Laserfiche WebLink
RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA PRINTED <br />JANUARY 8, 2019 <br />AGENDA ITEM NO. SS2 <br />January 8, 2019, City Council Item SS2 Comments <br />The following comments on an item on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: <br />Jim Mosher ( jimmosher(a´┐Żyahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) <br />Item SS2. General Plan Update (PA2017-141) <br />General Concerns: <br />My biggest concern is that any General Plan Update be conducted in a manner compatible <br />with the intent of City Charter Section 423 (Greenlight). <br />a. Over running 10 -year windows, Greenlight gives the Council discretion to add a <br />designated amount of development to the General Plan for each of the City's 51 <br />statistical areas. Additions beyond those limits are supposed to require voter <br />approval on an area -by -area, and ideally a project -by -project, basis. <br />b. The 2006 GPU was seen by many as a ploy to avoid Greenlight. It ended in voters <br />being asked in a poorly -explained, and even more poorly understood, measure to <br />give, in a single yes -no vote, a blanket approval to all the development the Council <br />had added in the previous10 years plus pre -approve generous new allocations for <br />vaguely defined future projects. Approval was given by a mere 53.6% of voters. <br />c. Measure Y in 2014 was a similar effort to use a GPU to gain voter approval both of <br />past changes made by the City Council (most notably in Newport Center) and to new <br />Greenlight goal posts in multiple areas in a single vote. It was rejected by 69.2% of <br />the voters. <br />d. The present situation is complicated by the large amounts of development <br />constructed since 2006 (especially in Newport Center) that are inconsistent with what <br />the 53.6% of voters approved in 2006. At least for me, it is not a very pleasant <br />prospect that this GPU might, like the one that led to Measure Y, be used as a ploy <br />to forgive and forget the Greenlight implications of all past approvals with a single <br />vote and simultaneously pre -approve everything that might happen in the next 20 or <br />30 years. I do not think that is how Greenlight was supposed to work. <br />2. My second biggest concern is with the tone of the staff report and its inconsistency with the <br />direction the Council has given regarding the GPU. <br />a. The staff report (largely resurrecting the proposal presented and rejected at the <br />November 14, 2017, study session) is written as if staff has finished deciding how the <br />GPU is going to proceed and is informing the Council of what staff has decided, <br />rather than asking the Council what it wants staff to do. <br />b. On November 14, the Council considered, but later seems to have abandoned, the <br />idea of first appointing a "blue ribbon committee" to evaluate the current General <br />Plan. <br />c. Based on new options presented by staff at the January 29, 2018, Planning Session, <br />the Council then directed that before hiring a GPU consultant and deciding what they <br />