Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04c_Harbor Commission Outreach Efforts_Additional MaterialsGeneral 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 4 of 5 Handwritten 13, "Proposal Evaluation Criteria," second sentence: "Since this solicitation is an RFP as opposed to a Bid, pricing alone will not constitute the entire selection Criteria criterion." Handwritten 16 (page 6), "Submittal Information": "in an of it to compy,,:*h e^vimnme tally-fr:e dfy ^r c-tiGe -1 Proposals are due by 11 a.m. on Friday, May 10, 20197_ In an effort to comply with environmentally -friendly practices, proposals will be accepted in electronic format only via email to the email address of the RFP Administrator indicated below." [A Friday due date has nothing to do with being environmentally friendly.] Handwritten 22 (page 11), first line: "Individual stakeholder meetings, as required. The Proposal should include a cost -per -meeting since a minimum or maximum amour number of meetings has not been identified at this time;" ["amount" makes it sounds like the cost is what has not been determined] Handwritten 28 (page 18), "SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS": "Proposals may must be e- mailed to: anguyen@newportbeachca.gov' [two places] Stylistic quibbles: 1. The RFP states (page 3) that "shall" "Refers to a mandatory requirement." It then proceeds to use the term 52 more times. "Shall" is in fact a term that is rarely if ever used in that sense in common speech and hence is a much misused term in legal drafting. It appears to be properly used only when conferring on an animate being the power and duty to do something, and even then becomes mandatory only if clear consequences for failing to do that duty are specified. The sense of conferring a power and duty with consequences for failure is only rarely the case in the present document (for example, in "Proposers shall submit one (1) electronic copy of their proposals to the RFP Administrator" on page 6 — even though "must" would do as well). The casual use of the term "shall" when it is not being used in its proper sense (for example, in the pronouncement on high that "Firms invited to interview shall have their panel interviews evaluated and scored, resulting in adjustments to the Technical Score," where a simple "will" would clearly do better) dilutes its force in the few instances where it is being properly used. 2. The RFP uses the awkward (and to some, ambiguous) expression "and/or" twelve times. Many understand it to mean, "either or both," but others take it to mean you are free to read "and" or "or," as you wish — leading to much confusion as to what is meant. Item IV.c. Harbor Commission Outreach Efforts Presentation I attended a portion of the special December 12, 2018, Harbor Commission meeting at Marina Park at which the Harbor Commission as a whole, as well as an audience, participated in one of the first of their visioning exercises. The Harbor Commission's activities in this regard raise at least three questions: (1) Is it a good process? (2) How are the Steering Committee and the GPU consultant going to integrate the Harbor Commission's results into their own listen and learn effort? (3) Should the City's other boards, commissions and committees be encouraged 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 5 of 5 to conduct their own listen and learn exercises, as the Harbor Commission is doing, in their areas of specialty? I cannot answer the last two questions, but as to the first, the process is described in the Harbor Commission minutes from December 12. The process consisted of three 10 -minute segments in which participants were asked to write their thoughts on cards and post them on the walls identifying: (1) areas of the Harbor that are working well, (2) areas of concern, and (3) potential solutions or improvements. Participants were then given three blue dots to place on their "favorite" cards (of all those posted), and one red dot to place on the card of most concern to them (there being some uncertainty what this last instruction meant). That exercise was certainly of value. And it certainly produced a result. But as someone who thinks it's best to sleep on a decision before making it, and that our best and most creative ideas come to us at odd and unexpected moments, I'm not sure it produced the most thoughtful result. Or even the best result that could be obtained from people who felt a few minutes of their time was the most they wanted to spend on the matter. It may be only me, but I felt pressured into making snap judgments about matters I wasn't fully informed about. I think I would have been more comfortable providing more reasoned written responses to a survey not requiring immediate answers. I would be disappointed if the GPU consultant limited their public engagement to exercises of the type described. Item IVA General Plan Online Resources Presentation The City's General Plan Update page is useful, however it is obviously difficult to keep it up-to- date (example: the message that "Residents were encouraged to apply to serve on the [Steering] committee" is not currently relevant, since all the slots have been filled). The complete, bookmarked copy of the current General Plan, including figures, is similarly useful, although the Table of Contents (copied from the 2006 printed edition) doesn't correspond accurately to the current page numbering (example: the Housing Element is totally different from the one described in the online TOC). The "Schedule" page could provide a tentative list of Steering Committee meeting dates, as well as the tentative RFP timeline from the document about to be approved. It would be useful for the "Steering Committee" page to provide a single email address that would go to both the Committee members and staff, without making all the email addresses visible. This has been done for the City Council(citycouncil(aD-newportbeachca.gov), the Planning Commission(plan ningcommissioners(a-),newportbeachca.gov) and other City bodies. The link currently provided sends a message to all the Committee members, but not to staff (so the message won't automatically be included in the agenda packet), and it makes all the members' emails visible in the "to" line, encouraging "Reply All" violations of the Brown Act.