Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsReceived After Agenda Printed November 25, 2014 Written Comments November 25, 2014, Council Consent Calendar Comments The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher (j immosher(a)yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949- 548 -6229) Item 1. Minutes for the November 12, 2014 Study Session and Regular Meeting The page numbers below refer to Volume 62. The passages in italics are from the draft, with suggested changes shown in =••'_. kee-' underline format. 1. Page 95, last paragraph, sentence 1: "He encouraged Council to consider including landscaping that will help reduce noise and the site sight of cars, ..." 2. Page 106, paragraph 2: "Mayor Hill commented on the photo of a woman standing in the drain and noted that it is a large drain ravine going across private property." 3. Page 107, paragraph 5: "Motion by Mayor Hill, seconded by Council Member Curry, to accept the terms as listed in the staff report, except specifying a $25,000 donation from each of the property owners; and pay the balance by the General Fund." 4. Page 109, paragraph 8, sentence 2: "Acting Co- Director Pisani noted that many trees had not been trimmed for a while by West Coast Arberist Arborists." Item 4. Adopt Resolutions and Agreements for Inclusion of Properties within the City's Jurisdiction in the Figtree and CaliforniaFirst Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Financing Programs The proliferation of shadowy "Joint Powers Authorities" in California is contrary to my notions of transparent open government. From the staff report this particular proposal sounds like an essentially private lending agency using a governmental connection to attach its collections activities to property tax bills. If the loans are related to state mandated or state subsidized programs, it would seem to me they should be offered by a state agency; otherwise by private lenders. I have difficulty perceiving the commonality that Newport Beach has with Selma, Lancaster and Eureka, or why we would want to participate in something controlled by those cities ( ?) and in which our government, on behalf of our participating residents, has no voting power or representation (Attachment B starting on page 19). Item 5. Adopt a Resolution Supporting an Application by the City of Costa Mesa for the OCTA Measure M2 Regional Traffic Signal Synchronization Program for the Fair Drive -Del Mar Avenue - University Avenue Project The staff report does not make clear how this project would benefit Newport Beach. Although the new traffic equipment at Irvine and University might be helpful, Newport Beach's interest in keeping traffic flowing north -south on Irvine Avenue might be contrary to Costa Mesa's interest in directing traffic crossways to that and onto Newport Beach streets. November 25, 2014, Council Consent Calendar comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 4 Item 6. Adopt a Resolution for Submittal of the Coast Highway Traffic Signal Synchronization Project Application to Orange County Transportation Authority Measure M2 Regional Traffic Signal Synchronization Program The staff report does not make clear if parts of this would still be useful and could be salvaged if Caltrans does not allow the City to proceed with the majority of the plan. The proposal for "Installation of a Dynamic Message Sign on Coast Highway east of Newport Coast Drive" sounds very much like a piece, but only a piece, of the Corona del Mar Bypass Plan that was part of the failed Measure Y General Plan Land Use Element amendments. It was implied that would require an expensive study. Since the diversion affects more than Coast Highway, shouldn't the commitment to this be part of a more comprehensive plan preceded by a more thorough public discussion? Item 7. Approval of Measure M2 Expenditure Report The report is in a format that is undoubtedly easy for OCTA to understand, but less immediately comprehensible to the public. A brief introductory summary of its significance might have been helpful. In the next to last table ( "Streets and Roads Detailed Use of Funds') on page 5 of the printed staff report, it is a bit disturbing to see what seems to be a report that $8 million of indirect and overhead administrative costs was necessary to accomplish about $5 million of construction work. Item 8. 2014 -2015 Playground Improvements It would seem to me that the proposal should have been reviewed by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission pursuant to their duties under Section 709 of the City Charter. Item 9. Amendment No. 3 to Management Agreement with New Irvine Ranch Conservancy for the Buck Gully Open Space Reserve It might have been helpful to provide links to the original contract, C -3905, and its previous amendments. The significance of the change from a "private non - profit" to a "public non - profit" is not well explained in the staff report. Generally, a private non - profit would rely on support from a single benefactor, such as The Irvine Company, whereas a public non - profit would depend on support from the public in general. Is Newport Beach considered a public contributor towards the "new" Conservancy? Is The Irvine Company reducing its support? Does the change in structure mean we, or the public, have any greater influence over the Conservancy's governance? November 25, 2014, Council Consent Calendar comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 4 Item 11. Printing Services Contract for Newport Navigator Brochure Since an ever increasing segment of the public accesses information of this sort online, has thought been given to directing the print version of the Navigator more to those who actually want a printed copy? Item 12. Amendment No. 3 to Professional Services Agreement with Rabben /Herman Design Office for Additional Marina Park Design Services Several of the items in the amended Scope of Services (Exhibit A to Attachment A) are listed by the consultant as "completed." To be in keeping with the California Constitutional restrictions on city's contracting authority, I believe the contract should have been modified before this work was undertaken, not after. It would also be good for the public to know if the Council still has, as some Council remarks have implied, an unofficial "working group" that reviews and signs off on these changes, much like the Building Ad Hoc Committee which seems to have privately authorized design changes to the Civic Center. Item 13. Amended Joint Powers Agreement for Integrated Law and Justice Agency for Orange County and Approval of Purchase of Electronic Citation System The reason for changing the rule regarding adding new members is not clear. Although it may seem cumbersome, it gives some public visibility to the organization, and since the report says the current membership is comprehensive, the wish to add new members would seem rare and no examples of possible new members are given. Item 14. Contract with the New Irvine Ranch Conservancy for Preparation of a Resource and Recreation Management Plan (RRMP) for Big Canyon Restoration Area Are there other entities that could help the City to prepare the plan? It would seem desirable to have some other party prepare the plan if IRC is likely to be selected as the party to implement it, or if a single party is expected to both develop and implement the plan to solicit proposals from more than one party so that a diversity of ideas is entertained. Item 16. Annual Reporting on Development Impact Fees & Development Agreements It is good to see the City providing the state - required reports. A longer term view of past and possible future impact and development agreement related fees can be found in the City staff's Facilities Financial Planning Tool the latest version of which was reviewed as an attachment to Item 5.0 at the Council Finance Committee's November 17, 2014, meeting. Some members of November 25, 2014, Council Consent Calendar comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 4 the Committee believe it has been publicly reviewed by the full Council at a Planning or Study Session, but I am unable to find any record of that. Item 17. Request to Construct Private Improvements within the Public Alley Right -of -Way located adjacent to 401 and 403 Heliotrope Avenue As indicated in the staff report, a portion of this project was heard at the November 20, 2014, Planning Commission meeting (Item No. 3) where at the time of public comment I don't think the extensive relocation of public utilities needed to built the wall on public property was clearly disclosed. The purpose of the wall seems to be to make possible and encourage use of an existing private driveway through the public park to provide access to a new residential unit that is currently not accessed in that way. The Planning Commissioners appeared concerned about what would happen if a future City Council wanted to take back the park for public use. I pointed out that the subdivision of the property probably requires evaluation through a Coastal Development Permit application. I would suspect that the construction on public land does, as well, since it would not seem to be covered by the Categorical Exclusion Order for construction on residential parcels. Item 18. Human Services Grants for Fiscal Year 2014 -2015 The staff report suggests that the availability of the grants was made known to many organizations of which only six applied, and apparently all were rewarded and all were recipients of past grants from the City. Since the process by which the allocations are decided upon is not entirely clear, and since such programs tend to become very repetitive, it might have been helpful to indicate if any of last year's recipients were dropped from the program. Item 19. Request to Install New Private Improvements within the Via Oporto Public Right -of -Way in Lido Marina Village As with Item 17, this would seem likely to require evaluation via a Coastal Development Permit application since it involves non - residential construction. The reference in the staff report to the proposal "by the Owners ... to install diagonal metered parking and private landscaping and irrigation improvements on Central Avenue" is slightly mysterious. Is that a private street and would they be private meters? Received After Agenda Printed November 25, 2014 Written Comments LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT C. HAWKINS November 25, 2014 Via email (dkiff(a�-newuortbeachca.Rov) Rush Hill, Mayor Members of the City Council c/o David Kiff, City Manager City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 Re: Comments on the November 25, 2014 Agenda: 1. Agenda Items No.3 (Balboa Village A -Frame Signs Interim Ordinance); 2. Agenda Item No. 20 (Balboa Village Commercial Parking Project IPA2014- 0161); 3. Agenda Item No. 23 (ExplorOcean Option to Lease City's Balboa Market Parking Lot); and 4. Agenda Item No. 28 (Compensation of Management Staff) Greetings: Thank you for the further opportunity to comment on the captioned items. First, though, we wish to congratulate you on the election. Of course, we will miss Council Members Gardner and Daigle; these women have been voices of reason and calm. And also, of course, we will all miss Council Members Hill and Henn. However, as you know, we filed ethics complaints against both Messrs. Henn and Hill:. Mr. Henn, against whom we filed a complaint regarding his leading the way on the Lido Village Design Guidelines and the City Hall Reuse, continues to recuse himself on all of the old City Hall issues. He claims that he was completely vindicated. If so, then why the recusals? 14 Corporate Plaza, Suite 120 Newport Beach, California 92660 (949) 650 -5550 Fax: (949) 650 -1181 Ru>6 Hill, Mayor - Members of isle City Cou veil . 2, Nom ember 25, 20 14 • Mr. Hill, against whom we filed a complaint regarding his participation in votes on issues near his home and business was found to have violated the law. Second, as you know, we represent various community groups including the Friends of Dolores who are dedicated to ensuring compliance with all laws, Federal, State and local, the Friends of the Balboa Market, who loved the Market and are saddened by what has happened there, and others. All of these groups are concerned about the open session Agenda Items. Of course, the Friends of Dolores are concerned about all of the captioned items especially including the close session agenda items. L Agenda Items No. 3 Balboa Village A -Frame Signs Interim Ordinance) Will Create Land Use Impacts. Under Consent Calendar Agenda Item No. 3 entitled the '`Balboa Village A -Frame Sign Interim Ordinance," the City seeks to allow nuisance A -Frame signs in Balboa Village. The City's General Plan, Policy LU 5.2.1 requires, among other things, that: "Incorporation of signage that is integrated with the buildings' architectural character." If the City allows these A -Frame Signs in Balboa Village, the signs will not be integrated into the building's architectural character. Staff maintains these are accessory structures and are therefore except from CEQA. However, given that the A -Frame Signs conflict with LU 5.2.1, they create land use impacts which the City must analyze before it adopts the proposed Ordinance. II. Agenda Item No. 20 proposes five "programs" for Balboa Village: `Program One - Residential Permit Parking Program (RP3): the establishment of an overnight resident permit parking program (RP3) for the area west of Balboa Village between 7th Street and Adams Street. The annual permit fee has previously been established, but program parameters and a daily guest pass fee must also be established. "Program Two - Parking Management District Plan and Overlay District: the creation of a Parking Management District Plan and Overlay District that modifies required off - street parking requirements for commercial uses within Balboa Village. 14 Corporate Plaza, Suire 120 Newport Beads, California 92660 (949) 650 -5550 Fax: (949) 650 -1181 Rush Hill.'Mapor Memhrrs of the City Council . i- Noeernher 25, 2014 `Program Three - Parking Benefit District: the creation of a parking benefit district related to how parking revenues within Balboa Village will be budgeted and spent. "Program Four - Public Parking Fees: the modification of both on- street and off - street parking meter fees on public property within Balboa Village. "Program Five - Other Parking Programs and Permits: the establishment of a voluntary employee parking permit for Balboa Village businesses; a non -peak season resident parking permit to park in Balboa Village; and a commercial patron parking validation program. Fees for these permits needs to be adopted." Despite dividing this Balboa Village Conunercial Parking Project into five programs: it is really only one CEQA Project. The City seeks to avoid CEQA compliance for this Project by improperly segmenting the Project into bits that it believes are exempt from CEQA. This cannot succeed. The Project seeks to relieve commercial properties in Balboa Village from providing on site parking as required by the General Plan and the Zoning Code. This Commercial Parking Project is not exempt from CEQA: it will create significant impacts on the environment including parking shortages through the Village. It seeks to cure this impact with the various other programs including the residential permit provisions, creating a parking district and establishing different fees for this district. Indeed, the City already spent $3.2 million on the Balboa Market parking lot; these were restricted funds which the area has not paid back to the City. This Project will create traffic, parking, noise, land use, and other environmental impacts which the City has not addressed. The City must comply with CEQA and analyze these and other impacts of the Commercial Parking Project. III. Agenda Item No. 23 (ExplorOcean Option to Lease City' Balboa Market Parking Lot) Requires CEQA Compliance. Agenda Item No. 23 is surprising. It is a proposal "to give" ExplorOcean an Option to Lease the "Patin Street Parking Lot." The "Palm Street Parking Lot" is located at "209 Washington Street and 600 -608 East Balboa Boulevard." Until now. no one has called this parking lot the "Palm Street Parking Lot :" it has always been known as the Balboa Market Parking Lot which the City acquired in 2010 for over $3.2 million. that: It is interesting that the Staff Report for this item states, tinder "Environmental Review, -The Option to Lease is explicit that the City Council has not approved and is not bound to approve the final EO [ExplorOcean] Project, or the proposed parking structure. The duty to go through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to approve any project is EO's duty and will be performed at EO's cost. The Option to Lease suggests that a full EIR will be required to consider and 14 Corporate Plea, Suite 120 N'e"port Beach, California 92660 (949) 650 -5550 Fax: (949) 650 -1181 Rush Hill, Mayor Members of the Ciri Council A, November 25, 2014 address the environmental impacts of the new EO facility and the parking structure." November 25, 2014, City Manager Staff Report for Agenda Item No. 23, page 3. However, this ignores the fact that the property transfer itself is a project which requires CEQA review. Indeed, in more careful and carefree times, the City knew this. With the rush of politics, the election of the new Council and Mr. Henn's leaving office, the City has forgotten this CEQA requirement. However, when the City acquired the property from Leo Gugasian, it was more careful. In the January 26, 2010 Staff Report, the Planning Department stated: -'City staff will be conducting the CEQA review based on the project being the acquisition, demolition of the existing structure and the expansion of the existing atgrade public parking lot. Results of the Phase 1 environmental assessment are needed to complete the CEQA analysis. Staff has selected a firm to complete this work, and it will be completed well within the 90 -day timeframe noted in the terms. The terms of the Purchase and Sale Agreement provide, and the escrow instructions will include, that escrow may not close until the City has approved an environmental determination on the project." January 26, 2010 Staff Report, page 3. The City must now comply with CEQA for the disposal or lease of the Balboa Market Parking Lot. It complied with the requirements of CEQA in 2010; it cannot ignore these requirements now. It is a CEQA Project; it may create significant impacts which may require mitigation. The City must comply with CEQA on this Balboa Market Option for ExplorOcean. IV. Agenda Item No. 28 (Management Contracts) Must Be Deferred for Several Reasons. Agenda Item No. 28 seeks seek to extend and enhance the contracts for the City Manager, City Attorney and City Clerk. However, several prudential and legal reasons argue to defer these contracts. First, as noted above, the City held an election on November 4, 2014 and elected four new council members. Common sense and courtesy argue that this old Council should simply review the employees and forward their contracting recommendations to the new Council for consideration. Second, and equally important, the old Council must enter into these contracts at a public meeting. However., the documents for Agenda Item No. 28 are incomplete: the compensation rates are blank: the residents. the taxpayers who are paying these contracts, do not know the terms of the contracts and cannot prepare for the meeting. Indeed, Southern California has seen enough of compensation and pension scandals with the City of Bell and others leading the way. Courtesy, common sense, prudence and the law require the old Council to defer consideration of the contracts until the new Council is sworn in. Anything else would follow the City of Bell and others. Let's not do that. 14 Corporate Plaza, Suite 120 Newport Beach, California 92660 (949) 650 -5550 Fax: (949) 650 -1181 Rush Hill, tAayor .Members of the Cia Council - 5, November 25, 20 14 Thank you, again, for the opportunity to comment on the captioned agenda items. As appropriate, we request copies of all notices of environmental documentation including notices of determination for the abovementioned items. Of course, should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT C. HAWKINS By: Robert C. Hawkins RCH /kw cc: Leilani Brown, City Clerk (Via email [LBrown @newportbeachca.gov] Only) 14 Corporate Pla =a, Suite 120 Newport Beach, California 92660 (949) 650 -5550 Fax. (949) 650.1181 !'o'h Hill, Aia.u; iirwlsr. uE tI *e Cil t'ouuril . > la,rnilmr ]i, .'.9'd Thant: Nvu. main. Or the opportunity tv comment on the captioned zn.cnda items. As appropriate. We request copies of all notices of environmcntal docuulcntation including notices ordcterndnmion for the aN venx•mknwd items. Of course. should yon harc an�' questions. please do not hesitate tv cunttut me. RU Wk sincerch . cc: Leilani Bro"n. Ciiv Clerk (\- iu email Y.Rm"n tr!ncwponheuchca.go% I Onlal N [�.a'puc.o, P ..",>unr I'0 No. vp.w Idc.ii It, E "I111a1'm 19 „6i'P MW MAYS ..,o-. i,ts:n 6111111 7 y7RGE SFRY[fG INf;�s November 20, 2Ot4 City of Newport Beach A": Edward D. Selich Mayor Pro Tem 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Received After Agenda Printed November 25. 2014 Written Comments on Non-Agenda Item K RE: Agenda Item No. 27, Review and Amendment — Tree Services Agreement with Great Scott Tree Services Dear Mr. Selich, At the City Council meeting on November 12, 2014, the Council discussed and adopted a couple of recommendations related to Agenda Item No. 27 — Tree Services Agreement with Great Scott "free Services. This letter is a request that your council reconsider one of its actions to issue an RFP for Tree Maintenance Services. As you are aware, we have a ten (10) year contract with the City and are in our 1211 month. We are cognizant that the contract allows for the City to cancel our contract at any time. However, there are certain factors that we believe should be considered. • Unfortunately, as the contractual Project Manager, I was not informed by the City that an Item involving our company was on the City Council's agenda for the November 12 Council Meeting; nor was I provided a copy of the amendment that the council acted upon. • There were several facts discussed at the November 12' council meeting that should be clarified: • During the first eleven (11) months of our contract we planted two hundred and thirty -seven (237) trees at a cost of $153,380. In the meeting it was stated that only 70 trees had been planted. • Initially the City did not appropriate sufficient funds for the quantity of trees that were within the scope of the contract. The work was competitively bid with Great Scott Tree Service being the lower bidder on a per tree /service basis by approximately 45 %. If the city had chosen to stay with their previous vender, the City would have incurred an additional $750,000 expense in the first year. Based upon their schedule of billing rates within their bid. 10761 Court Avenue - Stanton. California 90680 a 714/826 -1750 o FAX 714/826 -1753 www.gstsinc,corn Public interaction was rated above average with approximately eight (8) complaints over the year: • Four (4) of the complaints had valid email addresses for which we immediately contacted the individuals and worked to satisfactorily remedy their concerns. • Four (4) of the complaints contained "spoof' email addresses with invalid phone numbers. We attempted to contact them, however, none of these four email addresses or phone numbers were found to be valid. • Upon contract award we were required to provide a complete update of the City's tree inventory at no additional cost to the city. There are 41,623 GPS points in the City; our unit price to update is $3.00 per point at a total cost of $124,869.00. We absorbed this cost in year one (1) with the intention to amortize it over the ten year contract term. • In order to undertake this project and remain in good standing with our previous obligations we purchased over $950,000.00 of equipment and expanded our office and computer system. • In the first several months of the contract we accelerated grid pruning, annual palm tree pruning, and services requests which had not been completed by the previous contractor during their contract period. • In the staffs Annual Summary Evaluation we were given a B grade overall for our first year of service. We met the specifications in the contract. Due to the above factors, I request that the council reconsider their action to issue an RFP for Tree Maintenance Services at this time, Sincerely, fiden Scott P . Griffiths, t ISA Certified Arborist 40901 Great Scott Tree Service, Inc. Cell: (714) 514 -4515 10761 Court Avenue d Stanton. California 90680 - 714/826 -1750 ^ FAX 714/826 -1753 Www.gstsinc.coin ..,E t,oversnect r P�4i o ,_ , y s � TO: FROM: PREPARED BY: PHONE: TITLE: ABSTRACT: — CITY OF IE"V f PO RT B EACH Lily Council Staff Report link to the video of the council meeting: http: //new'p.orfDeachca.swagit.com/mini/I 1122014-11151#60 Yage I of 2 November12,2014 Agenda Item No. 27, HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL Mike Pisani, Acting Municipal Operations Department Director —(949) 644 -3055, mpiseni@newportbeachm.gov Maurice Turner (949) 5443057 Review and Amendment- Tree Services Agreement with Great Smh Tree Services The Cfty maintains nearly 34,000 tress bcated on parkways, elopes, and medians, in parks, and at City facilities. Tree maintenance services (pruning, planting and removals) are performed by contract forms, and the City Council approved the current agreement with Great $mtt Tree Services (GETS) for these services on November 12, 2013. It has been a year since the contract was approved, and Council members have Inquired of staff as to how the contract is working out. Additionally, based upon increased services directed by the City (such as additional removals and trims) and performed by GSTS, City staff recommends increasing the annual spending limit for the current year to match the approved budget. a) If interested, discuss staffs analysis of service to date for Great Scott Tree Service (GSTS) and make any recommendation related to it, and b) For the contract year ending November 30, 2014, approve an amendment to the agreement with GSTS reflecting City staffs direction to GSTS to perform more work, thereby leading to an increase in the annual not- n -exmed cost to $1,500,000 for this year alcm, and authorize the Mayor and Ctry Clerk to execute the amendment. There are adequate funds in MunnPal Operations Department budget to fond these services this facer year, and funds for these services vfill continue to be budgeted in subsequent fiscal years. DISCUSSION: In November 2013, Council approved an agreement with GSTS to provide tree maintenance services. The Council selected GSTS over the Give Previous vendor, West Coast Amorists (WCA). At the time, staff recommended that the contract be entered into with GSTS based in large part on pricing, given that references for troth firma were solid and that service from WCA had been satisfactory. The GSTS agreement contained a noko -auced cost of $1,300,000 for tree maintenance services each commot year (December 1 through November 30). The tree maintenance services provided by GSTS include the pruning, planting, emergency services, and when necessary, removals of the neatly 34,00D trees In the City's urban foresL The contract includes "per unit' prang, meaning that the unit prices remain the same regardless of the qua." of work directed by the City. in the recent past, Council has expressed concerns about the pace of tree replacement and trimming. As such, the approved FY 2014 -15 budget allocates $1,730,000 for tree maintenance services to be completed by the City's vendor, a $430,000 increase over the capped amount in the GSTS agreement Council allocated this additional funding to reduce the amount of time between tree trimming cycles, increase tree planting, and account for a slight increase in the unit price of tree pruning over the previous agreement (based on changes in the cost of living). With the additional funding, by the and of the contract year (November 30, 2014), GSTS will have pruned over 20,000 tress. Previously, our vendor had pruned 13,000 to 14,000 trees on an annual basis. There are a few reasons for this increase. When GSTS assumed the tree maintenance services for the City on December 5, 2013, the previous contractor had not completed the annual trimming of palms, eucalyptus, and coral trees, so many of those were trimmed in December and January. We endeavor to perform the "annual trims" in the August through Ondber fimeframe, so the frees are canopies are reduced before Santa Am winds and winter storms occur. We are currently finishing up the annual trims, so many of these trees have been owned twice in the coact year. Further, with the increase in funding, we have been able to complete a large amount of grid trimming, actually moving ahead of the expected schedule. Maintaining the grid trimming schedule opens up homeo vners' views, reduces leaf and fruit drop from trees and substantially reduces resident complaints. Therefore, an amendment with GSTS is submitted for Council approval, The amendment will increase the not -to- exceed cast of the agreement to http:// novusagendapublic. newportbeac hoa,govICoverShect.aspx ?ItemID--4255 &MeetingI... 11/17/2014 $1.800,000 for this contract year, providing contract authorization for the previously budgeted tree maintenance operations At the some time, Council members have expressed to the City Manager an interest in reviewing the service provided by GSTS over the past year, to attempt to ensure thatthe qualityand performance we had expected with the new contract had been met. Staff has prepared a summary of staffs Imeractions with GSTS (see Attachment B), as well as a small table showing work done in roughly half year periods. Overall, staff gives GSTS a "B" for the poriod, and recommends continuing with this provider. Finally, we would note that we have received about 8-10 complaints over the period from writers concerned about various aspects of GSTS's work. We reviewed each complaint, and in several cases had a challenging time contacting tis complaining party. While we are concerned about any and all complaints, we are also concerned that the private tree senoics company marketplace is a contentious one today, and as such we (rightly or wrongly) react with suspicion to some of the complaints made that are nearly impossible to track down or verify. Others we believe we have resolved with GSTS to our mutual satisfaction. We welcome the Council's and communitys quesgo no and comments in this regard, and Indeed in regards to any service we provide or outsource. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Staff recommends the City Council find this action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ('CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result In a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity, Is not a project as de5ned in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, Calflomia Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly. OTV N The agenda item has been noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in advance of the meeting at which the City Council considers the item), ATTACHMENTS: Description Attachment A - Aaandmen[ AMChment e - StO Rewrt Card Albchmen[G- AOr2s�7t Ne'.. Zu13 ATTACHMENT A i AMENDMENT NO, ONE TO MAINTENANCE SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH GREAT SCOTT TREE SERVICE, INC. FOR TREE MAINTENANCE SERVICES THIS AMENDMENT NO. ONE TO MAINTENANCE SERVICES AGREEMENT ( "Agreement ") is made and entered into as of this 13TH day of November, 2014 ( "Effective Date "), by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a California municipal corporation and charter city ( "City'), and GREAT SCOTT TREE SERVICE, INC., a California corporation ( "Consultant "), whose address is 10761 Court Avenue, Stanton, California 90680, and is made with reference to the following: RECITALS A. On November 13, 2013, City and Consultant entered into a Maintenance Services Agreement ( "Agreement ") for tree maintenance services for City - maintained trees ( "Project "). B. City desires to enter into this Amendment No. One to reflect Extra Work performed under the Agreement, and to increase the total compensation. NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows: 1, COMPENSATION TO CONSULTANT Section 4.6 shall be added to the Agreement to read: "City shall pay Consultant for Extra Work performed in 2014 on a time and expense not -to- exceed basis in accordance with the provisions of this Section and the Schedule of Billing Rates attached as Exhibit B. Consultant's compensation for Work performed in 2014 in accordance with this Agreement, Including all reimbursable items and subconsultant fees, shall not exceed One Million Eight Hundred Thousand Dollars and 001100 {$1,800,000.00)." The total amended compensation reflects Consultant's additional compensation for additional Services to be performed in accordance with this Amendment No. One, including all reimbursable items and subconsultant fees, in an amount not to exceed Five Hundred Thousand Dollars and 001100 ($500,000.00). 2. INTEGRATED CONTRACT Except as expressly modified herein, all other provisions, terms, and covenants set forth in the Agreement shall remain unchanged and shall be in full force and effect. [SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE] Great Scott Tree Service, Inc. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment No. One to be executed on the dates written below. APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Date: By:� - Aaron C. Harp City Attorney ATTEST: Date: Leilani I. Brown City Clerk CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a California municipal corporation Date: By: Rush N. Hill, II Mayor CONSULTANT: GREAT SCOTT TREE SERVICE, INC., a California corporation Date: By: Scott P. Griffiths President By: Steven J. Guzowski Chief Financial Officer [END OF SIGNATURES] Great Scott Tree Service, Inc. 2 M FY 13/14 HISTORY / PROJECTIONS �U SAVINGS $109,854.00 $503,332.00 $121,606.00 $734,792.00 BID ACTUAL OLD WCA PRICING _. _ :._...__._.._ _ _2013 WCA PRICING - __.._.._ _2013 CST PRICING -_ _ ...___ .__. DESCRIPTION ,UNIT, CITY CITY PRICE ! TOTAL i T_OT_AL PRICE_; TOTAL Grid Pruning Each I4000 18,309 $39.00 $714,051.00 _PRICE $54.00 $988,686.00 $46.00_ $878,832.00 nnual Pruning Each 4700 5,471 $39.00_ $213,369.00 $140.00 $765,940.00 $48.00 $262,608.00 Service Request Pruning __.Each _ 1100 1,483 $39.00 _$57,837.00 $140.00 $207,620.00 $58.00__ $86,014_00 TOTAL TRIMMING _ _ 4 %_ 19,900 25,263 WATERING Day _ 0 0% _ _ 0.00 _ _ % 0.00 Palm Skinning Foot _ $10.00 4 0% 460.00 $12.00_ _ 096 Tree & Stump Removal _ Inch 300 418 $13.00 $107,393.00 $24.00 $198,264.00 $22.00 $181,742.00 Tree Only Removal _ Inch _ 216 $9.00 $18,216.00 $15.00 $30,360.00 _ $14.00 $28,33600 Stump Only Removal Inch Y 4 $4.00. $460.00 $15.0.0. $1,72500 $9.00, $1,03500 Inspection Report Tree NA _ _ $45.00 $0.00 Certified Arbarist inspection Hour NA _ $65.00 $0.00 COMMON VARIETY TREES .. ..- $80.00 ,$160.0 _ $360.00 $200.00 $400.00 ...- __._.. $90.00 - _ Plartt35golbnw /o root barrier Each _ 2 Plant 15 gallon w /root harrier Each _ $95.00 _ _ $110A0 _ _$180.00 $0.00 Plant24 "Sox w/o root barrier Each 21 $160.00 $3,360.00 $315.00 $6825.00 $215.00 $4,725.00 Plant24 "Box w /root barrier Each _' $195.00 $255.00 $0.00 Plant 36" Box w/o root barrier Each 155 $575.00 $89,125.00 $700.00 $108,500.00 $695.00 $107,725.00 Plant 36 " Box w /root barrier _ Each __ _. NA _ _ _ ._ $745.00 $0.00 Plant48 "Box w/o root barrier Each 18 $1,200.00 $21,600.00 $1,600.00 $28_,800.00 $1,495.00 $25,910.00 Plant 48 " Box w /root barrier Each NA' $1,545.00 $0.00 Plant 6W Box w/o root barrier _ Each _ _ _ NA _ _ $2,495.00, $0.00 Plant 60' Box w /root barrier Each NA _ - - - -_- $2,545.00 $0.00 SPECIAL VARIETY TREES Plant 15 gallon w/o root barrier _ Each $145.00 $0.00 $110.00 Plant 15 gallon w /root barrier Each $125.00 _ ___ ___ __ $165.00_ $0.00 Plant24 "Box w/o root barrier Each - -_ -- 4 $220.00 _ $8.80.00 $325.00 $430.0.0.0 $325.00 $1,300.00 Plant 24" Box w /root barrier _ Each _ _. _ $255.00 _ $355.00 $0.00 Plant 36 " Box w/o root barrier Each _ _ 10 $775.00_ $7,750.00 _ $700.00 $7,000.00 $895.00 $8,950.00 Plant 36" Box w /root barrier Each $810.00 $945.00. $0.00 Pion t48 "Bcur w/o root barrier Each 2 $1,310.00 $2,620.00 $1,600.00 $3,200.00 $1,795.00 $3,59600 Plant48 "Box w /root barrier _ Each _ _ NA $1,895.00 $0.00 Plant 60" Box w/o root barrier . Each _ NA _______. ___ _ $2,895.00 _ _ $0.00 Plant 60"Box w /root barrier _- ._._. Each NA _ _ _ $2,995.00 $0.00 TOTALPLANTING Each 500 212 GPS Tree lnventOry - Site $2.50 , $100 $0.00 Root Prune w/12" barrier Foot $7.00 _ _ Root Prune w /18" barrier _ _ Foot $14.00 _ $14.00 $0.00 Tree Injection ,Tree _ NA $39.00 $0.00 Watering Day $260.00 $295.00$0.00 _ Crew Rental (3 men) Hour 262 $95.00 $24,8911100 $150.00 $39,300.00 $180.00 $47,160.00 Emergency Crew Rental 13 men) Hour _ _ SZS $200.00 $15,000.00 $225.00 $28,125.00 $210.00 $26,250.00 SAVINGS $109,854.00 $503,332.00 $121,606.00 $734,792.00 OLD WCA PRICING 2013 WCA PRICING 2013 GSTS PRICING DESCRIPTION ___._ _r [ UNIT1� qTY . PERCENT T- _._ TOTAL ._ _. _ _.._ _ PERCENT�TOTAL . . PERCENT I .__.__ TOTAL 7REEPRUNIN6 _ Each _ 25,263 77% 985,257.00 81% 1,962,246.00 _ 74% 1,227,454.00 TREEREMOVAL Inch 634 10%_ 125609.00 9% 218,624.00 139 210,078.00 TREE PLANTING Each _ 212 10% 125,495.00 _ - 6% 156025.00 9% 153,380.00 CREW RENTAL _ Hour 387 3T,6 461,482.00 3% 67,415.00 _ _ 4 %_ _ 73,430.00 WATERING Day _ 0 0% _ _ 0.00 _ _ % 0.00 0% 0.00 OTHER Faat 4 0% 460.00 _ _0 _ _ _ 0% 1,725.00 _ 096 _ 1,035.00 GRAND TOTAL $1,693,303.00 $2,416,045.00 11 SAVINGS $109,854.00 $503,332.00 $121,606.00 $734,792.00 O 2 K W Y r i :0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0$ 8 a$ ao oaa 0 a o 0 a s 0 0 0 0 0 0'0 o 0 o a 0 a o o a 'rva oo 00 'o oo tri oo 00 d oo N�oo eS :..QO°INNNONGwI �AN�Nrp NVn NN MO NtwO 'CN n N ti N N N um1 two N A N N 4m/I '.., N � Vn __. .._. ° ° a 0OO, S w 0 u N� -INN m oi+n ° ry to o in m o m' a' tmo mev� ry mw. .. N m II °° °o °° °° °o °o °o °o °o °o °o °o °0 0o a0 ao °a °o °o °o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O OO OO OO I.Q'O NC N10 NN4lO VFNO VLNNN QIQ O n V m T 'IO ".H M N N N NI N N N N N N ✓wi N O m I ...'888o8a.._:o8088888 .N888' .88 m o m a. m m w.n0 0vt 0.n tno S w'.N N N N N IN N v1 N N N W NI 41 N N LLr6 � NNVi NNNNNN �N N fl N N w I NN J 0. C? O O m N m N b n a O O p O N O O O O O^ O O O O m 0 ''oQ,lVe I Om n m p°l v"i OI N O O T N N O O N M J0 o'o -° -oo o'` o ° o°O °o°'- o o aoo o °o o °o'.o Oti ,m M M O H Ot cc}} O O V1 O O^ O Vl 1!1 O O O. :.N � O OO w 01 N Ot N O VI n O :N M tp Ol O N I im 0 0 0 °o °o °° °° °° °o °o °o °o °a °° °a °o °0 °o °o °O °o, S d a o m mm 'o o a a vi a to a a d :n o o 8—o o o o . 0 . . ° _o0 wm u�, m of d m a d o vi o .n tri d 'I.d vi o m :.i d od r v o. i.i a �VmYNNNNVIN wmNNnO YrNiN/INN NNNN N°N 'f L L 2 L LL L L L L L L L L S L i"" O d d d d u u u u u u u u u u w anon w w w w w w Iw w" w w - v •_ - `d_ a L o n o t c o o a "o D o m o 0 0 0 0 o Z, a s c and m y m E ¢ 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Z 0 -mm °m m m i 3 3 =u` m m c c ct wIE t c c 6 0 o w d m N e 4 m s f F u 3. � m m �I-nn un mo .= lwmnnm e w N m n v N O N ON N F: I � U aI"IO r�o ° m al O, I O N M O ry b I FI a N� n b o za U T K LL n t�M r t0 INOb N C O N O N Ri r; IF IQ o\�ZR HRA M1�jO . t�,u pp try Yr ry N V a Z tUII. W W W Q F. m N e 4 m s f F u 3. Contractor must have the capacity to perform the following work, both consistently and concurrent with other required services: Annually trim as many as fourteen thousand (14,000) trees, with trees ranging typically ranging in size from three (3) Inches to more than thirty -six (36) inches in diameter, and with heights. up to ninety (90) feet. Annually trim as many as four thousand from the safety of a certified aerial t capacity in excess of ninety (90) feet. V gaffs as a substitution for equipment t height requirements. The Contractor n based on seasonal appropriateness ai City. seven hundred (4,700) palms, oom truck with boom height 'orkers are not allowed to use iat does not meet equipment ist be prepared to trim trees d the logistical needs of the Annually remove and grind the stumps of as many as three hundred (300) trees ranging in size from three (3) inches to more than thirty -six (36) inches in diameter, and with heights up to ninety (90) feet including mature trees that may require rigging, the use of cranes, loaders and other similar equipment. In addition, provide information to USA for dig alert notices prior to commencement of work. • Annually supply and plant as many as five hundred (500) trees typically ranging in size from thirty -six (36) inches box sized nursery stock and larger, and with heights up to twenty (20) feet nursery stock. • Annually supply and plant as many as fifty (50) large palms ranging in size of ten (10) foot Brown Trunk Height and larger. • Annually water and maintain as many as five hundred (500) young trees with a regularly scheduled work plan. • Complete work during regular business hours, and at night or during weekends as requested by the City, based on seasonal appropriateness and the logistical needs of the City. Contractor shall exhibit, by portfolio and references, the capacity to respond in an expedited manner to emergency tree incidents, ranging from limb failures on single trees to storm related damages affecting many trees. WORKING HOURS o Normal working hours shall be between the hours of 7:00 AM and 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday. No weekend or after -hours work is to be scheduled without prior written permission from the City, unless it is an emergency situation. Great Scott Tree Service, Inc. Page A -2 Page 1 of 2 yye Jacob Griffiths From: John Sawicki [John.Sawicki @hygenicsdata.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 8:58 PM To: Jacob Griffiths Subject: RE: NB Examples Attachments: A List of Names Jacob, We've completed our review of the emails and letter you provided and our results are interesting on a couple of different levels. We searched the email database on its own and the database of ove 250�nillion emails does not contain any of those email addresses. It should be noted that there are no databasesi at contain 100% of all the available email addresses. However, if these are or were active emails, we would have expected with a relatively high probability that we should have seen at least one of them. On a secondary search criteria, we also researched the names of the people contained in the emails. None of those inquiries indicate a name - address record in Orange County and only one name matched a potential candidate in Northern California. Additionally the research indicates tha none f the named individuals have any previous /former address history within Orange County. While no database Is 100% perfect, that would also be unexpected in legitimate correspondence. We als ally a number in the Dan Rabble letter and it is not reachable and does not show up in any data set of th 00 MilIto hone records we can access. For 4 disparate inquiries to all come up a dead end is highly improbable coincidence in our experience. To further attempt to clarify the accuracy and legitimacy of these inquiries, there is an additional method to identify these inquiries as valid. Although we recognize it may not be allowable, if we could gain access directly to the recipient(s) of the emails (meaning have one of our engineers use an online desktop sharing tool that can view the correspondence) we can check the internal routing and internal addressing information contained within the email header to determine whether or not there is a correlation to what is real or fictitious. Lastly, our engineers can also de onstrate exactly how easy it is to create a fictitious email identity and/or the relative ease associated with <$- oofin an email to make it look as though it is coming from a legitimate address. I've attached an email that one of our engineers created to send a fictitious email to us to show a "spoof' email using a seemingly legitimate email address from which it was sent. Completely invalid and yet, it looks real. We hope this helps provide some supportive back up. Z John Sawicki 949 -673 -1640 Office 949 - 310 -1110 Cell Joh n.sawlcklPhygenicsdata xom www.hygenicsdata.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e -mail message from HygenicsData, LLC is forthe sole use of the intended recipient or recipients and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, distribution, or other dissemination of this e-mail message and/or the information contained therein is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of this e -mail message, please contact the sender by reply e -mail and destroy all copies of the original message. 3/26/2014 Page 2 of 2 From: Jacob Griffiths [mailto:jgriffithst?a gstsinc.comj Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 8:41 AM To: John Sawicki Subject: NB Examples Here are two others... this totals the four negative notifications I have received to date. Thank you again for your help. Sincerely, Jacob T Griffiths CEO, Great Scott Tree Service 714.826.1750, ext. 306 Serving Southern California for over 35 years... We Know Trees! 3/26/2014 Jr f, G/ TECHNICAL MAINTENANCE SPECIFICATIONS • TREE INVENTORY o Contractor shall provide a complete update of the City's tree Inventory at no additional cost to the City and .submit the completed inventory to the City within six (6) months of the Effective Date of the Agreement. The tree inventory data shall conform to the existing tree inventory database and include but not be limited to the following data fields: o Tree Location A GPS tree inventory shall be created using a template based on our existing Tree Inventory (the City's GIS Division will provide), using the City's standardized addressing system for all parks and open space areas. The Contractor shall be required to create, and maintain an ESRI- compatible "shape file ", with all applicable attribute information for each tree populated. ■ The inventory shall be capable of showing the location of every existing tree site and vacancies on the City's existing GIS base maps (streets, parcels, addresses, ROW and hardscape, etc.), in the City's GIS coordinate system (State Plane, NAD83, US feet, 1991.35 epoch), The tree inventory shall be conducted by visiting each tree site or vacant planting site and plotting the position. See above for file requirements. The minimum accuracy shall be not more than one (1) foot. o Measurement of canopy spread As a part of the data collection process, the canopy spread will be measured using either a laser rangefinder or a Roll -a -Tape, to the nearest foot, using a pre - established uniform protocol. This data shall be included in the inventory database in a format suitable for use by the City. o Tree condition ■ General condition of individual trees; Pruning requirements (i.e., recommended pruning cycle); and ■ Condition of surrounding hardscape (i.e. displaced or recent repairs). o Incorporate root pruning information ■ This information is attached to the current Inventory and will need to be Great Scott Tree Service, Inc. Page A -13 \y�1u ppR� ��.,1 t. I wt i�l C)F()0.NrF CIO Parks and Trees Division City Street Tree 1 Schedtj 2014 " Eastbluff, CDM & Newport east Annual pruning of selected Ficus, coral and palm trees Eastbluff, CDM & Newport Coast. Eastbluff, CDM & Newport Coast. Airport & Santa Ana Heights. Annual Pruning of Selected Palms and Coral Trees. Airport & Santa Ana Heights. Annual Pruning of Selected Palms and Coral 'frees. Westcliff. Annual Pruning of Selected Palms and Coral Trees Westcliff. Annual Pruning of Selected Palms and Coral Trees NOTE: Changes in the schedule may occur due to Inclement weather or emergencies. Please call should you have any questions at (949) 044 -5055. Prepared by Municipal Operations Department Parks R. Trees Revised December 2010 Exhibit F CITY LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE TRIM CYCLE SCHEDULE 1. F icus Trees: trim trees at least once every two (2) years. 2. Palm Trees: trim all palm trees located outside of the TIC Tree Areas as follows: a. trim palm fronds once per year between June I and August 31; and b. in pruning fronds on each tree, remove fronds below 2:00 and 10:00 (do not prune fronds higher than 2:00 and 10:00). JRC11020M4OR 46993912 '3 15 I�) ---`;/ Attachment B: MOD staff's summary evaluation of GSTS since November 2013: • General Comments: Between June and October, they've pruned nearly a year's worth of trees, and in the 11 months since they took over, they've trimmed over half the trees in our inventory at a very high level. Overall we would give them a B grade, which is what we have been giving to other cities that call us. They are meeting the specifications in the contract. There is some room for improvement, but we are still in the first year. • Grid pruning — Excellent - NB commends GSTS for extended crews, production levels, & quality of pruning. Exceeds expectations for pruning. • Service requests — Excellent -very productive. Example — MargueriteAv.datepalms& Centro Strada. On time and efficient. • Removals— Average. Systematic approach critical with proposal for a start to finish planning. Systematic approach needs to include stump removal on same day or within two days. • Tree planting — Above average. Good specimens. More follow -up required to insure proper planting depth is correct & consistent watering is occurring. Some trees lost (addresses noted). • Emergencies — Excellent - quick response & conducted safely. • Public interaction —Above average. Vendor /supervisor's people skills & horticultural knowledge has served the public well & reflects professionalism for GSTS. About eight complaints have come in over the year, each with a fairly similar line of writing and event, sometimes signed by persons who are challenging to contact for follow -up. It can make staff skeptical that the complaints are credible. • Supporting staff — Excellent - quick response & a willingness to assist & improve the product, IT, invoicing, tree search. • Trimlt (the software system). Above average. Trimlt has improved dramatically. Data collection under discussion. • Safety — Average. Proper signage & loss prevention has improved dramatically, Lane closure is coming along following more recent problems on Balboa Island. GSTS needs to implement the road closure protocols consistently. Service Indicators for December 2013 through October 2014: GSTS Service Indicators Trees Trimmed Trees Removed Trees Planted December 2013 - May 2014 9,916 476 123 June 2014 - October 2104 14,726 167 114 Totals 24,642 643 23 RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA PRINTED ITEM NO. NON- AGENDA ITEM DATE: NOVE MR. 2S 2DI9 MEMO RE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH UPPER BAYVIEW AREA IRRIGATION SYTEM ISSUES Continued support from the City of Newport Beach is needed to ensure the vital Upper Newport Bay restoration projects will significantly improve the water quality of the bay, provide habitat for our rare and endangered species, and ensure the best outdoor experience for City of Newport Beach residents and visitors. Thousands of area resident volunteer hours go into these plant restoration projects and the City receives significant benefits in return. One important location of present focus is the area known as Upper Bayview native habitat area. (Exhibit "2 ") The only source of water for the Upper Bayvicw area is the City of Newport Beach via the Irvine Ranch Water District. The Cox family donates water to all the other native habitat restoration sites in the vicinity of the Bayview /Mesa restoration areas, which are physically serviceable using Cox's water lines. The Irvine Ranch Water District has been extremely supportive of the native habitat restoration efforts and has provided the City of Newport Beach flat rate water incentives in support of the restoration efforts at the Upper Bayview habitat areas. The Upper Bayview area is being restored with 1) Bush Sunflower (Encelia californica); 2) Deerweed (Lotus scoparius); 3) California Buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum); 4) California Sagebrush (Artemisia califomica); 5) Mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia); 6) Giant Wild Rye (Leymus condensates); 7) Brewer's Saltbush; (Atriplex lentiforinis ssp. breweri); 8) Arroyo Willow; (Salix lasiolepis); and 9) other native plant species. While different areas of the Upper Newport Bay are managed by different government agencies, it appears that they generally work in a cooperative manner to achieve restoration and habitat revitalization. In or around 1986, approximately 160 homes were built in the City of Newport Beach (street names in the area are Pelican Court, Shearwater Place, Egret Court, Cormorant Circle and Gannet Court). While the development took nearly eighteen acres of bay area habitat from the wildlife, remaining property was set aside as follows: 1. Approximately two acres for what is now Bayview Park (Exhibit "I ") (Owned and maintained by the City of Newport Beach) 2. A separate one -acre grassbelt on Bayview Way (Exhibit "2 ") (Owned by the County of Orange and maintained by the City of Newport Beach) 3. Approximately three acres known as the Upper Bayview area (Exhibit "2 "), an area set aside for native plants and wildlife. (Owned by the County of Orange with water systems owned and maintained by the City of Newport Beach) This Upper Bayview grassbelt area (similar to the grass belt area in Section 2 above) is beautifully maintained by the City and offers picnicking and serves as a recreational observation area. (Exhibit "I") However, the Upper Bayview area ( "Exhibit "2 ") has not been so fortunate and is in a current state of neglect and disrepair due to a lack of maintenance of its City owned and operated water systems. Without consultation, the City shut down the watering system to this highly- trafficked area. Today, much of the vegetation at the site is sparse and many areas arc completely barren. Seeing a need, the Upper Newport Bay conservancy stepped forward and obtained funding (not from the City of Newport Beach) to begin to restore the areas. A Coastal Commission exemption was obtained in late 2014 and the project has begun. Volunteers, many of whom are Newport Beach residents, are working to restore this important habitat of the Upper Bayview area. The City of Newport Beach has a complex tinier and irrigation system at the subject site which is ready to be activated in order to restore native plants in the area. As mentioned above, the Leine Ranch Water District has already provided special financial incentives to the City by ensuring that flat rate (non - tiered) water is provided, keeping the expense to the City to a minimum. Some threatened plants of the Upper Bayview habitat have already vanished and the remaining species have struggled from years of high level human and animal traffic. All that is asked is that the City instruct its contractors or maintenance crews to make any necessary repairs to the existing watering and timing system so the Bayview North area plants will have a fighting chance and allow future generations to better appreciate the area. Without these plants, the water quality of the bay is negatively affected, the marine wildlife loses habitat, and the City's residents and visitors lose a precious upper coastal zone. Exhibit "5" (Coastal Commission Rational for Approval) RATIONALE: The proposed project is to integrate several nearly complete coastal sage scrubrestoration projects Into one project and re- vegetate areas damaged by human and horse illegal trail activity. The proposed installation of a stairway path aims to protect the hillside from illegal foot traffic and guide the public onto sanctioned trails, the proposed temporary fencing will close off unauthorized foot trails and protect. restoration areas until new plantings are established. New interpretive signage does not block any significant coastallbay views and is designed to be compatible with the character of the surrounding development. ESHA surrounding the restoration sites will not be adversely impacted. The proposed project is a voluntary restoration project driven by the CA Dept. of Fish & Game and Newport Bay Conservancy with public funding, it is not mitigation to offset impacts from other development. The proposed development will not result in adverse impacts to coastal access, coastal resources, public recreation or coastal views. None of these activities conflict with the City of Newport Beach LCP or Chapter Three of the Coastal Act. Also, the proposed development will not prejudice the City's ability to prepare a Certified Local Coastal Program and is consistent with the land use designation in the City's certified Land Use Plan, past Commission actions in the area and Chapter Three policies of the Coastal Act. 7C7 D � � rn � vo Z� rn -. C #'w N j" R *-i 7 J Ai dL ,& 4, v r 44 L I 401 ir . . 4d jb , urle, I v ( [ �� \�» v+ • ' �� \• � %� ^}`¥ � £ •��f� � � ^! � .� ,�� ��` «� • � \��:� \� � »> °■ \ .. <,� \ k� Of { ; r� \!� 3 1 . � ), EA IAIAA r M1P t }}} � •�� -may' alk rE ,r ME rl I r �� op �T r r r Y �r R.. yy NOVQ�f1F3 Ere- 7T -It�NK Yo