HomeMy WebLinkAboutIVc_Additional Materials Received_MosherMarch 22, 2023, GPAC Item IV.c Comments
These comments on an item on the Newport Beach General Plan Advisory Committee agenda are
submitted by: Jim Mosher ( jimmosher@yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-
548-6229)
Item IV.c. Consideration of Formally Requesting Council’s Support for
a Sustainability and Resiliency Element
Although a copy of the Steering Committee’s most recent report to the Council, which was
received as agenda Item 13 on February 28, 2023, is attached to the present agenda, it would
have seemed useful to have also provided a link to the video of the Council’s discussion of it.
That would have given GPAC members a chance to directly review what was said, which seems
important since it touches on what the Council believes the GPUSC and GPAC have been
tasked with doing.
In particular, although the City website and the RFP discussed under Item IV.b refer to a
“Comprehensive General Plan Update,” and although at their first meeting the GPAC members
were encouraged by the GPUSC Chair to be “bold” and “creative” in transforming a “20th century
plan” into a 21st century one, the Council’s view could be different. “Comprehensive” may mean
only looking at every piece, and “updating” may mean only revising the present words, not
“rethinking” the structure or adding new features, as seems to have been encouraged in 2000-
2006.
In essence, what happened on February 28 is that Mayor Pro Tem Will O’Neill “pulled” Item 13
from the consent calendar (where items are received without discussion) to express his
displeasure with the GPAC discussing adding any new elements to the General Plan other than
the required new Environmental Justice element. Mr. O’Neill expressed the view that adding
elements is beyond the scope of the GPAC’s and Steering Committee’s mission as defined in
their enabling resolutions, and constitutes an unauthorized use of City resources unless
approved by the Council as the result of a formal request to expand the scope (which request it
appeared he would not support).
Mayor Noah Blom agreed.
The only other Council member to speak was Robyn Grant, who supported considering the
request and seemed to believe achieving a comprehensive revision of the General Plan might
require giving the GPUSC/GPAC more latitude than the Mayor Pro Tem found in the original
resolutions.
Hence the title of this item, “Formally Requesting Council’s Support for a Sustainability and
Resiliency Element.”
That request, if made, would, like a game of telephone, have to be passed from the GPAC to
the GPUSC and then from the GPUSC to the Council, with the answer passed back following
the same path in reverse (this is perhaps the reason that the GPUSC meeting, which was
originally scheduled at 5:00 p.m., before the GPAC, has been moved to 7:00 p.m., after the
GPAC).
General Plan Advisory Committee - March 22, 2023 Item No. IV(c) - Additional Materials Received Consideration of Formally Requesting Council's Support for a Sustainability and Resiliency Element
March 22, 2023, GPAC Item IV.c comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 2
Given the uncertainty that has been created, it seems to me GPAC’s request to the Council
should include not just their support for a “Sustainability and Resiliency Element,” but
more generally a request for clarification of what the current Council sees the GPUSC’s
and GPAC’s purposes as.
For reference, the revisions that resulted in our current General Plan were initiated in May 2000
by Council Resolution No. 2000-45, which created a General Plan Update Committee. That
committee, revised by Resolution No. 2000-102 and consisting of a set of Council members and
City commission and committee members, was charged with devising a public outreach
program and recommending a “scale and scope” of revision based on its outcome.
That original GPUC recommended the creation of a citizens General Plan Advisory Committee,
which was accomplished with Council Resolution No. 2001-22 in April 2001. The original GPAC
was charged first with reviewing the results of the community outreach program and technical
reports prepared for the City, and then with reviewing and making recommendations about
staff’s draft “Vision and Strategic Directions Report” and General Plan policies.
Out of this came a General Plan significantly different in structure and content from the one that
preceded it.
By contrast, when the Council launched a new “comprehensive update” in 2019, it was not clear
if the intent was to repeat the 2000-2006 experience or to do something more limited, especially
since the enabling resolution for the new GPUSC contained no request for a recommendation
about the “scale and scope” of the update needed: see Resolution No. 2019-7 from January
2019, which initiated the current process and created a five- (soon expanded to seven-)
member Steering Committee.
But that committee was disbanded, and the enabling resolutions of the current GPUSC and
GPAC (summarized on those pages) refer only to recommending changes to the existing goals
and policies.
The uncertainty is compounded by the “previous” Council’s decision to pursue revisions to the
Housing, Circulation, Land Use and Noise element on a track separate from, and largely
independent of the others – in a process that could hardly be called “comprehensive” in the
sense of viewing as an interconnected whole.
In short, since the Council has not clearly stated what they expect the “scale and scope” of the
update the current GPUSC and GPAC are undertaking is, and since we have not been asked to
make a recommendation as to what it should be, it seems reasonable to ask. Otherwise, it is
hard to see how we can operate within it.
General Plan Advisory Committee - March 22, 2023 Item No. IV(c) - Additional Materials Received Consideration of Formally Requesting Council's Support for a Sustainability and Resiliency Element