HomeMy WebLinkAboutIV(c)_Additional Materials Received_MosherAugust 8, 2022, GPUSC agenda item comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 4
Similarly, the existing Circulation Element from 2006 has a Figure CE3 of “Recommended
Intersection Improvements” needed to accommodate the then-expected growth.
The new draft Circulation Element has no such figure. All I see (on page 7-16) is:
“CE 2.1.4 Roadway Improvements
Pursue construction of intersection improvements (subject to findings of the most recent
General Plan update traffic study) or alternate improvements that achieve an acceptable
level of service. (Imp 16.3)”
Isn’t it disturbing that, unlike in 2006, the public has no idea what “improvements” might be
needed to make the new General Plan feasible? And hence what the City Council would be
signing on to by approving it? In other words, that we don’t really have any concrete plan at this
point?
And what is “Imp 16.3”? That appears to be a reference to the current General Plan
Implementation Program. Is the idea that the new “comprehensive” General Plan Update can
be accomplished without modifying the existing one’s Implementation Program?
Again, how can the Circulation Element be drafted in isolation, and why would one want to do
that?
Shouldn’t the GPAC review and provide input on the Circulation Element before it is adopted?
As to my initial curiosity about what the current traffic volumes are along the stretch of Irvine
Avenue above which I live, and the levels I might expect on it over the course of the new
General Plan, is there technical data supporting this new Circulation Element? If so, where is it?
Has the public seen it?
Item IV.c. Draft Revised Scope of Work for Kimley-Horn & Associates
It would have been helpful for the staff report to provide a link to the existing agreement that it
proposes to revise.
That would appear to be C-8635-1 (PSA for Housing, Land Use and Circulation Elements to the
General Plan Consulting Services). And the revisions would appear to be to the 20-page “Work
Plan” starting on page 15.
While the staff report proposes a replacement for Task 3, what is the proposed status of the
other tasks? Will they also be modified? Have they been completed?
How much of the original $1,217,461 contract limit has been spent? Will the proposed work be
accomplished within the original contact expenditure limit?
Where are we on the Anticipated Work Schedule on page 35? Since the contract runs through
June 30, 2023, but the Schedule only through October 2021, is it missing a page or two?
In particular, what is the status of the EIR they are preparing (with a Scoping Meeting that was,
curiously, to come in August 2021, after the public review of the final draft began in June 2021?
When the City Council approved the new Housing Element as Item 8 at its February 8, 2022,
meeting, I found quite confusing the statements (Item 8, page 9, with Kimley-Horn’s report
General Plan Update Steering Committee - August 8, 2022 Item No. IV(c) - Additional Materials Received Draft Revised Scope of Work for Kimley-Horn & Associates
August 8, 2022, GPUSC agenda item comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 4
starting on page 661) that environmental review is necessary only when the construction off
actual development is proposed, so it is not needed for planning documents.
As to the proposed new Task 3:
1.It would have been helpful to provide page numbers to refer to.
2.Task 3.2 seems focused solely on modifying the Land Use Element to accommodate the
state’s RHNA. Isn’t a more comprehensive review by the GPAC warranted?
3.What does “The recommendation shall include a special component” mean in
Deliverable 2 of Task 3.2 (page 4 of PDF).
4.Task 3.4 twice refers to the Mariner’s Mile focus area (bottom of page 4 and top of page
5 of the PDF). Mariner’s Mile is not identified as a focus area in Task 3.2.
5.Task 3.6 is limited to revising one small part of the Noise Element. Will some other
consultant assist the GPAC with a more general review?
6.Task 3.7 refers to KHA providing further assistance with “development of the Housing
Element and Circulation Element.” Doesn’t Item IV.b on the present agenda announce
those are essentially ready for adoption? What further development is anticipated? Did
the author mean “Land Use Element”?
7.Does the incorporation of Task 9 into the new Task 3.9 mean that the other Tasks will
not continue to be part of the contract’s Scope of Services? If so, why is the new Task 3
being called Task 3 if it is the only task?
Item IV.d. Draft Request for Proposal for the General Plan Update
I continue to have trouble seeing the desirability of having one consultant complete portions of
the General Plan, while asking a second consultant to coordinate fitting the remaining elements
to the completed ones.
It also bothers me that the RFP seems to indicate to prospective bidders that we anticipate a
fairly minimal clean-up the existing plan.
Shouldn’t the GPAC have the flexibility to recommend a restructuring of the Plan or the
introduction of new elements, such as a Sustainability Element?
Item IV.e. Formation of a General Plan Advisory Committee
Some years ago -- most likely in 2014, when City staff was attempting to do the Irvine
Company’s bidding by forming a Land Use Element Update Advisory Committee to convert
unused General Plan resort allocations approved by voter for Newport Coast into new
development entitlements in Newport Center – I put in a Public Records Act request for the
City’s surviving documentation from the 2000-2006 General Plan Update effort. At that time, and
I would guess it still does, the City had on its server a scanned compilation of all the agendas
and minutes, and most of the agenda materials, for both the GPUC and the GPAC.
Making those publicly accessible would allow the present Steering Committee to review how the
former GPAC functioned, and to better understand what both the GPUC and the GPAC did.
General Plan Update Steering Committee - August 8, 2022 Item No. IV(c) - Additional Materials Received Draft Revised Scope of Work for Kimley-Horn & Associates