Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutIVa_Draft Minutes of September 4, 2024Attachment No. 1 Draft minutes of September 4, 2024 Page 1 of 6 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA COMMUNITY ROOM – 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE September 4, 2024 REGULAR MEETING – 5 P.M. I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER – 5:00 p.m. II. WELCOME AND ROLL CALL Present: Staff: Planning Manager Ben Zdeba Committee Members: Co-Chair Jeremy Evans, Nicholas Acevedo, Dennis Baker, Curtis Black, James Carlson, Annie Clougherty, Susan DeSantis, David Guder, Lynn Hackman, Laird Hayes, Charles Klobe, Ruth Kobayashi, Thomas Meng, Jim Mosher, Maxwell Pearson, Robert Rader, Nancy Scarbrough, Amber Snider, Debbie Stevens, Christy Walker, Paul Watkins, and Lori Williams Excused Absent: Co-Chair Arlene Greer, Scott Laidlaw Absent: Jeff Cefalia, Katie Love, Harrison Rolfes, and Anthony Maniscalchi III. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS – General Plan Update Steering Committee (GPUSC) Chair Nancy Gardner reported on GPAC members who have not attended meetings and their interest in participating. IV. CURRENT BUSINESS a. Meeting Minutes of July 29, 2024 Motion made by Committee Member Klobe and seconded by Committee Member Baker to approve the meeting minutes of July 29, 2024, with Committee Member Mosher’s edits. Committee Member Watkins asked that his comment regarding the Santa Ana Country Club and Tract A on the bottom of page 13 be changed to his name instead of Committee Member Walker. The motion carried unanimously. b. Vision Statement Progress Draft On July 31, 2024, City staff requested input from the GPAC Vision Statement Subcommittee regarding a potential format and structure for the City’s updated General Plan Vision Statement. Subcommittee Chair Stevens and several members provided input in response, and on August 19, 2024, City staff provided the initial draft of the Vision General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting September 4, 2024 Page 2 of 6 Statement to the Subcommittee for review. Attachment 2 included the progress draft along with all written comments received for the GPAC’s consideration. Recommended Actions: (1) Receive an overview from Dudek and the GPAC Vision Statement Subcommittee; (2) Provide any feedback on the draft Vision Statement; and (3) Conduct a vote to take either of the following two actions: a. Receive and file Attachment 2 with the comments to allow Dudek to proceed with revising the progress draft to create a final version; or b. Direct the Vision Statement Subcommittee to meet and refine the draft for reconsideration at a future GPAC meeting. Planning Manager Zdeba emphasized that the Vision Statement draft is a progress draft until Council adoption and noted that City staff worked closely with Dudek to craft it. He expressed appreciation for the input from the Vision Statement Subcommittee and the forthcoming GPAC feedback. Elizabeth Dickson of Dudek utilized a presentation to review the Vision Statement purpose, development process, topics, and guiding values and priorities. In reply to Committee Member Klobe’s question, Ms. Dickson stated that there were no revisions pertaining to connected transportation to access key amenities, and noted comments about connectivity through the airport area, connecting people through Wayfinding, and bicycle use through the airport area for multimodal transportation networks. Committee Member Baker thought the draft was well written but that it contains redundancy. He suggested revisions. Committee Member DeSantis suggested the Vision Subcommittee review the draft to reduce the length, using one to three overarching principals that apply across all the Elements of the General Plan, and evolving the values and priorities to the goals and objectives. Ms. Dickson clarified that the intention of the goals is to be consistent and aligned with the guiding principles and policies. Co-Chair Evans stated that the Vision Subcommittee had an opportunity to review the Vision Statement and overarching goals. Committee Member Kobayashi complimented the Vision Statement and thought that public safety needs to be tied in. She expressed surprise over the mention of tribal nations and Co-Chair Evans stated that State law requires that language. Committee Member Guder questioned the village and tribal nations references. In reply, Ms. Dickson stated that tribal reference is not required in the Vision Statement. Committee Member Guder wondered if there is a specific tribe that can be historically tied to the area. In reply to his question regarding coastal resilience, Ms. Dickson said that it was not in the old Vision Statement, however, related progressive policies and language are included in the Vision Statement and General Plan and spans multiple Elements. Committee Member Watkins thought the draft is well done, noted grammatical inconsistencies on page 24, suggested the guiding values and priorities be organized by General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting September 4, 2024 Page 3 of 6 roman numerals, and proposed integrating infrastructure development on page 28. He opposed including tribal nations in the draft. Planning Manager Zdeba indicated that there is a State requirement to give tribal agencies certain considerations during a General Plan Amendment, noted at least two tribes that express interest in projects throughout the City, and stated that the tribal nations inclusion in the Vision Statement can be stricken from the draft if that is the desire of the GPAC. Virginia Anders-Ellmore, Newport Shores resident, noted tribal activity at the Randall Preserve and thought it is important and should be acknowledged in the City and, it used to teach people how to take care of the environment. Committee Member Stevens noted the importance of the community feedback data, liked the draft detail, supported the length and specificity, noted opportunities for revisions, and thanked the consultant. In reply to Committee Member Scarbrough’s question, Ms. Dickson and Planning Manager Zdeba relayed the process for future revisions. Chuck Fancher, resident, thought the draft used “planner speak.” He suggested succinct points that address community concerns, such as future development and density, multimodal development purpose, and tourism management. GPUSC Chair Gardner thought Mr. Fancher’s suggestions are appropriate in an implementation plan. Committee Member Hackman thought a Vision Statement should include the economic aspect, referred to Newport Beach as a luxury tourist destination and noted the money spent to attract tourists and associated income. Committee Member Black noted the City is well-managed financially and suggested including the City’s overall financial management. Committee Member Baker supported including a mentioning of tribal nations in the Vision Statement. Committee Member Acevedo concurred with Committee Member Black’s suggestion and suggested using the future tense in the draft. Committee Member Mosher thought more discussion is needed by the individual subcommittees, agreed with Committee Member DeSantis’ comments, stated that a guiding principle for the development of other policies agreed upon by the majority is needed. He relayed that in a previous joint meeting, the Planning Commission and City Council reviewed the guiding principle areas from a previous GPAC that directed the General Plan Process. Committee Member Mosher thought this would be a useful exercise now. Committee Member Scarbrough thought there is a connection between the actual budget and what the Harbor Commission has in its mission statement. She analyzed the three main City revenue categories stating that the finance reports contained the numbers General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting September 4, 2024 Page 4 of 6 Harbormaster Paul Blank used to determine the Harbor Department’s priorities. She also noted the revenues are current and annual. Co-Chair Evans summarized the feedback from the GPAC: 1- Make the Vision Statement more concise by eliminating redundancy; 2- Minor non-substantive typographical and wordsmith changes; 3- Include guiding principles in maintaining balance and connected community sections; and 4- Replace the work legacy with history. Motion made by Committee Member Baker and seconded by Committee Member Kobayashi to receive and file Attachment 2 with the comments to allow Dudek to proceed with revising the progress draft for the GPAC to review. The motion carried unanimously with exception of Committee Member Mosher who voted no. c. Phase Two Outreach Plan On August 21, 2024, City staff provided the draft Phase Two Outreach Plan to the GPAC Outreach Subcommittee for review and feedback. The Plan was intended to supplement the original Community Outreach and Engagement Plan and guide the outreach efforts as we move into Phase Two of the project: General Plan Update Development. The attachment was considered the final draft of the Plan for full GPAC consideration. Recommended Actions: (1) Receive an overview from Dudek and Kearns & West; (2) Provide any feedback on the Plan; and (3) Receive and file Attachment 3 to help guide the Outreach Subcommittee and GPAC outreach efforts as part of Phase Two. Jenna Tourje-Maldonado from Kearns & West utilized a presentation to review the Phase Two Outreach Strategy and timeline and recommended workshop topics. In reply to GPUSC Chair Gardner’s question, Ms. Tourje-Maldonado stated that Kearns & West is proposing a workshop that has presentations and a “world café” style to generate ideas and topics for principles and goals. Planning Manager Zdeba stated staff will be checking in with the Outreach Subcommittee and other related subcommittees before content is shared, dates will be shared with the Outreach Subcommittee, and any content that is shared to the public will be shared with the appropriate Subcommittee. Ms. Tourje-Maldonado noted that everything so far has gone through the Outreach Subcommittee Chair and will continue. Committee Member Black noted that on October 9 the harbor related policies will be reviewed and hoped that a subcommittee would form to provide feedback. Ms. Tourje- Maldonado stated that Kearns & West can provide resources. Committee Member Baker expressed concern for engagement with the school and students and suggested seeking input from high school juniors and seniors. General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting September 4, 2024 Page 5 of 6 In reply to Committee Member DeSantis’ question, Planning Manager Zdeba stated that no content has been created for a Land Use, Harbor, Bay, and Beaches workshop and emphasized that anything land use related will come through the Land Use Subcommittee before it is shared at the workshop and goals/guiding principles specific to the Land Use Element can come from community feedback collected from the workshop. Committee Member Hackman concurred and stressed the importance of public education. In reply to her inquiry, Planning Manager Zdeba clarified examples of coastal resilience and safety, and how they interplay. Committee Member Hackman recommended including the CERT program. Committee Member Williams supported Committee Member DeSantis’ comments regarding the Land Use Element and supported public education on land use. Planning Manager Zdeba stated that the Land Use Element may not require a vote of the electoral and agreed with public education about the implementation of the Housing Element and Land Use Element. Committee Member Walker expressed concern for public upset with a lack of clarity and supported public education to avoid “finger pointing.” Planning Manager Zdeba stated that he is a public sector employee and welcomed GPAC members to share his contact information as needed. Committee Member Kobayashi supported using the wording “foster environmental stewardship” and suggested adding the Mormon churches and Mariner’s Church to the faith-based organizations and involving high school aged civics students and the activities director. Committee Member Mosher inquired about the workshops and stakeholders focus groups, a list of stakeholders, and the significance of being and process to get on the list of an example organization. In reply, Ms. Tourje-Maldonado indicated that workshops would take place first before moving to stakeholder interviews, the consultant will work with the Outreach Subcommittee, and the list of organizations is from the initial outreach and engagement plan which was reviewed by the GPAC last year and can be updated. Additionally, she noted that what was presented tonight is the plan and workshops are next in October and November. In reply to Committee Member DeSantis’ inquiry, Ms. Tourje-Maldonado reviewed the IAP 2 Engagement Spectrum on handwritten page 97 and thought the group was all the way to “collaborate.” In reply to Committee Member Scarbrough’s question, Ms. Tourje-Maldonado indicated that although the decision has not been made who will be presenting the Land Use education workshops, she presumed the City would make the determination. Planning Manager Zdeba stated that housing is a complicated subject, and staff would not select a presenter unable to speak to it. d. Presentation: Overview of Upcoming Deliverables and Objectives Planning Manager Zdeba utilized a slide to review the draft General Plan timeline and noted that significant delays will impact the budget and timeline. General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting September 4, 2024 Page 6 of 6 Ms. Dickson and Ms. Tourje-Maldonado utilized the slide to share more information about current work, upcoming deliverables, and next steps. In reply to Committee Member Baker, Ms. Tourje-Maldonado stated that a robust video campaign is underway. Committee Member DeSantis suggested videos for public education. Planning Manager Zdeba supported the suggestion and exploring the option. Committee Member Kobayashi suggested video education should be avoided during the election season. Planning Manager Zdeba notified the GPAC that the GPUSC supported asking the Council for additional work related to the Noise Element, GPUSC Chair Gardner prepared a report, and the matter will be heard by the City Council on September 24 along with consideration for appointing two GPAC members. Committee Member DeSantis thought the Land Use Subcommittee will need to meet several times in advance of the Land Use workshop. Planning Manager Zdeba offered to coordinate meeting dates. e. Consideration of a Future Speaker GPUSC Chair Gardner suggested inviting former Councilmember and current transportation professional Tony Petros, along with City Traffic Engineer Brad Sommers, to discuss the Circulation Element and how concepts, such as complete streets, blend into other General Plan elements. Committee Member Baker was in support and suggested conveying questions and interests to speakers in advance. A straw-poll vote revealed majority support for the matter. V. COMMITTEE ANNOUNCEMENTS OR MATTERS WHICH MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION OR REPORT (NON-DISCUSSION ITEM) - None VI. ADJOURNMENT – With no further business, Co-Chair Evans adjourned the meeting at 6:34 p.m.