HomeMy WebLinkAboutV_Additional Materials Received_MosherMarch 20, 2024, 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 IV.a. Meeting Minutes of February 7, 2024
The passages shown in italics below are from the draft minutes with suggested corrections
shown in strikeout underline format.
Page 3 of 5, paragraph 6: “Committee Member Stevens relayed that GPUSC Chair Nancy
Gardner is the guest speaker at the Corona del Mar Resident’s Residents Association
Annual Meeting and invited everyone to attend on April 2.”
Page 3 of 5, last paragraph: “Committee Member Mosher reminded the GPAC about the idea
of holding a committee community forum and suggested the outreach messaging from the
GPAC be separated from the City-driven General Plan Amendment process related to
implementation of the Housing Element that will lead to the November election, so the public
is aware of two separate General Plan Update processes.”
Page 4 of 5, full paragraph 2: “Committee Member Lynn Hackman thought the GPAC should
be able to answer questions about how high-density housing will influence the General Plan
Update and effect affect the City, as well as the impacts of the ferry staying or leaving and
Orange County Sanitation District pumping station expansion.”
Page 4 of 5, paragraph 2 from end, sentence 2: “Mr. Fancher thought the website should
clearly present the upcoming meetings and real-time documents, so it is accessible to the
public.”
General comment: It is fortunate there are video recordings of the GPAC meetings, for the
meaning of what is recorded in the written minutes is not always clear. For example, page 5 of 5
of the present minutes reports an extensive back and forth among speakers regarding certain
words or phrases appearing in an Existing Conditions and Background Analysis report, but it is
not at all apparent what words or phrases the discussion was about.
Item IV.b. Arts and Cultural/Historical Resources Subcommittee Recap
A minor point, but on page 1 of the otherwise very helpful “Action Minutes from the
Subcommittee Meeting on February 27” (page 3 of Attachment No. 2), the subheading in bold
italics reading “Identifying the GPAC Vision Statement Subcommittee Chairperson” was
undoubtedly intended to read: “Identifying the GPAC Arts and Cultural/Historical Resources
Subcommittee Chairperson.”
Note: Although not a member of this subcommittee, I would have liked to be able to attend, but
was unable to, since it was timed simultaneously with the City Council meeting held on the
same day.
Regarding the “Historical Resources Element Existing Conditions and Background Analysis,”
this is the first complete Background Analysis of an existing General Plan element the GPAC
has seen.
General Plan Advisory Committee - March 20, 2024 Item No. IV.a, IV.b, IV.c, V. - Additional Materials Received
March 20, 2024, GPAC agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 3
The recommendations seem good and thoughtful, if a bit ambitious for adoption by a Newport
Beach City Council.
The Regulatory Review also seems helpful, although in its review of existing local regulations,
the preparers may not have been entirely review of some of the existing provisions, such as
NBMC Sec. 21.30.105 (Cultural Resource Protection) which is part of our Local Coastal
Program and seeks to protect archaeological, paleontological, historical and architectural
resources. Or conversely, that such regulations apply only to the portion of the City within the
coastal zone, and not elsewhere (for example, the report cites the Chapter 21.70 definition of a
“historical resource,” which is not relevant outside the coastal zone areas).
It seems especially weak in reviewing whether the existing Historical Resources Element, or
entire General Plan, has, since its adoption in 2006, achieved its goals of historical preservation.
For example, it says “The Land Use Element identifies several tools and resources to help
maintain and preserve Newport Beach’s neighborhoods and districts,” which it says include:
Policy LU 6.10.3: Specific Plan Guidelines: Utilize design and development guidelines for
Cannery Village identified in Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan.
and
Policy LU 6.12.2: Specific Plan Guidelines: Utilize design and development guidelines for
McFadden Square identified in Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan.
The authors may be unaware that in 2010, in adopting the Zoning Code changes necessitated
by the 2006 General Plan, the former specific plans for all areas of the City other than Santa
Ana Heights were not preserved, but rather deleted.
The authors may also be unaware of subsequent short-lived efforts such as the Neighborhood
Revitalization campaign of 2011-2012, which produced such things as the Balboa Village Master
Plan and Balboa Village Design Guidelines, which may (or may not) include some attempt to
retain an area’s historical character. Or the 2006 GP-dictated Heritage Signs program of NBMC
Sec. 20.42.180, which never seems to have quite gotten off the ground, with the amortization
period for non-heritage signs eventually being abandoned: see Ordinance No. 2021-5 and the
associated General Plan amendment,Item 16 from the February 23, 2021, Council agenda.
As to the mystery cut-off date of December 12, 1950, for historical “landmark” structures
mentioned on pages 16 and 31 of the background report (pages 41 and 55 of Attachment No.
2), and found in NBMC Sec. 20.38.070, I am not sure of the origin of the exact date, but I
suspect it was part of the City’s effort to not cast the net of specially-treated buildings too widely.
The Council seems to have wanted to give special protection to the Port Theater, which
reportedly opened in 1949, but not to later-built theaters: see, for example,Item 14 from the
February 13, 2003, Council agenda.
General Plan Advisory Committee - March 20, 2024 Item No. IV.a, IV.b, IV.c, V. - Additional Materials Received
March 20, 2024, GPAC agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 3
Item IV.c. Recreation/Natural Resources, Harbor and Bay, and Safety
Subcommittees Recap
On ppage 3 of Attachment No. 3, regarding the March 6 Recreation and Natural Resources
Subcommittee meeting, there is an erroneous listing of: “GPAC and GPUSC Members in
Attendance: Ruth Kobayashi, Dennis Baker, Jim Mosher, Nancy Gardner, Paul Watkins,
Elizabeth Dickson, Grant, Laura Kerin,Nancy Scarbrough (Microsoft Teams), Charles Klobe
(audio), Laird Hayes (Microsoft Teams).”
Similarly, in the later heading on page 3: “Identifying the GPAC Vision Statement Recreation
and Natural Resources Subcommittee Chairperson” should be “Identifying the GPAC
Subcommittee Chairperson.”
On page 6, I am listed as attending the March 12 Harbor and Bay and Safety Subcommittees
Joint Meeting. I was actually present only for a few minutes during a break in the City Council
meeting which it was scheduled in conflict with.
In all the action minutes, it would be helpful to indicate how long the meetings lasted.
Item V. COMMITTEE ANNOUNCEMENTS OR MATTERS WHICH
MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR
DISCUSSION, ACTION OR REPORT
1. At its March 26 meeting, the City Council will be receiving City staff’s General Plan Annual
Progress Report, which cities are required to submit to the state by April 1 of each year.
Although much of it is devoted to progress toward the City’s Housing Element goals, it
should be of interest to GPAC members since it also includes staff’s report on the status of
the programs intended to implement the other elements’ goals (our GP “Implementation
Program”), and any accomplishments during the last calendar year toward achieving them.
The draft of the City’s Annual Report for 2023 can be found filed as Item 3 from the March 7,
2024, Planning Commission meeting, where it was reviewed prior to submittal to the
Council. Additional required spreadsheets related to housing production (but not the report
itself) have been posted here.
One problem with the current non-Housing Element portion of the Annual Report is that it
works backwards from the Implementation Program. But a given program (such as “revise
codes”) may have been intended to support multiple General Plan goals. As a result
showing a particular program was used during the year to advance one or more GP goals
does not ensure it, or anything else, was used to advance other goals.
2. The Draft Environmental Impact Report related to implementation of the recently-adopted 6
th
Cycle Housing Element is currently out for public review with comments due by March 28.
The final EIR and the mitigation measures associated with it are particularly important
because the City increasingly relies on them to limit any further environmental review of
projects considered consistent with the General Plan.
For those interested, the reference desks at each of the City libraries have a paper copy of
the draft EIR (call number 333.917 NEWPORT FEB 2024). And for those who would like a
single searchable file to review, rather than the multiple pieces posted at the above links,
there is a flash drive with such a file (minus the appendices) inside the rear cover of each
paper copy.
General Plan Advisory Committee - March 20, 2024 Item No. IV.a, IV.b, IV.c, V. - Additional Materials Received