HomeMy WebLinkAboutIV(b)_Additional Materials Received_After Deadline_MosherAugust 24, 2022, GPUSC Agenda Comments
These comments on an item on the Newport Beach General Plan Update Steering Committee agenda
are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( jimmosher@yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660
(949-548-6229)
Item IV.b. Formation of a General Plan Advisory Committee
For reference, based on the recommendation of a 10-member General Plan Update Committee,
the earlier GPAC was created in 2001 by Council Resolution No. 2001-22.
The presently-proposed membership matrix appears to be modeled after the table in the 2001
resolution.
I have these comments on Attachment “A”:
1. Under “Meetings,” the statement that “GPAC meetings will be held as necessary. All
meetings shall be held in such locations and at such dates and times consistent with the
Ralph M. Brown Act.” might be taken by some to imply proceedings of the GPAC will all
take place in public. I take it, instead, to be coding for the idea that since the Brown Act
does not require sub-majority advisory committees of a larger body to meet in public, the
majority of the decisions will be made by small groups of appointees meeting privately,
and in isolation, with staff and consultants, formulating recommendations to be publicly
rubberstamped by the full GPAC on the infrequent occasions when the full group meets,
since the Brown Act requires only the larger group to conduct its business in public.
2. Under “City Boards, Commissions, or Committees”:
a. Under “Number” the matrix probably meant to say “Not more than one (1)
member each from the sample for a maximum of six (6) members.” [I also see
no reason to repeat each (each) number (number) after each (each) number
(number). Does the Council expect readers to understand English or Arabic
notation, but not both?]
b. Under “Sample Organizations / Interests,” it is not entirely clear what the “etc.”
refers: six organizations are already listed, and only six appointments are
allowed. Does the GPUSC not want all the City BCC’s it names to have a
representative on the GPAC?
3. Under “Environmental interest groups,” I do not believe the word “Newport” has ever
been part of the name of the “Banning Ranch Conservancy.” In fact, I believe the BRC,
which meets in Costa Mesa and seeks to restore the area to its natural state, has been
surprised, historically, that the adjacent City of Newport Beach appears to have had no
interest in the property unless it could be annexed for residential or commercial
development.
General Plan Update Steering Committee - August 24, 2022 Item No. IV(b) - Additional Materials Received After Deadline
Formation of a General Plan Advisory Committee
4. Under “Geographic areas,”1 much like with the City BCC’s, but even without the “etc.,”
eight locations are listed with only six appointment slots available. Is it the GPUSC’s
intent to name locations with the knowledge some will go unrepresented?
5. Under “At-large members with a diversity of representation,” the listing suggests the
objective is to obtain solely a diversity of interests. In the plan of the earlier Resolution
No. 2001-22, geographic diversity and diversity of interests were combined in a single
category. In other words, a group of 21 “at-large” appointees was selected with the
objective they provide both. That seems a better plan to me since the present plan does
not provide enough geographic appointments to represent all areas, and even if the two
are combined it allows just 14 choices (which equals two per Council district if one views
Council districts as important geographic units).
6. Under “Selection of Appointed Members,” I find the details a bit vague. Will the GPUSC
be publicly interviewing applicants? Will it present the Council with a take-it-or-leave-it
list for “confirmation”? Or will it give the Council discretion to choose among alternate
recommendations?
7. Resolution No. 2001-22 provided that the Mayor would select the GPAC Chair. In part
because the Mayor changes each year, I think it would be better for the full Council to do
this. Or even better for the GPAC to self-organize after the members have time to
become acquainted with each other. I would think it would also need a Vice Chair to
preside when the Chair is absent.
1 I am slightly amused to see Planning staff recycling the punctuation of Mariners Mile matching that
appeared in Resolution No. 2001-22. This is amusing because during the aborted “Mariners’ Mile
Revitalization Master Plan” effort, both staff and the consultant were quite insistent that the one and only
correct punctuation was “Mariners’ Mile” with an apostrophe after the “s” (possibly because it is written
that way in the current Land Use Element – and now, most of the time, in the latest Housing Element).
Personally, I have chosen to omit the apostrophe entirely.
General Plan Update Steering Committee - August 24, 2022 Item No. IV(b) - Additional Materials Received After Deadline
Formation of a General Plan Advisory Committee