HomeMy WebLinkAboutIV(c)_Additional Materials Recieved_MosherOctober 2, 2024, GPAC Agenda Item IV.c Comments
The following comments on an item 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.c. Vision Statement Updated Draft
According to the September 4 GPAC minutes, I was the only member to vote “no” on the proposal
to have Dudek complete the Vision Statement based on the feedback they’d heard. My reason for
voting “no” was I thought the draft needed significant revision, and I preferred the alternative
proposal, which was to send it back to the Vision Subcommittee for further discussion and work.
Part of my problem is that Dudek originally proposed supplementing the vision statement with a
set of “guiding principles” under which all policies would be developed. But what we have seems
to be mostly a set of action-oriented statements rebranded as “guiding values.”
The Glossary portion of Appendix E of the Office of Planning and Research’s General Plan
Guidelines attempts to make the (not always clear) distinction between “principles” and the other
parts of a general plan, including “goals,” “objectives,” “policies.” “implementation measures” and
more, giving examples of each. The principles, it says, “underlie the process of developing the
plan but seldom need to be explicitly stated in the plan itself.” Examples include such things as
“Mixed use encourages urban vitality” – meaning the community in question sees mixed use as
positive (whereas other communities might see it differently).
As I said at the September 4 meeting, an example of a guiding principle for developing our
general plan policies (if we were to agree to it) might be “When conflicts exist, Newport Beach
places the interests of residents first, businesses second and visitors last.” Another possible
principle I heard at the last meeting (which I would not agree with) might be “Maintaining an
affluent, aspirational image is vital to the success of Newport Beach.”
In the OPR sense of how these terms are used in planning, the single-numbered blue headings
appear to be goals, the unnumbered line under them appears to state a related principle, and the
decimal-numbered lists seem to state a series of sub-goals or objectives.
I think it is important to agree on the principles before embarking on policy evaluation, revision
and development, not after. Yet I am not at all sure that stating just seven principles sufficiently
captures the multitude of (sometimes conflicting) values guiding our community’s development. I
am concerned there has been, here, a rush to state goals and objectives (which may more
properly belong in the individual elements) before fleshing out a comprehensive set of the
agreed-upon principles underlying those goals.
Next, I am concerned some of the prior vision has been lost, and I don’t know if the change is
intentional. For example, the prior vision emphasized a hope that Newport Beach would remain a
primarily residential community with a conservative growth strategy. Although no longer in the
Vision Statement, the word “conservative” appears twice in the list of “Guiding Values and
Priorities,” and there are allusions to emphasizing residents’ quality of life, the idea of the city
being primarily residential seems to have been lost. Likewise, we read there will be “balance,” but
without clarity as to what will be regarded as balance.
General Plan Advisory Committee - October 2, 2024 IV.c - Additional Materials Received
October 2, 2024, GPAC agenda Item IV.c comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 3
FInally, I am not entirely sure how the list of “Guiding Values and Priorities” is intended to be
used. Will the goals, objectives and policies in the various elements cross-reference back to the
list and indicate which value or priority guided each of them?
It is not even clear to me how this document ties to the “goals” that Item IV.d on this agenda
proposes to be presented at the public workshops. For example, Priority 2.4 (“Equitable access to
natural resources that offers recreation and refuge for all residents”) seems to have been
transformed in the latter document into the rather different Recreation Goal 2 (“New parks and
connections that increase resident access to recreation, parks, and open space opportunities”).
And as to either, do we have concern for visitors’ and non-residents’ access to resources?
***
Setting these concerns aside, I have these specific comments:
The opening paragraph preceding the Vision Statement seemed a bit disjointed to me, with
sentences out of their logical order, creating unnecessary repetition. In addition, the final
sentence concluding with Newport having “the potential to become an exceptional city” suggests
Newport Beach is currently substandard and in need of improvement.
I would suggest something like:
“The development of the General Plan has been guided by a Vision Statement and a Guiding
Values and Priorities list shaped through input from the General Plan Advisory Committee, the
General Plan Update Steering Committee, and the broader community.
The Vision Statement provides a conceptual picture of a future Newport Beach, looking back
from the year 2050. The Guiding Values and Priorities list is representative of aspirational
themes emphasized throughout the General Plan.
Together, these provide the foundation for the General Plan’s goals, policies, and actions.
Through them, Newport Beach will have the potential to develop, yet remain an exceptional
city.”
For those who don’t read that introductory paragraph explaining what the Vision Statement is, I
believe the Statement itself (and its unexpected tense) would be better and more understandable
if it began “The Newport Beach of 2050 is … “
I have not attempted to digest the remainder of the Vision Statement, but I would suggest some
additional paragraphing might help with readability. I would also hope it might be enhanced with
illustrations like the prior Vision Statement was.
Regarding the list of Guiding Values and Priorities, I would note that the lines immediately under
“1. Maintain a Balanced and Connected Community” constitute a verbless phrase similar to the
Priorities 1.1 through 1.8 that appear under it (stated more as what the OPR might characterize
as”goals” or “objectives”). This is in contrast to the lines that appear immediately under each of
the remaining Guiding Values, which are all complete sentences, which is more consistent with
the statement of a value or principle. To maintain consistency with the others, I would suggest
changing this first one to something like:
General Plan Advisory Committee - October 2, 2024 IV.c - Additional Materials Received
October 2, 2024, GPAC agenda Item IV.c comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 3
“Conservative and balanced growth that emphasizes residents’ quality of life and connects
community members to their needs, creating creates a city that is functional and vibrant.”
In Priority 1.3, is protecting “the small character of existing residential communities and villages”
intended to read “the small size of existing residential communities and villages”?
Priorities 1.4 and 1.5 seem to be different statements of the same thing, and at the very least
could be combined.
Priority 1.8, seeking “A small, tight-knit community” seems to contradict Priority 1.3, seeking a
collection of separate, small communities or villages.
The “clean” part of Priority 2.3 seems to be redundant with Priority 2.2
It is not clear how the “access” of Priority 2.4 relates to “stewardship.”
General Plan Advisory Committee - October 2, 2024 IV.c - Additional Materials Received