Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdditional CommentsSeptember 5, 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 August 1, 2017 PB&R Commission Meeting The following corrections are suggested: Page 2, Item V, sentence 2: “He found it to be an unusual request because the person donating the tree was not seeking any recognition or signage for anyone else and that they live in the City of Orange.” Page 3, paragraph 3 of text, sentence 4: “During the past six years Mr. Rodheim had battled ALS as he continued to put on concerts at the Balboa Island Park and was involved in the Discovery Science Center but never sought gratitude.” [I thought the concerts I remember Mr. Rodheim promoting took place in the church on Marine Avenue.] Page 3, paragraph 3, last sentence: “The City’s position on naming things after individuals can be waived and a recommendation from the PB&R to City Council would be helpful in seeking that waiver.” [or “from the PB&R Commission to the City Council”] Page 3, paragraph 4, sentence 2: “There was concern that a Commission recommendation to rename would not be following the policy and they as the a Commission are supposed to follow policy.” [The sentence still seems very awkward to me. I might suggest shortening it to: “There was concern that a recommendation to rename would not follow policy and the Commission is supposed to follow policy.”] Page 4, Item B, last paragraph before opening public comments: “Discussion ensued regarding what the tree looks like, the fact and that it is a special tree, and their preference to keep the same tree in its place.” [missing comma] Page 5, paragraph 5, last sentence: “If they were to move the tree, he agan again stated that it would have only a 50% chance of survival and that it would cost approximately $15,000 to do that.” Page 7, last paragraph before closing public comments: “Dick Fike Fyke, 1421 Outrigger stated that this tree issue has been ongoing for 20 years.” Page 8, Item XI, next to last sentence: “Additionally, he thought there might be an issue with the Community Service Award Committee since it only meets when they have business and believes that would be what the Brown Act calls a standing committee, not an ad hoc committee; therefore, it would requires a public notice.” September 5, 2017, PB&R agenda comments from Jim Mosher Page 2 of 4 Item V.B. Parks, Trees & Beach Maintenance Divisions Activity Report I am intrigued by the report of the Municipal Operations Department hiring a specialized art restoration contractor to clean the Ronald Reagan Memorial in Bonita Canyon Sports Park. What intrigues me about this is that at the last City Arts Commission meeting it was mentioned that part of the Library Services Department’s Arts and Culture budget is spent on monthly cleaning of the Ben Carlson Memorial in McFadden Square, that cleaning being performed by Crown Building Services, which MOD contracts with for window and exterior cleaning services at City Hall, Marina Park and the Police Headquarters. I find it hard to understand why the cost of cleaning one memorial would come out of one budget and the cost of the other be charged to a different budget. And equally curious that the less artistically-inclined department would think a specialist is required while the more artistically-inclined department thinks any cleaner will do. Item V.C. Recreation & Senior Services Activity Report I have not previously paid much attention to the Facility Rentals report on page 2, and looking at it now, I find several of the entries difficult to understand. I am not sure what distinguishes the “4 Room Rentals” (second bullet) from the other room rentals listed elsewhere in the report. Where were the four? The “31 Civic Center Community Room Rentals” suggests a private event is held there, on average, every day of the month – which I find surprising. By contrast, the “2 Field Rentals” (third bullet) seems amazingly low considering the level of sports activity we claim to have. Do most of those activities not involve a rental? Or is this just because it’s summer? Item VI.A. Bench Donation - End of Orange Street Among the many changes to the Policy Manual approved by the City Council (without consulting PB&R) in Item 18 at its August 8, 2017, meeting were a new provision in Policy B-9 allowing parks to be named after people dead for 15 years, and a change to Policy B-17 allowing “In Loving Memory” on donation plaques. Sadly, as explained by the Assistant City Attorney, these represented not so much a commitment to follow well thought out new policies, as part of a process of adjusting the written policies to justify whatever the City has actually done to date (for example, naming a park after John Wayne). However helpful it may be to grieving families, I feel the change to Policy B-17 was ill advised, and I am pleased that in the present case, the donor has chosen the simple “In Memory of.” At least to me, “In Loving Memory of” is a phrase I strongly associate with funerals and cemeteries, and (again perhaps only to me) it transforms a simple public amenity donated on behalf of someone associated with an area (as in the present application) into a shrine to that departed person, inviting the grieving to place their tokens of remembrance there (exactly as in a cemetery, as illustrated in the photo at the bottom of the first page of this month’s Parks, Trees & Beach September 5, 2017, PB&R agenda comments from Jim Mosher Page 3 of 4 Maintenance Divisions Activity Report (agenda Item V.B). I just don’t feel this is a proper use of a City space. I believe our public parks and spaces should be maintained for the equal enjoyment of all and the City should not, for the payment of a fee, allow them to be transformed into memorial parks populated by private family shrines. Again, I applaud the present donor for refraining from the new cemetery-like wording option, and choosing instead the simpler donation language (I would actually prefer “Donated in memory of”). Item VI.B. Tree Reforestation - 1026 Sandcastle Drive This is the first of two items in which at the end of the staff recommendation it says that “The applicant has met the procedural requirements for reforestation established in City Council Policy G-1.” Yet it does not appear that either of these requests complies with that policy. In particular, Policy G-1 (see Attachment E to the staff report, bottom of page 10 and top of page 11 of the policy) clearly states that the applicant for reforestation must provide a petition signed by the requisite percentage of nearby homeowners or “a resolution of the Board of Directors formally requesting a reforestation with a statement that all members of the community association having their residential views affected have been officially notified and given an appropriate opportunity to respond before the Board voted on the request” (the latter procedure possibly being the required method when there is required membership in an HOA, as seems likely to be true in the present case). Here we have evidence of neither a petition nor a resolution, as required by Policy G-1, but rather (in Attachment A) only minutes of an August 24, 2017, HOA Board of Directors meeting (on which the applicant apparently serves as Treasurer), in which one finds on page 3 the passage of a motion “to approve the Reforestation Application for 1026 Sandcastle.” I see nothing in this that provides the required statement from the Board requesting the reforestation and assuring the Commission and public that potentially impacted homeowners were notified and given an opportunity to weigh in on the request before the Board acted. Item VI.C. Tree Reforestation - Along Old Ford Road Near Newport HIlls Drive Similar to the previous Item VI.B, I can find no evidence of either the petition or resolution required by Policy G-1, but rather, unless I’m missing something, only minutes of an April 24, 2017, HOA Board of Directors meeting, with a reference on page 2 of 4 to approval by that Board of what appears to be a private contractor’s proposal for “landscape upgrades on the east end of Old Ford Road down to San Miguel.” Nor can I find any statement that assures the Commission or public that potentially impacted homeowners were notified or given appropriate opportunity to comment. Moreover, the requirement in Policy G-1 previous to the one requiring the submittal of a petition or HOA resolution requires the application to clearly identify the locations of the trees to be removed and replaced (see the first bullet under B on page 10 of Attachment E) – which seems a reasonable requirement for the Commission to make an intelligent decision. September 5, 2017, PB&R agenda comments from Jim Mosher Page 4 of 4 And although not reflected in the April 24 HOA minutes, the materials provided for the present hearing indicate that before even receiving the Commission’s approval, the HOA has installed 14 new trees and plans to install another 24. So there are a lot of old and new tree locations to specify. Yet while the 14 maps in Attachment C to the staff report presumably show the locations of the City trees proposed to be removed, I can find nothing indicating where the 14 new trees were planted (they don’t seem to be visible in any of the pictures provided) or where the 24 additional new trees are planned to go, even though the “Tree Inspection Report” (at the start of Attachment C) refers to a “landscape renovation proposal attached to Reforestation Application.” Moreover, the Tree Inspection Report confusing refers to the City trees, and the new improvements (?), as being located in the Association’s “common area,” which would normally connote private property rather than City property. Adding to that confusion, the City’s GIS map server indicates the private property lines of the Harbor View Community Association homes extend to within a few feet of the concrete sidewalk along “old” Ford Road. The existing trees seem to be planted mainly on that private slope. And that area is depicted not as Association common area, but rather as the extensions of the rear yards of the individual homes. At the same time, many more City trees are noted as expected along the Ford Road sidewalk than appear currently to exist, raising the question of what happened to them? Before acting on this, I should think the Commission would want greater clarity as to how many City trees there are supposed to be, whether they are on public or private property, and if the latter, what authority the Commission has over future plans. Assuming the Commission has authority, I would think it would want to know how the Association got approval to plant the first 14 Magnolia trees (which it has apparently already done), where it put them, and where it plans to plant the next 24. In addition, Policy G-1 strongly implies the City performs the actual reforestation through its contractors and passes the costs on to the applicant (second bullet from end on page 11 of G-1 in Attachment E, and see also the first asterisked note on page 2 of Attachment A). Per the HOA minutes, that does not seem to be the case here. Instead, the Commission seems to be being asked to approve a private landscaping plan it hasn’t really seen, to be executed by private contractors. So, the Commission may want clarification of the City policy. Finally, while I personally like the look of public streets with a single, consistent street tree, we have repeatedly been told this is not good policy because it makes them more vulnerable to disease. With so many trees involved, one wonders why staff is not recommending a mix of species? It seems to me that if a disease came along that kills Little Gem Magnolias, our urban forest, and this newly landscaped street in particular, would be devastated. In that vein, I am not sure why the City’s Brazilian Pepper trees are being removed and not simply supplemented with Magnolias. They may, in general, be “problem trees,” but they don’t seem to be causing a problem here.