Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutIVa_Draft Minutes of October 15, 2024Attachment No. 1 Draft Minutes on October 15, 2024 Page 1 of 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE STEERING COMMITTEE MINUTES CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS – 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE October 15, 2024 REGULAR MEETING – 5 p.m. I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER – 5:00 p.m. II. WELCOME AND ROLL CALL Present: Chair Nancy Gardner, Committee Member Phillip Brown, and Committee Member Kimberly Carter Staff: Deputy Community Development Director Jaime Murillo and Planning Manager Ben Zdeba III. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS - None IV. CURRENT BUSINESS a. Meeting Minutes of August 14, 2024 Motion made by Committee Member Carter and seconded by Committee Member Brown to approve the minutes of August 14, 2024, with edits by Jim Mosher, a member of the public. The motion carried unanimously 3-0. b. GPAC Applicants to Fill Two Vacancies Two GPAC members were removed from their seats due to the GPAC’s attendance policy. The City Clerk’s Office promptly posted a Notice of Unscheduled Vacancies, which closed on September 25 and resulted in eight applicants for the GPUSC’s consideration to recommend as GPAC members to the City Council for appointment. Recommended Actions: 1- Discuss each GPUSC member’s list of most-qualified and best-suited candidates and, if appropriate, identify the two most qualified applicants for recommendation to the City Council as an appointment to the GPAC; and 2- Consider identifying at least one applicant as a backup recommendation With consideration for the previously selected backup candidate and new applicants, Rita Goldberg and Charles Ebner were recommended. Jim Mosher noted a smaller applicant pool compared to one year ago because of the two-year retention policy, suggested inquiring how the new opportunities are being advertised, and noted the survey is missing for interested candidates. Planning Manager Zdeba responded that the vacancies are being posted online and in the Daily Pilot. c. Review of GPAC’s October 2 Meeting The GPAC met on October 2, 2024, to review the updated Vision Statement and the draft documents that would be shared at workshops in November. After discussion on both matters, the GPAC opted to send the Vision Statement back through the Vision Statement Subcommittee and General Plan Update Steering Committee Meeting October 15, 2024 Page 2 of 4 the other workshop documents through the Recreation & Natural Resources Subcommittee and Safety Subcommittee. Both the Vision Statement and the workshop documents will be returned to the GPAC for consideration at the November meeting. Attachments 3 and 4 included excerpts of the PowerPoint displayed at the GPAC meeting, as well as the updated Vision Statement and the workshop documents and written comments received from GPAC members. Recommended Actions: 1- Provide any feedback on the GPAC’s efforts; and 2- Receive and file Attachment 3 and 4 to express concurrence with the GPAC’s approach. Chair Gardner was concerned with how the workshops would be structured and requested plenty of time for public interaction. Planning Manager Zdeba stated that he scheduled meetings for the Vision Statement, Recreation & Natural Resources, and Safety Subcommittees for refinement of the packet inclusions before returning to the GPAC. Chair Gardner noted that the subcommittee meetings will be held by Zoom at noon and, if successful, could allow for greater participation and more subcommittee meetings. Susan DeSantis, GPAC member, thought the current Vision Statement and guiding principles reflect Newport Beach today and did not mention future plans for the City. She submitted revisions with themes that she felt were more thought provoking. Ms. DeSantis emphasized a changing environment and the need for creative approaches and suggested individuals who can stimulate and facilitate conversations and using the themes she noted as a starting point for the workshops. Chair Gardner found Ms. DeSantis’ revisions useful and recommended they be shared with the Vision Statement and Outreach Subcommittees. Additionally, Chair Gardner requested a speaker recommendation be made and presented at the next GPAC meeting. Jim Mosher endorsed Ms. DeSantis’ approach and asked if it is feasible for the workshops to present a concrete alternative vision for the future for consideration by the community. d. Overview of the General Plan Update Process Chair Gardner expressed concern about the process. Planning Manager Zdeba used a presentation to note that the City is in Phase Two of four phases in the General Plan Update process, Phase One efforts have informed Phase Two, and Phase Two actions for outreach and drafting. In reply to Chair Gardner’s question, Planning Manager Zdeba noted four upcoming and tentative workshop dates and possible workshop formatting that is revisable. He relayed that a representative will be at every station to engage and moderate public input. Planning Manager Zdeba continued with the presentation and stated that the information from Phase One will be refined and drafted into potential goals and policies for inclusion in the General Plan Update and then reviewed by the GPAC, GPAC Subcommittees, GPUSC, boards, committees, and commissions. In reply to Chair Gardner’s inquiries, Planning Manager Zdeba stated that a study session can be utilized at meetings to get reactions from the review groups, noted communication plans for the workshop dates, and hoped for more virtual subcommittee meetings. Planning Manager Zdeba highlighted the timeline and anticipated deliverables, Dudek’s contract and budget, current burn rate, and how much has been spent to date. He expressed concern for the budget and project completion if the desire to revisit draft documents continues. General Plan Update Steering Committee Meeting October 15, 2024 Page 3 of 4 In reply to Committee Member Brown’s question, Planning Manager Zdeba thought the process is getting more efficient by having greater involvement from the subcommittees but noted a faster burn rate due to the support Dudek is providing to them and that the margin is not big enough to continuously go back to the subcommittees and revise documents before public review. He suggested collecting community input before revisions are made. Chair Gardner noted that there was a misunderstanding of the process that led to confusion at a couple of the GPAC meetings. Planning Manager Zdeba continued with the presentation to review upcoming scheduled and pending meetings. In reply to Committee Member Brown’s question, Planning Manager Zdeba stated his goal to share the Land Use draft document with the subcommittee for review and refinement before full GPAC consideration. Related to pending lawsuits against the City, he noted that the hearing date is unknown. Chair Gardner suggested asking the City Attorney’s Office for an update on court dates or discussions with the plaintiff. At the request of Committee Member Carter, Planning Manager Zdeba named four lawsuits against the City. In reply to Jim Mosher’s inquiry, Planning Manager Zdeba relayed Dudek’s monthly activities to justify a $60,000 budget. Mr. Mosher expressed concern about the timeline, outreach to the existing boards, commissions, and committees, and time to rethink the General Plan in a bold way or provide updates. In reply, Chair Gardner clarified that the Council is the deciding body, and she supported being bold. In reply to Chair Gardner’s question, Planning Manager Zdeba stated that he planned to address boards, commissions, and committees that aligned directly with an element. Chair Gardner suggested inviting feedback from the Aviation Committee. In reply to Committee Member Brown’s suggestion, Planning Manager Zdeba stated that the subcommittees are not Brown Act bodies and noted the process for meeting with the boards, commissions, or committees for formal feedback after the subcommittee has met. Committee Member Brown thought that input would be desirable earlier, and Committee Member Carter concurred. Additionally, he expressed concern for anyone speaking with a board, commission, or committee without representing the totality of the subcommittee or the greater GPAC. Chair Garnder requested refining the process for exchanging feedback between the boards, commissions, and subcommittees and a subcommittee. e. Coyote Canyon Landfill Redevelopment Chair Gardner expressed concern about the number of units allocated for Newport Beach in this area and communication with the county for sharing the responsibility. Planning Manager Zdeba provided background information on the Coyote Canyon Landfill entitlement and noted the county does not have a certified Housing Element and is in draft form. Additionally, he noted there is no communication from the County with the City regarding housing on Coyote Canyon Landfill. He stated the City has significant justification to include the area in the Housing Element. Since the County is the property owner and has few sites to consider, it can include the Coyote Canyon Landfill site in its Housing Element for credit only with a complementary policy requiring the County to coordinate a Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) transfer with the City. He stated that a shared agreement can be created but has not been discussed yet and the City is not obligated to share. Jim Mosher expressed confusion about a shared agreement with the County and potential development area. In reply, Planning Manager Zdeba stated that the entire Coyote Canyon is General Plan Update Steering Committee Meeting October 15, 2024 Page 4 of 4 colored in the adopted and certified Housing Element as an opportunity site and a meeting with the developer is anticipated to understand the extent of viable land. Deputy Community Development Director Murillo stated that a provision in the government code allows for a voluntary transfer of Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) obligations between a city and county. Susan DeSantis indicated that the County held a housing workshop in September and the planning map for potential housing did not include Coyote Canyon. Furthermore, her conversation with Supervisor Katrina Foley indicated that the County would not initiate conversations with the City regarding housing on Coyote Canyon. V. COMMITTEE ANNOUNCEMENTS OR MATTERS WHICH MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION OR REPORT (NON-DISCUSSION ITEM) None VI. ADJOURNMENT – With no further business, Chair Gardner adjourned the meeting at 6:02 p.m.