HomeMy WebLinkAboutIV(b)_Additional Materials Received_After Deadline_Part 2_MosherAugust 24, 2022, GPUSC Agenda Follow-Up 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.b. Formation of a General Plan Advisory Committee
Reflecting upon last night’s discussion of this item, I would suggest the Committee reconsider is
recommendations to staff based on a more thorough examination of the GPAC selection table from
2001 upon which the presently proposed one was based.
The table from City Council Resolution No. 2001-22 looked like this:
The following might be noted:
1.The table includes a “Method of Appointment” column not found in the proposed one.
2.Wisely, or not, City Board, Commission and Committee members were placed not on the
GPAC, but on the 10-member General Plan Update Committee (the equivalent of the present
GPUSC, see Resolution No. 2000-102) – something it would, admittedly, be difficult for the
present Committee to change, since the Council has set up a 3-member steering committee
this time.
3.The “Number” column seems to have represented a minimum number for the category, but in
the present proposal it seems, very confusingly, to have morphed into a maximum.
4.It was assumed the appointment process described in the table would be preceded by a
communitywide Visioning Festival that would result in the public attendees selecting a set of
Issues the public wanted to see given special attention in the new General Plan. Apparently
because the placeholder “Issue Areas” listed in the table created before the Festival looked
geographic in nature, in the present proposal, prior to modification last night, this morphed into
a “Geographic areas” category.
5.Some of the former examples have been inexplicably moved to a different category (“larger
employers”) or dropped (“Friends of Harbors, Beaches and Parks”).
General Plan Update Steering Committee - August 24, 2022 Item No. IV(b) - Additional Materials Received After Deadline Formation of a General Plan Advisory Committee
August 24, 2022, GPUSC agenda Item IV.b follow-up - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 2
In other words, in the former process, from among the many applications received, including some
applicants presenting themselves as having been nominated by an organization, the GPUC was
instructed to make sure their recommended appointments from the full applicant pool would include:
1. At least 3 people nominated by groups of the types identified as having “environmental”
interests.
2. At least 3 people nominated by groups of the types identified as having “business” interests.
3. At least 1 person, either self- or organization-nominated, with a special ability to contribute to
each of the 5-10 top “Issue Areas” identified for special attention by the public at the Visioning
Festival.
4. 21 other people, either self- or organization-nominated, expressing a diversity of interests and
geographically dispersed (presumably with an ideal of recommending 3 from each of the 7
Council districts).
With the exception that City BCC representatives have been excluded from the GPUSC (so, absent
Council intervention, they now have to be accommodated in the GPAC), I assume staff’s intent was to
suggest something similar here. But proposed changes to the layout and wording within the table
have terribly muddled that intent.
This caused the GPUSC and public at last night’s meeting to stumble over what could or should be
named as further examples of “Non-City Boards, Commissions, or Committees” that do not fit into any
of the other categories. And also, whether the intent was for them to be exclusively Newport Beach
boards or committees, since many of the organization whose names staff copied from the earlier
resolution are not exclusively Newport Beach, and may not even have a Newport Beach chapter
(“Sierra Club,” “Coastkeeper,” “BIA”), but might have a Board member who is a Newport Beach
resident.
For there are certainly a huge number of non-City boards and committees in Newport Beach (ranging
from such things as church and hospital boards to resident associations to special interest groups like
the Newport Beach Mooring Association), and even more outside Newport Beach with a board or
committee member from Newport Beach (Citizens Climate Lobby, etc., etc.). Still more are hinted at in
the “at-large” category.
In my view, the GPUSC should be inviting as many organizations as it can think of to offer
nominations, with, as in 2001, a promise to select at least a certain number (not a maximum) in
various stated categories.
And although the focus in 2001 may have been on “environmental” and “business” interests, times
change. Since the immediate focus of the GPAC is supposed to be on housing, including particularly
how to accommodate affordable housing (including, presumably, the currently homeless), and what is
called “environmental justice,” I would think the table should include a new category in which the
GPUSC promises to make some minimum number of appointments of people with an interest
in housing and homelessness, including a mix of NIMBYs and YIMBYs. Invitations to compete for
that category should go out, at minimum, to all the groups that commented on the Housing Element –
ones like the Kennedy Commission, come to mind.
General Plan Update Steering Committee - August 24, 2022 Item No. IV(b) - Additional Materials Received After Deadline Formation of a General Plan Advisory Committee