HomeMy WebLinkAboutWRITTEN COMMENTSMay 4, 2017, PB&R Agenda Comments
Comments on Newport Beach Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission agenda submitted by:
Jim Mosher ( jimmosher@yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229)
Item V.A. Minutes of the April 4, 2017 PB&R Commission Meeting
The following corrections are suggested:
Page 2, last paragraph: “Pr0ject Project Manager Tran stated that …”
Page 3, paragraph 3: “S. Harris Pinsky, a resident and dog owner, stated that the current
dog park is inadequate. He visited the current proposed site and was disappointed that the
lot charges for parking as other dog parks do not.” [I assume the comment was about the
charge for parking at the Superior Lot, rather than at Civic Center Park.]
Page 3, paragraph 5: “Judy Johnson suggested that trash cans be placed downwind
because when sitting at Sunset View Park there is a trashcan trash can next to the benches
and if there is a dog park the waste smell could be an issue.” [change suggested for
consistency of spelling]
Page 4, Item C, paragraph 1: “Landscape Manager Sereno explained that the street end of
the 300 block of Jasmine Ave. was going to be re-landscaped and the Bussey family
approached the City and regarding a bench donation.”
Item VI.A. Corona del Mar State Beach Volleyball Court Donation
Request
This request does not appear to me to conform with either the attached City Council Policy B-17
(“Parks, Facilities and Recreation Program Donations”) or with Council Policy B-9 (“Naming of
City Parks & Facilities”).
Per provision H.3.a on page 5 of Policy B-17, donations in the range $1,000 to $4,000 are
normally acknowledged by a “dedicatory plaque” with standard wording (“Donated by”, “Donated
for”, “In recognition of”, or “In Memory of”).
Without explaining, staff is apparently presenting the request pursuant to the different provision
H.3.c, which allows donations of $1,000 or more to be acknowledged with special wording to
“recognize individuals or organizations that have provided distinguished long term and/or
significant service to the City,” as evidenced by the 200+ names on the application.
Under that provision, and H.3.d, the expected wording would presumably be something like “Net
donated in memory of Ronald Hanks, beloved coach, 1996-2011,” with the plaque remaining
for the lifetime of the donated net.
Instead, what is requested seems to be permanent naming rights for the two courts.
May 4, 2017, PB&R agenda comments from Jim Mosher Page 2 of 2
However heartfelt and widely supported the request, naming something after a person seems,
at least to me, fundamentally different from acknowledging a gift. Indeed, naming rights fall
under the separate provision C on pages 3-4 of Policy B-17.
Provision C requires meeting special criteria to qualify and, if met, then refers to Policy B-9
under which the City Council can act on the recommendation of the Commission.
It is not at all clear that the proposed donation meetings the criteria for granting naming rights,
since the donation seems to be more for a maintenance item than a permanent facility, and it’s
not clear it covers more than 75% of the cost of the “project” being named.
Even if the donation met the naming rights criteria of Policy B-17, the Commissioners may also
wish to review City Council Item 20 from May 13, 2003, which details the most recent revisions
to Policy B-9 and the reasons for them.
The previous version of Policy B-9 wisely recommended not even considering naming site
amenities after a deceased person until at least six months have elapsed since the person’s
death.
As revised, and as recommended by PB&R in 2003, Policy B-9 now further discourages naming
City property after people, by requiring the naming to be part of a fundraising effort approved
(and apparently approved before the fact) by the City Council. Apparently the many signers of
the present application represent a fundraising effort that has already been completed.
However, it does not appear to have been sanctioned in advance.
As reported in the Daily Pilot, many think we now have a City ball field dedicated as “Cornwell
Field” on March 5 last year. It seems that reporting was the result of a misunderstanding
involving the Commission’s acceptance of the donation of a bull pen.
In this case, the Commission will be explicitly approving the naming of park amenities in
contradiction to the Council policies. If the Commission wants to go any farther down that path,
I would suggest it first ask the Council to amend the policies.