HomeMy WebLinkAboutWritten CommentsSeptember 6, 2016, 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 VI.A. Minutes of the August 2, 2016 PB&R Commission Meeting
The following corrections are suggested:
Page 1, Item III: “Supervisor Clemente provided a brief presentation on the Natural
Resources Divisions Division’s involvement at the Annual Water Festival.”
Page 2, last paragraph: “Brendan Brendon Blincoe commented on the debris created by
the tree, …”
Page 3, paragraph 3 from end: “Jim Mosher commented that the City G-1 Policy needs
additional work and that the City’s current policy was one of reforestation.” [As drafted,
the deleted part adds nothing I can understand. I suspect I said I thought G-1 needs work,
particularly as regards the City’s reforestation policy, but I don’t recall my exact words.]
Page 4, paragraph 4 from end: “He warned that this removal would be a loss of iconic trees
and would set precedence precedent.”
Page 4, paragraph 3 from end: “Director Pisani said it was City code for the three car garage,
but was also part of the Coastal Commission’s approval.”
Note: The request for a Coastal Development Permit was heard as Item 13b at the
Coastal Commission’s January 16, 2016, meeting. Both the staff report and a video of
the hearing are available in their online meeting archive. As indicated elsewhere in the
draft minutes, the requirement for a three car garage appears to be a City requirement
based on the large size of the house (see page 6). The primary Coastal Act issue was
the bluff face development. Although the CCC staff report mentions that the plans
include a three car garage, it repeatedly mentions that on-site parking for just two cars
would be adequate to meet Commission requirements. The facts that completion of the
project would require removal of City street trees and loss of an existing on-street public
parking space do not appear to have been mentioned or discussed.
Page 4, paragraph 2 from end: “Discussion ensued regarding removal and storage of the trees,
in particular if they could be removed, stored, and then replanted after construction on the
same property.” [?]
Page 4, last paragraph: “Chair Marston confirmed the trees could not be relocated because of
utility and bio retention bioretention conflicts.”
Page 5, paragraph 2 (of comments): “He called the bio retention bioretention area a “red
herring” and requested the trees be preserved and replanted after construction.”
Page 5, paragraph 3: “Discussion ensued regarding the bio retention bioretention and
alternative BMP devices.”
Page 5, end of paragraph 7: “He asked that the trees to stay on Carnation and noted their
importance in traffic calming. He also voiced his concern about the loss of a parking spot on
Carnation due to the increased size of the proposed three car garage.”
September 6, 2016, PB&R agenda comments from Jim Mosher Page 2 of 2
Page 5, last paragraph: “Bob Cortel expressed his love of the trees and that that Plan B would
be detrimental to his property and views.“
Page 6, last paragraph: “He noted that there is a proposal going to City Council for a bench
donation with a sculpture and wondered why the Art Commission Arts Commission’s
recommendation did not go through the PB&R Commission prior.”
Item VII.B. Newport Beach Sustainability Plan
PB&R interacts extensively not just with Recreation and Senior Services, but also with the
Municipal Operations Department. Does MOD have any comments on this, in areas like park
and beach maintenance and sustainability (water and energy conservation, etc.)?
Item VII.C. Continuation: Follow-up - Removal of Two Washingtonia
Robusta (Mexican Fan Palm) Trees - 239 Carnation Avenue
See note under “Page 4, paragraph 3 from end” on previous page.
It might also be noted that in addition to tandem parking, vehicle lifts (allowing stacking) have
been used in some areas to allow the parking of more cars with minimal impact on driveway
width.
Item VII.D. Reforestation Request - 2845 Cassia Street
The letter from the property manager on behalf of the Eastbluff Homeowners Community
Association Board (on the page in the staff report following the aerial photo of the site) does not
appear to include “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” as required on page 9 of City Council Policy G-1.