Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-02-1993 - AgendaE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PARKS, BEACHES AND RECREATION COMMISSION • REGULAR MEETING TO BE HELD TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 1993 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. I. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call is VII. 3. Approval of Minutes - Meeting of January 5, 1993 4. Adoption of Agenda II. ACTION ITEMS 5. Encroachment Request - 2495 Ocean Blvd. (Report Attached) 6. Uses of Bonita Creek Park (Report Attached) 7. Tree Appeal - 280 Evening Canyon Road, Corona del Mar (Report Attached) III. • PUBLIC COMMENTS IV. INFORMATIONAL AND COMMITTEE REPORTS 8. Recreation Division (Report Attached) 9. Park and Street Tree Division (Report Attached) 10. Tree Committee - Commissioner Herbert§ 11. Recreation Program Committee - Commissioner Grant 12. Park and Open Space Committee - Commissioner Demmer 13. Beach Committee - Commissioner Grant 14. Budget Committee - Commissioner Glasgow 15. Oasis Liaison - Commissioner Demmer V. DISCUSSION ITEMS 16. Capital Improvement Projects VI. SPECIAL. URGENT OR LAST MINUTE ITEMS is VII. 'P • o 3 10 • Motion Ayes Motion Ayes C CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Item No. 3 arks. Beaches & Recreation Commission sd January 5, 1993 IPA o� f o City Council Chambers 7 p.m. INDEX Call to Order Roll Call Approval of Minutes Street End Plantings s Ex- Officio Member Present: Ronald A. Whitley Staff Present: Nancy Beard, Recreation Superintendent Randy Kearns, Park Maintenance Supervisor Dottie Flohr, Secretary I. PROCEDURAL MATTERS Item #1 - Call to order The meeting of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M. Item #2 - Roll Call Roll call was taken. Commissioners Compton, Demmer, Glasgow, Herberts, Schonlau and Vandervort were present. Commissioner Grant was absent. Item #3 - Approval of Minutes - Meeting of December 1, 1992 Commissioner Glasgow reported that Commissioner Grant's votes should be deleted X due to his absence. Commissioner Herberts X X X X X X motioned the minutes be approved as corrected. Unanimous. Item #4 - Adoption of Agenda X Commissioner Vandervort moved the agenda be adopted as presented with the addition of CPRS Convention to be addressed under Item VI and Landscape Improvements to be addressed under X X X X X X Item #9. Unanimous. II. ACTION ITEMS Item #5 - Street End Plantings Director Whitley reported that as a result of a letter transmitted to the Tree Maintenance Supervisor, this item is on the agenda for review of the street end plantings at "M" Street. Three more communications were just received on this matter and are also presented for information. Director Whitley explained that public right - of -ways are a complex issue and that the Public Works Department has three policies that deal with encroachments in public right - of -ways. The L -10 Policy, adopted in August of 1981, addresses street ends that terminate at either the ocean front or at Newport Bay. Call to Order Roll Call Approval of Minutes Street End Plantings CITY OF NBNPORT BEACH Parks. Beaches & Recreation Commission • o o �i �0s �o rn Page 2 o City Council Chambers 7 p.m. INDDC N Although there were many encroachments prior to the adoption of this policy, the policy does not address the "grandfather" installations. The policy was adopted to provide guidelines for future developments. As a;matter of clarification, the Public Works Department reviews the hardscape and this Department reviews the plantings at street ends. In response to a question from Chair Compton, Director Whitley explained that the shrubs and grouhdcover at the 'subject Bite are not contested. The entire landscaping is similar to many others that do not have a permit. Chair Compton opened the meeting to public hearing. Gregory Weiler, attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Connolly, addressed the Commission. Mr. Weiler reported that the issue is not the landscaping at the street end, but is the fast growing Star Pine Tree which obstructs the • Connollys' view of the ocean. Mr. Weiler also reviewed the legal aspects of the matter, stating that the landscaping violates the State Coastal Act and the City's policy inasmuch as improvements to a public right -of -way must have a permit and cannot obstruct the public's ocean or bay views. Mr. Weiler stated he is hopeful that the problem can be resolved informally without involving the surrounding neighbors. However, if no agreement can be reached, request is made to enforce the policy and remove the tree. . r Mr. Leonard Connolly, 2061 Ocean Blvd., addressed the Commission. Mr. Connolly reported he bought his house five years ago and the subject tree was not planted at this location at that time. Their living room is upstairs and the tree is 16 -18' high which obstructs their view. In response to a question from Commissioner Herberts concerning an alternate solution, Mr. Weiler responded that they would be agreeable to meeting with staff and neighbors to find a site for the tree that would not offend anyone. Mr. Charles Unsworth, 2100 E. Ocean Front, • addressed the Commission. Referring to the L- 10 Policy, Mr. Unsworth reported the policy states that improvements must not eliminate views and the subject tree, which has not yet reached maturity, does not eliminate views. i He recommended the tree be retained and that CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Parks. Beaches & Recreation Commission • �0 9��h°s �h6� ~��0����� Page COUncil Chambers 7 p.m. INDEX City the Connollys and Mrs. Lindsay meet after the Connollys have constructed their new house to determine if there is view obstruction. Mr. Unsworth pointed out that the subject tree has a lot of "see through" space and that the Lindsay landscaping is one of the finest on the Peninsula. He further stated his concern over,the neighbors being in dispute and felt the matter should not have had to be addressed at this level. Annette Lindsay, 2060 E. Ocean Front, addressed the Commission and presented pictures of the area in addition to two more letters from her neighbors requesting the tree be retained. Mrs. Lindsay reported they build their house 16 years ago and were given permission to landscape. The subject tree has been in her garden for many years and is now located at the lowest part of her lot. She felt the tree does not cause a view impact from the Connollys' living room at this time,.however, • she would be agreeable to discuss the issue when and if the tree actually becomes a problem. Commissioner Glasgow inquired if Mrs. Lindsay would agree to the tree being removed if it grows to block the Connollys' view. Mrs. Lindsay stated that she would consult with the Public Works Department to retain her tree since there are 10 -15 trees that block many other homes nearby. Mrs. Lindsay stated she has spent a great deal of effort to beautify the area and she feels very strongly that.if she is required to remove her tree, then everyone in the same situation should remove theirs. Mr. Gregory Weiler addressed the Commission and stated that the tree is an illegal improvement by City Policy and the Coastal Act and requested it be removed. Commissioner Herberts reported she visited the Connolly home and presented two pictures from their living room showing no view obstruction. Mr. Paul Hodges, 1549 E. Ocean Blvd., addressed the Commission and reported one of the Connollyd' considerations in buying their property was to build a home on a lot with an ocean view. Elaine Linhoff, 1760 E. Ocean Blvd., addressed the Commission. She reported that the tree might obstruct a little, however, she felt it enhances, rather than detracts from the area. i She pointed out the power pole at the corner CITY OF 'NEWPORT BEACH Parks. Beaches & Recreation Commission s d� • �0 0��h°' m��o�c�oX P Citv Council Chambers 7 p.m. INDEX of the Connollys' lot is unsightly and obstructs their view more than the tree. John Mitchell, 1755 E. Ocean Blvd., addressed the Commission and referred to the six large trees and two smaller ones leading to the beach which were City approved. He felt they added to the beauty of the area. He also pointed out that 90% of a tree is air and that the whole matter should be reconsidered when the tree does obstruct views. There being no further public testimony, Chair Compton closed the meeting to public hearing. Commissioner schonlau asked for clarification of the L -10 Policy as it relates to preserving private vs. public views. Director Whitley reported the policy is up to interpretation, however, both the policy and Coastal Act address public application. He further pointed out that the City does not trim for private views. • Commissioner Glasgow noted that the City would not plant the same type of tree if there were a permit issued and that, since the tree will eventually grow to be problem, he recommended- it be dealt with now. Commissioner Demmer acknowledged that trees and the encroachment policy are very important to the City and it is clear to her that, by policy, the tree should be removed. Commissioner Vandervort stated she felt the tree should be removed now since it is fast growing, will cause additional view obstruction, and the roots would be less damaging to surrounding vegetation if removed now. Commissioner Herberts stated she favored retaining the tree since it does not cause a view impact at this time and because the Commission approved extensive tree plantings at L Street street end on public property. Commissioner Schonlau pointed out public views should be considered and that, by policy, this tree currently impedes a view for a pedestrian, bicyclist, and automobile from the street level. In addition, although he has great admiration for Mrs. Lindsay's • landscaping, the tree will become more view invasive in future years. Motion X Commissioner schonlau moved to remove the Star Ayes X X X X X Pine Tree. Motion passes. Nay i X CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Parks. Beaches & Recreation Commission Page 5 • 3`0. a�h�d e- � - ` City Council Chambers 7 p.m. INDEX Chair Compton advised Mrs. Lindsay that she can appeal the Commission's decision to the City Council and would hope that the removal of one tree would not affect her landscaping. Item1#6 - Craft Fair Evaluation Craft Fair Evaluation Director Whitley reported that a letter addressed to the Commission was received complaining about the Craft Fair in November with respect to promotion and parking. Mr. Whitley then presented the newspaper ads which advertised the program, which was also advertised in the water bills. He explained that the poor economy this year most likely affected the vendors' sales. In response to a question from Commissioner Glasgow, Nancy Beard advised that publicity was increased this year and will be increased again next year. In response to a question from Chair Compton, Nancy Beard explained that the soccer game at • the field site has, in the past,- enhanced attendance. The Fair was moved from Mariners Park to the Lincoln facility to accommodate additional parking needs. In response to a question from Commissioner Vandervort, Nancy Beard explained that the Fair attracted a few hundred people. She acknowledged that the figure for staff costs in the report are too high and will be corrected. Commissioner Schonlau inquired about the parking problem complaint and Director Whitley reported that on Saturday the crafters had to hand transport their wares some distance, which was a major complaint. Therefore, on Sunday the Recreation Supervisor allowed the vendors to unload'their crafts at the site and park elsewhere. Commissioner Glasgow recommended a "wrap up" meeting be held to evaluate and make recommendations for the following year. Commissioner Schonlau concurred, suggesting the vendors be a part of the planning and decision making process. Nancy Beard explained that evaluations are sent to each vendor following the Fair and that, since the vendors are not an organized • group and often change, this idea might be difficult to implement. Commissioner Demmer pointed out that the pony rides are very successful and suggested these be promoted on the advertisements. Nancy Beard agreed and'staff will implement. Motion Ayes Motion Ayes • • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Parks, Beaches & 0 did dp 6�O.s 7j o Recreation Commission Page 6 City Council Chambers 7 p.m c� Facility Rental Fees Recreation Division Park and Street Tree Division X Commissioner Vandervort moved to accept the report as presented and assume the evaluations X X X X X X will solve the problems next year. Unanimous. Item #7 - Facility Rental Fees I Director Whitley reported a fee analysis has been conducted for City facility rentals which shows a lower fee for certain groups. Policy I -5 clearly states what the Department can charge, therefore, these lower fees do violate the policy. Either fees must be adjusted upwards for these users or the policy must be changed to reflect the lower rates. The proposed fee increases as presented in the report are in accord with the policy. Following a brief discussion, Commissioner X Demmer moved this matter be referred to the X X X X X X Budget Committee for a recommendation to the Commission. Unanimous. III., PUBLIC COMMENTS IV. INFORMATIONAL AND COMMITTEE REPORTS Item #8 - Recreation Division Commissioner Demmer asked when Winter Wonderland will be held on this side of `the Bay and Nancy Beard explained that next year it will be held at Mariners Park. Until we are able to underwrite two events, the sites will alternate each year to accommodate both sides of the Bay. Item #9 - Park and Street Tree Division In response to a question from Commissioner Glasgow concerning the plastic volleyball pole at 34th Street, Nancy Beard explained they are still at this location but were adjusted. In response to a question from Commissioner Glasgow, Nancy Beard advised the Department does accept donated boats based upon staff's evaluation and decision. Commissioner Herberts pointed out the Tree Division had a good month wherein they planted 25 trees and removed only 6. Commissioner Demmer stated she liked the 8 trees planted at 15th Street Park but pointed out 2 are dying. Director Whitley acknowledged staff is aware of the problem. Commissioner Demmer questioned when a park sign will be installed at 15th Street Park and Nancy Beard explained this is done on a priority basis. Randy Kearns stated he will pursue and obtain an estimated date from the c� Facility Rental Fees Recreation Division Park and Street Tree Division CITY 4F NEWPORT BEACH Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission d • 3�0 ���h� P e- r X Citv Council Chambers 7 p.m. INDEX General Services Department. Chair Compton questioned why the Commission has not seen the plans for the West Newport entry area, and Director Whitley explained the Commission reviewed the conceptual plans. Chair Compton requested that not all the trees be Palma at the entry area, and Randy Kearns advised that, although most will be Palms, some will be Corals. Commissioner Schonlau requested Kentia Palms be planted, rather than the Oashingtonias. Director Whitley reported that Public Works bid the contract and upon completion this Department will review the site. In response to a question from Commissioner Demmer concerning the landscaping plans at Cliff Drive Park, Randy Kearns explained they were supposed to be available on December 8, however, they were received on December 23. They are now under review for corrections. • The final corrected plan will be -available shortly. This project will then be put out for bid. Commissioner Demmer reported it was her understanding that Hoag Hospital dedicated $200,d00 for improvements and questioned if this can be used towards landscaping the corners under the bridge at PCH and Newport Boulevard. Director Whitley advised this is a Cal Trans project and that Public Works has proposed the landscaping for next fiscal year as a capital improvement. Meanwhile, he will contact Public Works and submit a status report on this project. Item #10 - Tree Committee Tree Committee Commissioner Herberts reported the committee met and discussed five trees, three of which will be removed. Commissioner Herberts also reported she and Randy Kearns will present a report on the value and worth of mature trees at the Commission',s February meeting. Item #11 - Recreation Program Committee Recreation Program Commissioner Glasgow inquired about the status Committee • of the postponed item concerning Bonita Creek Park Usage. Director Whitley advised this will be agendized at the Commission's February meeting so that a recommendation can be transmitted to the City Council. 9 • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Parks'. Beach ti � a�a IVA l N es & Recreation Commission City Council Chambers 7 p.m. maw - Park and Open Space Committee Beach Committee Budget Committee Oasis Liaison Capital Improvement Projects Maintenance Reporting Form Item #12 - Park and Open Space Committee No report from Commissioner Demmer. Item• #13 - Beach Committee I No report. Item. #14 - Budget Committee Director Whitley reported all Department Heads will ' be attending a series of meetings with the City Manager this week concerning budgets, the fiscal situation, etc. Commissioner Glasgow reported the committee will meet following direction from staff on the status of the budget. Item. #15 - oasis Liaison Chair Compton reported upon the success of the holiday party with staff at Oasis and suggested a mid -year party be considered with the other Commissions and Boards. . Director Whitley will pursue. Commissioner Vandervort inquired about the status of a joint meeting with the City. of Costa Mesa's Commission. Director Whitley will pursue. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS Item #16 - Capital Improvement Protects No discussion. Item #17 - Maintenance Reporting Form Director Whitley referred to the letter provided in the agenda packet from Gary Lovell concerning "facilities reporting." Commissioner Glasgow recommended a letter be transmitted thanking him for his efforts and informing him that the Commission continues to evaluate parks and facilities. Commissioner Demmer suggested Mr. Lovell's reporting form be used as a supplementary one and submitted to other Departments for their input. Director Whitley stated he will discuss this idea with the City Manager and the Planning Department. Commissioner Herberts reported there are repairs needed to the telephone that was pulled from West Jetty View Park. maw - Park and Open Space Committee Beach Committee Budget Committee Oasis Liaison Capital Improvement Projects Maintenance Reporting Form CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Parks. Beaches & Recreation Commission Page 9 ti � a� • ��0_���0��� ��6�`��ol�A` ^� City Council Chambers 7 p.m. INDEX VI. SPECIAL, URGENT OR LAST MINUTE ITEMS , Director Whitley reported the CPRS Convention in San Francisco will be held in March. In past years the budget provided for the Chair or Vice Chair to attend, however, these funds were cut from this year's budget. Commissioners, however, are invited to attend at their own expense. Commissioner Vandervort invited the Commission to attend the Mayor's Dinner at Speak Up Newport on February 5 at the Marriott Hotel. VII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission meeting adjourned at 9:30 P.M. The ,agenda for this meeting was posted on December 28, 1992 at 11:30 A.M. outside the City Hall Administration Building. Dottie Flohr, Secretary V • 0 Item No. 5 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department DATE: January 25, 1993 TO: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission FROM: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Director SUBJECT: ENCROACHMENT REQUEST 2495 OCEAN BLVD. RECOMMENDATION• Approve the encroachment request and allow the existing landscape, including trees, to remain; or Deny the request and direct staff to remove the trees from the public right of way. BACKGROUND: Landscaping, primarily Queen Palms, installed in the public right of way at 2495 Ocean Blvd received several phone call complaints from neighbors in the area. As a result of these complaints and subsequent review determining that no authorization had been authorized, the attached letter was transmitted to Mr. and Mrs. John McIntosh requesting removal as compliance with City Council Policy L -6. The response, dated January 21, 1993, is a request to have the Commission review this matter and authorize the encroachment as installed to be permitted. A visit to the site, located at the far west end of Ocean Blvd., is encouraged to enable the Commission to make a decision on this matter. And, if there are any questions, please feel free to call. Ronald A. VhitleYA C CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PARKS, BEACHES AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659 -1768 (714)644 -3151 January 18, 1993 Mr. and Mrs. John McIntosh 2495 Ocean Blvd. Corona del Mar, CA. 92625 Dear Mr. and Mrs. McIntosh: After visiting your driveway approach and landscaping of the public right of way, a careful review has been done by several Departments in the City. Our review finds that no public permits were obtained for the planting. In addition, City Council Policy L -6 provides specifics on how encroachments are to be permitted. A copy of this policy, highlighted with appropriate sections, is enclosed for your information. As there have been a number of complaints regarding this installation, we are required to request you to remove the Palm • Trees, five (5) in number, from the public right of way. You are given 3'0 days from the transmitting of this notice to remove the offending plant material. If this matter is not done by this time, City crews will perform the removal and you will be billed accordingly. If there are any questions regarding this procedure, please feel free to call me at 644 -3157. Cordially, Ronald A. Whitley Director cc: City Council Member Sansone City Manager • I, 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD, NEWPORT BEACH 44 1, 1r11�i -T 4 Af, I rI rJ r, v 9 � 4. �,LV pCEAN N� Z I =1 WI •f' o °F) Q � D E1 6 {1 A 00 ..- t9 V N n g A r•.: 1 9 � 4. �,LV pCEAN N� Z I =1 WI •f' �\`, �/� i � ' f I �0. .L�+ .•' .. r; 60.22 � '�6i 0' +1i ��`� 'I�'�•s° Ix1:11 il'�` � ��3.;' y Owe \ o \ y 1\ I�` i o , , I I i� j Y11 •' p• '�� NJ � Wj • \ \ `%%%111 � \ �1 I I 'Z ' '' .I�► �O° \ o arc Rn o °F) 1PS 00 ..- p�Q 1 \ ,`• � , rd. . bS` a � sg's • ` �• � 6� �N/ o SV9 ul S • 002 �/ w{ Nr �\`, �/� i � ' f I �0. .L�+ .•' .. r; 60.22 � '�6i 0' +1i ��`� 'I�'�•s° Ix1:11 il'�` � ��3.;' y Owe \ o \ y 1\ I�` i o , , I I i� j Y11 •' p• '�� NJ � Wj • \ \ `%%%111 � \ �1 I I 'Z ' '' .I�► �O° \ o arc Rn •rx ' John R. McIntosh, 1 2495 Ocean Blvd. • Corona del Mar, CA 92625 N.S.G.S. �cvnuaat,�o2 /, i993 -kyw. . ,J.,lu... �ir�,ka�, ,c3,c,a•� a�x.d� /'lu,e�atcr�u �nua.2�.:ax� Wi, arc, lu44 n- d-t- -A� ttA -;t�cJ o Y -61, 41 �� . J �1 -cam • is te- i�- �a�t -C, ,�� u� a �n+..��u� ,�u�e ait�sL• �c.-r- t,�yr;� z`.o- ,c�x�ev1.R- �2a,�t.� /rn�a2R... �l�i- c.t..�k�E.. tQ44 , 1100a,l 1a.11 -P-L, ..et c. a c k �J At a'u, f a. �Lc.u�e --, ...mac- �e�,c,c -�-� ��` -�.. �t�m.r�, ea�at�,�1�- ca�►�,,C --. A o-� John R. McIntosh • �' 0' 2495 Ocean Blvd. • Corona del Mar, CA 92B25 N.S.G.S. r, �,,Y►� a-k-) 0 r Sc N Q D b 11 Item No. 6 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department DATE: January 25, 1993 TO: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission FROM: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Director SUBJECT: USES OF BONITA CREEK PARK After receiving input through the public hearing process, recommend to the City Council: That the current level of use at Bonita Creek Park remain the same, or; The use of Bonita Creek Park be reduced to eliminate user groups that create noise, parking problems, etc. • DISCUSSION• This issue is one that surfaces from time to time and is mainly due to the noise and volume of park visitors associated with the Jr. All American Football program. Staff is in a sensitive position on this matter in that we embrace the philosophy of the football program as a wholesome program that significantly enhances the development of the youth of our community. On the other hand, we respect the rights of property owners to have a peaceful situation, especially those in close proximity to the park, and would hope that we can be good neighbors. All efforts to mitigate the problems identified by hours of operation, reduced noise makers, parking control and physical improvement to the facility have not provided sufficient results to solve the problem. At the request of the Association in a letter dated June 24, 1992, the Commission was scheduled to provide direction on this matter at your August meeting. As a result of being notified on July 31, 1992 by the Association that they would prefer to delay this item until your October meeting has resulted in the matter being on your agenda this evening. Attached to this report are reports prepared in the past on this matter that will provide background on this long standing issue. Since summer, when this issue was brought up, the Recreation • Program Committee met in the community room at Bonita Creek Park with local residents and user groups to attempt to identify the problems and assist in helping the Commission to reach a decision. Minutes of that meeting are attached for information.. And, finally, a letter received from a Newport North resident in support of programs at Bonita Creek Park is attached for information purposes. This item was continued on two separate occasions at the request of the homeowners association. Communications and studies received in the interim period are attached for the Commission's review. Hopefully, the matter can be determined by the Commission and a recommendation can be transmitted to the City Council on this matter. 0 0 �� NEWPORT HOMEOWNERS ASSUCIA IUP4 0 • June 24, 1992 City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: BONITA CREEK PARK ,Dear City Council: r` a cln .. NEWPOClr. RT 6cun I ilc�li u'�I�Ta Vmctlmen .anager ❑ Attorney 91.di. OIL C3 uzns, -ry Dir. 0 k'`3 8 R O(r. n planningg Oir 0 ?()lice Chiet Li (Aher The purpose of this letter is to express our strong support behind the efforts of many of the residents of Newport North Villas Single Family Home Development to change the use of Bonita Creek Park from a regional athletic facility to a community -use park. Our residents want to know "Where is our Park ?" The land and money used to create Bonita Creek Park were obtained by the City through the Park Dedication Ordinance (copy attached) which specifically requires, in both letter and spirit, that any park created by this mechanism be for the benefit of the residents of the Subdivision. On average, the cost of each residential unit of the North Ford communities, which includes all of Belcourt, Bay Ridge, Newport North Villas, Townhomes,, and Apartments (and 400 future apartments along Sand Creek South) included approximately $6,000* to create and develop this Park. No other citizens of Newport Beach contributed funds for this Park, yet virtually 1008 of the activity is imported from other areas, of the City and beyond. We recently conducted a written poll of our residents and better than 508 response we received is truly surprising compared to the interest we see on other issues. We found that the facilities at Bonita Creek Park do not reflect the needs or desires of our residents. Passive sitting areas, a walking /jogging track, picnic areas, walking and stroller paths, bicycle paths, par exercise course, dog runs, tennis courts, and such are the amenities which we prefer and those preferences should be considered. The issue has come to the forefront mainly because the activities held at this Park are almost exclusively organized leagues for softball, football, and soccer which generate noise and traffic and create a continued annoyance to the immediate neighborhood. While we support athletic activities for all ages, the playing fields at Bonita Creek Park are too near the adjacent residences and all traffic to /from the Park is carried on residential streets rather than major roadways. 'This type of active facility, which has generated over 2,000 spectators and participants throughout an afternoon or evening should not be so near a residential area. • �. BONITA CREEK PARK JUNE 24, 1992 PAGE TWO • 0 We feel it unfair that the adjacent residents bore the cost of the park but derive little or no benefits from its intended use. We recommend that you commission a survey North Ford Communities to determine what and then come closer to satisfying the des who footed the it for the park. Sincerely, i THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS of the residents of the facilities are desired ires of those residents NEWPORT NORTH VILLAS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION * 12.4 acres x 700,000 $ /acre + $1,500y000 improvement cost - 1705 residential units = $5,970 /unit. Attachments: (1) Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 19.50 - Park Dedication (2) Sample Survey Form cc: City of Newport Beach - Homeowners Association: 1�� Ll Parks, Beaches & Recreation Newport North Townhomes Belcourt Custom Belcourt Town Belcourt Gallery Belcourt Manor Belcourt Hill Belcourt Terrace Bayriage Newport North Apartments (Manager) 0 • �EVVPO CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ? PARKS, BEACHES AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT e.e P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659.1768 (714)644.3151 July 27, 1992 I c M�. Robert T. Mr. Robert M. Newport North Gentlemen: Jones Bosemer Villas Homeowners Association The City Manager has asked me to respond to your letter to the City Council regarding current uses of Bonita Creek Park. Please be advised that I have referred your letter to:the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for review and action: The Commission meets on August 4, 1992 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard. You are encouraged to attend this meeting to provide your input to the Commission on this issue. As you know, this has been an issue that we have struggled with the past few years, and our ability to provide a public facility to serve the needs of Newport Beach and respect the homeowners requires a delicate balance that is difficult to obtain. Staff would be pleased to work with local homeowner associations to provide improvements to the park that reflect your needs and will implement use controls that mitigate unreasonable impact to your community. If there are questions, please feel free to call me at 644 -3151. Cordially, R'i� Ronald A. Whitley Director 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD, NEWPORT BEACH • • 19.50.010- 19.50.040 SUBDIVISIONS Sections: 19.50.010 19.50.020 19.50.030 19.50.040 19.50.050 19.50.060 19.50.070 19..50.080 19.50.090 19.50.100 19.50.110 19.50.120 Chapter 19.50 PARK DEDICATION Purpose. Requirements. General Standard. Standards and Formula for Dedication of Land. Formula for Fees in Lieu of Land Dedication. Criteria for Requiring Both Dedication and Fee. Amount of Fee in Lieu of Land Dedication. Determination of Land or Fee. Credit for Private Open Space. Procedure. .. Commencement of Development. Commercial or Industrial Developments. 19.50.010 Purpose. This ordinance is intended to authorize the City to require the dedication of land, the payment of fees in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, to allow for the development of neighborhood and community parks and recreational facilities, all in accordance with the rec- reational element of the General Plan of the City of Newport Beach. (Ord. 83 -22 § 1 (part), 1983: Initiative Ord. 1733 § 1 (part), 1977). 19.50.020 Requirements. As a condition of approval of a tentative Sub- division Map or a Parcel Map, the subdivider shall dedicate land, pay a fee in lieu thereof, or both, at the option of the City, for the purpose of developing new, or rehabilitatin existm , nei hborhood and community parks and recreational facilities, to serve the subdivision, at the time and according to the standards and fo atned in t is ordinance. (Ord. 83 -22 § 1 (part), 1983: Initiative Ord. 1733 § 1 (part), 1977). 19.50.030 General Standard. It is hereby found and determined that the public interest, convenience, health, welfare and safety require that the dedi- cation of land, or payment of fees, or both, shall not exceed a proportionate amount necessary to provide three acres of park per 1,000 persons residing within a subdivision subject to this section, unless the amount of existing neighborhood and community park area, as shown on the records, maps and reports of the City as of the date of the most recent available Federal census, exceeds three acres per 1,000 persons and, in that event, the City may require dedication in proportion to the higher standard but, in no event, shall the dedication standard exceed five acres per 1,000 persons. (Ord. 83 -22 § 1 (part), 1983: Initiative Ord. 1733 § 1 (part), 1977). 19.50.040 Standards and Formula for Dedication of Land. Where a park or recreational facility has been designated in the recreational element of the "�/' \J/ ( Newport ^n/ Beach 8.83) 400 PARK DEDICATION 19.50.050 General Plan and is to be located in whole or in art within the pro posed subdivision o serve the immediate and future needs of the residents of the sub rvtsion the subdivider shall dedicate an or a park. The amount of land to a dedicated shall be determined as follows: (a) The City shall determine the number of dwelling units per gross acre to be constructed. The City shall determine the average number of per- sons per dwelling unit. and this computation shall be based upon the average household size for the dwelling units to be constructed, as disclosed by the most recent available Federal or State census, unless there is substantial evi- dence to support a finding by the City that a different household size is appropriate for some, or all, of the dwelling units proposed to be con- structed; (b) The City shall calculate the actual acreage of existing neighborhood and - community parks, as shown on the records, maps and reports of the City as of the date of the most recent available Federal census and, using the number of persons residing In the City as of that date, determine whether the park area exceeds three acres per 1,000 persons. If, according to that cal- culation, the park area is equal to, or less than, three acres per 1,000 persons, then the dedication of land shall not exceed the amount necessary to provide three acres of park per 1,000 persons residing within the subdivision under consideration. If the park area is in excess of three acres per 1,000, the City may require a dedication in proportion to the higher standard but, in no event, shall the dedication requirements exceed five acres per 1,000 persons; (c) The acreage per dwelling unit to be dedicated shall be computed by multiplying the average number of persons per dwelling unit by the acres of park area per 1,000 persons, as determined in Subsection (b), and dividing that number by 1,000. (Ord. 83' -22 § I (part), 1983: Initiative Ord. 1733 § 1 (part), 1977). 19.50.050 Formula for Fees in Lieu of Land Dedication. (a) General Formula. If there is no park or recreational facility designated in the recrea- tional element of the General Plan to be located, in whole or in art, within the proposed subdivision, to serve the immediate and future needs of rest dents of the subdivisions or if the propose su ivision contarns 3 pane s or •less, the subdivider shall, in lieu of dedication of land, pay a fee equal to the value of the amount of land prescribed for dedication pursuant to Sec- tion 19.50.040; the amount to be determined in accordance with the provi- sions of Section 19.50.070. (b) Use of Money. The money collected hereunder shall be used only for the purpose of develo2ing new, or, rehabilitating existin park or recrea tional facilities reasonably related to serving the subdivision, either by way of the- purchase of an as necessary -tor park purposes or, it t e City Council determines that there is sufficient land available, for the improvement of such land for park and recreational purposes. Any fees collected pursuant to this ordinance shall be committed within five years after the payment of such fees, or the issuance of building permits on one -half of the lots created 400-1 (Newport Beach 8.83) • 19.50.060- 19.50.080 SUBDIVISIONS' by the subdivision, whichever occurs later. if such fees are not committed. they shall be distributed and paid to the record owners of the subdivision in the same proportion that the size of their lot bears to the total area of all lots within the subdivision. (c) The interest earned on the accumulated in -lieu fees may be used for the maintenance of any existing park or recreational facilities. (Ord. 83 -22 § I (part), 1983: Initiative Ord. 1733 § 1 (part), 1977). 19.50.060 Criteria for Requiring Both Dedication and Fee. In subdivi- sions of more than 50 parcels, the subdivider shall both dedicate land and pay a fee in lieu thereof, in accordance with the following formula: (a) When only a portion of the land to be subdivided is proposed in the recreational element of the General Plan as a site for a park, such portion for and a fee, computed pursuant to the shall be dedicated park purposes provisions of Section 19.50.070, shall be paid for the additional land that would have been required to be dedicated pursuant to Section 19.50.040: (b) When a major part of the park or recreational site has already been acquired by the City, and only a small portion of land is needed from the subdivision to complete the site, such remaining portion shall be dedicated and a fee shall be paid in an amount equal to the value of the land com- puted pursuant to the provisions of Section 19.50.070, which otherwise to be dedicated pursuant to Section 19.50.040; would have been required such fee to be used for the improvement of the existing park and recrea- • tional facilit or for ovement of other local parks and recreational �heim facilities in the area she subdivision is Section shall be committed. Th e un s cpursuant o t and used, in accordance with, the provisions of Section 19.50.050 (b) and (c). (Ord. 83 -22 § 1 (part), 1983: Pnitiative Ord. 1733 § 1 (part), 1977). 19.50.070 Amount of Fee in Lieu of Land Dedication. Where a fee is required to be paid in lieu of land dedication, such fee shall be computed by multiplying the acreage of land which would otherwise have been required to be dedicated pursuant to Section 19.50.040, times the median fair market value per acre, calculated on the basis of'the highest and best use, of the land in all neighborhood public parks within the City. The market value of such land shall be adjusted periodically to reflect changes in property values. (Ord. 83 -22 § 1 (part), 1983: Initiative Ord. 1733 § 1 (part), 1977). 19.50.080 Determination; of Land or Fee. Whether the Planning Com- mission accepts the land dedication or elects to require payment of a fee in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, shall be determined by consideration of the following: (a) Usability and Feasibility. Generally, land shall be flat. (b) Access. Direct frontage on at least one side and not more than three feet above or below street level. (Newport Beach 8.83) 400 -2 s :7 PARK (DEDICATION 19.50.090- 19.50.120 (c) Shape of Land. Suitable for park development. (d) Size. Not less than two acres, unless a portion of a park designated in the General Plan. (e) Improvements. 'Shall meet standards of the City and be of a permanent nature. (f) General Plan. All considerations shall be in accordance with the rec. reational element of the General Plan. (Ord. 83.22 § 1 (part), 1983: Initia- tive Ord. 1733 § 1 (part), 1977). 19.50.090 Credit for Private Open Space. (a) Planned developments and real estate developments, as defined in Sections 11003 and 110011. respectively, of the Business and Professions Code, shall be eligible to receive a credit, as determined by the City Council, against the amount of land re- quired to be dedicated,, or the amount of the fee imposed pursuant to this Chapter, for the value of private open space within the development which is usable for active recreational purposes. (b) If the subdivider provides park and recreational improvements to the dedicated land, the value of the improvements, together with any equip- ment located thereon, shall be a credit against the payment of fees, or dedi- cation of land, required by this Chapter. (c) Except as otherwise provided herein, no credit shall be given for private open space in any development. (Ord. 83.22 § 1 (part), 1983: Initiative Ord. 1733 § I (part), 1977). 19.50:100 Procedure. At the time of approval of the tentative subdivi- sion map or parcel map, City shall determine the land to -be dedicated, and /or fees to be paid by the subdivider. At the time of the filing of the final subdivision map, the subdivider Council. (Ord. 83 22 § 1 (part), 983: Initiative iative Ord l t 1 733 § 1 (pa t),h1977j 19.30.110 Commencement of Development. At the time of approval of the tentative subdivision map, the City Council shall specify when the de- velopment of the park or recreational facilities shall be commenced, giving highest priority to neighborhood parks. (Ord. 83 -22 § 1 (part), 1983: Initiative Ord. 1733 § 1 (part), 1977). 19.50.120 Commercial or Industrial Developments. (a) The provisions of this Chapter do not apply to commercial or industrial subdivisions, nor do they apply to condominium projects or stock cooperatives which con- sist of the subdivision of air space in an existing apartment building which is more than five years old if no new dwelling units are added. (b) Subdivisions containing less than five parcels and not used for residential purposes shall be exempted from the requirements of this Chapter, provided,. however, that a condition may be placed on the approval ( 400 -3 (Newport Beach 8.83) • • 19.50.130 SUBDIVISIONS t of such parcel map, that if a building permit is requested for the construc- tion of a residential structure, or structures, on one or more of the parcels. such parcel years condt fee on to the required issuance a to he permit. (Ord. owner 83 22 §c 1 (part), 1983: Initiative Ord. 1733 § 1 (part), 1977). 19.50.130 Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, phrase, or portion of this-ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitu- tional, by decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall 2 §lI (part),1983Initiative Ord. 1t733g§ portion 1 (part), of this (Ord'. (Newport Beach 6.63) 400.4' • PLEASE JUST FILL OUT AND RETURN WITH YOUR PAYMENT• SURVEY FOR HOMEOWNERS OF NEWPORT NORTH VILLAS DID YOU REALIZE THAT BONITA CREEK PARK WAS CREATED UNDER A CITY ORDINANCE WHICH REQUIRED THAT: 1, THE COST OF THE LAND (12 ACRES) AND THE CONSTRUCTION Q TS (S1.5 410 BE PAID FOR BY -YOU IN THE COST OF YOUR HOME(APPROX S5 'J� PER UNIT) 2. THE PARK MUST SERVE "THE•IMMFDIATE AND FUTURE NEEDS OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE SUBDIVISION'. THE FACILITIES AT BONITA CREEK PARK DO NOT REFLECT THE NEEDS OR DESIRES OF OUR RESIDENTS; WHICH OF THE ITEMS BELOW .WOULD YOU-LIKE TO SEE AT THE PAP.K FOR DAY AND /OR NIGHT USE. INCLUDE ANY OTHERS WHICH ARE NOT LISTED. •WALK/STROLLER PATHS _ DOG RUN YOUTH ACTIVITY CNTR _ BICYCLE PATHS. _ WALK JNG /JOGGING JRACK - CITIZEy GARpEN PLOTS _ PICNIC AREAS PAR' EXERCISE COURSE OTHER (LIST) BBQ AREAS _ PASSIVE SITTING AREAS _ 0 1�y • If you have any questions, or if we can be of further assistance, please don't hesitate to call. Sincerely, MESTRE OREVE ASSOCIATES Theodore Lindberg Staff Engineer b l The noise measurements were taken at two locations (refer to Exhibit 1). Position 1 was west of • the playing field on the northwest corner of La Vida and La Salud, adjacent to residential units; and Position 2 was south of La Salud on the front lawn of the apartments which face the playing field. Measurements were taken at Position 1 from 11:45 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.. Exhibit 2 shows a graph of the noise levels measured at this location between 12:19 p.m. and 12:29 p.m.. Measurements were taken at Position 2 from 12:45 p.m. to 14:15 p.m.. Exhibit 3 shows a graph of the noise levels measured at this location between 13:15 p.m. and 13:25 p.m.. The levels shown on the exhibits are typical of those measured at the respective locations. They give a comparison of the noise level generated by a passing vehicle or aircraft with the noise level generated by a whistle. The source of each of the significant events is labeled on the exhibit as well as the events generated by the whistles. RESULTS At Position 1, there were seven (7) whistle events identifiable during the measurement period represented on Exhibit 2 which were not completely masked by other noises sources. The ambient noise level during the measurement period shown on the exhibit was 46 dBA. Cars passing the measurement site produced maximum noise levels ranging from 63 to 69 dBA. The whistles generated maximum noise levels ranging from 53.5-dBA to 63 dBA. The equivalent noise levels (LEQ) for each of the whistle events ranged from 50.2 dBA to 59.8 dBA, while the average LEQ for all seven events was calculated to be 55.0 dB. The average noise level for the complete measurement period between 12:19 and 12:29 was 59.8 dBA. The average noise level for the same period minus the seven whistle events was 59.6 dBA. This means the noise level generated by the whistles averaged about 46 dBA over the entire measurement period. . From this location, the average noise level for the whistles was 55 dB. In order to exceed the 55 dBA noise ordinance at this noise level, the whistles would have to be blown for 30 minutes out of an hour, or fifty percent of the time. According to the measurement data, the whistles were actually blown about 15 percent of the time. Spectral information on the whistle shows that the majority of the energy is centered around the 3,150 Hz one -third octave band. If the sound were to be considered as a pure tone and a 5 dB penalty was assessed to the noise, the average noise level would still not exceed the noise ordinance. Note: the measurements were taken outside of the 6' wall. If the measurements had been taken in the yard behind the wall, the level probably would have been 5 dB lower. This wall does not shield the second floor from noise on the playing field. At Position 2, there were ten (10) whistle events identifiable during this time period represented on Exhibit 3 which were not completely masked by other noises sources. The ambient noise level during the measurement period shown on the exhibit was 50 dBA. Cars and motorcycles passing the measurement site produced maximum noise levels ranging from 60 to 74 dBA. The whistles generated maximum noise levels ranging from 59 dBA to 69 dBA. The LEQ for each of the whistle events ranged from 57.1 dBA to 65.5 dBA, while the average LEQ for all ten events was calculated to be 62.3 dB. The average noise level for the measurement period between 13:15 p.m. and 13:25 p.m. was 61.5 dBA. The average noise level for the same period minus the ten whistle events was 61.1 dBA. This means the noise level generated by the whistles averaged about 51.7 dBA over the entire measurement period. In order for those same events to exceed the 55 dBA noise ordinance, they would have had to average 59.8 dBA for the entire 10 minute period. Similarly, if the sound were to be considered as a pure tone and a 5 dB penalty was assessed' to the noise, the average noise level would still not exceed the noise ordinance. "J 1 • • L ryP�2 Cp, 1992b — n Of ryEWPORT REACH Mestre Greve Associates J �g M ,1U'1l®RAND ly M September 25, 1992 W. Ken Delino CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 SUBJECT- REFEREE WHISTLE NOISE - DURING SPORTING EVENTS Dear Ken, Mestre Greve Associates conducted a measurement survey to determine the noise level of whistles used by referees during football games relative to the ambient noise level and-the noise ordinance of the County of Orange. The noise measurements were-made at Bonita Creek Park in the City of Newport Beach, on September 12, 1992. The noise measurements were made on a Saturday afternoon when the children used the field for their weekly football games. During the survey, the noise levels of the activities associated with the game and the environment were measured using a BrUel & KjEer Type 2231 Precision Sound Level Meter with the noise level values- recorded on a T.I. Travelmate 2000 laptop computer. The noise ordinance for the County of Orange sets limits on the level and the duration of time a stationary noise source may impact a residential area. The louder the noise level becomes, the shorter time it is allowed to occur. Table 1 lists the A- weighted noise level and the maximum period of time that noise level may_occur during the hour. This ordinance refers to noise which occurs between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. TABLE 1. ORANGE COUNTY NOISE ORDINANCE NOISE LEVEL MAXHMUM DURATION . 1 9CAM .1 .: .. A L�l NEVER 1 Minute 5 Minutes 15 Minutes 30 Minutes 280 Newport Center Drive, Suite 230 • Newport Beach, CA 92660 • (714) 760.0891 6 Fax (714) 760 -1928 John R. McIntosh 2495 Ocean Blvd. • Corona del Mar, CA 92825 N.S.G.S. �M�'2 /' X 9 93 dA4UXnJ )6491 AA,C 4 a-.., U.Le, lQ�v �a,�.nt,�J - �- 02..,�Gt..� cc. -h.a�- a�cJrt�zc�J .vl>✓e�o-�jr� ort��C.� d�tt4cf. ia-ec�,c .,taw ,d.c_Azrk a t. tx'u , /aA� _ r t N.S.G.S. LW' "s s L 2495 Ocean Blvd. C Corona del Mar, CA 92625 ��,� �,ca c�c. � /�-`� -°`'nom ,c.e..� -�- �-o• -� /h -¢-t- 0 0 N �• 3 1 I ilk �� lip' L -6 PRIVATE ENCROACHMENTS IN PUBLIC RIGHTS -OF -WAY It is the general policy of the City that the public rights -of -way are to be reserved for public use or open space; and that the rights of the public, present and future, are not to be diminished by the installation of private improvements within the public rights -of -way. Categories of private encroachments and improvements are listed below, together with the permit requirement for each category. A. Private encroachments prohibited: 1. Structural encroachments not otherwise listed; including, but not limited to, fences, walls, patios, raised planters, etc., which encroach in excess of 1 foot into the public right -of -way, or exceed 3 feet in height, measured from the .top of curb elevation /or from sidewalk elevation where sidewalk exists. 2. Driveway approaches not conforming to Council Policy L -2. 3. Ocean front street end,, or Bay front street end improvements not conforming to Council Policy L -10. 4. Ocean front al -ley end improvements not conforming to Council Policy 'L -10. 5. Modifications to original design concepts approved by the . City. 6. Private signs except as provided for in the Building Code. 7. Lighting. 8. Parkway surfacing of loose rock, gravel, or any surfacing other than standard or colored /textured concrete or flat stone/brick installed at grade. 9. Private dwellings and appendages including raised patios and decks, except as provided for in the Building Code. 10. Pay telephones. Private encroachments requiring a permit from the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department: 1. Tree planting and removal. 2. Shrub planting and removal. 3. Ocean front and Bay street end improvements defined in Council Policies I -12 and I -1, respectively. 4. Ocean front alley improvements defined in Council Policy I -15. 5. Median landscaping. If, in the opinion of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department, the approved planting is not being maintained for view and safety clearance, Chapter 10. 50, "Public Nuisance Abatement," of the'Municipal Code shall be used to remove offending plant material. L -6 PRIVATE ENCROACHMENTS IN PUBLIC RIGHTS -OF WAY - Page 2 C. Private encroachments requiring a permit from the Public Works Department: 1. Drive approaches conforming to Council 'Policy L -2. 2. Standard sidewalks. 3. Carriage walks. 4: Parkway surfacing (standard or colored /textured concrete or flat stone/brick) installed at grade (subject to Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department review for tree well location). 5. CATV and public utility facilities. 6. Structural encroachments not otherwise listed; including, but not Limited to., fences, walls, patios, raised planters, etc., which encroach 1 foot or less into the public right -of -way. If, however, in the opinion of the Public Works Department, the nature -or location of this type of encroachment is such that Council review is warranted,, the Department,may forward the item to the Council for action. 7. Mailboxes, when required by the U.S. Postal Service. D. Private encroachments requiring an Encroachment Permit from the Public Works Department and subject to the execution of an agreement for non - standard improvements: 1. Structural encroachments not otherwise listed which do not exceed 3 feet in-height, including, but not limited to fences, walls, and raised planters in public rights -of -way in .areas that are more than 8 feet - behind the face, of ,curbs on the following streets: a. Santa Ana Avenue from 'Cliff Drive to Fifteenth Street. b. Broad Street from Santa Ana Avenue to Redlands Avenue. 2. Fences of open type construction which do not exceed 3 feet in height and which are located at least 2' -6" behind the back of the public sidewalk on the following public ways: a. South Bay Front b. North Bay Front If, in the opinion of the 'Public Works Department, the nature or location of this type of encroachment is such that Council review is, warranted, the Department may forward the application to the City Council for original action. 'The City Manager is authorized to execute, on behalf of the City, agreements for non - standard improvements which are entered into pursuant to this section. 0 0 L -6 PRIVATE ENCROACHMENTS IN PUBLIC RIGHTS -OF -WAY - Page 3 E. Private encroachments not requiring a permit: 1. Parkway lawn and ground cover. 2. Parkway sprinkling systems. 3. Use of public streets and projections over public property which are covered by the Uniform Building Code under a valid building permit issued by the City. F. Application for any permit as required by this policy shall be filed with the Public Works Department on a form to be provided by the City and shall show the proposed planting or work and the nature thereof. If the application is for a permit required under Section A, it shall be forwarded to the City Clerk for submission to the City Council. If the application is for a permit under Section B, it shall be processed by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department. Drawings for encroachment permits requiring City Council review shall be prepared to scale. Plan and elevation drawings shall accurately depict location, height, and extent of the proposed encroachments. No building permit shall be issued on a parcel whose access requires City Council review for an encroachment permit on public property, until said encroachment permit has been issued. G. Variances from the strict application of this policy shall not be granted unless individual circumstances indicate that approval will be consistent with the public interest. Adopted - August 25, 1969 Amended - February 14, 1972 Amended - August 11, 1975 Amended - February 9, 1981 Amended - November 23, 1981 Amended - October 27, 1986 Amended - January 26, 1987 Amended - July 13, 1987 Amended - February 13, 1989 Amended - August 14, 1989 Amended - November 27, 1989 Amended - December 9, 1991 Amended - December 14, 1992 Aj MOI l V,7� P 4. tj 7A N-W v W. 17, fe; 011". E J', . 1.1 XW .. .... Z& 1. y , ir a6 Y. 7- UN: 10 :31 J6LxR CORONA DEL MAR • "' "' COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION P. O, BOX 516 `J CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 January 31,1993 Parks Beach and Recreation Newport Beach City Hall 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach,CA.92553 -3884 Dear Mr. Whitley: Re: Allowable Vegetation Along 2495 Ocean Boulevard, CAM The Board of Directors of the Corona del Mar Community Association and the Association membership has repeatedly investigated and taken positions against individual variances and permits for allowing use of private property beyond that allowed by zoning in detriment to their neighbors and community at large. There have been many and continuing flagrant misuses of public and private property along Ocean Blvd. This particular property (2495 Ocean Blvd) uses a public easement right away for garage access. The property was never provided with proper access or the present construction would never have been allowed. The present owner bought the property knowing its zoning limitations. The owner should be required to meet these limitations unless the conditions for their existence are no longer valid. This is not the case. The trees planted in the owners very limited right of way will grow larger and more onerous each year. They impair public right away where a sidewalk should be, public bay and ocean views including one along the public easement, and private views from adjacent houses. The trees should be removed and•shrubs• on the garage trimmed to allowable height (3 ft. above the curb). RAN: sn ,. Very truly yours, Ft"- 4AZ'�a Richard A. Nichols, Ph.D. CDMCA Acting President �k� • CHRONOLOGY - 2495 ,OCEAN BLVD., C:D.M. 1. 12 year Coastal /City /Resident concerns preceeded controversial Quandt property being sold to Mr. McIntosh. Three foot above the curb variance permitted for one car garage, fence and mailbox. Roof line and sides of garage had to be slanted (see example] to open up as much view as possible as per Planning Dept. guidelines. During garage construgtion, applicant attempted to alter garage structure. Neighbors met with Planning Dept. to insist that approved plan be followed. 2. Mr. and Mrs. McIntosh decide to grow vines and foliage on top of garage which exceed three food height limitation. Residents submit letter and petition to Planning Department resulting in growth being trimmed in accordance with variance. 3. In early December, 1992, the McIntosh's plant palm trees in view plane and public right -o£ -way in violation of city ordinances, variance and policy. Neighbors complained to several city departments. Residents - stress that view-was major consideration in granting the applicant the three foot variance and insisting that garage be. sculpted to further enhance views. (See city letter and 1983 petition citing Land Use Plan and Coastal Commission finding.) 4. Director of Parks, Beaches. and Recreation contacts complainants' stating that he would get back-t6 them following an investigation. `Along with Planning Director, Newicker,'Mr. Whitley meets with Mr. McIntosh to discuss problem. During meeting, Mr. Hewicker.informs'Mr. McIntosh that he must once again trim *growth on garage roof which is in excess of the three, foot height •limitation. As of 2 -1 -93, growth „has not been trimmed. Director of PB&R informs neighbors that Mr. McIntosh has 30 days to remove palm trees due. to a. careful review being conducted by several city departments. 5. Mr. and Mrs. -m6Into`sli write ietti"r of appeal to Parks,, Beaches and Recreation and matter is'slatecl; for public hearing. Neighbors enlist services of Councilman Sansone and former'-City'Manager,`,Bcb Wynn. 'Petition circulated with, almost unanimous opposition-to McIntosh' appeal. President of Corona del Mar Civic Association polls his board regarding opposition 'to:,appeal. ,. 6. February 2; 1993 = PB &R• Commissioners hear appeal. F January 28, 1993 • PETITION TO PB &R BOARD The undersigned residents and neighbors who live in close proximity to 2495 Ocean Blvd., Corona del Mar, wish to go on record as opposing any planting in the public right -of- way,or elsewhere on the premises at 2495 Ocean Blvd., which would block public views in accordance with existing ordinances and policies. We further ask that the City vigor- ously enforce the variance given the above address, calling for height limitations not exceeding three feet above the Ocean B °lvd. curb. Please note that subject planting has occured within'the past eight weeks and that neighbors have been involved in resolution attempts.'during this time. 0 • ADDRESS C? C� �2 e-d c i r MCINTOSH CHRONOLOGY . 2495 OCEAN BOULEVARD CORONA DEL MAR 1. 12 Year,Coastal /City /Neighbor concerns preceeded controversial Quandt property being sold to John McIntosh. Three foot above the curb variance permitted for one car garage, fence and mailbox. Roof line and sides of garage had to be slanted to open up as much view as possible as per Planning Department guidelines. During garage construction, applicant attempted to alter garage structure. Neighbors were forced to meet with Planning to insist that approved plan be followed. Applicantcomplied. 2. .McIntosh family ,decides to grow vines and foliage on top of garage which exceed three foot height limitation. Neighbors submit letter and petition to Planning Department resulting in growth being trimmed in accordance with variance. 3. In early December, 1992, McIntosh family, in violation of city ordinance, policy and variance, plants palm trees in view plane and public right - of -way. Neighbors call various city departments to complain. Code enforcement officer inspects property and states that nothing can be done as landscaping was not covered in original plans. (Even though view was a major consideration in granting the applicant the three foot variance and insisting that garage be sculptured to further enhance views.) From another department, neighbors learn that trees were planted in violation of public right -of -.way guidelines. 4. Neighbors turn to Public Works and Parks, Beaches and Recreation for assistance. Neighbors cite public right -of -way and public nuisance section. Public Works is asked if necessary permits were obtained. Staff indicates that they will investigate and get back to us. 5. Not hearing from staff, neighbors call Director of Parks, Beaches and Recreation. He states that he would investigate and get back to us. Neighbors feel there is confusion between departments on this issue. 6. Neighbors contact Director once again who states that he spoke with another neighbor who complained. He went on to state that he met with Mr. McIntosh along with Mr. Hewicker of Planning Department to discuss problem. During this time, Mr. Hewicker informed Mr. McIntosh that he would have to once again trim the growth on the top of his garage. Subject growth has still not been trimmed as of 1- 28 -93. Director of PB &R stated that he was giving Mr. McIntosh 30 days to remove the palm trees due to a careful review being conducted by 'several city departments." Mr. Moore writes letter of appreciation to Mr. Whitley. 9. In just seven days later,Mr.Moore receives a call on his answering machine from Mr. Whitley stating that there is now going- to be a public hearing on the following Tuesday evening, one week away. Neighbors enlist the services of their Councilman, Phil Sansone and retired City Manager, Bob Wynn. Neighbors question why dictates of letter sent by Mr. Whitley are not being followed, enforcing the long- standing variance, ordinance, and policies. Neighbors feel that the process has been turned around to suit Mr. McIn.tosh's wishes and that they are being made to defend themselves,even though city guidelines are clear, PLEASE NOTE: Neighbors have sought resolution for eight weeks. �,�4 �.. �" hl.. ;III `v'•: _irv_ ��M1!�i �� ..k. �,._ y �', PI ..} ra;�F r{�P Ir'�Siw�� f ,t.';.i I � 1"Ic�j?�JIPt "1 "jl � '. 1111 11e ��, r �l ��� 1 l ��ri ' (y JJA�I � � rA ' {T�. �1wV�i1�J^ .a`vy � . � Xt l J YI+eSy<I�i �ll�llW. ��� l'� ' � � �V �� , : Wks���!yyy' .YSS>1L �1��% ..,... �.:��� ��Ar 1 j ��I.,:ww�:'.7��IV�i� r 4th +' ... .+�..Hr�[� � 11 iwX 4 � r: �- ... »..r.ro....., 1- 1 ... Y r � V ,� r.. :.I � � Y �., t , t t r � � r S � t uvl�r„I�H �`n n3`t�'�u r'.C, .,�_ I..r+ 1�'y. `._ _ v Y / r : ! ,1 ,,' j ,: i J Ir +l i 7 "- L. ra }„ ter• u i 1 ;,.+ it 11 I �Y y �••� " 'i' ..: �, - ��il►� ,a fir.,, �iE k I ix '. , �• .< � .T -•. .r ..�^ A �'� • January 15, 1993 Mr. Ron Whitley, Director Parks, Beaches & Recreation City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Dear Mr. Whitley: Thank you for the talk yesterday and your assurances that the il- 1.egally planted trees at 2495 Ocean Blvd. in Corona del Mar would be removed. I appreciate you sending me a bl'ind copy of the letter to Rr. McIntosh. My neighbors and I are aware of the possiblity of Mr. McIntosh applying for a permit to re -plant the palms at some future date. Accordingly, we would like to be informed of such a move so that we could appear • before your board to argue against permitting trees to be planted in this area of the public right -of -way. As we discussed, this building project was designed around a trade -off between the City, Coastal Com- mi'ssion and neighbors in the immed fate area. The negotiations went on for over 10 years. A variance was finally granted which permitted the garage, fences and mailbox to exceed the Ocean Blvd. curb height by only three feet. Some months ago, a petition was sent to Mr. Hewicker by the neighbors asking him to enforce the height limitation,seeing Mr. McIntosh was growing foliage on top of the garage. It was trimmed. On your visit to the location a few days ago with Mr. Hewicker, you stated that he had told Mr. McIntosh to trim the garage roof foliage once again. He has not and this should serve as a further example of his lack of cooperation with both the neighbors and the City. The spirit of the agreement between the City, Coastal Commission and home owners in the a -rea has been and continues to be violated by Mr. McIntosh. who, apparently, feels he is exempt from following city ordinances and policy. Again,'we very much appreciate your assistance in this matter. Please call me at 673 -7692 if I can answer any other questions or help inform the neighbors of any new developments. Sincerely, �. ent��;�'r" 2502 Ocean Blvd. Corona del Mar, CA 92625 PS Please be aware that a palm tree has been planted in front of the mailbox, next to the curb. ' ,i 0 • E January 18, 1993 Mr. James Hewicker Director of Planning City of Newport Beach P.O-. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92659 Dear Mr. Hewicker: On your recent visit to 2495 Ocean Blvd. in Corona del Mar with Mr. ?' Ron Whitley of Parks, Beache-s and Recreation, it is my understanding that you informed the owner, Mr. John McIntosh, to trim back the foliage- which is growing on top of his garage. This is the same foliage which: i has, in the past, violated the height limitation placed on that property; prior to its constructi -on several years ago. As you will recall, my neighbors and I sent a petition to you many months, ago requesting that the height limitation on this property be maintained. As a result, the foliage was trimmed. The purpose of this letter is to inform you that-the growth has not been trimmed as you requested and we would appreciate it if steps could be taken to ensure that Mr. McIntosh adheres to the language of the variance prescribed for the 2495 Ocean Blvd. project. (Formerly the Quandt Project.) This was a highly sensitive project with trade -offs occuring between the City, Coastal Commission and the neighbors in the area which spanned over a 10 -year period. We have tried to be good neighbors to Mr. McIntosh and his family but his refusal to follow the rules concerning the height limitation and his failure to secure permits from PB &R for planting palm trees im the public right -of -way have more than stretched our patience. We were assured that 3 feet above the curb was the limit. We are asking that you please intercede at this point and thank you for cooperating with-us once again in this delicate matter. Please call me at 673 -7692 if I can be of help or relay any information to the neighbors. Sincerely, Kent S. Moore 2502 Ocean Blvd. Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Ft +! < AX3, ti I AT 7 ti I 0 • \_J e TO: Ms. Nancy A. Lucast Page 2 March 3, 1983 Association, and I have asked the applicant to prepare a plan which I hope will be acceptable to everyone. The plan, which is attached, shows the back of the garage twelve feet beyond the end of the existing driveway and depressed to a oint where the roof is only three°;feet above curb. This accomplishes four things: ].c It keeps the amount of grading actually required for the garage and bluff alteration to a minimum as required by the Coastal Commission. 2. It preserves the public views from Ocean Boulevard as required by the City. 3. It allows usable driveway grades which vary between four and twenty percent, and -4. It will improve the drainage system within the Ocean Boulevard right -of -way. This plan will be reviewed by the Newport Beach Planning Commission on Thursday evening, March 10, 1983. We welcome your review and comments. Very truly yours, Attachments for South Coast District Only: Revised Site Plans and Sections cc: Melvin L. Nutter, Chairman, California Coastal Commission Donald A. McInnis,' Member, California Coastal Commissio Michael L. Fischer, Executive Director, Calif. Coastal Commission Newport Beach Planning Commission Corona del Mar Community Association Carl H. Quandt, 21990 Highway 79, San Jacinto Al Howard, 3345 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles Ed Giddings, 250 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach February 1, 19x3 • Mr. Chris Gustin,•Associate Planner Newport Beach Planning Dept. 3300 Newport Blvd. 45 Newport Beach, CA Dear Mr. Gustin: .The undersigned are Ocean Blvd. and surrounding residents of this area of Corona del Mar who are very concerned about the Giddings / Quandt application for Variance No. 1095 and modification of the existin ping Code. We have been extremely in- terested in'the proposed development at 50 Ocean Blvd. for several years now due to its sensitive nature. Nam✓ Z f�Cs ' It is our understanding that the Coastal Commission staff report of 11 -4 -82 con- cerning the Quandt property has indicated that the existing driveway should pro- vide adequate parking for the structure; the structure, of course, being a small, single family home to be built below at some future date. We are also aware that the Commission does not wish the proposed garage structure to encroach upon the bluff face of the property. However, the Commission•states that "the bluff should not he disturbed exceot that nortion of .the site which needs to be graded to .7) After discussions with city personnel, we are of the opinion that the proposed garage'structure is undesirable in its present form and feel that if the building design was somewhat altered, along with an increase in driveway slope (now slated for only 2%), Mr. Quandt's garage plan could be effectively modified so that it • would not, endanger the bluff or completely'ruin the public,view. The term, "view," has come up in our.discussions with'Mr. Gupta of the Coastal Commission as well as city spokespersons and should be put in proper perspective at this time. According to our Land Use Plan, "The City shall protect and enhance public visual access to the waterfront. New development (including landscaping),,public or private,, shall be Sited and designed to protect public views of ocean and other coastal scenic areas.' To quote the- Coastal Commission re Quandt Application No. 5 -82 -365, The project, as proposed, will significantly alter the visual qualities of the landform thus, it will not protect and enhance public visual access to the waterfront. Therefore, the Commission finds that the project is not consistent with the certified Land Use Plan for the City of Newport Beach." It would seem to us that a happy medium might be struck between all parties in -, volved if your staff report could address an alternative to the present design which would preserve one of the last remaining public viewpoints in the area. The Ocean Blvd. and other Corona del Mar residents worked very hard to have our City Council enact the ordinance affecting height limitations and we urge the Planning Commission not to allow this unnecessary modification to occur. We feel, therefore., that a design change in the present Quandt garage plan is certainly necessary and proper. • Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Signature's are attachhd as page two of this letter. cc: Councilman Bill Agee Mr. Praveen Gupta I Gv 0 Ccl - C ✓z e- �� /�,'t v' r a7 L� AU Parks Pearh and Recreation February 2, 1993 Newport, Beach City Hall P.O. Box 1768, 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Biasch,CA.92659 -1768 Dear Commissioners: Re: Berzita Creek Park- Athletic Fields The above mentioned park was designed to be used as an active Youth sport park from its inception. We have lived in Corona del Na)-- for 20 years. Our children :ire now in college and high school. From the time we became active in youth sports (1979) to the present, parks available for youth sports have been sparse. For many years the "City" felt that we had the. beach and that was all that we needed for active recreation. Then of cou.r.se came the problem of open space available for active parks. We in CAM had another problem - a.l.l of the perk r.egui.rements on the existing open land for development were transferred to Bonita Creek Park. So, instead of CDM getting active parks, we were told our kids would now get: this beautiful active park in Bonita Creek. This has been documented and I'm sure with some effort, we could locate some of this material.. During the tenure of Bill Agee as Councilman for r:DM, all the parkland was der:lared. passive. We fought for and lost the Jasmine Creek Park site. That is now a useless rolling hill park that only dogs use.. The other park site is at the top of Marguerite and Harbor View Drive -there we have a tiny "view park" that also noone usds. The credits from these developments were all transferred to Bonita Creek. Anyone who is looking far a home, I would think, would carefully examine the Surrounding area. Any person with a working brain could see how large t.h.is park is. Also, the lights, the baseball. diamond, the footb,111 field would give some indication that this was a field well used. Why would anyone buy a house near a huge active park if they didn't wont the noise associated with active parks? if the commissioners de(;i.de to close down this park to our children they will be doing a great. injustice to all the families of Newport Beach. This park was promised, bought with in lieu of Promises from other sites, and. is truly needed. If this park is closed, where are you going to put our kids? we are hoping that you will. take into account all the rest of us who have paid our taxes over the years and who have put up with the lack of facilities and wha enjoy seeing children compete and families enjoy active youth sports. 9 Very truly yours, Dick & Sandy Nichols 519 Iris Avenue Corona del Mar January 25, 1993 Mr. Ronald Whitley City of Newport Beach Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA. 92659 -1768 Dear Mr. Whitley, Our last letter to you dated October 1, 1992 requested that this matter "be continued until such time as we, again, request to be on your agenda. We see no deadlines and we need more time to publicize the issue and gather support." This seems clear to me, so. ..is there some reason why suddenly, with no request from us and no other verbal communication, this matter has been scheduled for the February 2nd PB &R meeting while giving us less than two weeks notice? This issue has existed in its current form since August 1990. Nothing has changed since then. Is there some important reason why you are scheduling this item now? Is this to be an action item or a discussion item? If it is an action item, then what is the specific issue that needs resolution? Is there some specific input that you need which may impact the scheduling for the upcoming year? You have to know our desires are to have Jr. • All American Football relocated to a more suitable location, minimize the hours of active use, and convert substantial portions of the park to facilities which benefit the nearby residents. What input could we present at the PB &R meeting to accomplish this? Are you asking us to work with you in the scheduling process? If so, the Commission Meeting does not seem like the place for that. We would love to be a constructive part of your considerations about park usage. Is this what you have in mind? This is the third time that you have scheduled a Commission Meeting on this subject with first 5, then 6, and how 13 days notice. This seems like the kind of thing that makes people say "You can't fight City Hall." Please explain what your purpose is. In the interim since October, we have had the election of two new (out of three) Board Members of our Homeowners Association. Their next meeting is February 16, at which time this matter will be brought to their attention. I have also individually contacted the majority of the PB &R Commissioners and discussed the issues involved and my recommendations. As a result of those discussions I have been gathering important research information and preparing a thorough summary of the issues involved,: I will also be gathering petition signatures throughout the North Ford Communities. We will let you know when we are ready to address your Commission. • In the meantime, I was promised but never received the name of the y- --, person who supposedly instructed you to "forget about" the added amenities which we requested in the September 24, 1991 meeting with • the PB &R subcommittee. The meeting minutes note that "Commissioner Grant acknowledged the commission would be happy to address the idea of adding these amenities." Then one year later at the September 12th meeting at the Park he told me that "someone from our group, he couldn't remember who, but he had the name somewhere," had called him to say that we really didn't want the added amenities that we had just asked for. The list we gave was the result of a survey of our residents which had received a 50 %(!) response. I am very certain that our desire for those amenities has not changed, and I request again that you look into the possibilities. As a matter of fact, in the June 24th 1992 letter you refer to in your latest letter, the essential request as summed up in the last paragraph is to "...commission a study of the residents of the North Ford Communities to determine what facilities are desired..." As the director of the City Parks Department whose function is to serve all the residents of the City, this seems like a very - reasonable request from nearly 2000 residents who paid for yet do not have a park they can get much use out of. Sincerely, Daniel Rabun CC. Board of Directors - Newport North Homeowners Association Clarence Turner -City Council MCI PLbN6 A IS o}bg-5!33 'DAMS. 0