Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Non-Agenda Items - CorrespondenceBrown, Leilani Received After Agenda Printed February 10, 2015 Non Aaenda Item From: Denys Oberman <dho @obermanassociates.com> Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2015 4:29 PM ij _r,� To: Dept - City Council Cc: Kiff, Dave; Brown, Leilani Subject: Fire Rings- Community Position -- Please enter into the Public Record^ Attachments: Community Position re Fire Rings- Letter to City Council for the Public Record 2- 8- 15.docx C, ... { Mayor and City Council Members: Attached please find the Community Position regarding solutions to the Fire Rings issue, which will also be presented in public testimony. We have informally polled approximately 2,000 residents and multiple communication associations who are interested parties, and have copied them with this transmittal. We appreciate your consideration, and the opportunity to engage in a legitimate public process to achieve acceptable resolution of this matter. Denys Oberman and Other Interested Parties On behalf of the Residents of Newport Beach Regards, Denys H. Oberman, CEO OBERMAN Strategy and Financial Advisors 2600 Michelson Drive, Suite 1700 Irvine, CA 92612 Tel (949) 476 -0790 Cell (949) 230 -5868 Fax (949) 752 -8935 Email: dho(a-_)obermanassociates.com � ::a A /43' o i p Sent To: y Council ity Manager sty Attorney File CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The documents accompanying this transmission contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is legally privileged. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this telecopied information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately at 9491476 -0790 or the electronic address above, to arrange for the return of the document(s) to us. February 8, 2015 PLEASE DISTRIBUTE TO CITY COUNCIL AND ENTER INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD RE. FIRE RINGS — COMMUNITY POSITION Mayor Selich and Members of the City Council City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach CA Mayor Selich and Members of the City Council: We have engaged with many residents and frequent visitors , and also multiple community associations, to discuss the issue of fire rings, in order to determine a clear, unified Community voice. We appreciate that the City is anxious to complete disposition of this matter; and, that it is likely in the best interests of all to minimize unnecessary plan iterations , and protracted litigation . It is also the Community's desire to participate through a transparent, clear public process and accomplish a satisfactory solution through the administrative process, if feasible . After extensive outreach, we are providing a clear statement of the Balboa Penninsula and West Newport residents' position as follows. We are interested in achieving a solution which is responsive both to those who desire to retain wood - burning fire rings, and those who wish to live in and visit a beach environment free of smoke. • Environmental health and safety, including clean air and water, are non - negotiables. The health impact and risks associated with persistent exposure to smoke , as well as contaminated water(which would be caused by a number of the alternatives in the 7 scenarios proposed by the City), are universally recognized and supported by both legislative and court bodies. • We are prepared to further a compromise and accept a position which retains fire rings within the physically – existing footprint and mix, as was approved by the Air Quality Management District as of January 30,2015. This scenario while providing wood fire rings, also achieves some reduction in adverse Air Quality impact. Specifics of our position follow: 1. At Balboa Pier: 12 Wood- burning and 18 Charcoal burning rings, located at East and West sides of the Pier, respective ly(more unacceptable) 2. At CDM: 11 Wood- burning and 14 Charcoal- burning rings 3. Total: 55 fire rings Page 2- Community Position Fire Rings 2 -8 -15 Alternatively, we are prepared to accept Wood- burning rings in the physical footprint boundary of Fire rings as previously existed at these locations prior to establishing some Charcoal rings , subject to spacing of 100' to be compliant with AQMD /Air Quality regulations and without advancing proximity and concentration into residential neigh borhoods.Specifically, this would be: 1. 18 at Balboa Pier, of which 12 would be on the East and 6 on the West side of the Pier 2. 15 -16 at Corona del Mar 3. Total: 33 -34 fire rings Both of these scenarios accomplish the following: 1. The physical footprint (boundary parameters) are consistent with the original historical locational footprint where the public has grown accustomed to finding and using fire rings 2. They do not expand adverse impacts further into the residential neighborhoods 3. They do not expand into other areas where there is regular, frequent resident and visitors use of the beach and water, or also where recreational, food and other key activities are in close proximity. Such areas where we object to fire rings being located include a)at the Balboa Penninsula, including 15th Street and Newport Pier b) continuing along the Balboa Penninsula beach from the Balboa Pier past B street to the east, and from the current Balboa Pier area along the beach up to the Santa Ana River jetty c)at CDM, where there are volleyball courts, marine center and fire station 4. They are compliant with established Air Quality regulatory standards 5. They support the mission of the Coastal Commission, which is (officially) to protect and preserve the integrity of the environmental quality in the coastal zones, and provide public access. We ask that the Council immediately move and complete approval of a Motion to: 1. Modify or cease and desist the current City survey instrument that includes options other than those above, which are not consistent with the will of the people, the health and safety of the both residents /frequent users; 2. Actively support a legitimate, thoughtful public process which includes the accurate staking of original and currently proposed fire rings in any City presentation, and associated with any properly noticed or reviewed scenario Page 3- Community Position re. Fire Rings 2 -8 -15 3. Advocate on the community's behalf, the resolution of the fire rings type and their placement in a manner consistent with the scenarios,above - -- which is also consistent with the environmental health and safety objectives of the residents and the public. The position,above, is actively supported by thousands of residents and regular visitors using these beaches, as well as community associations and other stakeholder groups whose members' health and welfare is impacted. We realize that time is of the essence, and therefore request the Council's prompt, consideration, public discussion and response. Thank you, Sincerely, Denys Oberman- Resident, Balboa Penninsula Cynthia Koller- Resident, PenninsulaMest Newport Kathryn Branman- Resident, Lido Linda Klein- Resident Lido Laura Curran- Resident Corona del Mar cc: Concerned Citizens Coallition; Central Penninsula Community Association; West Newport Community Association; Balboa Penninsula Point Community Association; Newport Shores Community /homeowners Association; Corona del Mar Residents Association; Surfriders Foundation; SPON; Citizens for NO on Y Brown, Leil From: Denys Oberman <dhn@o berm onensmciahao.00m> Sent: Tuesday, February O3.20154:G2A�� 70� ��� _� PM �� �U To: 'GoottPeottar' --- ' �" ' `^' ^' � ` Co: OionebO|>({}N;Petros. Tony; Curry, Keith; eoa|ioh@roadru kevinmmu|doon��yahno.00m;Sno� Robinson; 'Fne o||er; ppaUa�e��aoicom; Linda Klein; Laura Curran; Ki�. Dave�^ o-'' W��6�ho|t;AUan Beek; dho@��barmanom000io��a.00m; Brown, Lei|ani Subject: RE: Fire Pits PLEASE ENTER THIS CORRESPONDENCE INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD AND DISTRIBUTE. Scott- Thankyouforyour response. However, You and staff unilaterally provided Alternatives that are IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION TO WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT. What was done at Balboa Pier as of this date is acceptable , eg. 12 Wood and 18 Charcoal, spacing in conformance with A[iMD. Locating Fire pits at Newport Pier is NOT ACCEPTABLE, NOR |S THE CONCEPT (]F SPREADING RINGS UPAN PENN|NSULA. --^ CoPiwSent To: —'��Ity Council |arnherevvith copying the various H0A/COAs and various others in the conmnoun�v, ~ Attorney who expressed opposition to these alternatives. ----- File WHY ARE YOU AND STAFF CONTINUING TO IGNORE THE RESIDENTS AND SUBMIT A DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE COMMUNITY? This needs to stop. You and the City have misrepresented the process. You and City continue to ignore the will of the people; AND impose on us alternatives that SPREAD ADVERSE IMPACTS, NOT MITIGATE THEM. The Residents have been more than fair, in stepping uptoecompromise. |arncopying the various Community Associations and a number of others who have already expressed Opposition to these proposed alternatives. Please consider this our Final request that there beNC> FIRE RINGS AT NEWPORT PIER DRUP AND DOWN THE BALBOAPENN|NSULA. If the City continues to pursue an improper, unresponsive administrative process, and Residents are forced into a Petition, please be assured that the community will consider and pursue its remedies to the fullest extent possible. We have the right to |kxe in air free of persistent 5nnoke, and without increased risk of water contamination and other impacts. Denys Oberman Resident and Community Stakeholder Regards, Denys H. Oberman, CEO OBERMAN Strategy and Financial Advisors 2600 Michelson Drive, Suite 1700 Irvine, CA 92612 Tel (949) 476 -0790 Cell (949) 230 -5868 Fax (949) 752 -8935 Email: dho(ab-o berm anassociates.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The documents accompanying this transmission contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is legally privileged. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this telecopied information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately at 9491476 -0790 or the electronic address above, to arrange for the return of the document(s) to us. From: scott.peotter(abgmail.com [ mailto :scott.peotter(a)gmail.com] On Behalf Of Scott Peotter Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 11:06 PM To: Denys Oberman Subject: Fire Pits The application went into the CCC is alternate 1. The CCC wants all wood and that is what alt 1 is, all 100' spacing per AQMD. AQMD has reviewed the plan and has approved it. CCC is more than likely to make comments and change the design which would require COUNCIL approval. Through the process the NBCC will continue to give input. Option 1 spreads out the rings at CDM and Balboa pier slightly and then adds 9 to the Newport Pier and 7 to the Dunes. All of them are located as far away from homes as possible. Another alternative that the CCC may approve would be alt 3, also all wood, but which spreads the fire rings out along the peninsula. This was NOT submitted as an approved plan. But was considered. But you may like it, because there are fewer rings together and they are installed in wide parts of the beach. The design criteria is to provide all wood per CCC and space them at 100' per AQMD and minimize impact to home as much as possible. We are open to any suggestions and can propose them to the CCC. htip://www.connectnew-portbeach.com/ THANKS SCOTT PEOTTER Newport Beach City Councilman Direct: 949 - 250 -7118 Scott Peotter 2618 San Miguel Drive, Suite 535, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Like me on Facebook I like to share a verse that I was reading. I hope it blesses you like it did me. Proverbs 22:1 "A good name is more desirable than great riches; to be esteemed is better than silver or gold." Brown, Leilani `1 I\ /1.--- Fl Date d-l/19 l /.S From: Denys Oberman <dho @obermanassociates.com> Cop1e Sent T ®• Sent: Tuesda ,!1F ebwMry 1V, 2015{1: 5'AM °---- ItY Council ety Manager To: Dept City Council Kiff, nave; Drown, Leilani 5*`�City ktorney Subject: Fire rings- For the Public Record- �;'a Mayor and Members of the Council: We appreciate that the City wishes to resolve the Fire rings issue as quickly as possible, as do we. However, forging ahead with inadequate preparation and with disregard to requirements for an orderly process or CEQA evaluation is not acceptable. We were advised yesterday that the City proceeded to submit a plan to the Coastal Commission including 6 -7 Alternatives, Including some to which the public has through oral and written testimony, already voiced serious objection. The public has submitted a menu of options which are the only ones, other than fewer or no rings, which it considers acceptable, and which would not create additional significant adverse environmental and nuisance impact on the Balboa Penninsula and CDM beaches and our neighborhoods - -- impacts affecting not only residents, but also other members of the public who regularly frequent and use the beaches. Why was this done when the public process was not adequately noticed or the public provided legitimate opportunity for due process? The alternatives 1 -7 presented by the City in its electronic survey and as submitted to the Coastal Commission ,if in fact they were already presented to the Coastal Commission in formal application, are in violation of CEQA requirements and due process. This premature submittal was done without adequate planning and forethought by the City. Its prospective damage to neighborhoods and position must be cured - - -by the City fulfilling its duty to its constituents and the public, and not on the backs of its residents. We must respectfully insist that the City immediately: 1. Clarify and refine its submittal to the Coastal Commission to eliminate alternatives of clear adverse impact and include alternatives which do not extend or amplify adverse impacts, as presented by the Community 2. Modify the Mind -mixer "public survey" to remove City - defned alternatives 1 -7 which constituents have formally objected to, and replace them with legitimate alternatives which do not increase adverse environmental and nuisance impacts 3. Immediately establish a Schedule which provides for the proper sequence of activities and public input, various approvals 4. Immediately move forward to retain experienced, expert representation to advocate alternatives and on the community /city's behalf alternatives which accurately represent and support the interests of the Community and the City( defined as residents and community of users who regularly visit and use the beach) Thank you. Denys Oberman On behalf of Residents of the Balboa Penninsula and other Stakeholders Regards, Denys H. Oberman, CEO OBERMAN Strategy and Financial Advisors 2600 Michelson Drive, Suite 1700 Irvine, CA 92612 Tel (949) 476 -0790 Cell (949) 230 -5868 Fax (949) 752 -8935 Email: dho(cD-obermanassociates.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The documents accompanying this transmission contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is legally privileged. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this telecopied information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately at 9491476 -0790 or the electronic address above, to arrange for the return of the document(s) to us. RecE4ved After Agenda Printed February 10, 2015 Non - Agenda Item City of Newport Beach City Council Public Comment on Non - Agenda Items February 10, 2015 Carl Randolph Cassidy, et at ) Newport Beach Registered Voter, ) V. ) City of Newport Beach, et at ) Council Meeting ) Petition for Reconsideration of NB Finance Committee formation violating California Government Code statutory provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act and the Maddy Act requirements for open government prior to the 2/26/15 Finance Committee Meeting. 1) The City of Newport Beach City Council has violated legal principles of fairness with the Maddy Act Violation - failure to disclose and provide notice - California Government Code Secs. 54970 et seq. in the A) Appointment process with no public notice of vacancy, review and discussion of candidates. As Mayor Selich noted at the January 25, 2015 city council meeting, he already arranged without public comment, notice and open transparent government for the resignation of one of the newly appointed Finance Committee members from the standing Planning Commission as part of the serial discussion non - agenda, non - public public discussion meeting further violating the City charter, and B) Departure from the City's own prescribed organized traditional approach in review of candidates and dismissal of candidates for vacancy upon a city committee - i.e. Alan Beek -, long time honored city resident and graduate of Cal Tech. II) The City of Newport Beach City Council further violates the Brown Act - California Government Code Sections 54950 - 54963, including but not limited to criminal conduct statute citation - California Government Code Section 54959 which provides that "Each member of a legislative body who attends a meeting of that legislative body where action is taken in violation of any provision of this chapter, and where the member intends to deprive the public of information to which the member knows or has reason to know the public is entitled under this chapter, is guilty of a misdemeanor." Council member Muldoon's public statements regarding practicing law with specific prosecution experience and specific involvement in the area of providing notice and of the importance of meeting required notice at the prior council meeting demonstrates clear mens rea of his acting with Team Newport and the entire council to violate the law in a systemic disregard of public trust - agreement on long term friends as candidates for the Finance Commission without any public review. The purpose of the Brown Act is that the public's business be conducted in public. a) CA Gov. Code Sec. 54950.1 provides " Any person elected to serve as a member of a legislative body who has not yet assumed the duties of office shall conform his or her conduct to the requirements of this chapter and shall be treated for purposes of enforcement of this chapter as if he or she has already assumed office." b) CA Gov. Code Sec. 54952.2. (a) As used in this chapter, "meeting" means any congregation of a majority of the members of a legislative body at the same time and location, including teleconference location as permitted by Section 54953, to hear, discuss, deliberate, or take action on any item that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body. (b) (1) A majority of the members of a legislative body shall not, outside a meeting authorized by this chapter, use a series of communications of any kind, directly or through intermediaries, to discuss, deliberate, or take action on any item of business that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body. c) Additional case law and secondary legal scholarly articles to follow in additional subsequent materials to this outline. According to the California Attorney General, "a serial meeting is a series of communications, each of which involves less than a quorum of the legislative body, but which taken as a whole involves a majority of the body's members." DIV. OF CIVIL LAW, OFFICE OF THE ATT'Y GEN. OF CAL., THE BROWN ACT: OPEN MEETINGS FOR LOCAL LEGISLATIVE BODIES 11 (2003), cite: http: / /ag.ca.gov/ publications /2003_ Intro_BrownAct.pdf [hereinafter AG BRIEF] (on file with the McGeorge Law Review). For example, a chain of communications involving contact from member A to member B who then communicates with member C would constitute a serial meeting in the case of a five - person body. Similarly, when a person acts as the hub of a wheel (member A) and communicates individually with the various spokes (members B and C), a serial meeting has occurred. In addition, a serial meeting occurs when intermediaries for board members have a meeting to discuss issues. For example, when a representative of member A meets with representatives of members B and C to discuss an agenda item, the members have conducted a serial meeting through their representatives as intermediaries. d) With respect to members of the public addressing the legislative body of a local agency at one of its public meetings, section 54954.3 provides: (a) Every agenda for regular meetings shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the legislative body on any item of interest to the public, before or during the legislative body's consideration of the item, that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body, provided that no action shall be taken on any item not appearing on the agenda unless the action is otherwise authorized by subdivision (b) of Section 54952.2.... (b) The legislative body of a local agency may adopt reasonable regulations to ensure that the intent of subdivision (a) is carried out, including, but not limited to, regulations limiting the total amount of time allocated for public testimony on particular issues and for each individual speaker. (c) The legislative body of a local agency shall not prohibit public criticism of the policies, procedures, programs, or services of the agency, or of the acts or omissions of the legislative body. Nothing in this subdivision shall confer any privilege or protection for expression beyond that otherwise provided by law. Thus, the Brown Act not only allows members of the public to attend the legislative body's meetings, it allows the public to participate in the decision - making process by presenting testimony. (89 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen., supra, at p. 246; 78 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 224 (1995); 75 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 89 (1992). e) The undisputed administrative record of the facts with respect to the illegal Maddy Act violation by the City Council is as follows: The Attachments to the January 25 city council meeting submited by the Newport Beach City Clerk show a total of five applications received for the four citizen openings: the four included as Attachment A in the staff report plus an application from Allan Beek, stamped January 12, 2015. No record is that provides for the dismissal of Mr. Beek's application, and in the absence of subsequent public advertisement, or how the Council acted in concert to advise with required public notice that other four persons appointed in a closed council meeting learned of the opportunity to submit applications, or whether they were submitted before or after the nominees had been selected. There evidence in the record supporting the statutorily required public recording with opportunity for the public to comment and record City council discussion of the appointing Council members action upon the Beek application, drew from the entire "pool" or simply asked their personal nominee to apply. One of the four appointee - applicants did not meet City requirements for being confirmed as a registered voter — something the Council had set as a prerequisite for appointment until after the City council initiated the appointment process considered the application in concert, and closed the non - posted closed meeting without recorded notes or agenda This process egregiously violates the specific provisions of the Maddy act and the spirit of the law by not adequately exploring the full reservoir of financial talent available for appointment, clearly inconsistent not only with the letter of the law but also with the intent of both the Maddy Act and Council Policy A -2. f) In addition there is further evidence of a Brown Act majority acting with undue influence and violation of the public trust demonstrated by the departure from campaign assurances of Team Newport that the back room dealings will become pervasive in Newport Beach is particularly disturbing because November 2014 election was that "Team Newport" would bring new levels of transparency, responsible government and accountability. III) Let there be no misunderstanding regarding the immense importance and relevance of the reconstitution of the City of Newport Beach Finance Committee as demonstrated by: A) Reassignment of long time close intimate skilled team member by the mayor to the Finance Committee. B) Campaign rhetoric - reference to outrageous irresponsible public spending. D) Interlocking directorates - appearance of impropriety (smell test ? ? ?) E) Concern stated by Honored City Council Prior members Nancy Gardner and Leslie Daigle that the accounting reserves and the changes to the reserves that flow through the annual budget as fund activity be Properly reviewers, understood and monitored by the Finance Committee and be a source of audit for the outside auditors as a specific engagement procedure. One could possibly encourage the proper appointment of public members to the Finance Committee by initiating in the candidacy application, interview, and public review process a discussion of how the City will value and record its significantly material growing future reserves for legal costs and vast tradition for unsuccessful costly settlement of litigation costs (i.e. Pacific Shores, Measure Y, Banning Ranch, Woody's Wharf, Dock tax). F) My comments are not to be construed in any way to be any possible assertion other than a complete and entire belief in the trustworthiness, competency, and efforts of the City Finance Director, Mr. Dan Matusiewcz and his staff or upon any of extremely competent employees hired, managed, and organized by Dave Kiff. G) Relevance to the other stakeholders much more valued than myself or even the voting public - individuals that place their lives on the line in our public streets - on our beaches, in fighting fire and crime that have their pensions at stake for consideration by newly appointed candidates for this important committee that no one has had an opportunity to review or vet concerns. Individuals that place their capital in the trust that his City can operate with monies and their property to conduct its business relying on the public integrity of this hastily unusually formed Committee. IV) This hastily backroom appointment process that presumably models other City policy for Committee formation like Irvine and Huntington Beach for model government defies common sense and John Q. Public or the Plumber that both Obama and McCain claimed as reasonableness test for review of trust in the caretaking of the public's finances. V) Departure from best management procedures and practices (as cited by the esteemed learned Deputy City Attorney, Leonie Mulvihill) of City of Newport Beach tradition itself as evidenced by prior Council Resolutions and the City Charter. Specific citations to be provided in additional writing. Council's own Policy A -2 (`Board, Commission, and Committee Appointments "), requires the regularly scheduled opportunities to serve a local agency in an appointive capacity to be published at least once a year in a "Local Appointments List," and for unscheduled opportunities a special procedure, which all cities including charter cities are required to follow, as provided in , Section 54974, requires a "special vacancy notice" to be posted in the Clerk's office and the library for at least 10 working days before the local agency can make its final appointment to fill an unscheduled vacancy. Newport Beach City Policy Policy A -2 imposes additional, higher compliance more narrowly construed requirement that an additional 5 days notice be complied with to meet the California Gov. Code Sec. 54974 provisions so the Clerk and Council have time to vet the applications prior to nomination. Appointments without the required public notice can be made, but only in the event of an emergency and they are understood to be effective only until the openings have been properly noticed and filled. Meeting the requirement for notice and meetings involved with emergency and operating outside the regular statutory compliance for unscheduled vacancies is even more onerous upon the City to meet open meetings compliance. The newly elected City Council non - public and un- advertised nomination procedure, ignoring the possibility of the existence in Newport Beach of other equally or better qualified candidates eager to serve, is an egregious disrespectful act towards the voting public, the esteemed tradition and resolutions of prior councils tradition and state legislative law for which the state law was needed, as eloquently explained in its 1976 preamble to the law. VI) Departures from what all the other city and agency jurisdictions are doing with respect to the Maddy Act - see City of Costa Mesa jurisdiction and hundreds of city and local authority policies on the Maddy Act protective procedures for compliance with the Maddy act to follow with additional citations to these filed public comments. VII) The filing of these public comments is not intended to disparage or discredit the City Attorney providing legal advice supporting the City of Newport Beach arrogance and lack of fairness in Finance Committee appointment process. The established unfair and unrealistic expectation upon the City Attorney office to provide a) Defense of City Council arrogant actions in conflict with representation of the City of NB voter interest despite what Presiding Judge of the California Appeals Court 4th District stated, b) putting unrealistic expectations upon the City Attorney to provide required immediacy of response at Council meetings without proper time to research and prepare legal analytical analysis and provide authoritative legal precedent, and c) If the California Appeals Court has any merit at all, I encourage careful review of the language of Woody's Wharf decision - City Attorney not be the final word on matters of City Council and overall city policy. and the City change the rules in the middle of the game. Woody's Group, Inc. v. City ofNewport Beach (CA App 4th, G050155) VIII) Only reasonable solution would be to solicit new candidates (allowing all prior candidates to withdraw with an understanding that their applications will not be considered for two years for their part in the CA Gov. Code violations) and properly follow the Maddy Act specifically stated and intended provisions for a complete public meeting review with proper notice, agenda, and recording of minutes prior to the scheduled 2/26/15 meeting of the Finance Committee. To: cityclerk @newportbeachca.gov cc: citycouncil @newportbeachca.gov February 10, 2015, Council Non agenda Calendar Comments The following comments on items for the Newport Beach City Council are submitted by: Carl Cassidy carlrcassidy @att.net President: February 10, 2015 Sharon Boles Superior Ave. Liaison 9491645 -4752 Wa Emoil and Nand Delivery Vice President: Jim Miller Newport Island Mayor Edward Selich and Members of the City Council 9491933 -9827 City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Se Membership Director: Newport Beach, CA 92660 Membership Director: Chris Garber 9491466 -0605 Mayor Selich and Members of the City Council: Assistant Treasurer: On January 28, 2015, the West Newport Beach Association Board of Directors met at the old Mike Johnson City Council chambers, inviting residents of the community to share their thoughts, ideas and West Oceanfront views concerning the recent City Council vote on the 7 proposed plans to move the fire rings. 9491642 -3125 P R R Without exception, no one was in favor of moving the fire rings to the Newport Pier area or Directors: anywhere north of the pier. In fact, strong feelings and comments opposing any implementation of placing fire rings in front of the parking lot adjacent to the Newport Pier and Craig Batley commercial storefronts and restaurants were voiced by the many residents who attended the Absentee Owners Liaison meeting. 9491293 -4630 Suzanne Gignoux The West Newport Beach Association categorically opposes any plan to move the fire rings to Newport Shores Newport Pier or to any location north of the pier. Oceanfront owners are absolutely opposed 9491500 -1326 to fire ring placement resulting in disrupting their peaceful enjoyment and smoke -free ocean environment. The community is uniformly against any City Council action that will negatively Cynthia Koller impact their quiet enjoyment. fterlNeptune 9491650 -1815 If the Council has any doubt as to how to proceed, prior to any final action on this topic, it is our Larry Leifer hope the City Council will thoroughly publicize multiple community meetings allowing the Newport Island residents to participate in a transparent public process in order to reach a satisfactory 9491650 -7120 community - endorsed solution to what is now an unnecessarily complicated issue. Let's not rush into any arbitrary fix without reasoned andopen public comments from those most Ann O'Flynn impacted, namely oceanfront residents including those living between Coast Highway, Balboa Balboa Coves Blvd., the bay and the ocean. 9491645 -8233 George Schroeder The West Newport Beach Association Board of Directors chose not to orchestrate specks, Numbered Streets namely the number of wood burning or charcoal rings nor the exact position of the physical 9491400 -7597 footprint of where the rings ultimately might be placed, however, we strongly urge the Council to keep the historical fire ring footprints (Balboa Pier & CDM State Park) in keeping with the public locational expectation. Moving the fire rings, to 15th street, Newport Pier, or spacing them northward to the Jetty is categorically unacceptable. if the Council decides to embark on extensive outreach by holding a dozen or so well publicized public meetings inviting all residents of West Newport and the peninsula, they will be overwhelmed with negative sentiment and complete rejection of any plan that imposes all the current negative aspects of fire ring usage on those residents who never bargained for such public activity in their neighborhoods when they chose to purchase or lease their homes. The West Newport Beach Association recommends keeping the rings where they currently are located. Why encroach upon other neighborhoods where fire rings have never been placed? The solution must be resolved in the neighborhoods where the rings now exist. Respectfully submitted, 3A Pax-110 / C�' Sharon A. Boles, President WNBA Board of Directors cc. WNBA Board of Directors