HomeMy WebLinkAboutIV(a)_Additional Materials Received_MosherJuly 29, 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 June 19, 2024
The passages shown in italics below are from the draft minutes with suggested corrections shown
in strikeout underline format.
Page 3 of 6, long paragraph before Item “c,” sentences 2 & 3: “Committee Member Mosher
proposed staff provide an update of the amount of commercial and residential City-owned
property development from a City database. Deputy Community Development Director
Jaime Murillo stated that the land use database the City has been working on is intended to
track development limits within the General Plan and keep an accurate count of dwelling units
and nonresidential square footage.”1
Page 5 of 6, Item “e,” paragraph 3: “In response to Committee Member Paul Watkins’ inquiry,
Steering Committee Chair Nancy Gardner stated that for ballot measures,the City can only
provide the community with information only for a vote.”
Item IV.c. Implementation Program Analysis
Page 4 (agenda packet 31): I believe the 31 “tools” mentioned in the introduction are the
sequentially-numbered “programs” of the overall Implementation Program. Without explanation,
their numbers are used to number the 31 sections of memo’s Part 3 (General Plan
Implementation Overview). That is, memo Section 3.1 = Implementation Program 1, memo
Section 3.2 = Implementation Program 2, etc.
The Introduction also fails to notice that the 31 programs are organized into six topical areas as
shown in the General Plan’s Table of Contents:
● Development Management System (Programs 1-13)
● Governance (Programs 14-15)
● Public Infrastructure Plans (Programs 16-21)
● Public Service Facility Plans (Programs 22-23)
● Public Services and Programs (Programs 24-29)
● Financing (Programs 30-31)
The analysis also leans heavily on the City’s Annual Progress Reports to state, without noting the
aspiration stated before the programs that “The programs described herein may change over time
1 My comment was with regard to the possibility of replacing the tables in the Background Report which had
listed the amounts of existing development by land use category, but had been deleted since the
classifications were not reliable. The database I was referring to is the one the City was supposed to
maintain following the 2006 General Plan update, pursuant to Implementation Program 10.2 (Maintain
Development Tracking and Monitoring Program), also referred to on handwritten page 37 of the current
agenda packet. It is a City-owned database, not a database of City-owned property. As Deputy Community
Development Director Murillo clarified (see video), it likely does not record a parcel’s exact use (e.g.,
“restaurant” vs. “drug store”) but I suspect it does include the parcel’s General Plan land use designation,
so it could be used to generate city-wide (or more localized) tables of development by land use designation.
General Plan Advisory Committee - July 29, 2024 IV.a, IV.c, IV.d, IV.e - Additional Materials Received
July 29, 2024, GPAC agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 7
to reflect available funding or as new approaches are used in the future. To this end, the General
Plan Progress Report required to be prepared annually, as described in Imp 1.3 below, should
review the continuing applicability of the programs and update this list as necessary. Such
modifications would not necessitate a formal amendment of the General Plan, unless they
substantively alter the Plan’s goals or policies.” In the 18 years since the Implementation Program
was approved, there have been no changes to the programs, nor amendments to the General
Plan’s goals or policies instigated as a result of the annual review.
The analysis also says (on page 18), but not as clearly as it might, that a single program can be
relied on to implement multiple goals and policies, which, as the introduction to the program
indicates, means those goals and policies need to be re-read to fully understand what the
implementation programs are expected to accomplish. Neither the Annual Reports nor this
analysis lists the policy or multiple policies a particular program is expected to implement.
Additionally, when a program is relied on to implement multiple policies, the Annual Reports tend
to highlight the policies on which some progress has been made, and may omit any mention of
policies which the same program has failed to implement (see Dudek’s suggested solution 6.1 on
page 37).
Page 6 (agenda packet 33): “Amendments to the Zoning Code for consistency with the adopted
General Plan are generally implemented over a 12- to 18-month period.” This statement is based
on the wording of Implementation Program 2.1, with the “12- to 18-month period,” I believe, being
an estimate of how long it would take to implement the many changes of the 2006 comprehensive
General Plan update if approved by voters. But with the exception of that initial response to the
2006 comprehensive General Plan update, which was implemented four years later by the 2010
comprehensive Zoning Code update, the practice in Newport Beach has been to process Land
Use Element and Zoning Code changes simultaneously.
Page 7 (agenda packet 34): With regard to specific plans, readers have to wait to page 22 to
learn that not only were the future specific plans not created, but several existing ones were
removed from the 2010 Zoning Code.
Page 8 (agenda packet 35): “The City has established a program to review and revise the LCP
for consistency with the General Plan, as certain policies related to housing and mixed-use
development in the General Plan may deviate from similar policies in the CLUP.” As with the
Zoning Code, changes are usually processed simultaneously. The main exception was the 2006
comprehensive General Plan update, which was made consistent through a 2009 comprehensive
update to the CLUP. The Implementation Plan was not certified until 2017.
Page 8 (agenda packet 35): “The Subdivision Ordinance requires conformity with the adopted
General Plan, which entails the review and approval or of lot size and configuration, street
alignments, street grades and widths, traffic access, drainage and sanitary facilities, land for
public uses and open spaces, and other development standards.”
Page 9 (agenda packet 36): “Policies in the City Council Policy Manual indicate the direction that
the City Council will take on certain matters and are set and reviewed annually during meetings of
the City Council.” The annual review was dispensed with after a comprehensive review (unrelated
to the General Plan) in 2017. Indeed, the former Council Policy D-3 calling for an annual review of
the Manual was, without explanation,repealed.
General Plan Advisory Committee - July 29, 2024 IV.a, IV.c, IV.d, IV.e - Additional Materials Received
July 29, 2024, GPAC agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 7
Page 14 (agenda packet 41): With regard to Program 24 (Economic Development), the
consultants may know from the Annual Progress Reports that the Strategic Plan for Economic
Sustainability was completed in 2009. They may not know it has since been ignored and that the
Business Improvement Districts no longer exist.
Page 15 (agenda packet 42): With regard to Program 29 (Community Involvement), it looks like
the consultants may be unaware the Economic Development Committee no longer exists, and the
Harbor Commission, Aviation Committee and Water Quality/Coastal Tidelands Committee may
belong on the list.
Page 17 (agenda packet 44): With regard to General Plan Consistency, the need for outside
agencies planning work in the City to submit their CIP’s to the City for review by the Planning
Commission is mentioned in Implementation Program 1.1. I am not aware of that happening.
Page 20 (agenda packet 47): November 7, 2000, is the date of the election at which Charter
Section 423 was voted upon. According to a notation in the Charter, it “went into effect” with
certification of the election result on December 15, 2000.
Page 25 (agenda packet 52): With regard to Imp. 14.1 (Adjoining Cities), it is not quite true that
“no border committee has been established.” Several committees existed when the program was
adopted, but the City ceased to participate. A “Liaison Committee” continues to exist and meet
quarterly between the City of Costa Mesa, the Costa Mesa Sanitary District (which serves part of
Newport Beach) and Mesa Water, and, more recently, the Newport Mesa Unified School District.
Cooperation with neighboring cities, particularly Costa Mesa, remains important on such issues
as bicycle routes, and Irvine with regard to the Airport Area. Additionally support from the so
called “corridor cities” is important for maintaining support for the City’s airport policies.
Page 25 (agenda packet 52): With regard to Imp. 15.1 (Encourage Annexation of Banning Ranch
Prior to Development), I have not seen a clear map of the “Randall Preserve” in Orange County
(indeed, Google finds separate “Randall Preserves” in Washington and the Tehachapi
Mountains). While most of the Orange County one is outside the City limits, I believe about 10
acres north of the Newport Mesa Unified School District site at the terminus of West 16th Street
are already in the City.
Page 25 (agenda packet 52): With regard to Imp. 21.4 (Harbor Operations and Management),
while the envisioned “joint City/County study” seems never to have happened, part of it was
preempted by the City unilaterally moving management of the mooring fields (formerly with the
Sheriff’s Harbor Patrol) to a newly-created City Harbor Department.
Page 26 (agenda packet 53): With regard to “Managing Congestion,” the insufficiency of
implementing programs may be due, in part, to the Circulation Element having been recently
revised, but without the introduction of any new implementation programs (and a complete
reliance on existing ones).
Page 33 (agenda packet 60): The statement that “To establish a B-BID, a majority of businesses
in the proposed district must be in support of it” is a bit misleading. I believe the former B-BIDS in
Newport Beach were created by the City Council in response to requests from a handful of
businesses. It would have taken a protest by a majority of affected businesses to prevent their
General Plan Advisory Committee - July 29, 2024 IV.a, IV.c, IV.d, IV.e - Additional Materials Received
July 29, 2024, GPAC agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 7
formation. By contrast, P-BIDS require a majority of affected properties to request formation, and
in Newport Beach, only properties favorable to the formation have been included.
Item IV.d. Technical Diagnostic Memo
Page 1 (agenda packet 77): Since more than half of the memo is devoted to environmental
justice, it is surprising it is not mentioned in the Executive Summary. Moreover, most of the
Environmental Justice chapter is devoted to an assessment of whether the Santa Ana Heights
annexation areas (“Tract A”) should be considered a “disadvantaged community,” and it is
disappointing no clear conclusion or recommendation is provided.
Also, given that parts of East Santa Ana Heights contain the closest residential development to
the JWA runway, immediately adjacent to the jet departure path, it seems odd that noise pollution
and ultrafine particulates pollution are not discussed as additional special, local environmental
factors affecting the determination.
The memo also does not mention how environmental justice considerations relate to the federal
Community Development Block Grant program, which, in the past, had identified Balboa (village)
rather than Santa Ana Heights as an area needing attention,
Page 4 (agenda packet 80): The statement that “There are no Federal regulations related to the
contents of the Harbor and Bay Element” does not seem accurate. Newport Harbor is federally
designed, including the location bulkhead, pierhead and project lines, and mooring field and
anchorage boundaries. As Policy HB 13.2, the Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for
delineating and maintaining the navigation channels, and as Policy HB 7.2 indicates, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service is responsible for much of the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve.
Moreover, the federal Inland Navigation Rules Act of 1980 empowered the U.S. Coast Guard to
publish and enforce rules for navigation within the harbor.
Similarly, the state has a Harbors and Navigation Code, as well as a Rivers, Streams, and
Harbors chapter in the Government Code which, among other things, prohibits cities from
establishing harbor lines “outside” the federally-established ones.
Additionally, much of Newport Bay is public trust land (and water) overseen by the State Lands
Commission, and the City is not trustee of all of them.
The description of the role of the California Coastal Commission also does not seem quite
accurate. The CCC does not delegate to the City permitting authority over the tidelands and
public trust lands. All new development there must be approved by the CCC as well as changes
to land use regulations.
While not strictly limitations on content of the element, these limit what the policies can aspire to.
Page 7 (agenda packet 83): The Mills Act seems important to mention as an incentive for
preservation of historic structures.
Page 9 (agenda packet 85): “The Newport Beach LCP was certified by the CCC in 2017 and is
further discussed in Section 4.3.3.” There is no “Section 4.3.3” describing the LCP. The earlier
chapter ends at “4.2.1 California Coastal Act.”
General Plan Advisory Committee - July 29, 2024 IV.a, IV.c, IV.d, IV.e - Additional Materials Received
July 29, 2024, GPAC agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 7
Page 19 (agenda packet 95): “This requirement stems from Senate Bill (SB) 1000 (2016), which
requires local jurisdictions to address Environmental Justice in their General Plans (see section
9.2.1 10.2.2).”
Page 26 (agenda packet 102): The census tract wide data seems a bit coarse for locating
pockets of lower income residents. I would think the residents of mobile home parks would be
likely to have lower incomes, especially residents of the Beach and Bay Mobile Home Port west
of Newport Shores, as well as the mobile home parks in West Newport Mesa, and possibly even
Bayside Village.
Page 29 (agenda packet 105): “Tract A is bound to the north by Highway 73/Bristol Street. The
portion of the tract within the City of Newport Beach’s jurisdiction features a mix of uses: the
Santa Ana County Country Club and Newport Beach Golf Course, commercial plazas,
apartments, and some low-density residential.” The “Santa Ana County Club” is not within “the
City of Newport Beach’s jurisdiction.” Although there has been occasional discussion of annexing
it, it is part of unincorporated Orange County and within the sphere of influence of Costa Mesa.
The part of Tract A within Newport Beach could more simply, and alternatively be identified as the
“Santa Ana Heights annexation area.”
Page 29 (agenda packet 105): “Therefore, Tract B will be excluded from the remainder of this
analysis in sections 9.3.2 10.3.2 through 9.3.9 10.3.9.”
Page 30 (agenda packet 106): “To assess pollution burden in Tract A, this analysis identified
those pollution indicators for the census tract scored at or above the 75th percentile in
CalEnviroScreen, corresponding to the assessment method described in Section 9.3.1 10.3.1
above.”
Page 31 (agenda packet 107): “Tract A scores above the 75th percentile for toxic release from
facilities in CalEnviroScreen due to the presence of an electronics manufacturer, north or of State
Route 73, outside of the City’s boundaries. Toxic releases are of concern in Tract A due to the
presence of residents.” From the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Toxic Releases map, this seems to be a
reference to Sanmina Corp at 2950 Redhill Ave. The map also shows Tower Semiconductor at
4321 Jamboree Road, which is within the City limits (though slightly farther from Tract A.
Page 35 (agenda packet 111): In Figure 10 (Walk Time to Closest Park), I do not understand why
the portion of Newport Coast in the lower right corner is shown as having the lengthiest time since
it abuts Crystal Cove State Park, which is shown as “open access” park or open space on the
following Figure 11 (Parks and Open Space by Access Type).
Page 37 (agenda packet 113): “As shown in Figure 12, there are no community centers or
libraries are located in Tract A. In the adopted General Plan Recreation Element, the City
contemplated adding a community center just south of Tract A, which would be called the Santa
Ana Heights Community Center.” My understanding is that although the joint use “community
center” project with the YMCA on University Drive did not materialize, a multipurpose “community
room” was incorporated into Fire Station No. 7 at the corner of Mesa and Acacia. However, the
room seems to have since been appropriated by the Fire Department and is only rarely used for
community events.
General Plan Advisory Committee - July 29, 2024 IV.a, IV.c, IV.d, IV.e - Additional Materials Received
July 29, 2024, GPAC agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 7
Page 37 (agenda packet 113): The legend to Figure 12 (Libraries and Community Centers) has
13 names, but there are only 10 dots visible on the map. Some may overlap, but the Newport
Coast Community Center is named, but does not seem indicated on the map.
Page 38 (agenda packet 114): Is the overcrowding analysis correct?
The Census Bureau dataset cited shows just 3 out of 1,102 households, or 0.272%, in Tract A
(“631.01”) being overcrowded:
By comparison, the Dover Shores/Westcliff tract (“631.10”) has 73 out of 3,202, or 2.28%
overcrowding. While there are areas with 0%, the Newport Shores/Hoag area (“636.03”) has
3.869% overcrowding, the Big Canyon through Bonita Canyon tract (“630.07”) has 1.797%,
Newport Coast (“626.43”) is reported to have 0.309%, and a somewhat random tract in Costa
Mesa (“637.01” – East of Placentia, between 19th and Victoria) has 33.066% overcrowding.
Tracts south and southwest of the latter have similarly high percentages.
The 0.272% overcrowding in Tract A seems low, not high.
Moreover, the statement about it under “10.3.4.3 Habitability” is confusing: “The available data
indicates that household overcrowding and overpayment are not of concern with Tract A,
where this census tract scores higher than more than half of census tracts in California.
Household overcrowding does impact households within Tract A, where the tract only scores
higher than 29% of tracts in California.”
Has the overcrowding comparison statistic in the text, and in Table 3 (Housing Scores on Healthy
Places Index) on page 115, been inverted, with Tract A scoring worse than just 29% of tracts,
and better than 71%?
Page 39 (agenda packet 115): Section 10.3.5 is blank
Page 40 (agenda packet 116): Figure 13 (Supermarkets with 0.5-mile Buffer) is incomplete. The
text says is “does not include data for the Irvine Ranch Market,” but it seems to be missing many
others. For example, of major supermarkets, it is missing the Eastbluff Ralphs at 2555 Eastbluff
Dr., at the Stater Brothers at 2180 Newport Blvd.
2 Of smaller chain grocery stores, it is missing
Bristol Farms at 810 Avocado Ave and Whole Foods Market at 415 Newport Center Dr.
2 Although in Costa Mesa, it is closer to Newport Beach than many of those shown.
General Plan Advisory Committee - July 29, 2024 IV.a, IV.c, IV.d, IV.e - Additional Materials Received
July 29, 2024, GPAC agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 7 of 7
Page 41 (agenda packet 117): “As shown in Figure 14, Tract A contains some Class II on-street
bike lanes. Additionally, the City’s Bikeways Master Plan (2014) recommends a designated Class
III bike route connecting Mesa Drive to the North Back Bay Trail. The Plan also recommends
allowing bicycle riding on additional segments of sidewalk; however, no other significant
improvements to bicycle infrastructure are planned for Tract A.” The significance of Figure 14
(Existing and Planned Bikeways) on page 118 is a bit unclear. The caption says “Source: City of
Newport Beach (2014). “Bikeways Master Plan,”” which agrees with the title block within the
figure itself. However, it is Figure CE3 from the recently-revised General Plan Circulation Element
as adopted in 2022. And although Policy CE 5.2.4 refers to an updated Figure CE3 “in progress,”
I understand from the City Traffic Engineer that it depicts the state of bicycle infrastructure as of
the time of the date of the new Circulation Element. In that connection, it is unclear why the
proposed “sidewalks - bicycle riding allowed” and “designated bike routes” have not been
completed. The former requires only updating City Council Resolution No. 82-148,3 and the latter
installing signs or pavement markings designating the route.
Page 42 (agenda packet 118): “Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS)28 data for the
Newport Beach area indicates few crash incidents involving motor vehicles and pedestrians or
bicyclists, as shown in Figure 15. Data spanning 2018 to 2022 shows three incidents near one
entrance to the Upper Newport Back Bay trail (at University Drive and Irvine Avenue), south of
Tract A. A few scattered incidents have occurred in or near Tract A over the same time span.” The
TIMS SWITRS GIS Map with dots for individual crashes in 2018-2022 (inclusive) shows just two
traffic-pedestrian incidents at the Irvine/University intersection (4/1/2021 at 07:54 and 9/7/2022 at
20:50). In Tract A itself, it shows only two traffic-bicycle accidents: one at Mesa Dr & Bayview
Trail (6/19/2021 10:33 and one at Orchard Dr & Santa Ana Ave (9/23/2022 13:13).
Page 43 (agenda packet 119): “Given the proximity of the Upper Back Bay and the recreational
amenities that it offers” <--This sentence seems to have been left incomplete.
Item IV.e. Phase One Outreach Summary
The “Newport, Together”Get Engaged!page has long said under “Past Community Events &
GPAC and GPUSC Meetings” that “Following the pop-up events, community feedback will be
summarized into a report.” I took that to mean that for each event, a summary would be
appended to the original page announcing the event. That didn’t happen, so it is good to have the
present report.
Page 7 (agenda packet 135): Unlike with Figure 2 on the preceding page, the Figure 3 “Word
Cloud Visualization” does not seem to align with the “Top Five Responses” list that precedes it.
For example, “bike” is larger than “beaches” in the word cloud, yet “bike” does not appear in the
top five list, but “beaches” does. Conversely, “Residents” appears in the list, but I can’t find it in
the cloud.
3 The Traffic Engineer tells me the plan to revise the resolution to legalize bicycle riding on additional
sidewalks has been held in abeyance due to the possibility the state legislature might enact statewide
regulations affecting the same.
General Plan Advisory Committee - July 29, 2024 IV.a, IV.c, IV.d, IV.e - Additional Materials Received