Laserfiche WebLink
Received After Agenda Printed <br />April 9, 2018 <br />Written Comments <br />April 9, 2019, City Council Consent Calendar Comments <br />The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: <br />Jim Mosher ( jimmosher(c) ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) <br />Item 1. Minutes for the March 26, 2019 City Council Meeting <br />The passages shown in italics below are from the draft minutes with suggested corrections <br />indicated in st mikeoutunderline format. The page numbers refer to Volume 64. <br />Page 62, Item SS2, paragraph 1: "Public Works Director Webb and Pat* nn,:nten,^^^ <br />Supervisor O^bar gave a brief overview of the item and introduced Victoria Hornbaker, ..." <br />[?? According to the video, Park Maintenance Supervisor/City Arborist Kevin Pekar was not <br />seated at the staff table and does not appear to have participated in this item. If he did <br />speak, it does not seem to have been to give an overview or to introduce other speakers. <br />Deputy Director Micah Martin was at the table, but does not appear to have said anything, <br />either.] <br />Page 66, bullet 2 from end: "Attended the -xeGUUV Watershed Executive Committee <br />meeting and..." <br />Page 67, bullet 3: "Met with Deb Johnson of Second Chance Orange County, toured City Hall <br />with Boy Scout Connor Stevens, awl visited the Municipal Operations Department and toured <br />various City sites." <br />Page 69, last line before Item XVI: "The motion unanimously carried." <br />[I continue to think this new wording (used in five places in the present minutes) is unnatural. <br />It is much more common to put the modifier after the verb, as in "The motion unanimous y <br />carried unanimously'— the latter sequence of words being found many more times by <br />Google (383,000 vs. 17,000)] <br />Page 70, Item 14, paragraph 4: "Jim Mosher noted the report was detailed, but believed the <br />public should ignore the staff report and focus on the Implementation Program, even though it <br />needs updating. He took issue that the Planning Commission has never reviewed adjacent <br />agencies' capital improvement programs and discussed State requirements regarding <br />General Plan compliance." <br />[In commenting on staff's 2018 General Plan Status Report, I said it did not provide the <br />required discussion of the current General Plan's compliance with the state General Plan <br />Guidelines. That comment was wrong. It was based on the version presented to the <br />Planning Commission on March 7. The version presented to the City Council on March 26, <br />and submitted to the state, did, in fact, contain the required discussion (added since the PC <br />session) under Implementation Program 1.3 on staff report page 14-43.] <br />Page 71, Item 15, paragraph 5: "Shawna Schaffner, representing the appellants, provided a <br />brief history, indicated all appellants have agreed to the i�Dd compromise plan, ..." <br />