HomeMy WebLinkAboutIV(a)_Additional Materials Received_MosherJuly 23 2025, GPUSC Item IV.a Comments
These comments on an item on the Newport Beach General Plan Update Steering Committee agenda
are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( jimmosher@yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660
(949-548-6229)
Item IV.a. Review of GPAC’s Meeting on July 2, 2025
The video of the July 2, 2025, GPAC meeting indicates that all three GPUSC members attended
at least part of it, so they are presumably familiar with what happened.
As they will understand, the versions of the Draft Recreation Element and Draft Natural
Resources Element presented there differed from the versions that had been reviewed by the
GPAC subcommittee in ways that were not clearly delineated. The versions now being
presented to the GPUSC use redlining in a way that appears intended to indicate changes from
the versions that were in the July 2 GPAC agenda packet.
Those changes may have been directed by the GPAC at their July 2 meeting, or they could be a
response to earlier or subsequent comments not seen by the GPAC, or they could be the result
of further staff/consultant review. As a result the origin or motivation for the changes is not
generally obvious, nor is it even obvious what version the redlining is with respect to.
As an example, after the May 15, 2025, subcommittee meeting, but prior to the July 2 GPAC
meeting, I had submitted extensive comments on the two elements. In the first sentence of the
“Overview” of the Natural Resources Element, I had suggested adding “landforms” to the list of
topics that the element deals with, and also pointed out that the order of the topics did not match
that in which they were covered in the draft. Without review by the subcommittee, the word
“landforms” was added to the list, but the order was not corrected in the version presented on
July 2. Now it appears from the redlining that staff has rearranged the order of the topics
(moving “energy transition”) and deleted “landforms.” I would guess this deletion is because
“landforms” is not one of the topics under which Dudek has arranged the goals. That seems
sensible – although it leaves open the question of whether preservation of landforms (something
that features prominently in the existing Natural Resources Element) should be a topic.1
As to the version the redlining is with respect to, I do not know. As an example, in the third
paragraph under “Overview” of the Natural Resources Element, the draft being presented to the
GPUSC shows the word “Element” being deleted from “Recreation Element” (which seems to
have been another of my written suggestions) and it shows the replacement of a series of
semicolons with commas. However, in the version reviewed by GPAC on July 2, the word
“Element” had already been deleted and there were no semicolons.2 So, at least in that case,
the redlining does not seem to show changes relative to what the GPAC saw on July 2.
2 Changing the commas to semicolons does not seem to have been one of my suggestions, but I think
they are entirely appropriate in this list, and better than the commas being suggested to the GPUSC.
1 In the current draft, the existence of, for example, bluffs is mentioned in passing in the narrative about
“Visual Resources.” There do not appear to be any goals or policies related to them. I believe this may be
part of a staff effort to expunge from the General Plan any policies that overlap with the City’s Coastal
Land Use Plan, but I do not understand the basis for that effort, and in this case it seems particularly
misguided since not all the bluffs in Newport Beach are in the coastal zone.
General Plan Update Steering Committee - July 23, 2025 Item No. IVa - Additional Materials Received Review of GPAC's Meeting on July 2, 2025
July 23, 2025, GPUSC agenda Item IV.a comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 2
To bring more order and accountability to what, till now, seems to be a very haphazard process,
I would suggest the editing be accompanied, at the very least, by marginal comments indicating
who made the change, when and why. It would also seem useful to archive comments and
suggestions received, especially since, inevitably, staff will accept some and reject others, and
other people may not agree with those decisions. Indeed, a change someone thought had been
added to one version may disappear in a future version without the original person knowing.
As to the present action, although not clearly stated in the agenda, I believe staff is waiting for
the GPUSC’s go-ahead before presenting the draft elements for comment from the various City
boards and commissions that may have expertise in the topics they cover.
I personally view the draft elements as being in a very imperfect and provisional state, but I fully
support soliciting further comment on them. Indeed, I believe it would have been helpful to have
solicited comments from such boards and commissions before or at the same time the
subcommittees initially reviewed them.They may well have pointed out problems not noticed by
the GPAC members.
General Plan Update Steering Committee - July 23, 2025 Item No. IVa - Additional Materials Received Review of GPAC's Meeting on July 2, 2025