HomeMy WebLinkAboutIV(d)_Additional Materials Received_MosherAugust 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(d) - Additional Materials Received Draft Request for Proposal for the General Plan Update