Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04a_03-06-2019 MinutesGP Update Steering Committee - March 20, 2019 Attachment 1 NEWPORT 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. 3 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 Leslie 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 15 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 7 General 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 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"] General Plan Update Steering Committee - March 20, 2019 Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received Watkins NEWPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ��W PO UPDATE STEERING COMMITTEE MINUTES Central Library, Friends of the Library Room 1000 Avocado Avenue Wednesday, March 6, 2019 - 6 p.m. Call Meeting to Order - 6:00 p.m. II. Welcome and Roll Call The following persons were present: 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 - March 20, 2019 Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received Watkins 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 "[f]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 Deleted: Leslie other suggested changes the Steering Committee was proposing. General Plan Update Steering Committee - March 20, 2019 Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received Watkins 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 some as qualifications and experience. Committee Member Tucker related that he proposed language so that the City may revise the criteria at anytime. Community Development Director Jurjis clarified that staff will rank the initial submittals, and Committee Members will perform the final evaluation of all submittals. General Plan Update Steering Committee - March 20, 2019 Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received Watkins 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 2017 Office of Planning and Research General Plan Guidelines. Page 10, Task 2, the second and third sentences should be "[f]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. General Plan Update Steering Committee - March 20, 2019 Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received Watkins 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.