Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04a_Draft Minutes of March 20, 2019CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE STEERING COMMITTEE MINUTES CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS — 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE WEDNESDAY, MARCH 20, 2019 REGULAR MEETING — 6 P.M. CALL MEETING TO ORDER — 6 p.m. II. WELCOME AND ROLL CALL All Committee Members present. Chair Gardner welcomed Catherine O'Hara and James Carlson to the Steering Committee (Committee). III. PUBLIC COMMENTS Hoiyin Ip encouraged the community to attend and participate in meetings. Jim Mosher indicated the Planning Commission has reviewed the General Plan Annual Progress Report, and the Council will review it on March 26. He suggested everyone compare the current General Plan with the previous General Plan to see what might need changing. During the time period between approval of the Request for Proposals (RFP) and review of proposals, perhaps the Committee could interview people involved in the previous visioning process and use their feedback to inform the Committee's evaluation of proposals. Sandra Ayers asked if the Committee has discussed or will discuss whether the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) should be selected earlier than scheduled, so that its members can participate in public outreach. Chair Gardner advised that the Committee discussed selection of the GPAC and determined the GPAC could be formed earlier than planned, but not right away. Ms. Ayers believed people would be more willing to attend all outreach meetings rather than only the meetings for their area if they are members of the GPAC. George Lesley inquired about a potential timeframe for outreach to homeowners associations, a format for the consultant's interaction with homeowners associations, and the Committee's responsibility for the format of that. Chair Gardner related that the Committee will discuss at a later time any actions it needs to take in preparation for the consultant. IV. CURRENT BUSINESS a. Review Minutes of the March 6, 2019 Meeting Recommended Action: Approve the minutes of March 6, 2019. Committee Member Watkins requested staff correct the spelling of Mr. Lesley's surname. On page 4, the Governor's Office of Planning and Research General Plan Guidelines should indicate the 2017 version. Motion by Committee Member Selich, seconded by Committee Member Tucker, to approve the minutes of the March 6, 2019 meeting as amended. Motion passed 6-0 with 2 abstentions. General Plan Update Steering Committee Minutes March 20, 2019 b. Review Draft Requests for Proposals (RFP) for Consulting Services Recommended Action: Direct staff to make any required changes and publish the RFP. Revisions: Cover sheet, add 11 a.m. to the RFP due date. Page 2, verify the Committee is an ad hoc committee. Technical Submittal Requirements, Proposers will provide examples of outreach plans they have used in the past. Tentative RFP Schedule, RFP due on April 26, interviews the week of May 6. Gratuity Prohibition, "... bona fide employee of the Consultant ...." Task 3 bullet 2, "A record of all the thoughts and voices expressed; and." Additional Consultant Responsibilities, period inside the quotation marks for Professional Services Agreement and Request for Proposal. In answer to questions from Committee Members, Chair Gardner advised that the Committee will participate in panel interviews, and the interviews will be public. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell indicated there will be no direct line of communication between staff and a potential Proposer, which is standard practice. Questions from potential Proposers and staffs responses will be available for anyone to review. Keith Pelan suggested staff include a statement with the RFP that intended Proposers should register with the RFP Administrator, so that they can receive staff's responses to Proposers' questions. Community Development Director Jurjis explained that a potential Proposer must register with Planet Bid in order to download the RFP package. Staff will have the list of registrants and will send responses to them. Jim Mosher suggested the phrase "individual stakeholder meetings" needs clarification. In the Draft Schedule Outline, April to June is three months, and July to March is nine months. Chair Gardner related that stakeholder is a common term in community planning and has a broad meaning. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell added that he expects Proposers will request clarification of individual stakeholder meetings. Staff will provide clarification in a response to all Proposers. Sandra Ayers asked if individual stakeholder meetings will be public. Chair Gardner reported at least one Committee Member will be present during individual stakeholder meetings, and comments from the meetings will be made public. Charles Klobe understood Mr. Mosher suggested clarification of individual stakeholder meetings, so that Proposers can provide a more accurate cost. He inquired whether staff can invite individuals and firms to bid. Chair Gardner noted Still Protecting Our Newport (SPON) has suggested several consultants. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell advised that staff posted a notice of the RFP with the American Planning Association. Staff will also send a notice to a list of consultants obtained through a previous RFP for an outreach consultant. Page 2 of 5 General Plan Update Steering Committee Minutes March 20, 2019 In answer to Committee Member Stevens' query, Community Development Director Jurjis indicated the RFP will be posted on the City's website, which will refer interested parties to the Planet Bid website so that staff can track the registrants. Staff also has a list of consultants they will invite to bid. Additional revisions: Draft Schedule Outline, "April 2019 to June 2019 (2 months)" and "July 2019 to March 2020 (8 months)." Attachment C Submission Instructions, change "[p]roposals may be e-mailed ... " to "[p]roposals must be e-mailed ...." Deputy Community Development Director Campbell reported staff will incorporate the revisions and prepare the RFP for release. C. Harbor Commission Outreach Efforts Presentation No action required. Harbor Commissioner Paul Blank reported a subcommittee of the Harbor Commission is conducting facilitated work sessions as outreach for drafting a new Harbor Plan. This technique gives all participants an equal voice in the process, and the process ensures equal weights of votes and comments contributed by all participants. He described the activities of the sessions and the target constituent groups. The subcommittee identified both critical waterfront businesses/services and elements of a successful harbor that are currently underserved throughout the Harbor or appropriate for Mariner's Mile. In reply to questions, Commissioner Blank advised that the subcommittee collects comments about various topics at each session. Each comment and vote from the sessions is collected and loaded in a database, and a report based on information in the database will guide areas of focus. At the end of the process, the Harbor Plan and the Harbor Financial Master Plan will be the guiding documents for the Harbor. Sessions were publicized via Newport Beach Independent, Stu News, Daily Pilot, City website, and posters at all public facilities. The public will have an opportunity to review a draft Harbor Plan. Committee Member Stevens shared her experience at the most recent facilitated work session. The process is a good method for obtaining comments from a large number of people, particularly those who do not wish to speak publicly. However, additional outreach methods are needed to obtain more detailed comments. Committee Member Tucker believed a separate consultant may be needed to include the Harbor Commission's information in the General Plan Update. Luke Dru suggested historic data about the static level of the Harbor could assist with monitoring sea level rise. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell indicated the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) maintains tidal gauge information about the Harbor. Peggy Palmer asked if the Harbor Commission will be involved in the Newport Village development plan, a large development along Mariner's Mile. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell related that the Harbor Commission will have a role in reviewing the development project. Page 3 of 5 General Plan Update Steering Committee Minutes March 20, 2019 d. General Plan Online Resources Presentation No action required. Associate Planner Ben Zdeba reported the General Plan elements, figures, maps, graphics, and images have been compiled into one document on the City's website. Chapters are bookmarked, and the document is searchable. Flash drives containing the complete document are available to the public. The General Plan Amendments are listed chronologically and are linked to planning activity for the development subject to an Amendment. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is also available on the website. Charter Section 423 Tracking Information pertains to the greenlight policy. Transfer of Development depicts the movement of development square footage among anomalies. A page for the General Plan Update is also available, which contains hyperlinks to other documents pertinent to the General Plan; news about the General Plan Update; the process for the General Plan Update; staff contact information; registration for electronic notification; and information about the Committee. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell explained that an error message may appear when accessing the General Plan on the flash drive. The error message is not a concern and does not affect access to the document. The General Plan Update page will grow over time and may be the online portal for outreach. Hoiyin Ip remarked that the City website is not user friendly in the Safari web browser. Jim Mosher commented that some people may think they will receive notice of future public meetings by providing their email addresses on sign -in sheets posted at meetings. People need to be educated about the General Plan, and staff rather than the consultant should provide the education. Chair Gardner advised that education will be part of outreach. V. COMMITTEE ANNOUNCEMENTS OR MATTERS WHICH MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION OR REPORT (NON -DISCUSSION ITEM) In answer to Committee Member Selich's query regarding updating the City's traffic model or developing a new one, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell advised that staff updated the inputs for the City's traffic model when Measure Y went before the voters. An updated traffic model will likely be ready later in the summer. Committee Member Tucker commented that there is no need to prepare the traffic data for the EIR until staff has the numbers for the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Chair Gardner announced at the next meeting Committee Members will have a general discussion of information needed and tasks to accomplish in preparation for the consultant. Committee Member James Carlson inquired whether the Committee will participate in the process of retaining a special consultant for the traffic study. Committee Member Stevens requested the definition of significance under the revised guidelines for traffic studies. Community Development Director Jurjis noted future agenda items for RHNA numbers, the Housing Element update, traffic and modeling, and a general discussion of information needed for Page 4 of 5 General Plan Update Steering Committee Minutes March 20, 2019 the General Plan Update. Staff recommends canceling the April 17 Committee meeting because the Corona del Mar Town Hall is scheduled for the same night. Chair Gardner indicated the Committee will decide about canceling the April 17 meeting during the April 3 meeting. VI. ADJOURNMENT — 7:23 p.m. Next Meeting: April 3, 2019, 6 p.m. in Room 1 at OASIS Senior Center Page 5 of 5 General Plan Update Steering Committee - April 3, 2019 Item Nos. 3, 4a, 4b, 4c and 4d Additional Materials Received From: Zdeba, Benjamin To: Lee. Amanda Cc: Ramirez, Brittany Subject: FW: Written comments on GPU Steering Committee agenda items (4/3/2019) Date: Tuesday, April 02, 2019 4:05:57 PM Attachments: 2019ADr03 GPU Steerina Committee Aaenda Comments JimMosher.Ddf image001.pnno Hi Amanda, Please see attached comments received on Item Nos. III, IV.a, IV.b, IV.c, and IV.d for the GPUSC meeting tomorrow evening. Thanks, Ben Z. BENJAMIN M. ZDEBA, AICP Community Development Department Associate Planner bzdeba(a)newoortbeachca. aov 949-644-3253 From: Jim Mosher <jimmosher@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2019 3:40 PM To: Campbell, Jim <JCampbell@newportbeachca.gov>; Zdeba, Benjamin <bzdeba@new portbeachca.gov> Subject: Written comments on GPU Steering Committee agenda items (4/3/2019) Please find attached some comments I have BCC'd to the Newport Beach General Plan Update Steering Committee members for their consideration at their April 3, 2019, meeting. Yours sincerely, Jim Mosher General Plan Update Steering Committee - April 3, 2019 Item Nos. 3, 4a, 4b, 4c and 4d Additional Materials Received April 3, 2019, GPU Steering Committee Comments These comments on Newport Beach General Plan Update Steering Committee agenda items are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( limmosher(o-)yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 Item Ill. Public Comments (non -agenda items) I continue to think it would be helpful for Committee members to review Item 14 from the March 26, 2019, City Council meeting. It reports on the current status of the General Plan's Implementation Program and Housing Element. At that meeting, I incorrectly stated the report failed to address the extent to which our GP is out of alignment with the current State Guidelines, but in fact it does — under Imp. 1.3. In that connection, it seems interesting to note that Implementation Program 29 of the current GP (page 13-31) is entitled "Community Involvement." It is also interesting to note that under that heading the then -existing General Plan Advisory Committee seems to be regarded as something of continuing relevance after adoption. Among the City activities under Imp 29.1 ("Educate the Community") of special relevance to the present committee might be the Planning Commission's aborted February 8, 2018, discussion regarding residential development standards in the Cliff Haven community (Item 4) — a kind of early "listen and learn" effort cancelled hours before it was scheduled to begin due to an excess of interest by people from other parts of the city, with a promise (see cancellation notice) that it (like many other things) would be wrapped into the GP Update process. Under Imp 29.2 ("Support of the Arts, Culture, and Historic Resources"), it is unclear if the promise to define procedures to review requests to modify or demolish historic resources was ever followed through on. The status report linked to above is uninformative on that, as well as on the status of many other promises made in the Implementation Program. One good thing is that with the City's posting of the all -in -one -PDF version of the General Plan, it is easier than ever to determine where these various implementation programs are cited in the body of the GP to support its policies and strategies. Curiously, Adobe's search function is unable to find any citations to Imp 29.3 ("Support Community Environmental and Recreation Initiatives") — even in places where its application seems obvious, as in LU 6.3.2 ("Acquisition for Open Space"). Item IVA Review Minutes of the March 20, 2019 Meeting The following corrections are suggested: Page 1, Item II (WELCOME AND ROLL CALL), paragraph 1: "All Committee Members present." (It is important that the names of the persons present be listed, as was done in the Feb. 20 and Mar. 6 minutes. People come and go on committees. It would be extremely difficult for someone reading this at a future time to determine with any certainty who were and were not members of the Steering Committee on March 20. It is also customary to list the participating staff members present at City meetings, as was done in the earlier minutes.) General Plan Update Steering Committee - April 3, 2019 Item Nos. 3, 4a, 4b, 4c and 4d Additional Materials Received April 3, 2019, GPU SC agenda comments from Jim Mosher Page 2 of 4 Page 1, last line: "Motion passed &4 55-00 with ' abstentio Committee Members O'Hara and Carlson abstaining." (First, Mayor Dixon does not have a vote, so there were a total of 7 voting members present on March 20, requiring the correction to the numbers. Second, the Brown Act does not allow anonymous voting. Per California Government Code Sec. 54953(c)(2): "The legislative body of a local agency shall publicly report any action taken and the vote or abstention on that action of each member present for the action." That is generally interpreted as meaning a report is required both at the meeting and in the minutes, if any are prepared. While the suggested correction does not explicitly report the names of the 5 members voting "yes," it allows them to be deduced provided the names of the members present are listed in the Roll Call section and Mayor Dixon is identified as a non-voting member.) Page 2, first lines: "Ravisinns Cover sheet, add 11 a.m, to the RFP due date. Page 2, verify the Committee is an ad hoc committee. Technical Submittal Requirements, Proposers will provide examples of outreach plans they have used in the past." (The minutes have lapsed into their cryptic mode, not indicating where the listed suggestions came from, and leaving the reader to guess whether their listing means they were accepted by the rest of the Committee. Regarding the last line quoted above, staff appears to have responded by adding the following on page 17 of the published RFP: "SECTION C: PROPOSER EXPERIENCE -- MINIMUM REQUIREMENT. EXPERIENCE -- Demonstrate experience with at least three (3) projects of a similar scope and nature by providing a synopsis of each project, as well as relevant exemplary work produced for each project." I'm not sure that will adequately inform proposers of Committee Member Tucker's request, which, as I understood it, was to ask respondents to provide an example of a written report they had produced as the result of an outreach effort. Should that be clarified in the questions and answers to be posted on April 15?) Page 2, paragraph 4 from end, sentence 2: "Community Development Director Jurjis explained that a potential Proposer must register with P'a�ii PlanetBids in order to download the RFP package." (Those interested in viewing the materials not only have to register on PlanetBids, but the materials cannot be viewed without the registrant being automatically listed as a "Prospective Bidder," whether they actually have an interest in bidding, or not. That said, someone seems to manipulate the list without contacting the persons showing potential interest, as I see my name has disappeared.) General Plan Update Steering Committee - April 3, 2019 Item Nos. 3, 4a, 4b, 4c and 4d Additional Materials Received April 3, 2019, GPU SC agenda comments from Jim Mosher Page 3 of 4 Page 3, first sentence: "In answer to Committee Member Stevens' query, Community Development Director Jurjis indicated the RFP will be posted on the City's website, which will refer interested parties to the �'ar'� .cr,.et 8iv PlanetBids website so that staff can track the registrants." (The document posted on the City's General Plan Update page continues to say it is the "draft RFP." If the final version being disseminated by PlanetBids is available somewhere else, I'm not sure where.) Page 3, paragraph 3: "Draft Schedule Outline, "April 2019 to June 2019 (2 months)" and "July 2019 to March 2020 (8 months)." (I continue to be puzzled by the counting and how changing a "-" to "to" fixes anything. The only way I can reconcile the months listed with the count is to assume "to" means "to, but not including" the final month listed, so that "April 2019 to June 2019" means the months of April and May, only. But in that case, since the next interval starts with July, potential respondents are being told nothing at all will happen in June. Is that the intent?) Page 3, last paragraph before "c": "Deputy Community Development Director Campbell reported staff will incorporate the revisions and prepare the RFP for release." (This section of the minutes began at the top of page 2 with the statement from the agenda of "Recommended Action: Direct staff to make any required changes and publish the RFP." The minutes fail to indicate how direction was given to staff. Was there a motion? If so, what was it and what was the vote on it? And was staff directed to "publish the RFP" or simply further "prepare the RFP for release.") Page 4, first paragraph under "d": "Charter Section 423 Tracking Information pertains to the ryrn Greenlight policy. Transfer of Development depicts the movement of development square footage among anomalies." (To be clear, to be consistent with Greenlight, Policy LU 4.3 of the current General Plan allows transfers of land use allotments between anomalies only if the anomalies are within the same statistical area, and it does not allow conversions from the original voter -approved use to some other use. In particular, it does not, and cannot, allow conversion of residential allotments to non-residential allotments, or vice versa, in excess of the Greenlight limits without voter approval. That said, although Policy LU 4.3 sets standards for future transfers of land use allotments between anomalies that should be "permitted," it is silent on the matter of whether the anomaly tables in the GP need to be updated to accurately reflect the post -transfer results, and whether a transfer therefore requires a GP amendment. Logic would suggest the GP tables should be kept current with Council actions. Why staff would resist amending the tables to conform to the new reality has never been clear, since all it requires is a Council resolution, and the correction to the tables could easily be incorporated into the Council resolution approving the transfer. Apparently someone thinks it is important in Newport Beach to distinguish between "transfers" and "amendments," but the reason seems to be a secret held by City staff and not yet revealed to the public.)