HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Non-Agenda Items - CorrespondenceBrown, Leilani
Received After Agenda Printed
February 10, 2015
Non Aaenda Item
From: Denys Oberman <dho @obermanassociates.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2015 4:29 PM ij _r,�
To: Dept - City Council
Cc: Kiff, Dave; Brown, Leilani
Subject: Fire Rings- Community Position -- Please enter into the Public Record^
Attachments: Community Position re Fire Rings- Letter to City Council for the Public Record 2- 8- 15.docx
C, ... {
Mayor and City Council Members:
Attached please find the Community Position regarding solutions to the Fire Rings issue, which will also be
presented in public testimony.
We have informally polled approximately 2,000 residents and multiple communication associations who are
interested parties, and have copied them with this transmittal.
We appreciate your consideration, and the opportunity to engage in a legitimate public process to achieve
acceptable resolution of this matter.
Denys Oberman and Other Interested Parties
On behalf of the
Residents of Newport Beach
Regards,
Denys H. Oberman, CEO
OBERMAN Strategy and Financial Advisors
2600 Michelson Drive, Suite 1700
Irvine, CA 92612
Tel (949) 476 -0790
Cell (949) 230 -5868
Fax (949) 752 -8935
Email: dho(a-_)obermanassociates.com
� ::a A /43'
o i p Sent To:
y Council
ity Manager
sty Attorney
File
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The documents accompanying this transmission contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is
legally privileged. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this telecopied information is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately at 9491476 -0790 or the electronic address above, to arrange
for the return of the document(s) to us.
February 8, 2015
PLEASE DISTRIBUTE TO CITY COUNCIL AND ENTER INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD
RE. FIRE RINGS — COMMUNITY POSITION
Mayor Selich and Members of the City Council
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach CA
Mayor Selich and Members of the City Council:
We have engaged with many residents and frequent visitors , and also multiple
community associations, to discuss the issue of fire rings, in order to determine a clear,
unified Community voice.
We appreciate that the City is anxious to complete disposition of this matter; and, that it
is likely in the best interests of all to minimize unnecessary plan iterations , and
protracted litigation . It is also the Community's desire to participate through a
transparent, clear public process and accomplish a satisfactory solution through the
administrative process, if feasible .
After extensive outreach, we are providing a clear statement of the Balboa Penninsula
and West Newport residents' position as follows.
We are interested in achieving a solution which is responsive both to those who
desire to retain wood - burning fire rings, and those who wish to live in and visit a
beach environment free of smoke.
• Environmental health and safety, including clean air and water, are non -
negotiables. The health impact and risks associated with persistent exposure to
smoke , as well as contaminated water(which would be caused by a number of
the alternatives in the 7 scenarios proposed by the City), are universally
recognized and supported by both legislative and court bodies.
• We are prepared to further a compromise and accept a position which retains fire
rings within the physically – existing footprint and mix, as was approved by the Air
Quality Management District as of January 30,2015. This scenario while
providing wood fire rings, also achieves some reduction in adverse Air Quality
impact. Specifics of our position follow:
1. At Balboa Pier: 12 Wood- burning and 18 Charcoal burning rings, located at
East and West sides of the Pier, respective ly(more unacceptable)
2. At CDM: 11 Wood- burning and 14 Charcoal- burning rings
3. Total: 55 fire rings
Page 2- Community Position Fire Rings 2 -8 -15
Alternatively, we are prepared to accept Wood- burning rings in the physical
footprint boundary of Fire rings as previously existed at these locations prior to
establishing some Charcoal rings , subject to spacing of 100' to be compliant with
AQMD /Air Quality regulations and without advancing proximity and concentration
into residential neigh borhoods.Specifically, this would be:
1. 18 at Balboa Pier, of which 12 would be on the East and 6 on the West side
of the Pier
2. 15 -16 at Corona del Mar
3. Total: 33 -34 fire rings
Both of these scenarios accomplish the following:
1. The physical footprint (boundary parameters) are consistent with the original
historical locational footprint where the public has grown accustomed to
finding and using fire rings
2. They do not expand adverse impacts further into the residential
neighborhoods
3. They do not expand into other areas where there is regular, frequent resident
and visitors use of the beach and water, or also where recreational, food and
other key activities are in close proximity. Such areas where we object to fire
rings being located include
a)at the Balboa Penninsula, including 15th Street and Newport Pier
b) continuing along the Balboa Penninsula beach from the Balboa Pier past
B street to the east, and from the current Balboa Pier area along the beach
up to the Santa Ana River jetty
c)at CDM, where there are volleyball courts, marine center and fire station
4. They are compliant with established Air Quality regulatory standards
5. They support the mission of the Coastal Commission, which is (officially) to
protect and preserve the integrity of the environmental quality in the coastal
zones, and provide public access.
We ask that the Council immediately move and complete approval of a Motion to:
1. Modify or cease and desist the current City survey instrument that includes
options other than those above, which are not consistent with the will of the
people, the health and safety of the both residents /frequent users;
2. Actively support a legitimate, thoughtful public process which includes the
accurate staking of original and currently proposed fire rings in any City
presentation, and associated with any properly noticed or reviewed scenario
Page 3- Community Position re. Fire Rings 2 -8 -15
3. Advocate on the community's behalf, the resolution of the fire rings type and
their placement in a manner consistent with the scenarios,above - -- which is also
consistent with the environmental health and safety objectives of the residents
and the public.
The position,above, is actively supported by thousands of residents and regular
visitors using these beaches, as well as community associations and other stakeholder
groups whose members' health and welfare is impacted.
We realize that time is of the essence, and therefore request the Council's
prompt, consideration, public discussion and response.
Thank you,
Sincerely,
Denys Oberman- Resident, Balboa Penninsula
Cynthia Koller- Resident, PenninsulaMest Newport
Kathryn Branman- Resident, Lido
Linda Klein- Resident Lido
Laura Curran- Resident Corona del Mar
cc: Concerned Citizens Coallition; Central Penninsula Community Association;
West Newport Community Association; Balboa Penninsula Point Community
Association; Newport Shores Community /homeowners Association; Corona del
Mar Residents Association; Surfriders Foundation; SPON; Citizens for NO on Y
Brown, Leil
From: Denys Oberman <dhn@o berm onensmciahao.00m>
Sent: Tuesday, February O3.20154:G2A�� 70� ��� _� PM �� �U
To: 'GoottPeottar' --- ' �" ' `^' ^' � `
Co: OionebO|>({}N;Petros. Tony; Curry, Keith; eoa|ioh@roadru
kevinmmu|doon��yahno.00m;Sno� Robinson; 'Fne o||er;
ppaUa�e��aoicom; Linda Klein; Laura Curran; Ki�. Dave�^ o-'' W��6�ho|t;AUan Beek;
dho@��barmanom000io��a.00m; Brown, Lei|ani
Subject: RE: Fire Pits
PLEASE ENTER THIS CORRESPONDENCE INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD AND DISTRIBUTE.
Scott- Thankyouforyour response. However, You and staff unilaterally provided Alternatives that are
IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION TO WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT.
What was done at Balboa Pier as of this date is acceptable , eg. 12 Wood and 18 Charcoal, spacing in
conformance with A[iMD.
Locating Fire pits at
Newport Pier is NOT ACCEPTABLE, NOR |S THE CONCEPT (]F SPREADING RINGS UPAN
PENN|NSULA. --^ CoPiwSent To:
—'��Ity Council
|arnherevvith copying the various H0A/COAs and various others in the conmnoun�v, ~ Attorney
who expressed opposition to these alternatives. ----- File
WHY ARE YOU AND STAFF CONTINUING TO IGNORE THE RESIDENTS AND SUBMIT A
DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE COMMUNITY?
This needs to stop. You and the City have misrepresented the process. You and City continue to ignore the will
of the people; AND impose on us alternatives that SPREAD ADVERSE IMPACTS, NOT MITIGATE THEM.
The Residents have been more than fair, in stepping uptoecompromise.
|arncopying the various Community Associations and a number of others who have already expressed
Opposition to these proposed alternatives.
Please consider this our Final request that there beNC> FIRE RINGS AT NEWPORT PIER DRUP AND DOWN THE
BALBOAPENN|NSULA.
If the City continues to pursue an improper, unresponsive administrative process, and Residents are forced
into a Petition, please be assured that the community will consider and pursue its remedies to the fullest
extent possible.
We have the right to |kxe in air free of persistent 5nnoke, and without increased risk of water contamination
and other impacts.
Denys Oberman
Resident and Community Stakeholder
Regards,
Denys H. Oberman, CEO
OBERMAN Strategy and Financial Advisors
2600 Michelson Drive, Suite 1700
Irvine, CA 92612
Tel (949) 476 -0790
Cell (949) 230 -5868
Fax (949) 752 -8935
Email: dho(ab-o berm anassociates.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The documents accompanying this transmission contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is
legally privileged. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this telecopied information is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately at 9491476 -0790 or the electronic address above, to arrange
for the return of the document(s) to us.
From: scott.peotter(abgmail.com [ mailto :scott.peotter(a)gmail.com] On Behalf Of Scott Peotter
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 11:06 PM
To: Denys Oberman
Subject: Fire Pits
The application went into the CCC is alternate 1. The CCC wants all wood and that is what alt 1 is, all 100'
spacing per AQMD.
AQMD has reviewed the plan and has approved it.
CCC is more than likely to make comments and change the design which would require COUNCIL
approval. Through the process the NBCC will continue to give input.
Option 1 spreads out the rings at CDM and Balboa pier slightly and then adds 9 to the Newport Pier and 7 to the
Dunes.
All of them are located as far away from homes as possible.
Another alternative that the CCC may approve would be alt 3, also all wood, but which spreads the fire rings
out along the peninsula. This was NOT submitted as an approved plan. But was considered. But you may like it,
because there are fewer rings together and they are installed in wide parts of the beach.
The design criteria is to provide all wood per CCC and space them at 100' per AQMD and minimize impact to
home as much as possible.
We are open to any suggestions and can propose them to the CCC.
htip://www.connectnew-portbeach.com/
THANKS
SCOTT PEOTTER
Newport Beach City Councilman
Direct: 949 - 250 -7118
Scott Peotter
2618 San Miguel Drive, Suite 535, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Like me on Facebook
I like to share a verse that I was reading. I hope it blesses you like it did me.
Proverbs 22:1
"A good name is more desirable than great riches; to be esteemed is better than silver or gold."
Brown, Leilani `1 I\ /1.--- Fl Date d-l/19 l /.S
From: Denys Oberman <dho @obermanassociates.com> Cop1e Sent T ®•
Sent: Tuesda ,!1F ebwMry 1V, 2015{1: 5'AM °---- ItY Council
ety Manager
To: Dept City Council Kiff, nave; Drown, Leilani 5*`�City ktorney
Subject: Fire rings- For the Public Record- �;'a
Mayor and Members of the Council:
We appreciate that the City wishes to resolve the Fire rings issue as quickly as possible, as do we. However,
forging ahead with inadequate preparation and with disregard to requirements for an orderly process or CEQA
evaluation is not acceptable.
We were advised yesterday that the City proceeded to submit a plan to the Coastal Commission including 6 -7
Alternatives,
Including some to which the public has through oral and written testimony, already voiced serious objection.
The public has submitted a menu of options which are the only ones, other than fewer or no rings, which it
considers acceptable, and which would not create additional significant adverse environmental and nuisance
impact on the Balboa Penninsula and CDM beaches and our neighborhoods - -- impacts affecting not only
residents, but also other members of the public who regularly frequent and use the beaches.
Why was this done when the public process was not adequately noticed or the public provided legitimate
opportunity for due process?
The alternatives 1 -7 presented by the City in its electronic survey and as submitted to the Coastal Commission
,if in fact they were already presented to the Coastal Commission in formal application, are in violation of
CEQA requirements and due process.
This premature submittal was done without adequate planning and forethought by the City. Its prospective
damage to neighborhoods and position must be cured - - -by the City fulfilling its duty to its constituents and the
public, and not on the backs of its residents.
We must respectfully insist that the City immediately:
1. Clarify and refine its submittal to the Coastal Commission to eliminate alternatives of clear adverse
impact and include alternatives which do not extend or amplify adverse impacts, as presented by the
Community
2. Modify the Mind -mixer "public survey" to remove City - defned alternatives 1 -7 which constituents
have formally objected to, and replace them with legitimate alternatives which do not increase
adverse environmental and nuisance impacts
3. Immediately establish a Schedule which provides for the proper sequence of activities and public input,
various approvals
4. Immediately move forward to retain experienced, expert representation to advocate alternatives and
on the community /city's behalf alternatives which accurately represent and support the interests of
the Community and the City( defined as residents and community of users who regularly visit and use
the beach)
Thank you.
Denys Oberman
On behalf of Residents of the Balboa Penninsula and other Stakeholders
Regards,
Denys H. Oberman, CEO
OBERMAN Strategy and Financial Advisors
2600 Michelson Drive, Suite 1700
Irvine, CA 92612
Tel (949) 476 -0790
Cell (949) 230 -5868
Fax (949) 752 -8935
Email: dho(cD-obermanassociates.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The documents accompanying this transmission contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is
legally privileged. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this telecopied information is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately at 9491476 -0790 or the electronic address above, to arrange
for the return of the document(s) to us.
RecE4ved After Agenda Printed
February 10, 2015
Non - Agenda Item
City of Newport Beach
City Council
Public Comment on Non - Agenda Items February 10, 2015
Carl Randolph Cassidy, et at )
Newport Beach Registered Voter, )
V. )
City of Newport Beach, et at )
Council Meeting )
Petition for Reconsideration of NB Finance Committee formation
violating California Government Code statutory provisions of the
Ralph M. Brown Act and the Maddy Act requirements for open
government prior to the 2/26/15 Finance Committee Meeting.
1) The City of Newport Beach City Council has violated legal principles of fairness with
the Maddy Act Violation - failure to disclose and provide notice - California
Government Code Secs. 54970 et seq. in the
A) Appointment process with no public notice of vacancy, review and
discussion of candidates. As Mayor Selich noted at the January 25, 2015 city council
meeting, he already arranged without public comment, notice and open transparent
government for the resignation of one of the newly appointed Finance Committee
members from the standing Planning Commission as part of the serial discussion non -
agenda, non - public public discussion meeting further violating the City charter, and
B) Departure from the City's own prescribed organized traditional approach in
review of candidates and dismissal of candidates for vacancy upon a city committee -
i.e. Alan Beek -, long time honored city resident and graduate of Cal Tech.
II) The City of Newport Beach City Council further violates the Brown Act -
California Government Code Sections 54950 - 54963, including but not limited to
criminal conduct statute citation - California Government Code Section 54959 which
provides that "Each member of a legislative body who attends a meeting of that
legislative body where action is taken in violation of any provision of this chapter, and
where the member intends to deprive the public of information to which the member
knows or has reason to know the public is entitled under this chapter, is guilty of a
misdemeanor."
Council member Muldoon's public statements regarding practicing law with
specific prosecution experience and specific involvement in the area of providing notice
and of the importance of meeting required notice at the prior council meeting
demonstrates clear mens rea of his acting with Team Newport and the entire council to
violate the law in a systemic disregard of public trust - agreement on long term friends
as candidates for the Finance Commission without any public review. The purpose of
the Brown Act is that the public's business be conducted in public.
a) CA Gov. Code Sec. 54950.1 provides " Any person elected to
serve as a member of a legislative body who has not yet assumed the duties of office
shall conform his or her conduct to the requirements of this chapter and shall be treated
for purposes of enforcement of this chapter as if he or she has already assumed office."
b) CA Gov. Code Sec. 54952.2. (a) As used in this chapter,
"meeting" means any congregation of a majority of the members of a legislative body at
the same time and location, including teleconference location as permitted by Section
54953, to hear, discuss, deliberate, or take action on any item that is within the subject
matter jurisdiction of the legislative body. (b) (1) A majority of the members of a
legislative body shall not, outside a meeting authorized by this chapter, use a series of
communications of any kind, directly or through intermediaries, to discuss, deliberate,
or take action on any item of business that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the
legislative body.
c) Additional case law and secondary legal scholarly articles to follow in
additional subsequent materials to this outline. According to the California Attorney
General, "a serial meeting is a series of communications, each of which involves less
than a quorum of the legislative body, but which taken as a whole involves a majority of
the body's members." DIV. OF CIVIL LAW, OFFICE OF THE ATT'Y GEN. OF
CAL., THE BROWN ACT: OPEN MEETINGS FOR LOCAL LEGISLATIVE
BODIES 11 (2003), cite: http: / /ag.ca.gov/ publications /2003_ Intro_BrownAct.pdf
[hereinafter AG BRIEF] (on file with the McGeorge Law Review). For example, a
chain of communications involving contact from member A to member B who then
communicates with member C would constitute a serial meeting in the case of a five -
person body. Similarly, when a person acts as the hub of a wheel (member A) and
communicates individually with the various spokes (members B and C), a serial
meeting has occurred. In addition, a serial meeting occurs when intermediaries for
board members have a meeting to discuss issues. For example, when a representative of
member A meets with representatives of members B and C to discuss an agenda item,
the members have conducted a serial meeting through their representatives as
intermediaries.
d) With respect to members of the public addressing the legislative body
of a local agency at one of its public meetings, section 54954.3 provides: (a) Every
agenda for regular meetings shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to
directly address the legislative body on any item of interest to the public, before or
during the legislative body's consideration of the item, that is within the subject matter
jurisdiction of the legislative body, provided that no action shall be taken on any item
not appearing on the agenda unless the action is otherwise authorized by subdivision (b)
of Section 54952.2.... (b) The legislative body of a local agency may adopt reasonable
regulations to ensure that the intent of subdivision (a) is carried out, including, but not
limited to, regulations limiting the total amount of time allocated for public testimony
on particular issues and for each individual speaker. (c) The legislative body of a local
agency shall not prohibit public criticism of the policies, procedures, programs, or
services of the agency, or of the acts or omissions of the legislative body. Nothing in
this subdivision shall confer any privilege or protection for expression beyond that
otherwise provided by law. Thus, the Brown Act not only allows members of the
public to attend the legislative body's meetings, it allows the public to participate in the
decision - making process by presenting testimony. (89 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen., supra, at p.
246; 78 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 224 (1995); 75 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 89 (1992).
e) The undisputed administrative record of the facts with respect to the
illegal Maddy Act violation by the City Council is as follows: The
Attachments to the January 25 city council meeting submited by the Newport Beach
City Clerk show a total of five applications received for the four citizen openings: the
four included as Attachment A in the staff report plus an application from Allan Beek,
stamped January 12, 2015. No record is that provides for the dismissal of Mr. Beek's
application, and in the absence of subsequent public advertisement, or how the Council
acted in concert to advise with required public notice that other four persons appointed
in a closed council meeting learned of the opportunity to submit applications, or
whether they were submitted before or after the nominees had been selected. There
evidence in the record supporting the statutorily required public recording with
opportunity for the public to comment and record City council discussion of the
appointing Council members action upon the Beek application, drew from the entire
"pool" or simply asked their personal nominee to apply. One of the four appointee -
applicants did not meet City requirements for being confirmed as a registered voter —
something the Council had set as a prerequisite for appointment until after the City
council initiated the appointment process considered the application in concert, and
closed the non - posted closed meeting without recorded notes or agenda This process
egregiously violates the specific provisions of the Maddy act and the spirit of the law by
not adequately exploring the full reservoir of financial talent available for appointment,
clearly inconsistent not only with the letter of the law but also with the intent of both the
Maddy Act and Council Policy A -2.
f) In addition there is further evidence of a Brown Act majority acting with
undue influence and violation of the public trust demonstrated by the departure from
campaign assurances of Team Newport that the back room dealings will become
pervasive in Newport Beach is particularly disturbing because November 2014 election
was that "Team Newport" would bring new levels of transparency, responsible
government and accountability.
III) Let there be no misunderstanding regarding the immense importance and relevance
of the reconstitution of the City of Newport Beach Finance Committee as demonstrated
by:
A) Reassignment of long time close intimate skilled team member by the mayor
to the Finance Committee.
B) Campaign rhetoric - reference to outrageous irresponsible public spending.
D) Interlocking directorates - appearance of impropriety (smell test ? ? ?)
E) Concern stated by Honored City Council Prior members Nancy Gardner and
Leslie Daigle that the accounting reserves and the changes to the reserves that flow
through the annual budget as fund activity be Properly reviewers, understood and
monitored by the Finance Committee and be a source of audit for the outside auditors
as a specific engagement procedure.
One could possibly encourage the proper appointment of public members to the Finance
Committee by initiating in the candidacy application, interview, and public review
process a discussion of how the City will value and record its significantly material
growing future reserves for legal costs and vast tradition for unsuccessful costly
settlement of litigation costs (i.e. Pacific Shores, Measure Y, Banning Ranch, Woody's
Wharf, Dock tax).
F) My comments are not to be construed in any way to be any possible assertion
other than a complete and entire belief in the trustworthiness, competency, and efforts
of the City Finance Director, Mr. Dan Matusiewcz and his staff or upon any of
extremely competent employees hired, managed, and organized by Dave Kiff.
G) Relevance to the other stakeholders much more valued than myself or even
the voting public - individuals that place their lives on the line in our public streets - on
our beaches, in fighting fire and crime that have their pensions at stake for consideration
by newly appointed candidates for this important committee that no one has had an
opportunity to review or vet concerns. Individuals that place their capital in the trust
that his City can operate with monies and their property to conduct its business relying
on the public integrity of this hastily unusually formed Committee.
IV) This hastily backroom appointment process that presumably models other City
policy for Committee formation like Irvine and Huntington Beach for model
government defies common sense and John Q. Public or the Plumber that both Obama
and McCain claimed as reasonableness test for review of trust in the caretaking of the
public's finances.
V) Departure from best management procedures and practices (as cited by the esteemed
learned Deputy City Attorney, Leonie Mulvihill) of City of Newport Beach tradition
itself as evidenced by prior Council Resolutions and the City Charter. Specific citations
to be provided in additional writing. Council's own Policy A -2 (`Board, Commission,
and Committee Appointments "), requires the regularly scheduled opportunities to serve
a local agency in an appointive capacity to be published at least once a year in a "Local
Appointments List," and for unscheduled opportunities a special procedure, which all
cities including charter cities are required to follow, as provided in , Section 54974,
requires a "special vacancy notice" to be posted in the Clerk's office and the library for
at least 10 working days before the local agency can make its final appointment to fill
an unscheduled vacancy. Newport Beach City Policy Policy A -2 imposes additional,
higher compliance more narrowly construed requirement that an additional 5 days
notice be complied with to meet the California Gov. Code Sec. 54974 provisions so the
Clerk and Council have time to vet the applications prior to nomination. Appointments
without the required public notice can be made, but only in the event of an emergency
and they are understood to be effective only until the openings have been properly
noticed and filled. Meeting the requirement for notice and meetings involved with
emergency and operating outside the regular statutory compliance for unscheduled
vacancies is even more onerous upon the City to meet open meetings compliance.
The newly elected City Council non - public and un- advertised nomination procedure,
ignoring the possibility of the existence in Newport Beach of other equally or better
qualified candidates eager to serve, is an egregious disrespectful act towards the voting
public, the esteemed tradition and resolutions of prior councils tradition and state
legislative law for which the state law was needed, as eloquently explained in its 1976
preamble to the law.
VI) Departures from what all the other city and agency jurisdictions are doing with
respect to the Maddy Act - see City of Costa Mesa jurisdiction and hundreds of city and
local authority policies on the Maddy Act protective procedures for compliance with the
Maddy act to follow with additional citations to these filed public comments.
VII) The filing of these public comments is not intended to disparage or discredit the
City Attorney providing legal advice supporting the City of Newport Beach arrogance
and lack of fairness in Finance Committee appointment process. The established unfair
and unrealistic expectation upon the City Attorney office to provide
a) Defense of City Council arrogant actions in conflict with representation of
the City of NB voter interest despite what Presiding Judge of the California Appeals
Court 4th District stated,
b) putting unrealistic expectations upon the City Attorney to provide required
immediacy of response at Council meetings without proper time to research and prepare
legal analytical analysis and provide authoritative legal precedent, and
c) If the California Appeals Court has any merit at all, I encourage careful
review of the language of Woody's Wharf decision - City Attorney not be the final word
on matters of City Council and overall city policy. and the City change the rules in the
middle of the game. Woody's Group, Inc. v. City ofNewport Beach (CA App 4th,
G050155)
VIII) Only reasonable solution would be to solicit new candidates (allowing all prior
candidates to withdraw with an understanding that their applications will not be
considered for two years for their part in the CA Gov. Code violations) and properly
follow the Maddy Act specifically stated and intended provisions for a complete public
meeting review with proper notice, agenda, and recording of minutes prior to the
scheduled 2/26/15 meeting of the Finance Committee.
To: cityclerk @newportbeachca.gov
cc: citycouncil @newportbeachca.gov
February 10, 2015, Council Non agenda Calendar Comments
The following comments on items for the Newport Beach City Council are submitted
by: Carl Cassidy carlrcassidy @att.net
President: February 10, 2015
Sharon Boles
Superior Ave. Liaison
9491645 -4752 Wa Emoil and Nand Delivery
Vice President:
Jim Miller
Newport Island Mayor Edward Selich and Members of the City Council
9491933 -9827 City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Drive
Se Membership Director: Newport Beach, CA 92660
Membership Director:
Chris Garber
9491466 -0605 Mayor Selich and Members of the City Council:
Assistant Treasurer: On January 28, 2015, the West Newport Beach Association Board of Directors met at the old
Mike Johnson City Council chambers, inviting residents of the community to share their thoughts, ideas and
West Oceanfront views concerning the recent City Council vote on the 7 proposed plans to move the fire rings.
9491642 -3125 P R R
Without exception, no one was in favor of moving the fire rings to the Newport Pier area or
Directors: anywhere north of the pier. In fact, strong feelings and comments opposing any
implementation of placing fire rings in front of the parking lot adjacent to the Newport Pier and
Craig Batley commercial storefronts and restaurants were voiced by the many residents who attended the
Absentee Owners Liaison meeting.
9491293 -4630
Suzanne Gignoux The West Newport Beach Association categorically opposes any plan to move the fire rings to
Newport Shores Newport Pier or to any location north of the pier. Oceanfront owners are absolutely opposed
9491500 -1326 to fire ring placement resulting in disrupting their peaceful enjoyment and smoke -free ocean
environment. The community is uniformly against any City Council action that will negatively
Cynthia Koller impact their quiet enjoyment.
fterlNeptune
9491650 -1815 If the Council has any doubt as to how to proceed, prior to any final action on this topic, it is our
Larry Leifer hope the City Council will thoroughly publicize multiple community meetings allowing the
Newport Island residents to participate in a transparent public process in order to reach a satisfactory
9491650 -7120 community - endorsed solution to what is now an unnecessarily complicated issue. Let's not
rush into any arbitrary fix without reasoned andopen public comments from those most
Ann O'Flynn impacted, namely oceanfront residents including those living between Coast Highway, Balboa
Balboa Coves Blvd., the bay and the ocean.
9491645 -8233
George Schroeder The West Newport Beach Association Board of Directors chose not to orchestrate specks,
Numbered Streets namely the number of wood burning or charcoal rings nor the exact position of the physical
9491400 -7597 footprint of where the rings ultimately might be placed, however, we strongly urge the Council
to keep the historical fire ring footprints (Balboa Pier & CDM State Park) in keeping with the
public locational expectation.
Moving the fire rings, to 15th street, Newport Pier, or spacing them northward to the Jetty is
categorically unacceptable. if the Council decides to embark on extensive outreach by holding a
dozen or so well publicized public meetings inviting all residents of West Newport and the
peninsula, they will be overwhelmed with negative sentiment and complete rejection of any
plan that imposes all the current negative aspects of fire ring usage on those residents who
never bargained for such public activity in their neighborhoods when they chose to purchase or
lease their homes.
The West Newport Beach Association recommends keeping the rings where they currently are
located. Why encroach upon other neighborhoods where fire rings have never been placed?
The solution must be resolved in the neighborhoods where the rings now exist.
Respectfully submitted,
3A Pax-110 / C�'
Sharon A.
Boles, President
WNBA Board of Directors
cc. WNBA Board of Directors