HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Non-Agenda ItemsReceived After Agenda Printed
May 25, 2021
Non -Agenda Item
Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: NBRA support
From: Eunjoo Pluenneke <epluenneke@gmail.com>
Date: May 24, 2021 at 11:34:52 PM PDT
To: Diane Dixon <ddixon@dixonfornewport.com>
Cc: Carlos Godinez <carlos.godinez08@gmail.com>
Subject: NBRA support
Hello Diane,
I hope you have been well this past year. I understand that there has been a vote to disestablish
the NBRA and I am writing to you for your support in reinstating the association.
As you may know, I opened Balboa Lily's five years ago and soon became part of the NBRA.
I'm also a long-standing marketing professional in the corporate sector so I have the vantage
point from a small business and from a larger -scale enterprise lens.
With this perspective I think it is critical that the NBRA continue to operate as a central hub to
drive marketing programs for local restaurants in Newport Beach. While some restaurants are
able to execute marketing tactics on their own, most will not have the expertise or financial
means to design larger -scale promotions that are often required to make an impact.
NBRA has historically served this purpose as the organization to pool resources and fund larger
initiatives such as Restaurant Week, develop digital content via web and social media to reach
target segments, and be the soundpost for local restaurants helping to contribute to the identity
of Newport Beach.
As a Board member of the NBRA, I am regularly updated on the results of these ongoing
campaigns and initiatives, showing positive return on dollars invested on behalf of the restaurant
community. Given that the NBRA operates on an approximate $200,00 annual budget, the
resulting ROI indicates a double-digit rate of return. On an individual business level, I see a
direct correlation from these promotions, particularly during Restaurant Week.
Please feel free to reach out if I can provide additional insight. Thank you for your time and
consideration as this topic is addressed in the May 25th city council meeting,
Thank you,
Eunjoo Pluenneke
Owner, Balboa Lily's & Boardwalk by Balboa Lily's
Received After Agenda Printed
May 25, 2021
Mulvey, Jennifer Non -Agenda Item
Subject: FW: Request of City Council / Public Workshops
From: dave@earsi.com <dave@earsi.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 202111:54 AM
To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: Jurjis, Seimone <siuriis@newportbeachca.gov>; Webb, Dave (Public Works) <DAWebb@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Request of City Council / Public Workshops
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Major Avery,
RE: Tonight's City Council Meeting
XVI. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON -AGENDA ITEMS
I will be addressing the City Council tonight asking the City Council to begin holding public workshops on topics key to
the General Plan Update and pending projects.
Our City and other cities are facing challenges imposed by the state legislature which have the potential for dramatic
impacts on our quality of life. It is my belief a well-informed citizenry and decision makers will chart the best path for
future generation to build -on. Following each workshop, the City Council will get sense of the communities position and
can provide direction to Staff to assist in Staff's evaluation of development projects and the General Plan Update.
I will be suggesting the City Council begin with a workshop exploring the City Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH),
its relationship to the County and State master plans and to explore what this means to West Coast Highway, in
particular along the Mariners Mile where two mixed-use development application are pending.
For example: one of the key questions that should be clarified is will the existing signal at Tustin Ave. be removed as
suggested by the Caltrans and OCTA Corridor Study for the Pacific Coast Highway from CALTRANS District 12 & OCTA
(see links below)? This will impact the 2510 WCH Project circulation and safety, as well as the development of the
pending Newport Village project and existing businesses accessing WCH. This decision will also impact the Housing
Element, Circulation and Safety Elements of the General Plan Update.
Another question is how is the City's receipt of County Measure "M" funds impacting the City's ability to chart the
course of WCH improvements.
Below is background information on the future of WCH. The City receives Orange County Transportation
Authority (OCTA) Measure M funding for transportation improvements. A condition of receiving Measure M
funding is that the City Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) comply with the County MPAH. The County
MPAH must Comply with the State master plan.
Below are links to two 2016 studies published by Caltrans and OCTA on the future of PCH. I think knowledge of
these studies will help the public and City Council understand the background and relationship between
California Department of Transportation (DOT)/Caltrans, OCTA, the City of Newport Beach Circulation Element,
the proposed 2510 WCH project and the proposed Newport Village project.
• Corridor Study for the Pacific Coast Highway from CALTRANS District 12 & OCTA, dated March
2016: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/octa pch corridor study.pdf?1604987828
(See page ES 18 & Fig 9.3 Sub Area 3 Recommended Alternative page 214 of 225 )
• PCH Corridor Study (March 9, 2016): https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-
attachments/octa pch corridor study es.pdf?1604987884
(See Pages 10- 11)
These two studies are very similar and both published in March of 2016. They share common information. The
second PCH Corridor Study appears to be a simplified public distribution version of the more detailed Corridor
Study for the Pacific Coast Highway from CALTRANS District 12 & OCTA.
There are many other topics that can be the subject of future workshops. I will be recommending that the City work
with the community to identify additional topics and a workshop schedule.
I have spoken with member of the public who support this recommendation and believe it would be a good use of City
resources. I'm hoping the City Council will agree, a well-informed citizenry and decision makers will chart the best path.
Cheers,
Dave
David J. Tanner
223 62nd Street
Newport Beach, CA 92663
949 646-8958 home
949 233-0895 cell
Notice of Confidentiality:
This e-mail and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the address(s) named herein and may contain
legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby
notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email, and any attachments thereto, is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify me by e-mail by replying to this message and
permanently delete the original and any copy of any email and any printout thereof.
Received After Agenda Printed
May 25, 2021
Mulvey, Jennifer Non -Agenda Item
Subject: FW: Request of City Council / Public Workshops
From: Patrick Gormley <pfg1941@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 202112:49 PM
To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>; dave@earsi.com; Avery, Brad
<bavery@newportbeachca.gov>; Dixon, Diane <ddixon@newportbeachca.gov>; Brenner, Joy
<JBrenner@newportbeachca.gov>; Blom, Noah <NBlom@newportbeachca.gov>; O'Neill, William
<woneill@newportbeachca.gov>; Muldoon, Kevin <kmuldoon@newportbeachca.gov>; Duffield, Duffy
<dduffield@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: Jurjis, Seimone <siuriis@newportbeachca.gov>; Webb, Dave (Public Works) <DAWebb@newportbeachca.gov>;
Leung, Grace <gleung@newportbeachca.gov>; Campbell, Jim <JCampbell@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Request of City Council / Public Workshops
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Good Afternoon Mayor Avery and City Council members,
Community Stakeholders are asking the City Council to assure we are informed and involved in the General Plan
processes including the shaping of Mariner's Mile's future.
Mr. Tanner's question and the community outreach workshops he suggests are critical for community stakeholders'
understanding of how these studies and initiatives tie together and the impact 2510 W Coast Highway and Newport
Village will have in shaping Mariner's Mile Future.
Your neighbor,
Patrick Gormley
On May 25, 2021, at 11:53 AM, <dave@earsi.com> <dave@earsi.com> wrote:
Major Avery,
RE: Tonight's City Council Meeting
XVI. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON -AGENDA ITEMS ... (see Dave Tanner's email)
Received After Agenda Printed
May 25, 2021
Mulvey, Jennifer Non -Agenda Item
Subject: FW: Non Agenda Item
From: Gary Cruz <gdcruz1949@outlook.com>
Date: May 25, 2021 at 1:07:56 PM PDT
To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: "Murillo, Jaime" <JMurillo@newportbeachca.gov>, "Jurjis, Seimone" <siuriis@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Non Agenda Item
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
Dear Honorable Council Members and Staff,
Please advise me if I should present this during non agenda items tonight at the council meeting or if
this email is a sufficient update?
Residents on Newport Island want to update you on STR developments since the LCP amendment
recommendation was sent to the Coastal Commission.
1. First of all thank you for the city support for Assembly bill 964. Passage of that bill will along
ways towards putting regulation of STIR properties closer to home.
2. Some residents have also expressed their support for the bill by contacting the office of Cottie
Petrie -Norris.
3. 1 have spoken to legislative aid Shannon Swanson in her office and asked what residents can do
to help with passage of the bill and to discuss how best to address the Coastal Commission.
4. Bud Revely has spoken to Zach Rehm from the Coastal Commission. He advised Bud that Amrita
Spencer was the best person to speak with concerning the LCP amendment. He also said that
city input with additional support would be very helpful.
5. 1 have reached out to Ms Spencer via email to schedule with her a Zoom or conference call.
6. We are aware that code enforcement has stepped it up and that a couple of STIR permit
properties are up for suspension and revocation. Thank you for those efforts. It has been
noticed. However some bad operators continue to operate badly as we have had to call in one
as recent as this past weekend.
Thanks again for your efforts.
Gary and Gina Cruz
Received After Agenda Printed
May 25, 2021
Non -Agenda Item
May 25, 2021
Dear Newport Beach City Council Members and Mayors:
We are in opposition to the mandatory requirement of belonging to the Newport
Beach Restaurant Association. The organization does not advertise or promote all
restaurants and eating establishments fairly or equitably, therefore our mandatory fees
are a waste of our money. We wish to opt out of this crazy organizations mandatory
membership and spend our money as we choose in promoting our business.
Please dissolve this business immediately and stop wasting our money. Money is very
tight right now and there should be generous support toward helping restaurants at
this time instead of requiring frivolous memberships that promote a very small group
of high end eating establishments.
Please reconsider the nature of this organization. We are capable of promoting our
own restaurants if we desire to do so. So far this organization has not brought one
customer to our restaurant. Yelp, Google, TripAdvisor, Facebook and other such sites
are responsible for driving customers to us and likely to all restaurants. This
organization simply rides on the back of these sites and charges us for their services.
Sincerely yours,
Victoria De Frenza
949-945-8226
Crockers - Balboa Island
*J - / i 0) �I✓�
Harrassment
At a meeting with D. Bunkus on Thursday May 13, he promised to get back to me by Monday May 17th
I waited until Friday, May 21St before going back to his office. When I arrived I asked for an appointment
to talk to him and medical records I'd requested repeatedly that hadn't arrived.
I was denied an appointment given no other reason than the receptionist didn't feel it would be helpful.
I was told that my medical records had already been sent.
The receptionist's opinion about what would be "helpful" is not any legal reason, nor in any way a
credible explanation for denying me the appointment.
I explained that I had received some medical records, but based on what I knew should be in the packet,
some items were missing. I clearly didn't get all my records. I was specifically interested in a pre OP
picture of my breasts, and had Jo acquiesced no problem may have occurred, but having asked for this
photo at least 7 times, orally and via test, and she insisted on arguing with me instead of just giving me
the picture which resulted in Hippa violations.
After I was denied both requested items, I was told that if I didn't leave Jo would call the police. I said
that was fine with me. I was never told I could no longer enter the building, speak directly with the
doctor, return should 1 need medical records, that I would be considered a trespasser if I ever returned
for any reason, or that the police would be called without explanation.
When the police arrived I explained that I was just trying to obtain and appointment and my records, so
one officer entered the building, spoke to the staff and returned saying that Dr. Bunkus' attorney would
reach out to me Saturday and act as the liaison. I then left.
No call came by Saturday night, May 22nd, so having his direct cell phone number I texted and left a
message that should I not hear from him by Monday, would I need a police escort to obtain my records
Monday? I told him I thought this was completely unnecessary, but his decision.
Monday morning, May 24th, I made a third attempt to contact the attorney. The woman who answered
the phone said she would try to get a hold of him if would I mind holding. I said I would. When she
returned to the phone, she stated that she had gotten a hold of him, but that he was on a call and would
call me back shortly. I waited a couple of hours, but no call came. I then headed out to Newport Beach.
On the way I called the PD and explained that would be easier to have someone meet me there than
have some "incident" where they'd be called. They said they didn't mind at all and to call when I was
close. I did, and while I was waiting for the officer to arrive, I call the California Medical Board and
obtained the Health and Safety Code citation that allowed me to obtain a complete copy of my medical
records, even if their staff claimed to have previously sent them.
When the officer arrived, I was still on the phone with the State so I asked them to repeat my rights as a
patient and the citation which he wrote down. We both parked at toward the entrance of the parking
lot, away from the office entrance and walked down. I told the officer that I would not enter but just go
to the door and instruct the staff to give him the records. He thought it better I stand back and he enter
along. I agreed.
After some time, the officer emerged with a stack of papers. They had not obtained any release or
authorization. They just handed everything over to the officer, unsealed. The State representative said I
should check the packet for photo I claimed was missing in the presence of the officer so that there
would be no later misunderstandings. The previously missing photo was there, so I thanked the officer
and we both left that parking lot.
I circled around on surface streets to enter an adjacent parking lot that was somewhat separated from
the medical building parking lot by of a row of business buildings. I walked to the Surgical Facility to ask
who owned the parking in front of the surgical center. I waited in the reception area while the
receptionist, Giselle, said she would find out. After about 5 minutes, Dr. Bunkus' receptionist appeared
ordering me I had to leave. I asked if she owned the building, or land, or worked in this facility? She
answered "no" to all of those questions. She asked why I wanted to know who owned the parking. I
replied that it was none of her business. She left. I then asked Giselle if I should wait outside or call
back a police officer until her staff obtained the phone number of the property manager that the facility
had promised. She replied "no", that I could just have a seat while I waited if I liked. I again stated that I
was having trouble with Bunkus, so if she wanted me to wait outside or call back a police officer because
I have no idea what the problem is, she again replied "no", that I could just take a seat while I wait.
About 5 minutes later 3 police cars arrived. One officer went in to talk with the Surgical Center staff;
quite certainly not Giselle. They represented that they had no connection to me; they wanted nothing
to do with me, that I was not their customer, etc. When I tried to explain to the officer that none of that
was true, he wouldn't listen. I explained that they certainly knew I was their client as proven by calling
Bunkus' office that resulted in the appearance of his employee ... as he rented out their OR. I had paid
the Surgical Center directly, not through the doctor, and that I had receipts to prove that. The officer
stated something to the effect, that I had no business there, nor that there was nothing there that had
anything to do with me, etc. I tried to correct him stating that 1 had medical records there, etc., but he
would not listen.
The officers stated that "they weren't going to take me to jail today", "that I was playing with fire", "why
was I back?", stating that the next time they would arrest me, nor could I even enter the parking
lot... pointing out arbitrary boundaries of asphalt blocked by cement walkways. The problem is that this
parking lot is "one with" the parking lot for businesses in front of the medical center. This is crazy, and I
really don't believe that any property manager (whoever that is) would actually risk civil liability for
making such an assertion and threaten arrest.
Whether Bunkus' staff member acted alone, based on previous instruction, or directly on the behest of
either Bunkus or the owner of the surgical center is unclear. Who instructed their personnel to get into
the middle of this fight, because the liability for a case of civil harassment theoretically rests on them, if
indeed they authorized Bunkus, or his agents, to act on their behalf.
I am filing a report with the Newport Beach Police on what's termed a "field card". I retrospect, I guess
it's actually a good thing that Bunkus and /or his attorney set these events in motion by repeatedly
promising contact and them deliberately ignoring me just to escalate the dispute; forcing police
involvement so that all of this could be witnessed and documented .
Vicki Van Leuven
657-293-5078