Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03a_Public Comments_Additional MaterialsGeneral Plan Update Steering Committee - March 20, 2019 Item Nos. 3, 4a, 4b, 4c and 4d Additional Materials Received From: Zdeba, Benjamin To: Lee, Amanda Cc: Ramirez, Brittany Subject: FW: Comments on GPU Steering Committee agenda items Date: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 7:55:35 AM Attachments: 2019Mar20 GPU Steerina Committee Aaenda Comments JimMosher.rdf Hi Amanda, Please find attached additional materials received related to Items III, IV.a, IV.b, IV.c and IV.d on the Steering Committee's agenda for tomorrow evening. Thanks, Ben Z. BENJAMIN M. ZDEBA, AICP Community Development Department Associate Planner bzdebaOnewoortbeachca.aov 949-644-3253 From: Jim Mosher <jimmosher@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, March 18, 2019 8:11 PM To: CDD <CDD@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Comments on GPU Steering Committee agenda items To whom it may concern, Please find attached some written comments on the items announced on the Newport Beach General Plan Update Steering Committee's March 20, 2019, agenda. I have BCC'd this message to the eight committee member email addresses listed on the Steering Committee web page. Yours sincerely, Jim Mosher General Plan Update Steering Committee - March 20, 2019 Item Nos. 3, 4a, 4b, 4c and 4d Additional Materials Received March 20, 2019, GPU Steering Committee Comments These comments on Newport Beach General Plan Update Steering Committee agenda items are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( limmosher(o-)Vahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 Item Ill. Public Comments (non -agenda items) At this Committee's March 6 meeting, I mentioned the state -mandated annual status report on the current General Plan, which went to the Planning Commission on March 7 (agenda Item 4) and will be presented to the City Council on March 26. Under the terms of the current General Plan, the annual report provides an occasion not only to reflect on the status of the GP's Implementation Program, but also to update and make changes to it as some of the initial objectives are achieved and new ones emerge. State law requires the report to also review each year the GP's degree of compliance with the state General Plan Guidelines (whose content, per the proposed RFP, the "Listen and Learn" consultant is required to be familiar with). In fact, no changes of any kind have been made to the Implementation Program since its adoption in 2006, and although the state's General Plan Guidelines were completely revised and republished in 2017, no mention of this, or our degree of compliance with them, can be found in the annual status report (with the exception of a mention of changes in Housing Element reporting requirements). The nearly complete lack of engagement in the annual review process by staff, the public and the Planning Commission (a bare quorum of four Commissioners bothered to show up for the review, they asked no substantive questions other than about the RHNA allocations, and there was only one public commenter -- me) is disheartening. It suggests a lack of an introspective mindset and does not bode well for a meaningful GP update process. 2. Although I can't find it in the minutes, I seem to recall that at the first two meetings of this Committee, one of the members stated that the present GP update process is fundamentally different from the one that led to the 2006 GP because when that group began its work they didn't have a "real" GP to start with, but this time we do. I don't believe that is correct. As detailed on the SPON website, Newport Beach has had a formal General Plan since at least 1958, with major updates in 1973/1974 (following 1969's "Newport Tomorrow" visioning process), and entirely new Land Use and Circulation Elements in 1988 (to read the latter -- which, when the 2000-2006 update began, were no older than the current elements are now -- see City Council Resolution Nos. 88-100 and 88-101). In fact, the 1988 Land Use Element, dividing the City into statistical areas, is what the Greenlight initiative (City Charter Section 423), adopted in 2000, was built around, under the assumption that future revisions to the GP would incrementally add development to those statistical areas, allowing the public to vote on major increases. To many, the 2000-2006 effort is thought of as an end -run around Greenlight (resetting all the General Plan Update Steering Committee - March 20, 2019 Item Nos. 3, 4a, 4b, 4c and 4d Additional Materials Received March 20, 2019, GPU SC agenda comments from Jim Mosher Page 2 of 5 development thresholds in a single vote), which it is hoped the current effort will not devolve into. 3. Although I can't find this in the minutes, either, I believe that at the last meeting one of the members suggested the Committee could take a recess in the interval between the publication of the RFP and staff's completion of their analysis of the responses received, since the Committee would have no work to do. It seems to me: first, under the present plan the interval will be short, with proposals due May 10 (so there are at most three meeting dates in the interval), and second, that the Committee has a lot to do. In particular, the Committee needs to think about what kind of outreach it would like to do, how it's going to evaluate the proposals, what questions it will ask in the interviews with prospective consultants, what specific groups it wants outreach to, and so on. I think it would be especially useful to try to locate and speak to people who participated in the 2001-2002 visioning (outside the two former GPAC members on the current Steering Committee), so that its strengths can be built upon and its weaknesses avoided. Review of the 2000-2002 consultant's January 28, 2003, report to the Council (agenda Item SS2) would seem essential. In addition, for the new visioning process to have any chance of success it will need a strong educational component that probably needs to be designed and put in place largely independent of the consultant (since they cannot be expected to be experts on the current state of planning in Newport Beach). In short, I don't think the Steering Committee should disappear to reconvene in May when called upon to do so by City staff. Item IVA Review Minutes of the March 6, 2019 Meeting The minutes consistently attribute public comments to clearly identified speakers. They are not so clear in identifying what committee members suggested what, or who agreed with them. The following minor correction is suggested: Page 2, last paragraph: "George Leslia Lesley inquired about the process for resolving the definition of community and the other suggested changes the Steering Committee was proposing." Page 3, "Additional revisions," end of paragraph 2: "In the fourth paragraph, the final sentence should be "[t]he Steering Committee may choose to interview the top three candidates at one of its regularly scheduled public meetings." The language could be "will interview" rather than "may choose to interview."' [if this is correct, it doesn't explain the draft RFP being presented at the present meeting, in which "the top three" is proposed to be replaced by "one of more"]