Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWRITTEN COMMENTS 09-01-15September 1, 2015, 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 (5)A. Minutes of the August 4, 2015 meeting The following minor corrections are suggested: Page 5, end of first motion: “Motion carries unanimously with Chair Cole and Commissioner Hayes, absent.” Page 5, end of second motion: “Motion carries unanimously with Chair Cole and Commissioner Hayes, absent.” Page 7, Item 8, end of first paragraph: “He asked if the Ad Hoc Committee was still researching locations for the West Newport Community Center.” Page 7, Item 8, second paragraph: “Director Detweiler indicated it was not, and that a location had been selected.” [note: I can’t recall if Director Detweiler said this, or that a location had not been selected. Hopefully the minutes will be adjusted to reflect whichever is correct.] Page 8, Item 8, last paragraph: “Jim Mosher reported on Council's plan to consider the City's fee schedule addressed , tree-trimming, and the City's cost-recovery schedule.” Item (5)B. Parks & Operations Division Activity Report 1. It is good to see the number of trees planted in July almost equaling the number of trees removed. I would have been even better to see the number of trees planted exceeding the number removed. 2. The report mentions two emergency City tree removals on Poppy Avenue precipitated by unauthorized root cutting. Are these trees that had previously been before the Commission? Is there any penalty for causing such damage to a City tree? 3. The installation of the fencing around the Lifeguard Headquarters parking lot at the Newport Pier, especially if it is planned to be permanent, would seem like something that needs a Coastal Development Permit or waiver. The report does not mention if the City has one. September 1, 2015, PB&R comments by Jim Mosher Page 2 of 2 Item (6)A. Proposed Conceptual Plan for Permanent Pickleball Courts at Bonita Canyon Sports Park West/Field 6 . 1. Page 3 of the staff report contains a curious claim that at San Joaquin Hills Park “a land easement allowing for only three pickleball courts warranted other site considerations.” Given the newness of pickleball it seems hard to believe existing land use documents would refer to pickleball by name. 2. The staff report does not appear to mention the possibility of deed restrictions on use of the Bonita Canyon land. Although this is apparently now a City-owned and maintained park, at least one document on the City website makes it appear The Irvine Company could have retained veto power over improvements made to it. 3. Although the notification to pickleball players about the possible conversion of existing open space at Bonita Canyon Sports Park West/Field 6, which apparently occurred in mid-August, resulted in the impressive 60 or so letters in support, it is not clear how other users of the park who might have different views about the conversion were notified, or if so, when. Was the park posted and for how long? Item (6)B. Reforestation Request – 204 Tustin Avenue 1. At the May 5, 2015, Commission meeting it was established that the City trees in question are interfering with residents’ views of the harbor and that given it to do over again, City staff would not have selected this species for this location. 2. Since the minutes of the May 5th meeting are not included in the present staff report, it might be good to once again remind the Commission and staff of the City Council Policies under which Newport Beach residents might expect protection of private views from encroachment by City trees. Specifically: a. Policy G-3 (“Preservation of Views”) says, in part, that in leading “By example, City will endeavor to maintain all City-owned plants in a manner to maximize public and private view planes.” In fact, there are even blocks in which parkway trees are altogether prohibited. b. The final section of the current version of Policy G-1 on “Supplemental Tree Trimming” begins: “The City will consider, and as a general rule approve, requests to trim certain trees more frequently or to trim trees consistent with practices applied prior to the adoption of ISA standards (to enhance public and private views, preserve required sight/distance standards, or other public purposes) …”