HomeMy WebLinkAboutIV(a)_Additional Materials Received_MosherDecember 6, 2023, GPAC Agenda Comments
The following comments on items on the Newport Beach General Plan Advisory Committee agenda are
submitted by: Jim Mosher (jimmosher@yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660
(949-548-6229)
Item III. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
Past agendas have included an item disclosing staff’s understanding of the current
subcommittee assignments and giving members an opportunity to make changes. I am not sure
why this agenda is lacking that.
Item IV.a. Meeting Minutes of August 21, 2023
The passages shown in italics below are from the draft minutes with suggested corrections
shown in strikeout underline format.
Page 2 of 6, first full sentence: “At the July 19, 2023, GPAC meeting, the GPAC raised
questions about the inclusion of Banning Ranch and increase increased density limits in
each focus areas area.”
Page 2 of 6, full paragraph 2, sentence 2: “She noted that a lot of new units are needed to
conform to the housing element, a 10,000-unit count with a 35-38 percent affordable, raw
numbers without the density bonus, density bonus law, and highlighted that there is only an
inclusionary housing requirement in the airport area.”
Page 2 of 6, full paragraph 5: “Principal Planner Zdeba reported the following in attendance
at the July 26 Land Use Element Subcommittee meeting: Matthew Brady, Anthony
Maniscalchi, Robert Radar Rader, Debbie Stevens, Jim Mosher, Nancy Gardner, and Christy
Walker.”
Page 3 of 6, paragraph 1, sentence 1: “Committee Member Wahlberg supported the
recommendation as written, thought the way to provide more affordable housing is to build
more overall housing, disagreed that increased density will create more traffic, and believed
that by limiting the number of housing units enriches Irvine Company.”
Page 4 of 6, paragraph 9: “Motion made by Committee Member Klobe and seconded by
Committee Member DeSantis to approve the Land Use Policy Matrix to forward to the
Planning Commission minus the four density increases and but including other changes
made over time. The motion was bifurcated for a separate vote for Banning Ranch.” [see
video for verification]
Page 4 of 6, last paragraph: “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.”
Page 5 of 6, paragraph 2 from end, last sentence: “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.”
General Plan Advisory Committee - December 6, 2023 Item No. IVa Additional Materials Received
Meeting Minutes of August 21, 2023
December 6, 2023, GPAC agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 8
Page 5 of 6, paragraph 3 from end: “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.”
Page 6 of 6, last paragraph: “With no further business, Co-Chair Evans adjourned the
meeting at X:XX p.m. The next meeting is to be determined.” [The video is 1 hour 58
minutes long, so if the meeting started at 5:00 p.m., the adjournment would have been at
6:58 p.m. However, I’m not sure “5:00 p.m.” was the correct starting time. I think we may
have waited for a quorum.]
Item IV.b. Meeting Minutes of October 4, 2023
The passages shown in italics below are from the draft minutes with suggested corrections
shown in strikeout underline format.
Page 1 of 7, Item III, paragraph 1: “Virginia Enders Anders-Ellmore expressed concern for a
climate action plan in Newport Beach and offered a speaker list for Item IV.f.”
Page 2 of 7, paragraph 1, last sentence: “Once accepted, City staff and the consultant team
will continue to work in concert with the GPAC and GPAC Outreach Subcommittee, as well
as the General Plan Update Steering Committee (GPUSC)to implement the plan going
forward.”
Page 3 of 7, partial paragraph 1, last sentence: “Deputy Community Development Director
Campbell thought this matter is a General Plan Update Steering Committee (GPUSC)
discussion item.”
Page 4 of 7, last paragraph, sentence 1: “Co-Chair Greer suggested the Subcommittee’s
Subcommittee meet after today’s presentation to gather and collate information and discuss
proactive next steps.”
Page 7 of 7, full paragraph 1: “Virginia Enders Anders-Ellmore shared (handout) a list of
people and groups to address the climate crisis that include Katrina Foley, Orange County
Power Authority, United Nations Association Group in Orange County, Rotary Club – Steve
Bender, Climate Reality Project of Orange County (OC), OC Goes Solar, and Switch is On.”
Page 7 of 7, full paragraph 2, end of last sentence: “..., and encouraged an open mind for
disruption methods to combat encroachment from Sacramento on the resident’s residents’
way of life.”
Item IV.c. Housing Element Implementation and General Plan Update
Schedules
Housing Element Implementation Program Amendments Schedule
As one of the eight members of GPAC’s Noise Element Subcommittee, I would like to express
my gratitude to whoever managed to update the Noise Element without our ever having to meet.
The process was entirely painless. It is comforting to learn that any noise concerns the citizens
General Plan Advisory Committee - December 6, 2023
Item No. IVa Additional Materials Received Meeting Minutes of August 21, 2023
December 6, 2023, GPAC agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 8
of Newport Beach might have over the next 20 or 30 years could be resolved simply by allowing
housing closer to the airport than the City previously allowed it. It is also comforting to see the
City has determined any environmental issues associated with doing so were fully analyzed and
mitigated in the 2015 EIR associated with extension of the Airport Settlement Agreement, even
though its authors presumably assumed no housing would be added in those areas.
Regarding the future schedule, although I believe we were told they were outside GPAC’s
scope, I seem to remember we were invited to comment on the draft code revisions creating
Housing Opportunity Overlay Zoning Districts and the associated Objective Design Standards,
which, according to the related web page, were the subject of a Planning Commission Study
Session (Item 5) on September 21.
At that time it was believed the EIR would be posted for public review in late November. It looks
like that has been pushed to February 2024, with the Planning Commission reviewing the
amendments in April. When are comments on the proposed amendments (as distinct from the
EIR) expected by?
General Plan Update Schedule – Six Months Out
The schedule shows a Vision Statement Subcommittee in February, which I assume will be a
followup to the discussion on the present agenda of Dudek’s Vision Statement Existing
Conditions and Background Analysis report.
I see a similar pattern of reports being reviewed at a GPAC meeting and the related
subcommittee meeting after the GPUSC has reviewed the GPAC discussion and provided
guidance.
What, specifically, will the subcommittees be doing at these meetings?
Will they be their only meetings?
What is the reason for the exception of a Natural Resources and Recreation report being
provided in February, but not followed by a subcommittee meeting?
Will the Outreach Subcommittee ever meet again? I thought it was originally planned to have a
continuing role.
Item IV.d. Presentation of the Vision Statement and Resilience
Existing Conditions and Background Analyses
Although labeled “draft,” the agenda announcement says these are being presented in “final
form.”
Draft Vision Statement Existing Conditions and Background Analysis
As a member of the Vision Statement subcommittee, I am grateful the report, in Section 4.2
(“Progress Made To-Date”), acknowledges it has met several times.
More than one person has suggested it would be helpful for the process if records were kept of
the various meetings and resulting documents shared for all to be able to see and review (if not
converse about outside the noticed meetings).
General Plan Advisory Committee - December 6, 2023 Item No. IVa Additional Materials Received
Meeting Minutes of August 21, 2023
December 6, 2023, GPAC agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 8
In the absence of such records, my recollection is the subcommittee assigned a member to
review and comment on each of topic sections in the existing Vision Statement. I found this
difficult to recognize from the list of topics discussed, which may give the impression some of
those were skipped over.
I also find it curious staff and the consultants chose not to share with the full GPAC for
discussion the 9-page Vision Statement combined thoughts document1 that the subcommittee
produced. While it was intended for further refinement by the subcommittee members, like other
subcommittee products, it would seem useful for the whole GPAC to see.
Quite recently, and long after the subcommittee’s last meeting, a resident asked me if our
General Plan provides a vision or policy for the promotion of tourism. My conclusion was it does
not, which seems very strange for an obvious tourist destination. Is one needed? While our City
government contracts with an organization to promote tourism, the image they market is one I,
at least, have difficulty recognizing as the city I live in.
Draft Resilience Existing Conditions and Background Analysis
I found this a bit difficult to follow as I thought the consultant was going to respond to requests to
more explicitly include the topics of resilience and sustainability in the General Plan. Yet it
seems to treat sustainability as a subset of resilience. I thought resilience had to do with a
community's ability to recover from crises and disasters, while sustainability had to do with living
in a way that will not create crises or disasters for future generations. While related, they seem
distinctly different to me.
As to the material, which I have not fully disgusted:
● In Section 3.1 (“Resilience in State Regulations and Guidance”), I am not sure where
Table 1 came from, as it does not seem to match the state OPR’s General Plan
Guidelines document. For example, Table 1 says there are no relevant requirements in
the Housing Element. Yet page 100 of the General Plan Guidelines points to
Government Code Section 65583(a)(8), which requires the Housing Element to provide
“An analysis of opportunities for energy conservation with respect to residential
development.”
● Section 3.2 (“Resilience in the Adopted General Plan”) seems to me to place naive
confidence in the implementation measures associated with the policy pronouncements
actually having been acted upon.
● Section 3.3 (“Resilience in Local Implementation”) does not appear to me to be an
independent evaluation of whether the City has followed through on its implementation
promises, but rather, without identifying its source, simply a regurgitation of City staff’s
annual progress reports to the state. While those reports focus on things that have been
done, it would seem the consultant would want to identify implementing actions that
have not happened.
1 This is supposed to be a view-only link. The blue headings are the ones in the existing Vision Statement,
and the pinkish ones suggested additional headings.
General Plan Advisory Committee - December 6, 2023
Item No. IVa Additional Materials Received Meeting Minutes of August 21, 2023
December 6, 2023, GPAC agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 8
● In Section 3.4, the statement that the City has recently updated its Local Coastal
Program to address sea level rise also seems a bit naive. My understanding is Appendix
A to the Implementation Plan, approved by the City Council in 2016, was regarded as a
stop-gap placeholder, yet has not been updated since.
● In Figure 2 on page 25, I am not sure I understand how the populated areas of the
Peninsula would flood while the ocean-facing sand stays dry. I thought the sand was
generally lower than the housing and flooding comes from the sea. Is the assumption
that storm water will fill the harbor to a level higher than the open ocean?
● In Section 4.1.2.2 (“Beach and Cliff Erosion”), do we not expect erosion around the
Upper Bay?
● On pages 34 and 35, aren’t the subsections misnumbered? Aren’t they “4.1.3.1” and
“4.1.3.2”?
● In Sections 4.2.1 (“City of Newport Beach Website”) and 4.3.2 (“Energy Action Plan”), it
is good to see the City has an Energy Action Plan. Did the consultant determine if any
actions have been taken, recently, as a result of it?
● Figure 11 (“Vehicle Miles Traveled in Newport Beach”) on page 43 depicts an interesting
metric. And I agree that where I live on the west side of the Upper Bay is far from any
services, but much of the information does not seem credible. How could it be that a
resident living at the eastern tip of Lido Isle travels shorter distances than one living in
Lido Village?
● Similarly, as someone who uses a bicycle as their primary means of transportation, I can
only vaguely relate to the network of bicycle trails depicted in Figure 12 (Transportation
Routes in Newport Beach). Why is a piece of MacArthur shown, but not the Back Bay
Road?
● Likewise, the description in Section 4.4.3 (“Active Transportation”) of Class III Bike
routes “as bike boulevards, which are characterized by their location on low-stress
residential streets and by traffic-calming measures, such as roundabouts and
neighborhood traffic circles” is hard for me to relate to. I haven’t encountered many
roundabouts or traffic circles in Newport Beach, and would likely find them more of a
challenge than a help.
● In Section 4.4.4.2 (“Bicycle Parking”) on page 47, I am intrigued by the photo caption’s
reference to “bicycle lockers (right),” but am unable to see them.
● I assume Section 5 (“Issues and Opportunities”), which I have not yet studied, provides
some good suggestions for improvement, but I find disappointing the conclusions in
Section 5.3.2.6 (“Access to Grant Funds”) and the Section 6 recommendation that as to
the existing General Plan, its handling of resilience and sustainability in disparate places
is good enough.
● GPAC has long been hoping for a discussion from the consultant of whether there might
be a different structure to the General Plan from that chosen in 2006 that might be more
effective. It does not look like such insight will be coming, and only a few policy tweaks
General Plan Advisory Committee - December 6, 2023 Item No. IVa Additional Materials Received
Meeting Minutes of August 21, 2023
December 6, 2023, GPAC agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 8
within the existing framework will be recommended. But to better address things like
resilience and sustainability shouldn’t we at least consider adding to the existing plan
some kind of cross-index so readers could find those disconnected policies and
implementations related to the topics of their interest?
Item IV.e. Updates on Outreach and Engagement
Updated “Newport, Together” Website
The Institute for Local Government will be hosting a free webinar with Social Pinpoint tomorrow,
December 7, from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., entitled “Using Data For More Inclusive Public
Engagement.” The announcement says it will address the questions: How do local governments
ensure their public engagement process is equitable? How do you evaluate your process to
ensure it is inclusive and representative? How do you reach the hard-to-reach?
● Home page
● The logo and icons are very large, filling the entire screen on my laptop.
● The question visible (only) if one scrolls below them is “What do you envision for
the future of Newport Beach?” – to be answered in 140 characters or less.
○ The question seems extremely vague, specifying neither a time nor a
quality to respond about, nor whether what is being sought is an
aspiration or a prediction, nor what the response will be used for.
○ Answering such a vague and open-ended question in 140 characters or
less makes it especially intimidating or pointless.
● As an example, the lengths of the four sentences of bold text
leading up to the question are 136, 194, 269, and 111 characters.
● The question itself takes 53 characters to express.
● Why is there a 140-character limitation on the response?
● What kind of response is expected?
● The paragraph near the bottom introducing the General Plan Update Steering
Committee & General Plan Advisory Committee should link to their web pages
● What is a General Plan?
● The title is “What is a General Plan?” but immediately under that it says “What is
a General Plan Update?” Was the latter intended to go further down the page
above the update timeline?
● Two of the logos adopted here and elsewhere for the existing elements are
confusing to me.
○ That an open book represents Historical Resources is not very
self-evident to me. It could equally well be a book about anything else. I
think a stylized image of the Pavilion would be much more evocative for
Newport Beach.
○ The brush apparently meant to symbolize Arts and Culture looks to me
like it is for painting a house or a boat. Wouldn’t it be better to use
General Plan Advisory Committee - December 6, 2023 Item No. IVa Additional Materials Received
Meeting Minutes of August 21, 2023
December 6, 2023, GPAC agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 7 of 8
something more recognizable as an artist’s brush, and perhaps combine it
with a musical instrument or something more obviously cultural?
● Shouldn't these paragraphs describing the General Plan elements and
Implementation Program link to the actual documents?
● Get Engaged!
● It seems misleading to say there have been no past events.
● Resource and Document Library
● The link to the “complete” “current” General Plan is neither current nor complete.
○ It provides only links to the current Housing and Circulation Elements,
which are posted as separate documents below it.
○ It provides outdated copies of the Land Use and Noise Elements, not
showing the changes approved by the City Council on November 14.
○ Additionally, the Table of Contents does not correlate with the updated
Housing and Circulation Elements, and possibly others
● The Learn More link under the GPUSC leads to a page showing documents
labeled “Current_GPAC_Agenda” and “Current_GPU_Agenda,” neither of which
are current (they are from May 3, 2023, and June 12, 2023).
● Contact Us
● I’m not sure what the purpose the green box saying “Open” is.
● The form limits comments to 350 characters. Why?
● I see no explanation of why one should use the contact form rather than the
email address listed at the bottom of each page. Should that be offered as an
alternative?
Workshop-In-A-Box
● 36 slides seems like a lot, even with many being photos. How long is the presentation
supposed to last?
● It would be helpful if the slides were numbered so viewers could refer to them (I will refer
to them by their page numbers in the 37-page agenda attachment, which are one
greater than the slide number).
● Page 6: Is it true that “A General Plan is a guide for the future of a community”? Or is it
“a guide for the future development of a community”?
● Page 8:
○ It is not quite true that the “Previous comprehensive update was conducted in
2006.” It was “completed in 2006.” The former GPAC worked on it for several
years.
○ It is not true that “The 2006 General Plan was 780 pages.” As adopted by
Resolution No. 2006-76, it appears to have consisted of 630 pages. The number
quoted may reflect a later Housing Element, as those have grown in length, with
the most recent one, weighing in at 588 pages, nearly as long as the entire 2006
document, including the Housing Element of the day.
General Plan Advisory Committee - December 6, 2023 Item No. IVa Additional Materials Received
Meeting Minutes of August 21, 2023
December 6, 2023, GPAC agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 8 of 8
● Page 11: same comment as above as to element logos. Historical and Arts/Cultural are
non-intuitive. Land Use is also a bit difficult to decipher (it is apparently a map with a
point “pinned” in the lower left).
● Page 27:
○ Noise and Land Use are not “being updated” – they have been updated with final
approval on November 14.
○ I don’t know what “Noise is being updated along a concurrent process” means. Is
that also an outdated statement?
● Page 29:
○ Why are the elements listed in a different order from that in which they were
shown?
○ Why is Historical Resources missing?
● Page 31:
○ The activity seems similar to the question I had trouble with, appearing on the
Newport, Together home page (see Item IV.e comments, above).
○ If a single word response is desired, shouldn’t the two be aligned?
○ I don’t think it will leave participants thinking they have accomplished much.
● Page 35:
○ Shouldn’t engagement emphasize some way to provide a more thoughtful
response to the presentation?
○ “Get Engaged” on the Newport, Together website doesn’t currently offer any way
for the public to provide input. It implies they have to show up somewhere in
person to do so.
Item V. COMMITTEE ANNOUNCEMENTS OR MATTERS WHICH
MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR
DISCUSSION, ACTION OR REPORT
● See comment under Item IV.e, above, about tomorrow’s free Social Pinpoint webinar.
● I continue to hope there will be a discussion of alternative formats for general plans, as
well as a discussion of what policy topics are and are not appropriate for inclusion in
one.
General Plan Advisory Committee - December 6, 2023 Item No. IVa Additional Materials Received
Meeting Minutes of August 21, 2023