plan
October 4, 2023, GPAC agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 3
Item IV.c. Presentation on the Identified Web Platform: Social Pinpoint
Again, although the agenda says this platform was identified “At the August 28, 2023, GPAC
Outreach Subcommittee meeting,” I believe it was actually at the subcommittee’s September 11
meeting.
My notes indicate Dana Point was mentioned as an example of a city using Social Pinpoint for
general plan update engagement. I would note that the Interactive Map that seems to have
been used to provide comments, appears to have gone inactive and inaccessible as soon as
the outreach window closed, as has their companion online questionnaire.1 To see the results,
one has to read the Summary of Engagement Efforts PDF.
Item IV.d. Updates from Dudek and Overview of the Schedule
Although the agenda describes this as presentation of a schedule, I am not sure from the slides
provided when the “Diagnostic Reports” will be completed and made available to the GPAC.
I am also unable to tell how and when they will be interacting with the GPAC. Will they continue
to be present only as attendees? Or will they be taking a more active role in organizing the
meeting’s content? How, when and to what extent will they be guiding the subcommittees?
As to the “Diagnostic Reports,” they will apparently identify “Existing conditions, Priorities, Issue
areas and Opportunities.”
Will they only become available at the end of Phase 1?
If the GPAC subcommittees continue to meet, it would seem helpful for them to have some
guidance as to possible deficiencies of the elements they are reviewing.
I would note first, that the Safety Element Subcommittee requested and received from City staff
a list of all the policies in that element, followed by a comment from the relevant City department
about the current status of compliance with them. That seemed quite helpful. Will the Dudek
reports include something like that? Or will they take a different approach, starting from scratch?
I would note second, that in the previous comprehensive update effort, before the public
outreach began, in 2001, a consultant prepared a 59-page booklet called Newport Beach:
current conditions, future choices: step up to the future, which was made available at outreach
events, which can still be read online (as well as at the library). Something similar was done with
the 1969 Newport Tomorrow effort. In the present case, it would seem particularly important to
have some kind of handout explaining the process, since there is a parallel set of General Plan
amendments going to a vote next year that are, apparently, not part of the outreach.
I would note third, that at some point in the “2006” process, a consultant made available to the
GPAC very detailed Technical Background Reports, linked to near the bottom of the Current
General Plan page on the City’s website (because the current plan says they are part of it). I am
hoping information of that sort will be included in the Dudek reports, but I don’t know.
1 They were apparently available from February 15, 2023, through May 19, 2023, during which time 238
questionnaires were completed and 127 map comments posted (from a population of about 33,000).
GPAC - October 04, 2023 IV (b) - Additional Materials Received Review and Acceptance of the Outreach and Engagement Plan