HomeMy WebLinkAbout20190306_GPUSC_Minutes_ApprovedNEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
®n
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
STEERING COMMITTEE
Central Library, Friends of the Library Room
1000 Avocado Avenue
Wednesday, March 6, 2019 - 6 p.m.
I. Call Meeting to Order - 6:00 p.m.
II. Welcome and Roll Call
The following persons were present:
MINUTES
Committee Members: Staff Members:
Nancy Gardner, Chair Seimone Jurjis, Community Development Director
Ed Selich Jim Campbell, Deputy Community Development Director
Debbie Stevens Ben Zdeba, Associate Planner
Larry Tucker
Paul Watkins
Mayor Diane Dixon, Ex Officio Member
III. Public Comments
Jim Mosher announced the annual General Plan status report will be presented to the
Planning Commission on March 7 and the City Council at its second meeting in March.
IV. Current Business
a. Review Action Minutes of the February 20, 2019 Meeting
Recommended Action: Approve the action minutes of February 20, 2019.
The Steering Committee reached consensus regarding staff preparing more detailed minutes
than action minutes. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell agreed to
provide more detail in the minutes. Chair Gardner noted the video of meetings would be
available for in-depth review.
Committee Member Selich moved and Committee Member Stevens seconded to approve
the minutes of the February 20, 2019 meeting, as presented. Motion passed unanimously.
General Plan Update Steering Committee Meeting
March 6, 2019
b. Discussion of Draft Request for Proposals for Consulting Services
Recommended Action: Provide direction to staff on any changes to the revised draft
RFP.
Deputy Community Development Director Campbell reported staff redrafted the entire
Request for Proposals (RFP) based on comments made during the prior meeting. Committee
Members Watkins and Tucker provided written comments to this draft of the RFP.
In response to concerns about the Steering Committee needing more or less time to select
and recommend a consultant, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell advised
that staff will revise the schedule as needed, so that the Steering Committee can utilize as
much or as little time as it needs. In addition, a specific number of months has not been set
for community outreach or for visioning. Community Development Director Jurjis added that
Council review or approval of the RFP is not needed. The Council appointed the Steering
Committee to prepare and provide direction on the RFP.
Committee Member Watkins noted the RFP due date of Sunday, May 12. Deputy Community
Development Director Campbell agreed to revise the due date to a workday based on the
actual release of the RFP.
Committee Members offered the following revisions to the proposed RFP:
Page 2, paragraph 2, "... entire community living or working in the City ...." Community
associations should be listed along with homeowner's associations and property owners.
In the definition of contract or agreement, "modifies or destroys" should be deleted.
Under Proposal Evaluation Criteria, the final sentence should be "[t] he City reserves the right
to modify the evaluation criteria and percentage of score as deemed appropriate from time
to time."
The definition of proposer should include additional forms of entities such as limited liability
corporations, general partnerships, and limited partnerships.
Jim Mosher proposed deleting "... provided they are relevant and reasonable" from the first
paragraph on page 2. He questioned whether visitors are a part of the community described
in the second paragraph. The fourth paragraph refers to a seven -member ad hoc
committee, but the Steering Committee will have eight members in a few weeks.
Chair Gardner clarified that Mayor Dixon is a non-voting, ex officio member of the Steering
Committee; therefore, the Steering Committee will have seven members. She did not feel
visitors should be a part of the General Plan process and that consideration of visitors should
be left to Newport Beach and Company.
Charles Klobe concurred with deleting "provided they are relevant and reasonable" so that
every voice can be heard and to prevent the consultant from driving the outcome.
George Lesley inquired about the process for resolving the definition of community and the
other suggested changes the Steering Committee was proposing.
Page 1 2
General Plan Update Steering Committee Meeting
March 6, 2019
Chair Gardner indicated the Steering Committee will discuss and agree on which revisions
are incorporated into the RFP. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell clarified
that staff will revise the RFP based on comments made during the meeting and present
another draft for the Steering Committee to approve at its next meeting.
The Steering Committee reached consensus to delete "provided they are relevant and
reasonable."
Additional revisions:
Under Selection Process, page 4, the Steering Committee will be involved in the Technical
Evaluation. The RFP should reflect the extent of the Steering Committee's involvement in the
process.
Page 4, the second paragraph should state "[t]he Steering Committee intends to employ a
three-step process to select a Consultant to recommend to the City Council for this Project."
Within the third paragraph, (1) should be "... multiple firms with similar Technical Scores ...."
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."
A new paragraph to conclude the Selection Process section could be "[a]fter the conclusion
of the Selection Process, the Steering Committee will make one or more recommendations
to the City Council about the Consultant."
The Steering Committee offered no objections to the proposed revisions.
Chair Gardner requested questions, answers, and addenda regarding the RFP be copied to
Committee Members. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell agreed to do
so.
In the tentative RFP schedule, the anticipated contract award should be June and July 2019.
Deputy Community Development Director Campbell noted the schedule includes two weeks
for proposers to ask questions and one week for staff to respond to questions with submissions
due three weeks later. Proposers' questions and staff's responses will be provided to all
proposers.
Jim Mosher inquired whether the Technical Evaluation will be performed by a panel of staff
or by the Steering Committee. Chair Gardner stated staff and the Steering Committee will
participate in the Technical Evaluation.
George Lesley suggested a demonstrated understanding of the requested scope of services
should be weighted the same as qualifications and experience. Committee Member Tucker
related that he proposed language so that the City may revise the criteria at any time.
Community Development Director Jurjis clarified that staff will rank the initial submittals, and
Committee Members will perform the final evaluation of all submittals.
Page 1 3
General Plan Update Steering Committee Meeting
March 6, 2019
Additional revisions:
On page 7, the Gratuity Prohibition section should include the Steering Committee.
Deputy Community Development Director Campbell concurred with adding that the
consultant will be familiar with the Governor's Office of Planning and Research General Plan
Guidelines.
Page 10, Task 2, the second and third sentences should be "[t] he purpose of the Outreach
Program will not be for the consultant to suggest ways the General Plan may be changed;
rather, the goal of the Outreach Program is to creatively engage ... as possible about areas
of concern with the General Plan. The process will be open, transparent, focused in scope,
and inclusive."
The language about seven visioning workshops could be "at least seven visioning workshops."
The proposer can bid on seven meetings with a per cost bid for each additional meeting or
submit a cost per meeting or per hour.
Rather than "several individual stakeholder meetings," the language could be "stakeholder
meetings as required."
The Steering Committee reached consensus that the consultant will prepare minutes for all
outreach meetings and potentially for Steering Committee meetings.
The RFP should require the consultant to attend all Steering Committee meetings.
Task 3, the final sentence of the second sentence should state "... direct changes to the draft
document... ."
Allan Beek recommended a fourth task to address the fundamental dilemma in trying to write
one General Plan that represents an entire community. The community has a diversity of
opinions regarding the future City. The consultant should present solutions or alternatives to
the dilemma.
Charles Klobe suggested deleting "provided they are relevant and reasonable" from Task 3.
The best way to structure the RFP is to list the minimum number of meetings and request a
cost for each additional meeting.
Jim Mosher remarked that Bullet 2 on page 10 needs to be rephrased to clarify the
consultant's role with respect to the Vision Statement. A definition of stakeholder should be
added to the Definitions section.
Jeff Herdman inquired whether the Steering Committee wished to obtain input regarding
areas of concern in the General Plan or feedback about the community's vision for the future.
Chair Gardner believed the Steering Committee will not craft a Vision Statement but will seek
the community's vision.
Keith Pelan recommended the RFP state clearly who is responsible for identifying and inviting
people to meetings.
Page 1 4
General Plan Update Steering Committee Meeting
March 6, 2019
Joy Brenner asked when the community would share their broad visions. Chair Gardner
indicated the entire process will solicit the community's visions.
Additional revisions:
Attachment A, the statement of no exceptions should read "... execute a Community
Outreach program with the goal of receiving a document and suggested revisions to the
General Plan from as many constituents and groups as possible." Attachment B should
reference the Corporations Code rather than the Corporate Code.
Committee Members discussed the possibility of having Regional Housing Needs Assessment
(RHNA) numbers in time for outreach meetings and concluded general numbers would be
useful for the community to discuss.
Charles Klobe proposed the consultant provide a detailed explanation of RHNA to the public,
perhaps multiple times.
C. Discussion of the Timing of the Involvement of the General Plan Advisory
Committee (GPAC) in the General Plan Update
Recommended Action: Discuss the GPAC formation timing for possible
recommendation to City Council.
Committee Members discussed the suggestion to establish the GPAC earlier than proposed.
The majority of Committee Members favored following the previously proposed timeframe.
One Committee Member felt the appointments should be made sooner than proposed so
that no time is lost. Committee Members agreed that there should be no gap between the
sunset of the Steering Committee and the formation of the GPAC, but that the GPAC should
begin its work after the Outreach Program is completed.
V. Committee Announcements or Matters Which Members Would Like Placed on a
Future Agenda for Discussion, Action or Report (Non -Discussion Item)
Community Development Director Jurjis reported the Harbor Commission has formed a
subcommittee for Harbor visioning and suggested an agenda item for Commissioner Paul
Blank to address the Steering Committee. Staff has enhanced the website for the General
Plan.
Committee Member Watkins suggested the Steering Committee begin thinking about dates,
locations, and content of Listen and Learn meetings. Chair Gardner felt that discussion
should await the consultant. Mayor Dixon felt some preliminary discussions would be valuable
given the potentially large number of Listen and Learn meetings.
Jeff Herdman suggested the Aviation Committee address the Steering Committee.
VI. Adjournment
Next meeting: March 20, 2019, Civic Center Council Chambers at 6:00 p.m.
Page 1 5