HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/1/2000 - Agenda PacketCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Parks, Beaches ft Recreation Commission
Tuesday, February 1, 2000 - 7pm
City Council Chambers
AGENDA
W_ RDER AND ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES (Enclosed)
• January 4, 2000 (Regular /Study session)
• January 13, 2000 (Study Session)
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Members of the public are invited to comment on non - agenda items of public interest. Speakers are limited to three minutes.
CONSENT CALENDAR
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
All matters listed under Consent Calendar (1 -9) are considered by the Commission to be routine and will all be enacted
by one motion in the form listed below. The commission members have received detailed staff reports on each of the
items recommending approval. There will be no separate discussion of these items prior to the time the commission
votes on the motion unless members of the commission, staff, or the public request a specific item to be discussed
and /or removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action.
Members of the public who wish to discuss a Consent Calendar item should come forward to the lectern upon invitation
by the Chair, state their name and Consent Calendar item number, and complete the sign -in card provided at the
podium. Speakers are limited to five minutes on agenda items.
1.
Correspondence -
(Item 1)
From: Eric Parker, December 27, 1999 Marc Franklin, January 11, 2000
Robin Sinclair, January 5, 2000 Jill Schwalbe, Villageway Property Management, January 12, 2000
Phil Arst, January 10, 2000 David Niederhaus, General Services Director, January 14, 2000
2.
Park and Tree Division
(Item 2)
Report of Park and Tree Division during January and upcoming projects in February.
3.
Community Services
(Item 3)
04.
Report of activities of Recreation & Senior Services during January and upcoming activities in February.
MarinaPark
(Item 4)
Accept and forward to City Council proposal for MannaPark.
5.
Proposition 12 — Park Bond
(Item 5)
Resolution in support of Proposition 12 on the March 7, 2000 primary election ballot.
6.
Bench Donation
(Item 6)
Accept bench donation from David & Joanne Burkland to replace exiting bench at West Jetty View Park.
7.
Bench Donation
(Item 7)
Accept bench donation from Dr. O'Connell to replace existing bench at West Jetty View Park.
8.
Tree Donation
(Item 8)
Accept donation of one Coast Live Oak from Steve Craig at Castaways Park.
9.
Tree Donation
(Item 9)
Accept donation of four Liquid Amber trees from Paul O'Connor at Buffalo Hills Park.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
10.
Bayside Park
(Item 10)
Discussion of resident request of changes to Bayside Park.
11.
West Newport Park Playground Renovation
(Item 11)
Establishment of public hearing on March 7, 2000 at Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission meeting.
12.
Tree Removal Appeal
(Item 12)
Approve /Deny the removal of one to four trees at each of two locations - N/E corner of San joaquin Hills
Road & Santa Rosa; S/E corner of Eastbluff Drive and Vista del Oro
13.
Revision of City Council G -1 Policy - Retention ht Removal of City Trees
(Item 13)
Discussion/ approval of proposed additions /deletions to tree policy.
12.
Subcomittee Reports
• Budget • Park 6t Open Space
•
• Oasis Liaison • Tree
• Beach • Community Services Award
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Matters which Commissioners may wish to place on a future agenda or raise for discussion.
ADJOURNMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Parks, Beaches rt Recreation Commission
• Regular Meeting/Study Session
January 4, 2000 - 7pm
CONVENED AT 7:05pm
ROLL CALL
Present: Beek, Franklin, Mcfarland, Pfaff, Sinclair, Skoro, Tobin
Staff Present: LaDonna Kienitz, Community Services Director /City Librarian
David Niederhaus, General Services Director
Andrea McGuire, Senior Recreation Manager
Teri Craig, Admin Assistant
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion by Commissioner Pfaff to approve the minutes of December 7, 1999. Motion carried by
acclamation.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Removed by Chair Beek
is 2. Parks 8 Tree Division
3. Community Services Division
Items removed from Consent Calendar
1. Correspondence - Correspondence from Douglas Campbell, December 8 and 20, 1999, David
Niederhaus, December 9, 1999. Chair Beek asked that correspondence from Bonnie
Jeannette, December 23, 1999, be added and acknowledged.
Motion by Commissioner Skoro to accept items 1 -3 of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried by
acclamation.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
4. Review of Community Services Facilities - Manager McGuire stated that a complete inspection
of Community Services facilities had been undertaken.
Discussion ensued regarding the need to be aggressive in getting parks and centers up to date.
5. MarinaPark - Chair Beek stated that the Park & Open Space Committee had met with Bob
Pederson in order to protect what the City has already dedicated as Open Space.
Commissioner Tobin commented that he felt that the project was too reaching and should
have input from the community.
0
0
•
•
Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission
Study Session
January 4, 2000
Page 2
Manager McGuire stated that the footprint of MarinaPark has been altered but that all
facilities remain the same.
Chair Beek stated that the community will have the opportunity to review the project when
City Council reviews the Requests for Proposals on MarinaPark.
Manager McGuire stated that the City is still awaiting information on the tidelands.
Chair Beek stated that the committee is just asking for an approval in concept of the proposed
plan.
Motion by Commissioner Skoro to approve the MarinaPark proposal in concept and forward to
City Council for their review. Motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Beek, Franklin, Mcfarland, Pfaff, Sinclair, Skoro
Nays: Tobin
6. Subcommittees
Budget — nothing to report.
• OASIS Liaison — nothing to report.
Beach — Chair Beek asked that either the Beach Committee meet or that it be disbanded.
Commissioner Sinclair stated that she was unable to work on this project because of work
but was concerned that the beach stay clean and asked what was the appropriate next
step. Director Niederhaus stated that there is an "Adopt a Beach" program in the City and
it would be appropriate to contact the Marine Division regarding any beach projects.
• Community Services Award — nothing to report.
• Park Et Open Space — Chair Beek stated that the Committee would need to meet again.
Manager McGuire will contact members regarding a date the week of January 24, 2000.
• Tree — Director Niederhaus stated that the Street Tree Redesignation Subcommittee
would meet January 17 at 8am at the Corporate Yard to discuss the redesignation of City
Street Trees. Staff will contact Commissioners regarding an additional study session.
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Status of Trees in the Median on MacArthur Boulevard - Public Works
Risk Manager Criteria for Impending Tree Claims
City Council G -1 Policy — Retention or Removal of Street Trees
Arroyo Park — Status from Public Works
ADJOURNMENT to Study Session - 8:03pm
Regular Minutes submitted by:
Teri Craig, Admin Asst
3
Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission
Study Session
January 4, 2000
Page 3
Chair Beek reconvened the meeting at 8:04pm
Commissioner Tobin excused himself at 8:0 5pm
Staff Present: David E. Niederhaus, General Services Director
Chair Beek opened the meeting by explaining her knowledge of the history of the Council G -1 tree
policy. She further provided the Commission a revised version of the policy and explained why
changes needed.
Chair Beek opened the public hearine
Elaine Linhoff, Balboa Peninsula, noted four concerns about the current proposed policy: one, that
Special Trees should be root pruned at one year intervals, two, objected to the phrase "having their
residential views affected ", tree reforestation proposal should be two for one on tree replacement,
and finally, tree appeals should be allowed by any interested party.
Dr. Alden Kelly, SPON Certified Arborist, volunteered to help rewrite the policy and "value" trees
for the City. He opined that reforestation was actually the planting of trees and should not be
related to tree removal.
• Dr. Vandersloot, 2221 16`h Street, questioned why other interested parties such as the Alliance
needed to be included further in the policy revisions. He stated that that the proposed policy was
too liberal toward tree removal.
Director Niederhaus noted that he had prepared an agenda item for Commission review at the
regular meeting that addressed the comments of the public and the Commission made at the last
regularly scheduled Commission meeting of December 7, 1999. That agenda item had subsequently
been deleted from the regular agenda by the Chair, and had been subsequently reinstated to a
Special Study Session, however, only 3 pages of the extensive report had been forwarded to the
Commission. Director Niederhaus felt it was impossible to discuss the proposed policy because the
Commission did not have complete copies of the proposed policy.
Director Niederhaus noted that he had only received the Chairman's proposed policy version at the
start of the meeting and objected to making significant format changes at this stage of review of
the policy, particularly since the majority of the interested parties were not present.
After further discussion it was decided that Chair Beek and Director Niederhaus would meet
January 10, 1999 to discuss any changes to the proposed policy. Further, copies of the original
agenda item would be forwarded to all Commissioners by January 7. A second study session was
scheduled for January 13, at 7pm in the Council Chambers to discuss the proposed policy.
• ADJOURNED- 9:30PM.
Study Session Minutes Submitted by:
David E. Niederhaus, General Services Director
I
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Parks, Beaches Et Recreation Commission
. Regular Meeting /Study Session
January 13, 2000 - 7pm
CONVENED AT 7:15Dm
ROLL CALL
Present: Beek, Mcfarland, Pfaff, Skoro,
Absent: Franklin, Tobin
Staff Present: David Niederhaus, General Services Director
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Jan Vandersloot, 2221 E. 16`h Street questioned two street tree removals on East Bluff Drive. Staff
explained the removal proposal. Dr. Vandersloot noted his interest in appealing the removal
request. He also requested an update on an earlier tree removal request for Santa Ana Avenue.
Dr. Alden Kelly also questioned the proposed tree removals on East Bluff Drive.
G -1 TREE POLICY
The Commission discussed the various recommended changes to the current tree policy
• and reviewed comments received by Commission Franklin via fax. A number of changes
were made to the proposed policy as a result of Commissioners' comments or those of the
public.
ADJOURNED - 9:50pm.
Submitted by:
•
David E. Niederhaus, General Services Director
5
. December 27, 1999
Ms. Pat Beek, Chair
Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission
c/o Ms. Andrea McGuire, Senior Recreation Manager
Newport Beach Community Services Department
3300 Newport Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Dear Ms. Beek:
This letter respectfully request the Commission's consideration of this request to add
screening landscaping to an area adjacent to the property at 400 1/2 Iris that faces the Tot
Lot at Bayside Drive Park. As you may recall, the Tot Lot was recently reconfigured,
with equipment replaced and much of the old landscaping taken out and new landscaping
added.
I believe that this new landscaping is not sufficient to maintain my property's value or
privacy and to mitigate noise from the Tot Lot to the extent promised me during the
reconstruction of the Park. As such, I propose adding five or six trees - trees selected by
your Urban Forester, John Conway - to the area between my home and the sand lot.
• Secondly, I would urge the Commission to consider changing the park plan to remove the
decomposed granite (DG) walkway immediately outside the Tot Lot wall between the
wall and my home. My observations show the walkway receives minimal use - and the
same area would be ideal for the additional landscaping proposed by this letter.
I look forward to hearing from you regarding this matter (714/321 -3881) and am willing
to attend a future PB &R Commission meeting to discuss this issue further.
Sincerely,
ERIC PARKER
cc: Dennis O'Neil, Council Member, 6"' District
Dave Kiff, Deputy City Manager
E
0
0 January 5, 2000
Pat Beek, Chair
City Of Newport Beach
Parks, Beaches and Recreation
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663 -3884
Dear Pat,
I regret to inform you of my resignation as Parks, Beaches and Recreation
Commissioner. My professional workload has increased, requiring evening hours
and out of town engagements, thus preventing me from fulfilling my two -year
commitment. I apologize for any inconvenience this abrupt resignation may cause. I
have enjoyed my time on the board as it has proven to be both positive and
educational.
Sincerely,
• Robin K. Sinclair
Commissioner
cc: Mayor John Noyes
Andrea McGuire
LaDonna Kienitz
Teri Craig
1]
7
From: Philip Asst To: David Niederhaus
is
Officers &
Directors
Chairman
Philip Arsl
Vice Chairman
Paul Gersl
Treasurer (Acting)
MarRvn Matthews
Secretary
Ross Mier
EQAC Coordination
Barry Eaton
Oasis Liaison
Ross Miller
Friends of Oasis
Date: 1110/00 Time: 4:08:06 PNI
Cornrmandy Associations.- 111iance
P.O. Box 319
Corona del NLar, CA 92625 -0319
Chairman. Pat Beek and Members of the PB &R Commission
"oCity of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92659
Page 1 of 2
January 10, 2000
Re: Study Session on Proposed Changes to the G -1 City Tree Maintenance Policy
Dear Chairman Beek and PB &R Commissioners:
The subject of the city G -1 Policy is of vital importance to the Community
Associations Alliance. As the largest residents organization in the city with 20 member
associations representing over 5000 individual homes, we must speak up for our
members needs.
Some basic points apply to your review of the 0-1 Policy:
PC Letter 4 -5
b
Member Associations
Bayview Court HOA
Newport Beach is a city of villages. Many have a different topography and
Big Canyon villas
neighborhood needs. One size doesn't fit all.
HOA
As most of our association members are view communities, the preservation of our
The Bluffs
Homeowners Ass'n
views is a vital concern Monetarily, these views represent an average of $200,000 to
•
a half million - dollar premium for many homes.
Broedmoor Hills CA
Broaamoor seaview
We recognize that other sections of the city do not have views and pride themselves on
Community Assn
stately trees along their streets.
Dover Shores CA
We also point that the landscaping of our association areas are among the best kept in
Eastbluff HOA
the city. We maintain a community of beautiful trees, but do blend height limitations
Harbor Ridge Estates
within our overall landscaping plan.
CA;
While we have a number of comments on the proposed revisions to the G -1 Policy, we
Harbor Ridge
Master Association;
will cover only two that we consider "show stoppers."
Harbor Ridge Crest
CA
On both versions of the policy (Item G, on page 6 of the staff version and Item 7 on
Harbor View Hills
page 5 of the Chairman Beek version) is language requiring "unanimous approval of
(So.) HOA
those who will have their residential views affected. "
Lido Isle Community
Association
This is not only impossible but also is outrageous! One person could veto a whole
North Bluffs CA
neighborhood's beautification or view preservation program. For example, there are a
number of people who will never sign anything, as those of us who administer
Newport North BOA
associations know.
Plaza Homeowners
Ass'n
Spyglass HM CA
•
Spyglass Ridge CA
PC Letter 4 -5
b
From: Philip Arst To: David Niederhaus Date: 1110/00 Time: 4:08:06 PM Page 2 of 2
•In addition, whose view? Only those with "white water" views? Or- anybody who can see a tree from
above? Or walking by? Or someone from the other side of the city who claims that every tree action affects
them?
•
•
The entire subsection should be deleted from both versions. Individual requests are already protected by
C /3. and association requests by B/2.
2. In the version drafted by Chairman Beek, at the bottom of page 2, regarding the removal of a tree, the
implication is that the only programs that would now qualify would be "a program that "has been requested
by the city council." That would unduly overload the city council with matters that ought to be handled by
the respective community associations. The verbiage of the stafTversion of the G -1 policy should be
retained as is.
We believe that the city council and our city managers have more important need to manage our multi
million - dollar budgets for the city and departments. Tying them up on individual trees is a complete waste
of our city's resources.
As a minor overlooked point, items B/2 and Ci3 leave out a category of applicants: Individual homeowners
in a CC &R Association. What provisions apply to them? This should be clarified.
We appreciate the volunteer work you do for the betterment of the community. We hope that your actions
will preserve the unique characteristics of each of our individual "villages" and not turn us into a city of
lawbreakers.
As your study session time conflicts with our regular meeting, we will not be able to attend this particular
session. We will, however, continue to work with you on this issue.
Thank you,
THE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION ALLIANCE
(original signed)
Philip Arst
President
PC Letter 4-5
CC: David Niederhaus
Barry Eaton
Debbie Allen
CAA Membership
I
IAN 11 2000 15:10 FR PACIFIC LIFE
• To: Chair Pat Beek
From: Commissioner Marc Franklin
RE: Revised GI Policy
Date: 1 /11/00
949 721 5130 TO 96500747 P.02iO3
On a philosophical note, I feel the major change to the revised GI is the addition of
"single tree reforestation ". I agree with Mr. Niederhaus that this in practice really just
adds an "aesthetic" criterion to the Gl. You can already remove a single tree for the non-
aesthetic reasons enumerated in the existing policy. As a result, I am inclined to oppose
the revision when we actually vote on the matter.
Nevertheless, since the revision might be adopted, I would like to comment on its details
as well. I do admit that the wording represents an improvement in many respects over
the existing policy. Here are my comments, based on the underlined draft dated 12/13;
Page 2, Item A. Should we note at the end of the paragraph "Regular drainpipe clearing
shall not constitute such damage, nor shall damage attributed to a failure by the owner to
perform such maintenance."
Page 2, Item B. I would modify "interfering" to "Significant interference'; otherwise a
photo of a small puddle will suffice for removal.
Page 3, REMOVAL.... In the two areas where Paragraph C is exempted I wonder if
Paragraph E should be exempted as well. I am not for exemptions, but I think adding E is
. in the spirit of having C exempted (both City actions without a requirement for PB&R
review).
Page 5, Item B. The underlined phrase adds the concept of residential view, but every
house has a view of something. Do we mean ocean view? Sweeping view? As was
pointed out at our last meeting, any house that can view the tree would need notice, as
their view would be affected by removing the tree, I am OK with it, if that is what we
mean.
Page S, Item C. Two issues. In the petition sentence, I think we should note 60%
"approval", otherwise someone could submit enough signatures on a petition, even if
they were all opposed, and we would have to approve it! I don't understand the last
line... "...endorsement of appropriate Homeowner's Association if applicable ". The
paragraph says it is for individuals NOT residing in a CC &R based community
association. What am I missing, is there a subtle difference?
Page 5, Item E. change "...the designated street tree..." to "...a designated street tree ",
since we are going to a system where there will be more than one tree in many cases.
Page 6, Item G. I do not understand this paragraph. It conflicts with B on the previous
page, and I am confused. What is it supposed to do?
•
Id
JHN 11 2000 1b:11 FR PACIFIC LIFE 949 721 5130 TO 96500747 P.03iO3
• Page 6_ After the sentence "The Decision of the Commission on reforestation requests
will be considered final unless..." I think we should add the verbiage found on page 4
that there will be a 14 day delay before removal.
P290 6- The paragraph that starts "All encroachment..." has the phrases "whenever
possible" and "wherever possible ". I don't like these phrases, they add nothing, and I
think they should be removed. You are either supposed to do something or not. These
two phrases create a loophole someone could drive a truck through! Also, this section
should include remedies/fines/penalties for failure to comply.
Page 7: The underlined sentence says "However, since these practices often require
"topping" or severe disfiguring of a tree and are often aesthetically displeasing and
injurious to a tree, reforestation shall be considered once this practice has occurred
more than twice within a one year period." What does the bolded phrase mean? Who
will consider it? Do we mean to add it to the criteria for reforestation? Having this
sentence here so prominently makes it seem like an automatic removal right. It seems out
of place.
These are my comments. I have a conflict and can't make the study sessim but please
introduce them into the public record.
Sincerely,
• *gm, JZ,
Marc Franklin
Commissioner, P$ &R
Cc: Dave Niederhaus
•
** TOTAL PAGE.03 ** 11
r
t4
*Property Management
January 12, 2000
City of Newport Beach
Parks, Beaches, Recreation Department
3300 Newport Blvd.
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
RE: NEWPORT HILLS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
1930 PORT TRINITY PLACE, NEWPORT BEACH
To Whom It May Concern:
P.O. Box 4708, Irvine, CA 92616
22 Mauchly
Irvine, CA 92618
949.450.1515
fax 949.585.0146
vmj@villageway.com
. As management agent for the Newport Hills Community Association, I have been
requested by the Board of Directors to contact you regarding Paul O'Connor's request to
donate and plant (4) liquid amber trees in the City park next to his property located at
1930 Port Trinity Place, Newport Beach.
Please be advised that the Board of Directors of the Newport Hills Community
Association support and recommend that the City of Newport Beach allow Mr. O'Connor
to install four (4) 24" box Liquid Amber trees in the city park next to 1930 Port Trinity
Place, Newport Beach. The Board of Directors feels that the installation of these trees
will enhance the aesthetics of the park.
Should you have any questions regarding the above information, please do not hesitate to
contact the undersigned at (949) 4550 -1515 ext. 240, thank you.
Sincerely,
Jill 61walbe
Property Manager
On Behalf of the Board of Directors
Cc: Paul O'Connor
Andrew Brooks
• Architectural Committee
A
l'J1 Providing Homeowner Association Management Since 1969 l C M
0
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 -8915
January 14, 2000
Dear Interested Parry,
The final review by the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission of Council
Policy G -1 (Removal and Retention of City Trees) is scheduled for February 1,
2000 at 7:OOPM at the Council Chambers.
The Council review of the G -1 Policy is tentatively scheduled for February 22,
2000 at 7:OOPM in the Council Chambers.
• A copy of the current revised policy proposal is attached for your information. If
you have any questions or suggestions regarding the policy proposal, you may call
me at (949) 644 -3055 or submit written comments by mail or Fax (949) 650 -0747.
David E. Niederhaus
General Services Director
cc: City Manager
PB &R Commission
Community Services Director
Attachment: Proposed Council Policy G -1 dated January 14, 2000
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach 13
•
Revised Proposal - January 14, 2000 G -1
RETENTION OR REMOVAL OF CITY TREES
The purpose of this policy is to establish definitive standards for the retention, removal,
maintenance, reforestation, and supplemental trimming of City trees. City streetArees
are an important part of the character and charm of eertain een r,,..:ties the entire
Cam. and Regular care, trimming, maintenance, and programmed replacement are
necessary to preserve this charm while at the same time protecting public and private
property.
SPECIAL CITY TREES
It is the City's policy to retain City trees categorized as landmark, dedicated, or
neighborhood trees, which contribute to and give character to an entire neighborhood.
Landmark, dedicated, and neighborhood trees are identified on Attachment 1, and shall
hereinafter be referred to as Special Trees. Trees within these categories shall be
established, mapped, recorded and stained administered by the Parks, Beaches &
• Recreation Commission ( "Commission').
Special Trees shall be retained, unless there are e-�^^�nal- overriding problems, such
as death, disease, or the creation of a hazardous situation, which require their removal.
Prior to consideration for removal of Special Trees, the General Services Director, or
designee, shall prepare a report identifying and implementing specific treatment to
retain the tree(s). If specific treatment is unsuccessful in retaining a tree(s) then a full
report shall be made to the Commission before any further action considering removal
is taken. Prior to any removal of Special Trees, the City must comply with the noticing
provisions of the Removal of City Trees section set forth in this Policy, unless a tree is
considered hazardous that necessitates an emergency removal. Any such removal
requires the approval of the City Manager.
r1
U
During normal sidewalk, curb, and street repair activity requiring root pruning, all
steps will shall be taken to retain Special Trees. If tree roots are to be pruned in
association with hardscape- sidewalk, curb, and gutter improvements, sufficient timing
in advance must be planned to ensure that pruning will not destabilize or kill the tree.
If both sides of a tree's roots are to be pruned, one side should be pruned a year 6
months to a year in advance of the other side depending upon the species and other
related factors. If root munine methods are not Dractical and /or critical to the health of
the tree, then alternate or special hardscave improvements shall be installed by the Citv
1
1�
• G -1
in order to retain the tree. All proposed root pruning shall be assessed by the Urban
Forester.
ALL OTHER CITY TREES
It is the City's policy to retain all other City trees unless removal is necessary for one of
the following reasons:
A. The City tree has had a proven and repeated history (defined as two or more
occurrences within an 18 -month period) of damaging public or private sewers,
water mains, roadways, sidewalks, curbs, walls, fences, underground utilities, or
foundations based on City records or other competent and reliable authority
despite specific treatment by the City to alleviate repeated damage. Water or
sewer stovvaee that results from tree roots and causes .significant documented
private property damage (greater than $500) shall be sufficient criterion for tree
removal. Regular drain or eve clearing shall not constitute such damage, no
shall damage attributed to a failure by the property owner to perform such
preventive maintenance.
B. The City tree has had a repeated history (defined as two or more occurrences
• within an 18 -month period) of significant interference interferg with street or
sidewalk drainage, despite specific treatment by the City to alleviate repeated
damage.
C. The City tree is dead, diseased, er -dying or hazardous, and presents a significant
liability to the-91 ty. Diseased trees are defined as those trees that cannot be
cured current arboricultural methods, are in an advanced state of decline, and
have no prospect of recovery. Dying trees are those that have -no prospect of
recovery. Hazardous trees are defined as those that are defective, have a
identified as hazardous. The assessment will identify: structural defects of the
tree, parts of the tree most likely to fail, targets where imminent personal iniury
or property damage may result with tree failure, and procedures or actions
necessary to abate the hazard.
The tree(s) have been requested to be removed in conjunction with a City
Council- approved gLty, commercial, neighborhood, or community association
• beautification program.
K_
• G -1
E. The City Manager, upon the advice of the Risk Manager, shall have the authority
to remove trees for whatever reason to resolve claims against the City.
REMOVAL OF CITY TREES
The initiation to remove any City tree may be made by the General Services
Department, Public Works Department, a legally established community association, or
a private property owner by making application with to the General Services Director.
After receipt of the application a tree inspection report shall be prepared by the City's
Urban Forester (Attachment 2) to determine if the tree(s) meets the criteria outlined in
the above All Other City Trees section for consideration for removal. Simultaneously,
the Urban Forester awe shall }provided a notice of the proposed tree removal to
the affected property owner, and the owners immediately adjacent to the applicant's
property, and the appropriate community association if applicable, (not applicable to
the emergency removal of hazardous trees with trees under Item C above). The Urban
Forester shall determine whether in his /her judgment additional specific treatment can
be initiated to retain the tree. If a tree(s) is to be removed, the tree(s) will be mar-ked
posted at least 30 days prior to the removal w4th a white v (using `^^moan~ ^`` and
posted with a sign notifying the public that they have the right of appeal. The sign shall
also note a staff contact. Once a recommendation is made by the Uiban Forester and the
Park and Tree Superintendent to the General Services Director and the General Services
Director or designee concurs, then the applicant, the adjoining owners, and the
community association, if applicable, shall be notified of the decision to remove or
retain the tree within 30 days of the proposed removal. The General Services Director,
or his designee, shall report at a regularly scheduled PB &R Commission meeting of all
trees recommended for removal using the Trees Division Activities Report, except for
those trees categorized in Paragraph -3-C. in the preceding section on All Other City
Trees. An applicant, an adjoining property owner, or any interested party may appeal
the decision of the General Services Director to the Commissioner and if the appeal
eannot be resolved at the Cenurdssion level, then the fiFal resolution will be detem4ne
at the ___, __ . The Commission-an-ottpce, in considering any appeal,
shall determine whether the removal meets the criteria outlined in this Policy, as well as
any unique factors which may be pertinent to the removal or retention of tree(s). The
decision of the Commission will be considered final unless called up by at least one
Councilmember or the City Manager. An appeal to the Counei1 -'egad... a
L4an days fog the date or- the - enwassien deeisien�e.�
Serviees; P-epar-tmeatwill delay any t! ee removals until the appeal period has expir-ed or
3
ho
G -1
until the Geui-eeil has aeted upon the 3peab
The General Services Department will
delay any tree removal(s) for at least 14 calendar days following the date of the
Commission decision in order to allow time for a Councilmember or the City Manager
to call the item.
The City will endeavor to replace all trees removed in accordance with the All Other
City Trees removal criteria. Replacement trees will be a minimum of a 24" boxed size.
REFORESTATION OF CITY TREES
The concept of systematically replacing trees which are creating hardscape and /or view
problems and cannot be properly trimmed, pruned or modified to alleviate the
problems they create, or those which have reached their full life and are declining in
health, is referred to as reforestation.
It is recognized and acknowledged that City trees were planted many years ago and in
some cases were planted with specific species that when fully mature ^Y^�t
problems cause damage to curb, gutter, sidewalk or underground utilities. In certain
neighborhoods, nee -City street trees may encroach into blue water views from
public and private property depending on the length of time since the trees were last
• trimmed, or the age and height of the trees.
Ted , Arborists have ed continue to develop lists of tree species which ar-e ahle
to will grow in restricted parkway areas without causing significant future - problems
damage to curb, gutter, sidewalk, utilities or views. The eeneept of syste atieally
As a City which understands the importance of trees and the beauty it-they brings to a
community, the City desires to continually improve the urban forest through
reforestation. In areas where City trees have been removed through City initiation, the
City should expeditiously replace them with the appropriate designated City tree.
Reforestation may also be initiated by residents utilizing the process outlined below.
�•
C�
J
4
1�
• G-1
Individual rip vate 1roperty owners as well as community associations may apply for
single or multiple tree reforestation
in their respective area by submitting a request to the General Services Director for
consideration by the Commission that meets the following requirements:
A. The proposed area must have clearly defined contiguous boundaries that include
the treejsproposed for removal and replacement, street addressefs, block
number "s or other geographical information. This section applies to individual
and group requests.
B. Residential communities, neighborhoods or business organizations must submit
a petition signed by a minimum of 60% of the property owners within the area
defined for reforestation. A neighborhood is defined for the purposes of this
policy as ten or more homes in any given area of the City. As an alternative,
areas represented by a legally established community association empowered
with CC & R's, may submit a resolution of the Board of Directors formally
requesting a reforestation with a statement that all members of the community
association having their residential views affected, have been officially notified
and given an appropriate opportunity to respond before the Board voted on the
• request. Individual private property owners living within a legally established
community association area empowered with CC &R's must petition for
reforestation through their respective association.
C. Individual rip vate property owners not residing within a CC & R based
communist association area may submit individual requests for single or
multiple tree reforestation. The applicant must submit a petition signed by a
minimum of 60% of the residents within a one block distance in either direction
from the reforestation site as well as the endorsement of the appropriate
homeowners' association, if ap licable.
D. A written agreement must be submitted by the petitioning sponsor individual
private property owners or rg ouj) to pay 100% of the costs of the removal and
replacement of the public trees in advance of any removal activity. The actual
removal and replanting will be coordinated by the General Services Department.
The total costs shall include only the contractor's removal and replacement costs
and be paid in advance of any removal actions.
E. The replacement treeUs� for reforestation must shall be the designated street
tree(§l as prescribed by City Council Policy G -6, or the organization must request
and obtain approval from the Commission of the designation of a different tree
•
5
/b
• G -1
species prior to submitting any reforestation request. This section applies to
individual or group requests.
F. There shall be a minimum of a one - for -one replacement of all trees removed in
reforestation projects. Replacement trees shall be a minimum size of 24° 36"
boxed trees, unless the parkway space will only accommodate a 24" boxed tree.
City Council Policy G-6, then the replacement tree shall be planted in the same
neighborhood. This section applies to individual or group requests.
The decision of the Commission on reforestation reauests will be considered final unless
• called up by at least one Councilmember or the Ci . Manager.
The City shall require the proper care and watering of replacement trees to ensure their
proper growth and development as outlined in City Council Policy G -6. Furthermore
no person shall tamper with replacement trees in violation of Section 13.08.040 of the
Municipal Code.
All encroachment permits (permits for private. property development which has
encroached upon the City right of way) that involve the removal or replacement of CitX
trees must be specifically noticed by the property owner to Cit staff taff prior to the
building and /or demo permit process whenever possible. The proposed construction
plans must indicate preservation of existing City trees wherever .possible (exempt: dead,
dying, or in an advanced state of decline). If the proposed development, as deemed by
as indicated in the previous paragraphs,
TREE TRIMMING STANDARDS /SUPPLEMENTAL TRIMMING
The City Council has adopted tree trimming cycles for trees of different ages and
species. The current tree trimming cycles and trimming standards represent the
• maximum feasible frequency and extent of trimming given current fiscal conditions.
• Y.. Y
The decision of the Commission on reforestation reauests will be considered final unless
• called up by at least one Councilmember or the Ci . Manager.
The City shall require the proper care and watering of replacement trees to ensure their
proper growth and development as outlined in City Council Policy G -6. Furthermore
no person shall tamper with replacement trees in violation of Section 13.08.040 of the
Municipal Code.
All encroachment permits (permits for private. property development which has
encroached upon the City right of way) that involve the removal or replacement of CitX
trees must be specifically noticed by the property owner to Cit staff taff prior to the
building and /or demo permit process whenever possible. The proposed construction
plans must indicate preservation of existing City trees wherever .possible (exempt: dead,
dying, or in an advanced state of decline). If the proposed development, as deemed by
as indicated in the previous paragraphs,
TREE TRIMMING STANDARDS /SUPPLEMENTAL TRIMMING
The City Council has adopted tree trimming cycles for trees of different ages and
species. The current tree trimming cycles and trimming standards represent the
• maximum feasible frequency and extent of trimming given current fiscal conditions.
G -1
Except as provided in this Section, trimming shall be in accordance with the standards
of the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA).
The City will consider, and as a general rule approve, requests to trim certain trees
more frequently or to trim trees consistent with practices applied prior to the adoption
of ISA standards (to enhance public and private views, preserve required
sight /distance standards, or other public purposes) which are submitted by affected
residents or the board of a legally established community association and the request is
accompanied by a completed "Supplemental Tree Trimming Form' and full payment.
However, since these practices often require 'topping or severe disfig_ ring of a tree
and are often aesthetically displeasing and injurious to a tree, reforestation shall be
considered once this practice has occurred more than twice within a one year period.
The General Services Director shall establish procedures to implement the supplemental
trimming provisions of this Policy. An approval must be obtained from a legally
established association by the requestor in areas with an active homeowners'
association.
[Attachment 1- Preservation of Special Trees]
[Attachment 2- Tree Inspection Report]
Adopted - May 9,1966
Amended - August 14,1967
Amended - November 9,1976
Amended - November 12,1985
Amended - November 28,1988
Amended - March 14,1994
Formerly I -9
•
Amended - April 11, 1994
Amended - February 26,1996
Amended - July 14,1997
Amended (Administratively) -
November 24,1997
Amended - August 10, 1998
0
LANDMARK
PRESERVATION OF SPECIAL TREES
G -1
TREES Balboa Library
Eucalyptus globulus
Balboa Library
Phoenix canariensis
West jetty (near Historical Marker)
Phoenix canariensis
Dover Drive at Westcliff
Liquidambar styraciflua
400 block Poinsettia
Eucalyptus corynocalyx
Ocean Blvd. Corona del Mar
Phoneix canariensis
Westcliff & Dover (Groves)
Eucalyptus globulus
Main Street (between East Bay
Ficus nitida
Ave. and Balboa Blvd.)
DEDICATED
TREES No. Mariners Park (Marcie Schrouder)
Pinus radiata
Mariners Park (Frank Tallman)
Pinus radiata
No: City Hall grounds (Billy Covert)
Ficus benjamina
City Hall grounds (Walter Knott)
Pinus halepensis
City Hall grounds
(Calif. Bicentennial)
•
Pinus halepensis
Las Arenas Park (Ed Healy)
Melaleuca linarifolia
Mariners Park (Isy Pease)
Pinus halepensis
City Hall grounds
(U.S. Bicentennial Freedom Tree)
Harpephyllum caffrum
Buffalo Hills Park (Bahia
Community Earth Day Celebration)
Erythrina caffra
Peninsula Park
(Gray Lunde Memorial Tree)
Chamaerops humilis
Cliff Drive Park
Quercus agrifolia
(Gary Lovell)
Begonia Park
Prunus cerasifera
(Cheryl Bailey Ringwald)
Castaways Park
Quercus agrifolia
(Jan Vandersloot)
can Watt
Peninsula Park
Ravenea rivularis
(Don Perdue)
Grant Howald Park
Metrosideros excelsus
1 (Pete Munro)
2 (Mark Munro)
• Bob Henry Park
Ficus Rubi onsa
(Bob Henry
Attachment 1
4
0
•
•
DEDICATED Cliff Drive Park
Ouercus agrifolia
TREES (contd.) (Dr. Vandersloot)
Phoenix canariensis
Veterans Park
Lagenstroemia
(Rosemary Rae Hill Hansen)
indica faueri
Mariners Park
Stenocarpus
(N. Beach Sunrise Rotary Club)
sinuatus
(Christopher & Marisha Thomposn)
Pinus eldarica
(Meghan & Camielle Thompson)
Pinus eldarica
NEIGHBORHOOD
TREES Parkway in Shorecliffs
Erythrina caffra
Marguerite Avenue
Phoenix canariensis
Goldenrod Avenue
Washington robusta
Dover Drive (Mariners to Irvine)
Eucalyptus globulus
15th Street (Newport Heights)
Eucalyptus cladocalyx
Irvine Avenue Median
Eucalyptus globulus
Holiday between Irvine & Tustin
Eucalyptus globulus
Along Avon Avenue
Eucalyptus globulus
Via Lido Bridge
Eucalyptus globulus
Marine Avenue (Balboa Island)
Eucalyptus rudis
Seaview Avenue (Corona del Mar)
Pinus radiata
Poppy Avenue (Corona del Mar)
Eucalyptus rudis
Heliotrope Avenue (Corona del Mar)
Pinus radiata
Candlestick Lane, etc. (Baycrest)
Eucalyptus citriodora
Commodore
Eucalyptus citriodora
Starlight
Eucalyptus citriodora
Glenwood
Eucalyptus citriodora
Candlestick
Eucalyptus citriodora
Sandalwood
Eucalyptus citriodora
Adopted - May 9, 1966
Amended - November 9,1976
Amended - November 28,1988
Amended - October, 1993
Amended - July 14,1997
Amended - January 25,1999
Attachment 1
G-1
•
• Attachment 2
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
GENERALS ERVICES DEPARTMENT
TREE INSPECTION REPORT
Name
Address
Phone Number
Request
Botanical Name _
Common Name _
Designated Street Tree
Estimated Tree Value_
Damage
Parkway: Concrete Brick _Turf _Other _
Comments
Inspected by
Recommendation
Reviewed b
Date
Date
G -1
1
as
• (1)
PB &R Commission Agenda
Item No. 3
February 1, 2000
General Services Department
Parks and Trees Divisions
January 2000 Activities Report
Park Division Activities
1. Staff continued coordinating construction projects regarding Bonita Canyon Sports Park, Grant
Howald Park Ballfield Renovation Project, Seashore Street End Improvement Project, and the
Irvine Avenue Median Improvement Project with the Public Works Department.
2. Staff completed irrigation renovation and plant replacements at various sites. Annual
hydroseeding of California native plants on the slopes below Inspiration Point was performed by
• contract.
3. Staff has been advised that the Orange County's Agricultural Commission office will administer
the funds and contracting for the Imported Red Fire Ant eradication Program. Contracting will
be through the County's Vector Control resources.
4. The football field at Bonita Creek Park was renovated. The work included aerification, de-
thatching, over - seeding and top - dressing. Temporary fencing has been installed to protect the
field.
5. Irrigation was installed at Castaways Park under joint funding with the Castaways Park Citizens
Committee.
6. Prior to City takeover of maintenance at the Castaways Blufftop Trail, the developer, Taylor
Woodrow, was required to replace all wood fencing due to its deteriorated condition.
Additionally, the Developer was required to remove all Saltbush, which impedes views of the
bay, and replant with low growing native plant species. This work has been completed.
7. New landscape and irrigation was installed at the Balboa Boulevard median at "G" Street. This
work was funded by a $12,428.00 donation by the Balboa Peninsula Point Homeowners
Association.
8. Parks's staff has completed all of the priority maintenance items noted on the PB &R
Commission Facilities Inspection Report.
CAWINDOWSDESKTOPPeb PBR 00\PBRP &T Aadm a
Upcoming Activities for February
• 1. The planting of replacement shrubs and ground covers will continue Citywide.
2. Staff will continue to monitor the Fletcher Jones and Arches Mitigation Sites in the Big Canyon
area.
3. Staff will continue coordinating the annual control of rodents by contract services.
4. Staff will perform irrigation and turf renovations at various City facilities.
Tree Division Activities
During the month of January there were 972 trees trimmed, two emergency tree removals due to
wind storm damage, 31 trees planted, 5 emergency calls responded to regarding trees and the Urban
Forester received 92 tree maintenance requests.
1. The City's tree trimming contractor, West Coast Arborists (WCA), continuing tree trimming
work within the Westcliff area that began in January. WCA will remain in the Westcliff area for
approximately two more months. Thereafter, they will move to the Airport and Spyglass
trimming grids.
2. The Urban Forester coordinated the Citywide Sidewalk Replacement Program with the General
• Services Department Concrete Supervisor and the Public Works Inspector. This involved the
Urban Forester inspecting City street trees as related to sidewalk repairs.
3. As directed by the Commission, all community associations within the City of Newport Beach
were notified by letter dated November 29, 1999 of the opportunity to review and comment on
the Designated Street Tree List within 30 days. To date, staff has received six responses. Staff
will continue to review the anticipated responses and prepare a summary report for the March 7,
2000 PB &R Commission agenda.
4. Five King palms recently planted on the east side of Riverside Avenue, and north of Pacific
Coast Highway have suffered decline and were removed. During removal the trees were placed
in boxed containers with imported healthy soil and are being monitored. Staff is researching
cause for the declines through soil testing. Once cause has been determined, staff will proceed
with appropriate action.
5. Hardscape repairs and irrigation installation on the north side of East Coast Highway in Corona
del Mar are expected to be completed by early February by a joint effort between City staff and
the City's landscape maintenance contractor. This completes the reforestation project that was
jointly funded by the City and the Corona del Mar Business Improvement District.
Very respectfully
• Randy Kearns
Acting Park and Trees Maintenance Superintendent
RK/pw
CAWINDOWS\DESKTOP\Feb PBA OO\PBRP&T Actdm
z-
(Item 3)
February 1, 2000
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
. Arts ft Cultural - Library - Recreation - Seniors
To: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission
From: LaDonna Kienitz, Community Services Director /City Librarian
Re: Recreation and Senior Services Division Monthly Activities Report
Reports on the activities of the Recreation and Senior Services Divisions for the
past month are enclosed. Both divisions have been extremely busy with a full
range of activities and services, remodeling and refurbishment projects.
•
•
FRE
Page z
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Arts ii Cultural - Library - Recreation - Seniors
To: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission
From: Andrea McGuire, Acting Senior Recreation Manager
Re: Recreation Division Monthly Activities Report
(Item 3)
February 1, 2000
The Recreation Division welcomed new Recreation Manager, Michelle Perrenoud on January 3, 2000.
Michelle is a graduate of University of Iowa and has 10 years experience with the YMCA.
CLASSESANSTRUCTION
Winter classes began January 3 with over 1,500 people registered during the first ten days. The
winter session concludes the week of March 20, 2000.
The spring Newport Navigator is at the printer and will be distributed to Newport Beach residents
by February 21, 2000.
•ADULT SPORTS
Softball — Spring adult softball schedules were mailed to all teams on January 21. There are 99
teams, which will utilize Bonita Creek Park (2 fields), Lincoln Athletic Center (1 field) and Grant
Howald Park(1 field), play begins January 31. The CYC field is scheduled through March 2 due to
renovation that is set to begin in the early part of March. The season runs through May 10.
The scheduling of 99 teams was difficult with the conflicts with Little League, Soccer, and Bobby
Sox programs sharing the fields. Staff continues to work with all groups to cooperate at every
facility so no teams are turned away.
Basketball — Adult basketball leagues began January 10 with 70 teams. Scheduling referees for the
winter season is always challenging with conflicts with high school C.I.F. games. The City continues
to have the largest program in Southern California due in part to the outstanding referees and
scorekeepers that work this program.
YOUTH PROGRAMS
Basketball — The winter basketball season began January 8 at West Newport Gymnasium and
Eastbluff Boys and Girls Club. The league consists of two divisions, for both boys and girls
respectively — Division C, for children, grades 3 -4; and Division B, grades 5 and 6.
• Newport Beach Youth Council — The Youth Council has received 11 applications for membership.
They are currently being reviewed. The first meeting of the year is scheduled for the first week in
February.
P-7
Page s
• CO- SPONSORED GROUPS
(Item 3)
February 1, 2000
Youth Sports Commission — The new spring field use schedules will be released February 4,
covering March 1 through June 30. The season will be filled with thousands of boys, girls, and adults
playing Little League, Pony League, Bobby Sox, and adult softball on Newport Beach fields. Opening
day for youth softball and little league programs is Saturday, March 4.
SPECIAL EVENTS
KidScene — Over 100 children and adults attended an Open House for KidScene on Wednesday,
January 12 at Mariners Park in the Vincent Jorgensen Room. KidScene is a collaboration between
the Recreation Services and the Library. This new program gives children an opportunity to come
together after - school for study, stories, sports and more. The Vincent Jorgensen Room has been
remodeled and now includes a homework center with 4 computer workstations. Children in the
program can work or use the computers, play indoor and outdoor games, create arts and crafts or
listen to stories.
FACILITIES
Field Renovations — Field Maintenance staff workers Scott Amend and Joel Candelario have been
hard at work in January preparing softball and baseball fields for the upcoming spring baseball and
softball season. The efforts of Scott and Joel combined with the work of the contractor Alan
• Landscape Company has resulted in major improvements to the City's fields. Improvements include
grading and scarifying of the fields along with the application of "Turface" to the dirt infields. All
participants should enjoy the improved playing surfaces this season.
0
The Bonita Creek football field was closed January 4 for renovation, but will open in early March
for Bobby Sox and soccer practices. Field space will be limited during the month of February due to
the closure.
Sailboats — In preparation for the spring session, Small Craft Advisories is performing routine
repairs and maintenance to the Sabot and Lido boat fleet. Construction of the new Sabot boat
storage at 18th Street is currently underway and should be ready for placement by mid February.
Ag
(Item 3)
Page a February 1, 2000
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
• Arts fc Cultural - Library - Recreation - Seniors
To: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission
From: Celeste Jardine -Haug, Senior Services Manager
Re: Senior Services Division Monthly Activities Report
Computer classes - Computer classes and activities continue to be popular at OASIS. Recently the
Center opened classes for Macintosh in response to the numerous requests received. Two
Macintosh classes are currently being offered in addition to the six PC classes that are always in
demand.
New Focus on Prevention - Staff has been working on developing a combination of classes,
educational lectures, and screenings that will promote health prevention and awareness. The goal
is to provide older adults with the tools and information needed to say healthy and well. Staff has
discussed this program with Dr. Gwin Parry, from Hoag Hospital, seeking support and possible
funding for components of the program. The Health Wise Program should begin by summer.
Fundraising Event - The Friends of OASIS partnered with The Mistral Restaurant in Corona del Mar to
hold a fundraising night. Mistral donated to the Friends 10% of the proceeds from the evening
dinner service at the restaurant on Sunday, January 11. Many OASIS members attended and
• reported that both the food and company were outstanding.
Over 80's Birthday Party - A celebration of adults 80 years and older was held Wednesday, January
18. It included a dance performance by the Happy Hoofers, birthday cake and ice cream.
•
Income Tax Preparation - It is the time of year again that OASIS provides free tax preparation
through the AARP Tax Program. This year, eight trained counselors will be volunteering this
service, February 1 through April 15. The program provides free personal income tax assistance to
middle and low - income taxpayers of all ages.
a5
Page s
(Item 3)
February 1, 2000
. PARTICIPANTS ATTENDING
37
7,900 CUSTOMERS
RECREATIONAL CLASSES
Reagan Library
3,232 CUSTOMERS
PERSONALIZED SERVICES PROVIDED
1,736 CUSTOMERS
Includes:
General Membership
68
Another Passage
4
Blood Pressure
38
Housing counseling 35
Braille
27
Information /Referral 1,125
Counseling
70
Legal Assistance 11
Eldercare
3
Senior Assessment(hrs) 40
Employment
27
Telephone Reassurance 346
HICAP
5
Visual Screening 5
SENIORS RECEIVING TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
Care -A -Van 275
Shuttle 659
CUSTOMERS RECEIVING NOON MEALS AT THE CENTER
•VOLUNTEER HRS. OF SERVICES PROVIDED AT THE
CENTER
Includes: Kitchen & Home Delivered Meals
Front Office Travel Office
Gift Shop Library
Instructors PresNP
Treasurer Pancake Breakfast
Thanksgiving Luncheon
PARTICIPANTS IN FRIENDS OF OASIS TRAVEL
PROGRAMS
Day Trips
San Diego Wild Animal Park
37
LA County Museum
44
Reagan Library
52
ATTENDEES TO MEETINGS AT OASIS
Board of Directors
19
General Membership
68
SPECIAL EVENTS
Pancake Breakfast 258
.Thanksgiving 145
Luncheon
934 CUSTOMERS
1,323 CUSTOMERS
1,623.00 HOURS
( *equiv. to 10 full -time employees)
185 CUSTOMERS
Lona Trips
Laughlin /Flamingo 52
87 PERSONS
403 PERSONS
0
n
I�
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Arts & Cultural - Library - Recreation - Seniors
To: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission
From: LaDonna Kienitz, Community Services Director /City Librarian
Re: MarinaPark Proposal
(Item 4)
February 1, 2000
The attached conceptual plan was developed by the Park 8 Open Space Committee
and approved by the Commission at the January 4, 2000 meeting.
The Park &t Open Space Committee reviewed the text of the project at their meeting
on January 26, 2000.
•
•
31
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Arts 8t Cultural - Library - Recreation - Seniors
• Date: February 2, 2000
To: Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager
From: LaDonna Kienitz, Community Services Director /City Librarian
Re: MarinaPark Proposal
In response to the City of Newport Beach's City Council request for proposals for MarinaPark Future
Use/ Development, the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission urges the City Council to
consider this project or any similar project that would use approximately one -third of the available
property to preserve park and open space on Balboa Peninsula. Should the tidelands boundary be
designated as anticipated, the tennis courts in this plan could be moved into that area to make
more uplands available for private development. This proposal shows only one concept of how the
park could be designed. The same components could be configured in other ways as well.
The primary goal of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission is to preserve park and open
space and the recreation facilities currently on the site.
Basic Qualifications
This would be a Public Works Department project coordinated with Community Services and
General Services Departments.
Financial Qualifications
• The City of Newport Beach would fund this project through Park -in -Lieu Funds. The City of
Newport Beach can ask the developer of the other portions of the property to contribute to the
redevelopment of the park.
Project Description
The primary goat of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission proposal is to preserve open
space and park facilities that are similar to those that currently exist, by supporting a plan to use
approximately 2.5 acres of the property for a park, recreation facilities and a community center.
The Community Services Department retained Architect Bob Pederson to work on concept plans as
directed by the Park and Open Space Committee of the Commission. This proposal for the new park
includes the following facilities:
1. Four tennis courts (two lighted).
2. One tot lot
3. One full basketball court
4. One Community Center - two story (approximately 7,000 square feet), currently the Balboa
Community Center and the Girl Scout House total approximately 5,000 square feet.
5. A boat shelter for storage of city owed sailing boats
6. A small boat dock for temporary docking
7. A public boat launch ramp
8. Parking for 110 cars.
This proposal uses approximately one -third of the available area, leaving the America Legion lease
area untouched, maintaining Veteran's Memorial Park with some modifications for the basketball
court and proposing the area between 18`" and 17'h Streets and a small parcel that fronts Balboa
• Boulevard for private development use.
311_
MarinaPark Proposal
Page 2
• This proposal shows only one way this area can be used to preserve park and open space. Should
the final determination of tidelands preclude development along the beach, the tennis courts can
be moved to the tidelands, leaving the area along Balboa Boulevard for development.
Development Costs and Operating Pro Forma
It is anticipated that this park development could cost approximately $2 million including design
and development fees. The State Department of Boating and Waterways would provide grant
money for the construction of the boat launch ramp and possibly the temporary dock. If
Proposition 12 — Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal Protection Bond
Act of 2000, on the state wide ballot for March 7 passes, there should be funds under (1) the Per
Capita I Program of that bond for redevelopment; and (2) rehabilitation of restoration of real
property for park purposes; and (3) the per capita rate is $6.29, or $452,880 for cities the size of
Newport Beach.
The additional 110 parking spaces would generate revenue from the meters or permits required. At
an average of $415 per meter, those spaces could generate revenue of $49,000 per year or more.
There are several important recreation programs that operate in this park and would thrive in the
new renovated facility. Revenue generated by sailing classes is approximately $60,000 per year.
Revenue generated by tennis classes (only at these courts) is approximately $15,000 per year.
Revenue generated by rental of rooms in the community center would be approximately $10,000
per year.
Groups who currently rent the Balboa Community Center and use the Girl Scout House would be
• able to use the new Community center. There would be no additional staff required to operate this
park, although money would be necessary for maintenance of the landscape and the building.
Implementation Schedule
Based on City Council schedule, bid openings and public works schedule.
Consultant Team
To be determined by the Public Works and Community Services Department.
Cost Breakdown
Demolition and Site Clearing
Construction 4 Tennis Courts
Lighting for 2 Tennis Courts
Construction of one Basketball court
Streets Et Parking lots
Construction of Boat Ramp
Construction of Bulkhead Wall
Boat Dock
Concrete Sidewalks
Resurface and restripe American Legion Lot
Community Center Building
Landscape and Irrigation
• Total construction costs
Design and Development Costs
Contingency
Grand Total
108,750
120,000
20,000
18,500
135,000
20,000
20,000
60,000
10,000
16,000
900,000
91,000
$1,519,250
230,000
240,000
$1,989,250
33
D
z
D
TD
N
C)
0
^z
J
m
—v
r
D
z
Y
Fi
8i
8
x
a�
B
ao
n
r
m
O
a
0
m
c
D
a
0
(Item 5)
February 1, 2000
• COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Arts a Cultural - Library - Recreation - Seniors
To: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission
From: LaDonna Kienitz, Community Services Director /City Librarian
Re: Proposition 12 - Park Bond
RECOMMENDATION
Take the following action:
The Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission recognizes the
imporatnce of parks and recreation facilities in the City of Newport
Beach and supports the passage of Proposition 12 — Safe Neighborhoos
Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000
on the March 7, 2000 primary election ballot.
BACKGROUND
• Information regarding Proposition 12 was distributed at the December 7, 1999
Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission meeting. On January 25, the City
of Newport Beach City Council passed a resolution supporting Proposition 12
and 13. The staff report is attached.
Proposition 12 will make per capita grants available to municipalities for the
acquisition, development, improvement, rehabilitation, restoration and
enhancement of local park and recreational facilities.
Attachment
•
13�1
n
u
n
U
•
ITEM
TO: Mayor and Members of City Council
FROM: Dave Kiff, Deputy City Manager
SUBJECT: Resolution in Support of Propositions 12 on the March 7, 2000 Primary
Election Ballot
RECOMMENDED
ACTION:
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY:
BACKGROUND:
Adopt Resolution 2000 -_ relating to the City of Newport Beach's support for
Propositions 12 and 13 on the March 7, 2000 Primary Election Ballot.
This agenda item asks the City Council to formally state the City's support for
the following measures on the March 7, 2000 Primary Election Ballot:
• Proposition 12 - the "Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air,
and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000." The "Parks Bond" would
appropriate $2.1 billion for a variety of park and open space purposes,
including up to $13 million for the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve
Maintenance and Protection Fund.
• Proposition 13 - the "Safe Drinking Water, CIean Water, Watershed
Protection, and Flood Protection Bond Act." The "Water Bond" would
appropriate $1.97 billion for a variety of water and water quality purposes,
including grants to local governments for non -point source pollution
control programs.
The City faces major challenges in the years ahead relating to its quality of life:
• Rehabilitation of Parks, Playgrounds and Facilities - - the City currently
has 12 facilities, 27 playgrounds and 54 parks. How will the City fund the
projects needed to renovate existing playgrounds and facilities in parks,
replace inefficient lighting and rehabilitate buildings and grounds.
• Habitat Protection in Upper Newport Bay - how will the City adequately
preserve and maintain Upper Newport Bay, including funding the City's
share of substantial dredging projects in the Bay that would restore the Bay
to its optimal habitat?
• Bay Water Quality -- how will the City improve and protect the water
quality in the Upper and Lower Bay to meet State standards that will
assure that the Bay is always safe for water contact sports and fish and
shellfish consumption?
Newport Beach City Council
26
• The City's Legislative BACKGROUND.
Platform for 2000 (cont'd)
(adopted by the City
Council on January 11,
2000) calls upon the
City to...
What's at Stake
•
March 2000 Ballot
•
Page 3
to
City's Legislative
• Platform for 2000
(excerpt)
"...Support
legislation and
funding measures
that would
increase water
supply and
improve water
quality in this
region" and to
"pursue legislative
and executive
action that
provides long -tern
sources of funds
and /or services to
enhance and
protect Newport
Bay."
The term "funding" is
all the more important
to protecting Upper
Newport Bay and to
• improving water
quality because of the
anticipated costs to
the City of several
future activities,
including:
• Fecal Coliform
TMDL. The
total maximum
daily load for
fecal coliform (a
bacteria used as
an indicator of
pathogens that
may cause
disease in
humans)
requires
Newport Bay to
meet specific
State water
quality
standards
within fourteen
• and twenty
years. By 2014,
Page 4
the Bay must meet "REC1" standards (safe for water contact sports). By
2020, the Bay must meet "SHEL" standards (whereby a shellfish harvested
from the Bay must be safe for human consumption). Hundreds of storm
drains that enter the Bay drain from Newport Beach's streets - if the City is
obligated to ensure that each storm drain discharges only clean water, the
education and treatment programs to attain clean storm and dry weather
flows may involve several hundred thousand dollars.
• Toxics TMDL. The TMDL that will control toxics - including heavy metals,
pesticides, and other chemicals - is under development today and may
receive State approval by 2002. It remains difficult to project the likely cost
of the Toxics TMDL, but a recent draft study on Toxic Hot Spots by the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board (Santa Ana Region)
noted that the cost to excavate and dispose of toxic deposits already in the
Bay near the Rhine Channel may exceed $10 million.
• Upper Newport Bay Feasibility Study Dredging Project. As the Council is
aware, the City is one of several "local partners" in two cost - shared studies
lead by the US Army Corps of Engineers. The "Upper Newport Bay"
Study - nearing public release in its final form - may recommend a
dredging project triple the size of the 1998 -99 project that removed about
900,000 cubic yards of sediment from the Bay. The Study's dredging
project may cost $24 million. With expenses shared 65 % -35% with the
Federal government and the local partners, the local partners' obligation
may equal $8 million.
• Newoort Bav Watershed Feasibilitv Studv Restoration Proiects. This
second cost - shared Corps study, only recently underway, will propose
capital improvements in the watershed that drains into the Bay - including
land within the cities of Irvine, Lake Forest, Tustin, Costa Mesa, Santa Ana,
Orange, and Laguna Woods. Initial estimates for these projects range from
$20 -24 million, again split 65%-35% with the Federal government. The
local partners' obligation will again range from $6 -8 million.
Every even - numbered year, the Legislature and /or petitioners can place a State
"general obligation' bond measure on the ballot and ask for majority voter
approval. These bonds, if passed, require the State to repay them with interest
37
Page 5
• BACKGROUND: over a specified period of time. They become the "general obligation" of the
(cont'd) State of California, backed by the full faith and credit of the State. Six bond
measures - including bonds for parks, water quality, libraries, crime labs and
veterans homes - will appear on the March 7, 2000 primary ballot.
Propositions 12 and 13 Proposition 12 - a bond measure placed on the ballot by the Legislature (via AB
18, Villaraigosa- Keeley, 1999) - would appropriate $2.1 million from the State
General Fund to "protect land around lakes, rivers, and streams and the coast to
improve water quality and ensure clean drinking water; to protect forests and
plant trees to improve air quality; to preserve open space and farmland
threatened by development; to protect wildlife habitats; and to repair and
improve the safety of state and neighborhood parks." Given interest costs
associated with a bond of $2.1 billion, the State General Fund would repay the
Parks Bond over 25 years at $144 million each year ($3.6 billion in constant
dollars). Proposition 12 designates per capita grants to cities totaling $388
million. Proposition 12 designates up to $13 million for the Upper Newport Bay
Ecological Reserve Maintenance and Protection Fund.
Proposition 13 — a bond measure placed on the ballot by the Legislature (via AB
584, Machado - Costa, 1999) - would appropriate $1.97 billion from the State
General Fund to "provide funds for a safe drinking water, water quality, flood
protection, and water reliability program." Given the interest costs associated
with a bond of $1.97 billion, the State General Fund would repay the bond over
Where the City benefits 25 years at $135 million each year ($3.4 billion in constant dollars).
• City staff firmly believes that the passage of both propositions will significantly
assist the City as it attempts to meet our Bay - related obligations. The
"earmarking" within Proposition 12 assures that the local partners will meet the
local match for the Upper Newport Bay Feasibility Study's recommended
dredging project. The City can compete for other discretionary funds within
both Proposition 12 and 13 for restoration projects in the Newport Bay
Watershed and programs to address both the fecal coliform and toxics TMDLs.
Further, passage of Propositions 12 and 13 appropriately distributes the financial
burden of coastal resource protection across the State's population as a whole.
Given that the entire State both enjoys coastal resources and contributes to its
degradation (via urban runoff and overuse), the measures ensure that those who
enjoy coastal waters also invest in their protection. If the measures do not pass,
the financial burden to the City and its taxpayers of the four activities identified
in this staff report will be substantial.
Readers can find additional information about both Propositions 12 and 13 -
including arguments in favor and in opposition to the measures and the various
groups and individuals on each side - by accessing the California Secretary of
State's website at www.ss.ca.gov and by reading the Secretary of State's Ballot
ATTACHMENTS: Pamphlet when it arrives by mail.
Attachment A: Resolution 2000 -_ in Support of Propositions 12 and 13
Attachment B: Information and Excerpts from Propositions 12 and 13
N
Page 6
is Attachment A
Resolution 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSITIONS 12 AND 13
ON THE MARCH 7, 2000 PRIMARY ELECTION BALLOT
WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach places a high value on the coastal resources associated with
the city, including Upper Newport Bay and the water quality in the Lower Bay; and
WHEREAS, these coastal and water resources demand and deserve extensive enhancement and
protection programs that ensure their long -term survival; and
WHEREAS, these protection programs involve significant expenses on the part of coastal
municipalities like Newport Beach; and
WHEREAS, the State Legislature has attempted to address the States interest in protecting and
enhancing coastal resources and water quality by placing Propositions 12 (the "Safe Neighborhood Parks,
Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal Protection Act of 2000 ") and 13 (the Safe Drinking Water, Clean
Water, Watershed Protection, and Flood Protection Bond Act") on the March 7, 2000 Primary Election
Ballot; and
WHEREAS, both Propositions 12 and 13 include provisions that will significantly assist Newport
• Beach in protecting Newport Bay and local water quality; and
WHEREAS, Proposition 12 includes an appropriation of up to $13 million for the Upper Newport Bay
Ecological Reserve Maintenance and Protection Fund, a fund that may be used for dredging the Upper
Bay to preserve and maintain its optimal ecosystem despite aggressive sedimentation from upstream
development; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach supports the passage of Propositions
12 and 13 on the March 7, 2000 Primary Election Ballot to protect Upper Newport Bay, Bay water
quality, and coastal and water resources across the State of California for future generations.
ADOPTED this 25a' day of January, 2000.
ATTEST:
LaVonne Harkless
CITY CLERK
•
John E. Noyes
MAYOR of NEWPORT BEACH
39
•
•
a
s 4y
PB & R Commission Agenda
Item No.
February 1, 2000
To: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission
From: General Services Director
Subject: Bench Donation
Recommendation
To accept a bench donation from David Burkland and Joanne Reinhard that will replace an
existing bench at West Jetty View Park.
Discussion
Commission denied a bench donation request from David Burkland and Joanne Reinhard at the
October, 1999 PB &R Commission meeting (Attachment A). The proposed location at the 1 Ph
Street and West Oceanfront met with considerable opposition from adjacent neighbors.
Subsequently, the donors submitted a letter dated January 14, 2000 requesting the approval of a
bench donation at an alternate location in the West Jetty View Park (Attachment B). The bench
would replace an existing bench and be of the same style as other replacement benches. Staff
believes the bench will provide an enhancement to the area. The verbiage and size of the donor
plaque will conform to City Council Policy G -5.
Mr. Burkland and Ms. Reinhard have received a copy of this report and notice of the Parks,
Beaches, and Recreation Commission meeting scheduled February 1, 2000.
Very respectfully,
David E. Niederhaus
DEN /RK /pw
• Attachments:
A. October, 1999 PB &R Commission Minutes
B. Mr. D. Burkland and Ms. J. Reinhard's letter dated January 14, 2000
CAVMI DOWSTESKTOPT& PBR OOTBR&nkland.doc uA
TU
0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Parks, Beaches 8t Recreation Commission
Regular Meeting
October 5, 1999 - 7pm
CONVENED AT 7pm
ROLL CALL
Present: Beek, Franklin, Mcfarland, Pfaff, Sinclair, Skoro, Tobin
Staff Present: LaDonna Kienitz, Community Services Director /City Ubr
David E. Niederhaus, General Services Director
Andrea McGuire, Acting Senior Recreation Manage
Celeste Jardine -Haug, Senior Services Manager
Teri Craig, Admin Assistant
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion by Commissioner Skoro to approve the minute of September 7, 1999. Motion
carried by acclamation.
• PUBLIC COMMENTS
None
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Correspondence - Correspondence f m, Tam Hyans, September 28, 1999, received and
acknowledged. The following corre ondence was received after the agenda was posted
and acknowledged: from James H ley, September 30,1999; Tim Hogan, October 1, 1999;
and to Kathy Harrison, Chair, A Commission, October 5, 1999.
2. Par Tree Division
3.
4. bona io of Shade Structure at Buffalo Hills P — Director Niederhaus asked that this
item a continued for 30 days as he has not had time to meet with the Association to
di uss the donation with them.
xI Chair Beek stated that it would he continued until November.
5. Bench Donation - Commissioner Skoro stated that he would like to thank Mr. and Mrs.
Niederhaus for their generous donation and stated that the benches should blend in
well.
—j 6. Bench Donation - Director Niederhaus stated that two additional letters had been
received stating that a bench at 11tl' Street and West Oceanfront in their opinion would /
n
U
Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission
Regular Meeting
October S, 1999
Page 2
be a nuisance. Director Niederhaus stated that staff still recommends that the bench be
located at this location and that approximately 60 letters were sent out to homeowners
and that only two were received in opposition.
Commissioner Macfarland asked why the bench at 19"' Street had been removed.
Director Niederhaus stated that he had no memory of a bench at that Location.
Commissioner Tobin asked if a trash receptacle would be located near the bench.
Director Niederhaus stated yes.
Chair Beek opened the public hearing
Bob Wilhelm, 1036 W. Oceanfront, stated that the bench would be located directly in
front of his house. He stated that he did not completely object to a bench being
located there except that with the bench, a trash receptacle would be need and there
. are already an inordinate amount of signs located on the light post. He suggested that
the bench be located at 1410 Street. He also stated that he would be willing to support
a different design of trashcans.
Tom Hyans, 217 191" Street, President, Newport Centrat Community Association, stated
that their job was community advocacy between the two piers. He stated that a study
session should be scheduled to discuss the problems between these two areas. He
stated that he was against a bench, because they attract nuisances. He also noted that
the bench at 19'" Street was removed because of transients, dope selling, etc. He
stated that having benches becomes a gathering place. Mr. Hyans noted that he is
representing the entire Association, and therefore there are many more than just two
people that are against placing a bench at that location. He suggested that Mr. It Mrs.
Reinhard donate the money for the bench to the Newport Elementary School Plaque
Association.
Betty Hogan, 1100 W. Oceanfront, stated that she has lived there for 30 years and that
the bench would be located right next to her bedroom window. She urged the
Commission to deny the request of a bench at that location.
Chair Beek closed tbg Public Hearin
6 -4 Lion by Commissioner to deny the request of Mr. Et Mrs. Reinhard to place a
bench at 111" Street and West Oceanfront. Motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: Beek, Franklin, Macfarland, Pfaff, Tobin
Nay: Sinclair, Skoro
vl�—
n
U
JAN. 14 'OC (FAI) 16:09 CITY OF CHICO
Date: 7a yl - 14 0 2-000
Mr. Randy Kearns
Acting Park and Trees Maintenance Superintendent
City of Newport Beach
Post Office Box 1758
Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915
5308954825 PACE.: /7
Dear Mr. Kearns,
Pursuant to our conversations, I am writing to confirm proceeding with a bench
donation to the City of Newport Beach to be installed at West Jetty View Park.
• I understand that the bench will be the same style as other replacement benches at
the site and I will provide a plaque of the standard 2" x 6" size with the permitted
verbiage that will read "Donated by (go ,>'41.ok
(circle one)
I also understand that this request is subject to approval by the Parks, Beaches and
Recreation Commission and will be placed on the agenda of the Commission
meeting scheduled for February 1, 2000, if I confirm my request, in writing, no
later than January 15, 2000,
If you have any questions or need any additional information please contact me
atL530�3�d5 -G7G Thank you for your assistance with my donation
request.
Sincerely, , _ate' P" y /, Av% '
David Burkland, Joanne Reinhard
•
•
•
11
a
7 �i I.
111
PB & R Commission Agenda
Item No.�
February 1, 2000
To: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission
From: General Services Director
Subject: Bench Donation
Recommendation
To accept a bench donation from Dr. Thomas M. O'Connell that will replace an existing bench at
West Jetty View Park.
Discussion
Staff received an inquiry from Dr. O'Connell regarding a proposed bench donation for West Jetty
View Park.
Subsequently, the donor submitted a letter dated January 10, 2000 requesting the approval of a
bench donation (Attachment A). Dr. O'Connell's bench will replace an existing bench and be of
the same style as other replacement benches. Staff believes the bench will provide continued
enhancement to the area. The verbiage and size of the donor plaque will conform to City
Council Policy G -5 (Attachment B).
Dr. O'Connell has received a copy of this report and notice of the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation
Commission meeting scheduled February 1, 2000.
Very respectfully,
David E. Niederhaus
DEN/MGL /pw
Attachments:
A. Dr. Thomas M. O'Connell's letter dated January 10, 2000
B. City Council Policy G -5
CAWEVD WSDESKTOPTcb PBR OOTBR Dr. OComd.doc
I !
r�
L
0
0
Jan -10 -00 04:47P Glaxo- Wellcome
10 January. 2000
Mr. Randy Kearns
Acting Parks and Trees Maintenance Superintendent
City of Newport Beach
P. O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, Calif. 92658 -8915
Dear Mr. Kearns,
9193153900
I am writing to confirm proceeding with a bench donation to the City of Newport Beach
to be installed at West jetty View Park. As we discussed, this bench will be a
replacement for an existing bench located near the bay side of the park (third from the
end).
I understand that the bench will be the same style as the other replacement benches in the
park and 1 will provide a plaque of the standard 2" x 6" size, which will read "Donated
t.)r Jack O'Connell ". I also understand the this request is subject to approval by the
Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission and will be placed on the agenda of the
Commission meeting scheduled for February 1, 2000.
1, and the rest of the O'Connell famuv greatly appreciate your efforts in helping us with
this donation.
Sincerely,
�� � (✓ %rte:- �- �aCiU/
Dr. Thomas M. O'Connell
P.O1
F
G -5
PARK AND STREET IMPROVEMENT DONATIONS
The City Council recognizes the need to provide residents with the
opportunity to donate trees, benches, drinking fountains or related park and
street improvement items. This policy establishes criteria for donations to
assure attractiveness, usefulness and the capability to be maintained.
Tree Donations
The tree -lined walkway at Oasis Passive Park beginning at 5th Avenue and
Marguerite in Corona del Mar shall be identified as one area where a tree
with a bronze plaque can be installed. Other trees with plaques can be
donated and installed at locations recommended by the General Services
Director and approved by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission.
Bench Donations
It shall be the responsibility of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission
to designate the type, style, design, and placement of City-owned benches on
City property. Areas of placement may be parks, streets, along the
beachfront, within villages, commercial districts, and neighborhoods, on a
specific island, etc. Once an area has been designated with a certain style or
type of bench, the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission may require
that the designation be changed only by a formal request for a redesignation.
The factors to be addressed in preparing the list of approved benches for the
City as well as the final design for a specific site will include at a minimum:
size, usage, vandalism, traffic, security, view obstructions, location, style
reflective of neighborhood and cost. The Arts Commission will provide
design review assistance as required.
Donation requests will be submitted to the General Services Department and
meet the following requirements.
a. Bench donations along a City street or beach front will require the
approval of the General Services Director and the Traffic Engineer.
b. Bench donations within a commercial district will require notification of,
and an endorsement from, the local business association.
c. Bench donations for parks within a residential community will require
notification of residents within 300 feet of placement and an endorsement
from the homeowners association, when applicable.
•
81
G -5
0 Park and Street Amenities
Items such as benches, drinking fountains, tables, etc., can be donated to be
included in the public park system. Recognition on the item shall be a 2" x 6"
plaque and limited to Donated by (Name) or Donated for (Name) as a means
of identifying the donation.
Donors of major park improvement gifts may elect to provide a dedicatory
plaque not exceeding 5" x 7" with name, date and appropriate text not
exceeding 25 words.
All donations must be approved by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation
Commission. The cost of a donated item, including identification plaque,
shall be borne totally by private funds. The City will assume ownership and
maintenance if accepted and placed in a public park or on a sidewalk unless
other arrangements have been agreed upon. The City will not assume
responsibility for replacement due to vandalism or theft.
Adopted - July 22,1992
Amended - January 24,1994
. Amended - June 27,1994
Amended -June 24, 1996
Formerly I -15
•
2 47
0
E
•
(S)
L =
PB & R Co mission Agenda
Item No. ?3
February 1, 2000
To: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission
From: General Services Director
Subject: Tree Donation
Recommendation
To accept a tree donation from Mr. Steve Craig that will be planted at Castaways Park, and the
funding to install irrigation to the tree.
Discussion
Staff received an inquiry from Mr. Steve Craig regarding a proposed tree donation for Castaways
Park. Staff met with Mr. Craig on site to determine a specific location and to determine
irrigation requirements. The installation will be funded by Mr. Craig and installed by a
contractor. The selected tree, a Coast Live Oak, is consistent with the existing tree palette.
Subsequently, the donor submitted a letter dated December 27, 1999 requesting the approval of
his proposed tree donation (Attachment A). Staff believes the tree will provide enhancement to
the area and the proposed irrigation to the tree will minimize additional maintenance
requirements. The verbiage and size of the donor plaque will conform to City Council Policy G-
5 (Attachment B).
Mr. Craig has received a copy of this report and notice of the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation
Commission meeting scheduled February 1, 2000.
Very respectfully,
David E. Niederhaus
DEN/RK/pw
Attachments:
A. Mr. Steve Craig's letter dated December 27, 1999
B. City Council Policy G -5
CAVaNDOW"ESKTOPPeb PBR OOTBRCreig.doc
/ U
• Date: t Z Z
Mr. Randy Kearns
Acting Park and Trees Maintenance Superintendent
City of Newport Beach
Post Office Box 1768
Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915
Dear Mr. Kearns,
Pursuant to our conversations, I am writing to confirm proceeding with a tree donation to
the City of Newport Beach to be planted at Castaways Park along with the cost to install
irrigation to the tree.
As we discussed, I would like to have a 24" boxed container tree planted, along with the
st 2" x 6" plaquep with the permitted verbiage that will read "Donated
b for CUA U(Ci7�RPFY
(circ a one)
I understand that this request is subject to approval by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation
Commission and will be placed on the agenda of the Commission meeting scheduled for
February 1, 2000, if I confirm my request, in writing, no later than January 15, 2000.
If you have any questions or need any additional information please contact me
at 7gt 61 Z -7 j s-q . Thank you for your assistance with my donation request.
incerely,
Steve Craig
•
7j
G -5
PARK AND STREET IMPROVEMENT DONATIONS
The City Council recognizes the need to provide residents with the
opportunity to donate trees, benches, drinking fountains or related park and
street improvement items. This policy establishes criteria for donations to
assure attractiveness, usefulness and the capability to be maintained.
Tree Donations
The tree -lined walkway at Oasis Passive Park beginning at 5th Avenue and
Marguerite in Corona del Mar shall be identified as one area where a tree
with a bronze plaque can be installed. Other trees with plaques can be
donated and installed at locations recommended by the General Services
Director and approved by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission.
Bench Donations
It shall be the responsibility of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission
to designate the type, style, design, and placement of City-owned benches on
City property. Areas of placement may be parks, streets, along the
beachfront, within villages, commercial districts, and neighborhoods, on a
specific island, etc. Once an area has been designated with a certain style or
type of bench, the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission may require
• that the designation be changed only by a formal request for a redesignation.
r�
L
The factors to be addressed in preparing the list of approved benches for the
City as well as the final design for a specific site will include at a minimum:
size, usage, vandalism, traffic, security, view obstructions, location, style
reflective of neighborhood and cost. The Arts Commission will provide
design review assistance as required.
Donation requests will be submitted to the General Services Department and
meet the following requirements.
a. Bench donations along a City street or beach front will require the
approval of the General Services Director and the Traffic Engineer.
b. Bench donations within a commercial district will require notification of,
and an endorsement from, the local business association.
c. Bench donations for parks within a residential community will require
notification of residents within 300 feet of placement and an endorsement
from the homeowners association, when applicable.
G -5
. Park and Street Amenities
Items such as benches, drinking fountains, tables, etc., can be donated to be
included in the public park system. Recognition on the item shall be a 2" x 6"
plaque and limited to Donated by (Name) or Donated for (Name) as a means
of identifying the donation.
Donors of major park improvement gifts may elect to provide a dedicatory
plaque not exceeding 5" x 7" with name, date and appropriate text not
exceeding 25 words.
All donations must be approved by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation
Commission. The cost of a donated item, including identification plaque,
shall be borne totally by private funds. The City will assume ownership and
maintenance if accepted and placed in a public park or on a sidewalk unless
other arrangements have been agreed upon. The City will not assume
responsibility for replacement due to vandalism or theft.
Adopted - July 22,1992
Amended - January 24,1994
• Amended - June 27,1994
Amended - June 24,1996
Formerly I -15
is
2
5/
0
E
(1)
,h
PB & R Commission Agenda
Item No. I
February 1, 2000
To: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission
From: General Services Director
Subject: Tree Donation
Recommendation
To accept four trees as a donation from Mr. Paul O'Connor that will be planted in Buffalo Hills
Park adjacent to 1930 Port Trinity, and will be irrigated by the property owner.
Discussion
Staff met Mr. O'Connor on site regarding the proposed trees donation for Buffalo Hills Park.
Staff concurs with the tree selection, each to be 24" size boxed Liquid Amber trees, and the
proposed location.
Subsequently, Ms. Jill Schwalbe, Property Manager, Villageway Property Management, on
behalf of the Board of Directors of the Newport Hills Community Association (NHCA)
submitted a letter dated January 12, 2000 in support of the proposed donation (Attachment A).
Staff and the Homeowners Association believe the trees will provide enhancement to the area.
Mr. O'Connor and Ms. Jill Schwalbe, Property Manager, Villageway Property Management,
have received a copy of this report and notice of the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission
meeting scheduled February 1, 2000.
Very respectfully,
David E. Niederhaus
DEN /JC /pw
• Attachments:
A. Ms. Jill Schwalbe letter dated January 12, 2000
CAWINDOWS\DESKTOPTeb PBR OOTBRPonTriniry.doc
M
•Property Mi:nrtgement
January 12, 2000
PE'= (''p= @°ii7s
JAN 1 9 2000
City of Newport Beach
Parks, Beaches, Recreation Department
3300 Newport Blvd.
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
RE: NEWPORT HILLS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
1930 PORT TRINITY PLACE, NEWPORT BEACH
To Whom It May Concern:
P_0. Box 4708, Irvine, CA 92616
22 Maii
Irvine, CA 92618
949.450.1515
fax 949.585.01116
vmi @villageway.com
As management agent for the Newport Hills Community Association, I have been
• requested by the Board of Directors to contact you regarding Paul O'Connor's request to
donate and plant (4) liquid amber trees in the City park next to his property located at
1930 Port Trinity Place, Newport Beach.
Please be advised that the Board of Directors of the Newport Hills Community
Association support and recommend that the City of Newport Beach allow Mr. O'Connor
to install four (4) 24" box Liquid Amber trees in the city park next to 1930 Port Trinity
Place, Newport Beach. The Board of Directors feels that the installation of these trees
will enhance the aesthetics of the park.
Should you have any questions regarding the above information, please do not hesitate to
contact the undersigned at (949) 4550 -1515 ext. 240, thank you.
Sincerely,
Jill kAwalbe
Property Manager
On Behalf of the Board of Directors
Cc: Paul O'Connor
Andrew Brooks
• Architectural Committee
QX�A
/r
Bhp Providing Homeowner Association Management Si' ��:e 1069 � � qC
(Item 10)
February 1, 2000
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Arts & Cultural- Library - Recreation - Seniors
To: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission
From: LaDonna Kienitz, Community Services Director /City Librarian
Re: Bayside Park
The Commission has received correspondence, as indicated in the agenda, from Eric
Parker, a resident at 4001/2 Iris, requesting changes in Bayside Drive Park.
There has been considerable activity and communication on this park renovation,
documented herein.
I. REVIEW OF ACTIVITY
September 10, 1997 Letter from Trish Swenson regarding meeting with
staff and "Mother's Club" on Bayside Park
renovations, including list of parents concerns and
suggestions.
September 29, 1997 Letter sent to residents notifying them of an on -site
meeting, Friday, October 10, 1997, 9am.
October 10, 1997 Onsite meeting. In attendance were Trish Swenson,
Susan Dean, Tara Perkins, Julia Rappaport, Harvey
Holste and City staff member Steve Hunt.
June 10, 1998 Pre - construction meeting with contractors.
August 4, 1998 Correspondence received from Shirley Conger, July
16, 1998.
August 25, 1998 Project completed.
September 1, 1998 Public Comments made at Parks, Beaches and
Recreation Commission meeting by Shirley Conger,
Keith Dean and Eric Parker. Correspondence also
received from Janet Rappaport, August 21, 1998,
and Keith Dean, August 28, 1999.
•
5Y
0
0
0
Bayside Drive Park
Page 2
September 14, 1998 Completion of contract approved by City Council.
Eric Parker appeared before City Council requesting
that the City complete the stucco wall on his side of
the property to match existing stucco wall. Public
Works staff was requested to meet with residents.
Wall was subsequently stuccoed.
October 6, 1998 Agenda item discussion at Parks, Beaches and
Recreation Commission meeting. Janet Rappaport,
Shirley Conger and Eric Parker spoke during the
public hearing. Staff report recommended that park
remain as designed. Motion by Commission to move
bench and investigate adding more foilage for
privacy. Another public hearing set for November.
November 3, 1998 Agenda item discussion at Parks, Beaches and
Recreation Commission meeting. Shirley Conger and
Eric Parker spoke during the public hearing. Motion
by Commission to keep park bench on the east end
of the tot lot and keep landscape area along the
north wall as designed and planted. Correspondence
received from Harvey Holste and neighbors, dated
October 9, 1998.
December 27, 1999 Correspondence received from Eric Parker.
January 4, 2000 Meeting onsite with Eric Parker to discuss issues in
letter. Staff present: Andrea McGuire, Randy Kearns
and John Conway.
January 14, 2000 Correspondence received from the firm Coast
Recreation regarding Eric Parkers verbal request
about exchanging swing locations. Attached
II. PREVIOUS STAFF REPORTS
The staff reports of October 3, 1998 and November 6, 1998, and minutes for the
respective meetings are attached.
�55
Bayside Drive Park
Page 3
III. RECOMMENDATIONS
A. That one tree be replaced and two new trees be planted with same species, but 24
inch boxed trees instead of the 15 gallon trees that were originally planted,
Hymenosporum flavum (Sweetshade), a tree that can be planted in the small 3 foot
growth space without interfering with the decomposed granite path. The trees grow to
40 feet with a 15 to 20 foot spread and have a very fragrant yellow flower. The cost of
these trees including planting is $195 each. Resident has offered to donate one tree to
enable the replacement to happen in a timely manner.
B. Decomposed granite path should remain. The three trees can be planted without
interfering with the path.
C. Playground equipment should remain as placed. Playground equipment cannot
be moved; as it is set in concrete footing. Fall zone requirements are set by
Standard Customer Safety Performance Specifications for Playground
Equipment for Public Use. Total compliance to this standard is necessary for
the safety of the children.
•
0
5L
•
�0.
BEC/JEAT/ON /NC - - -- -
2082 5. E. M15TOL, SUITE 204 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 PH.: (714) 553 -8065 FAX: (714) 553 -8067
January 14, 2000 D
Andrea McGuire
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Bivd
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -1768
Dear Andrea:
Per our discussion regarding the park at Boyside Drive, it would not be
• possible to switch the two swing sets and remain compliant to the safety
zone requirements mandated by the Consumer Product . Safety
Commission. The safety zone for the belt swing is significantly .larger
than that of the Arch Tot swing and the Arch Tot swing fits in very
tightly already.
If you require any further backup to support this safety zone situation,
please let me know and I would, of course, be happy to provide it.
That is a very small tot lot and it was designed carefully to fit the
pieces we have there with the minimal space provided.
Let me know if you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
Tim Hodges
(Item V -7)
October 6, 1998
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Arts & Cultural - Library — Recreation — Seniors
To: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission
From: Steve Hunt, Senior Recreation Manager
Re: Bayside Park Renovation
RECOMMENDATION
Make no changes at this time to the park and allow for natural growth patterns to develop.
Direct staff to monitor landscape development and the ongoing condition of the decomposed
granite.
BACKGROUND
In the Summer of 1996 it was determined by staff of the Community Services and General
Services Departments that the existing playground equipment, the tot lot configuration, and
surrounding landscape at Bayside Park needed to be replaced, remodeled and renovated.
The areas of concern were safety, security, play value and aesthetics. The playground
equipment was made of poorly conditioned wood and the design did not meet current safety
standards. The wood used for tot lot border and bridges was in a very hazardous condition.
• The overall playground layout site design was poor in that it was split up and featured a
swing set on the opposite side of the sidewalk close to the street. The landscape consisted of
overgrown shrubs that allowed for the presence of vagrants and a large coral tree that
created a dangerous threat to the resident building north of the park.
In the initial planning stages, contact was made on site with a representative group of park
users in September 1996. At that time volunteers from this group went door to door to the
park neighbors to solicit help or get input on the general site plan of the park.
A Capital Improvement Project to renovate the Bayside Park area between Iris and Jasmine
was proposed and approved in the FY 1997/98 CIP budget. A landscape architect was
selected and original site plans, incorporating input from the park user group, were
developed.
On October 7, 1997, the site plan was presented to the Parks, Beaches & Recreation
Commission for approval on the general renovation concept. On October 10, 1997, the
architect and staff from Public Works, Community Services and General Services held an
onsite meeting to receive neighborhood input on the plan details (see attached notification
letter). Staff utilized this input to make revisions to the plan. Construction documents were
completed and a bid process was conducted before actual construction started in June 1998.
On September 14, 1998, City Council approved completion and acceptance of the Bayside
Park renovation project. The 60 -day maintenance period for the park will end Saturday,
• October 24, 1998. There are no additional funds allocated for this park.
5X n
Iblln 1 17Y
Bayside Park Renovation
Page 2
. Letters Regarding Resident Concerns - During the construction phase of this project, staff
received letters from Ms. Shirley Conger, July 16 and 29; Ms. Janet Rappaport, August 21;
and Mr. Keith Dean, August 28; regarding concerns they had with park design and conditions
in the park. The following is a list of these concerns and their current status:
• More trees should be added to the existing landscaping so that some of the former
greenery can be recaptured.
After evaluation of the park landscape in place, seven additional trees were planted on
September 25 They were strategically placed to enhance the parks landscaping
concept.
• In an effort to attenuate sound, additional trees and bushes need to be planted between
the residence adjacent to the tot lot, and a barrier of shrubs should be planted along
Bayside Drive. Shrubs should have never been cut down. The resident disputes Police
Department reports that a vagrant problem ever existed.
In time, the growth of the existing trees and shrubs will address the noise and sight
issues Moreover police reports confirm that there was a consistent presence of
vagrants in this area The attached Police Department report explains that the
situation has been much improved since the landscape has been renovated.
• The new design of the park has created a safety hazard in that it lacks a landscaping
barrier along Bayside Drive to deter children from following a ball into the street.
The new design has created a landscape barrier between the tot lot and Bayside
Drive. The grass area closest to Iris Avenue is broken up with walkways and
landscaping and is not designed or conducive to ball playing.
• There should be no ivy used in the new landscaping. Ivy in the park will create the
presence of vermin.
The replanted ivy will cover much less of the landscape, but MY keep a presence
consistent with the entire parkway along Bayside Drive. Along with this renovation
project, General Services staff has completed an overall cutback of the shrubs and ivy
along Bayside Drive that has helped control vermin and will follow up with a
comprehensive abatement program, if necessary.
• The inner side of the park wall adjacent to the neighboring house should be plastered
consistent with the park side of the wall.
This has been completed per City Council direction.
• Park benches need to be realigned so that bench users do not have to be located right
• next to the tot lot.
The design of the bench placements does focus on the tot lot but does not preclude
alternative users.
61
lo/m /qg
Bayside Park Renovation
Page 3
• The new concrete walkway should be replaced with asphalt due to the glare and ugly look
of the concrete.
Concrete is an appropriate surface for this site.
A green barrier should be be installed between the adjacent residence and the path
around the tot lot, and the circular path around the tot lot should be a completely hard
surface.
During construction three trees have been planted in this vicinity. The lack of a
concrete path near the resident's house was designed so as not to encourage foot and
rolling traffic on that side of the tot lot.
The new playground equipment has been installed closer to the adjacent residence than
previously.
The main play structure is now actually further from the most adjacent residence,
than the original equipment and the closest piece of equipment is an infant swing set.
• Decomposed granite located around the resident side of the tot lot path and two accent
areas should be replaced with concrete. Tthe DG surface is unsafe and hard to maintain.
• The decomposed granite safely serves as a park walkway alternative. The purpose for
the placement of decomposed granite on the resident side of the tot lot was to have it
available for access, but not promote this area for heavy bike, skateboard or foot
traffic. The two small areas of decomposed granite serve as accent-points; and do not
create a hazard. Decomposed granite is approved by the American Disabilities Act as
an accessible surface.
• A bicycle rack should be installed on concrete that replaces decomposed granite.
Staff will evaluate the need for a bicycle rack and if needed select a viable location.
• The playground sand needs to cleaned and cleared of building and construction debris.
Staff has directed the contractor to clear the debris from the sand and following the
maintenance period, park maintenance staff will conduct regular cleanings
In the planning and construction phases of this park renovation, staff has made a
commitment to listen to and work with the residents, including whose concerns are cited
above. This cooperative effort incorporated much of their input. While there have been
many specific personal requests and ideas expressed in the design of the park, staff believes
• that with the approval of the Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission, the resulting
enhanced park design incorporates state of the art elements that the City of Newport Beach
park users can utilize and enjoy for many years to come.
Attachments
rI
J
�
ity of Newport Beach
OMMUNITY SERVICES
n
U
September 29, 1997
P.O. BOX 1768, 3300 NEWPORT BLVD
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 97658 -8915
Dear Resident and/or User of Bayside Park,
IDI &Iqg
PHONE 714- 644 -3151
FAX 714. 644.3155
The City of Newport Beach has allotted funds to renovate the playground equipment and
surrounding area in Bayside Park located on Bayside Drive between Iris Avenue and
Jasmine Avenue. In an effort to discuss the details of this upcoming project with those
residents who live by and/or utilize this park site, staff has scheduled an on site meeting
on Friday, October 10 at 9:00 am.
Staff representing the Departments of Public Works, General Services and Community
Services, along with project design architect Bob Pedersen, will be in attendance to
answer questions or respond to comments.
Please call me at 644 -3151, before or after the meeting, if you would like to discuss this
project.
Sincerely,
zt-
Steve Hunt, Senior Recreation Manager
cc Marcy Lomeli, Parks Superintendent
Marla Matlove, Senior Civil Engineer
dowpa
SEP -22-88 02:20PM FROM-NSPO COP +849- 644 -3700 T -d67 P. 02/02 F -98E
EMPLOYEES REPORT /b /tp /V
DR Numoer
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION - -- BAYSIDE DRIVE TRANSIENT HISTORY N/A
Date and Time Occurred Location of Occurrence RD
2500 -3200 BLOCK BAYSIDE DRIVE 1 44
To (RanK, Name,Assignment,D,vis on) Date and Time Reponea
SGT, M. MC DERMOTT 1 9/22198 1200
HAVING BEEN ASSIGNED TO THE CORONA DEL MAR AREA FOR THE PAST FIFTEEN +
YEARS, I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER SOME PERSONAL INSIGHT INTO THE LOCAL TRANSIENT
POPULATION.
HISTORICALLY, IT SEEMS WE EXPERIENCE A LARGER INFLUX OF TRANSIENT SUBJECTS
DURING THE FALL AND WINTER MONTHS. THIS OCCURS AS A RESULT OF AN ANNUAL
MIGRATION THROUGH OUR AREA. SUBJECTS FROM THE NORTHERN CLIMATES MIGRATE
SOUTH TO CENTRAL AMERICA AND MORE TEMPERATE REGIONS TO SEEK WINTER
EMPLOYMENT. THIS INFORMATION HAS BEEN VERIFIED THROUGH VARIOUS CONTACTS
WITH TRANSIENT PERSONS ENCOUNTERED IN THE CDM AREA OVER A SEVERAL YEAR
PERIOD.
IN YEARS PAST, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WOULD RECEIVE NUMEROUS CALLS FROM
RESIDENTS COMPLAINING OF TRANSIENTS TAKING REFUGE NEAR THEIR RESIDENCES. THIS
WOULD TYPICALLY OCCUR IN AREAS OF HEAVY OVERGROWTH_ ONE OF THE MORE
COMMON AREAS OF CONCERN WERE THE GREENBELT AND PARK AREAS ALONG BAYSIDE
DRIVE BETWEEN CARNATION AVENUE AND MARGUERITE AVENUE. THERE WAS HEAVY
OVERGROWTH, ESPECIALLY ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF BAYSIDE DRIVE WHERE THE
PARKWAY BORDERED THE PRIVATE RESIDENCES TRANSIENTS COULD SET UP A
MAKESHIFT ENCAMPMENT AND NOT BE VISIBLE TO PASSING MOTORISTS OR PEDESTRIANS.
IT WAS NOT UNUSUAL TO GET SEVERAL SUCH CALLS ON A DAILY BASIS,
RECENTLY, AFTER SEVERAL COMPLAINTS FROM RESIDENTS LIVING IN THE 400 BLOCK OF
IRIS AND JASMINE AVENUES, CITY MAINTENANCE CREWS REMOVED MUCH OF THE
OVERGROWTH ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF BAYSIDE DRIVE IN THE VICINITY OF BAYSIDE
PARK AND THE CHILDREN'S PLAYGROUND. CALLS PERTAINING TO TRANSIENTS HAVE
DIMINISHED SIGNIFICANTLY. THE AREAS ARE NOW OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW WITH LITTLE
OPPORTUNITY FOR ENCAMPMENTS_ IT APPEARS THE CITY'S EFFORT HAS PRETTY MUCH
ELIMINATED THIS LONG- STANDING PROBLEM. SEVERAL AREA RESIDENTS HAVE VOICED
THEIR APPRECIATION OF THE CITY'S RESOLVE TO THIS SITUATION.
Supervisor Approving
Date and Time Reproduced
10 No. IReporUng
OFC_ M. EVERTON
ID No
581
8
Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission
Regular Meeting
.October 6, 1998
Page 3
0
Ayes:
Beek, Franklin, Glasgow, Pfaff, Sinclair, Skoro, Tobin
Noes:
None
Absent:
None
Abstain:
None
Lomeli stated that this is a continuation from last month and that stfF has no additional
comments.
Director Kienitz arrived at 7:40pm
Chair Beek opened the public hearing.
Yvonne Houssels, 1307 Outrigger Drive, stated t she had received correspondence from
3401 Seabreeze Lane. This property was le off the reforestation list and Ms. Houssels
stated that property owner will cover cos nd would like to be added to the 2d phase of
the reforestation project.
Jan Vandersloot thanked staff for ting the tree prices in the report, which clearly shows
that the City is losing money replacing beautiful trees with smaller inexpensive trees,
• and that he believes home ers are requesting reforestation for reasons not listed in the
G -1 policy.
40mmissioner Pfaff to initiate the second phase of a City street tree
i program that will be funded by the requesting property owners and the
Hills Homeowners Association and that 3401 Seabreeze Lane be added to the
modification of the list. Motion carried by the following vote:
Dyes:
Beek, Franklin, Glasgow, Pfaff, Sinclair, Skoro, Tobin
Noes:
None
Absent:
None
Abstain:
None
7. Bayside Park Renovation — Senior Recreation Manager Hunt stated that this item had been
placed on the agenda due to letters received from residents around the area. Mr. Hunt
stated that there are no additional funds allocated for this park. Staff recommends that
the park remain as is.
Chair Beek opened the public hearin
Janet Rappaport, 400 Iris, stated that Bayside Park was well used before the renovation.
Ms. Rappaport stated that she knows of no one in the entire neighborhood that is happy
• with the park. She stated that since the renovation the noise level has become
unbearable, that a green hedge is needed for protection of the children. Ms. Rappaport
also noted that the bench looks right into her bedroom and that this has become a privacy
issue and recommends that this bench be moved right away.
(v3
Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission
Regular Meeting
•October 6, 1998
Page 4
Shirley Conger, 3033 Bayside Drive, stated that her property faces the park. Ms. Conger
stated that since the so- called improvements have been made to the park her view has
diminished. She stated that the trees have been replaced with much smaller trees and so
the noise level has increased. Ms. Conger stated that transients were a problem when
there was a lot of foliage on the hill, but that has been alleviated since the planting of the
bougainvillea. She stated that more greenery needs to be added to the park and
submitted a map with her suggestion for where additional greenery would be added.
Eric Parker, 400 Iris, distributed before and after pictures of the park and discussed
several items from the staff report and commented on transients in the park. He stated
that the benches must be moved so that people other than parents can utilize them. He
stated that the general mass of the park has moved closer to his home.
Chair Beek closed the Public hearing.
Commissioner Sinclair stated that as far as the growth of the trees that the public should
be patient as they are young trees and will grow into larger trees.
Commissioner Glasgow stated that if there is a privacy issue that the bench should be
moved and asked staff to look into this immediately. He also questioned the discrepancy
• of noticing homeowners and would like a report on how this was done.
Chair Beek stated that she feels that this park was done with safety issues in mind and
that trees do need time to grow.
Motion by Commissioner Glasgow to have staff look into moving the bench that looks
directly into homeowner at 400 Iris and costs of adding additional foliage for privacy
issues. Motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes:
Beek, Franklin, Glasgow, Pfaff, Sinclair, Skoro, Tobin
Noes:
None
Absent:
None
Abstain:
None
of the project. Manager Hunt introduced Chuck Foley of Hirsch & Associates L ape
Architects who discussed the highlights of the project and presented a vi on lighting
configuration. Manager Hunt stated that staff is looking at a late ay construction
period.
Chair Beek opened the Public hearing.
L is Grant, member of a Rugb stated that he just wanted the Commission to
that rugby is being p r Beek a im if he knew how to become a co- sponsored group with the City.
a nt commented that they had talked about the possibility of this and would
roue to do so.
e0
• (Item V
November 3, 1998 98
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Arts & Cultural - Library " Recreation " Seniors
To: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission
From: Steve Hunt, Senior Recreation Manager
Marcelino Lomeli, Park & Tree Maintenance Superintendent
Re: Bayside Park Resident Concerns
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. To adjust the park bench on the east end of the tot lot so that it faces Iris Avenue.
2. To keep the landscape area along north wall as designed and planted.
BACKGROUND
At the Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission meeting on October 6, 1998, staff was
• directed to evaluate and report back on two items regarding the Bayside Park renovation, the
location of the bench at the tot lot and the resident request for additional foliage.
•
The Park Bench — General Services staff are able to adjust the park bench in question so that
it will face Iris Avenue instead of the adjacent residence.
Additional Foliage — Staff also reviewed the possible installation and cost of adding plant
materials along the north wall staff met on site and conferred with the landscape architect.
The General Services staff believes that if Podocarpus shrubs were planted along the wall on
the northside of the park, it would conflict with the existing planting plan. The Podocarpus
would impede growth of the Creeping Fig vine that are planted adjacent to the wall by
shading it, by interfering with the growth pattern of the existing Sweet ShadeAVedding trees,
and by requiring that the irrigation system would need to be modified. The natural growth of
the three Sweet Shade trees will provide a measure of screening and privacy in the vicinity of
the adjacent resident's entryway where there was none provided before the renovation.
!6-
U
Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission
Regular Meeting
November 3, 1998
Page 3
V. DISCUSSION ITEMS
6. Bonita Canyon Park — Chair Beek stated that there an additional meeting with the
school district and The Irvine Compan some loose ends on the planning of the park.
She thanked the CoTM.i +r� a fl the work on the proposed park and stated that she was
optimistic wig i I be a park of which the City can be proud. She stated that this item
probably not appear on the City Council agenda until sometime in January.
Bayside Park Renovation — Director Kienitz stated that at the last meeting staff was asked to
look at the issue or impact of the park on the privacy of the neighbors and the need for
additional foliage at the park. She stated that the position of the bench had been changed and
that staff does not recommend any additional planting as indicated in the written report.
Commissioner Pfaff noted that he had just been at the park and concurred with the current
planting. After the foliage has had time to mature he believes that the homeowners would be
happy with it.
Superintendent Lomeli stated that staff would do all they can to help the growth mature.
Chair Beek opened the Public hearing.
Shirley Conger, 3033 Bayside, stated that there seemed to be a couple of misconceptions.
She noted that no correspondence on the planning of the park was ever received in 1997.
• She believes that there is still an inadequate barrier between the park and the street, for safety
and aesthetic reasons.
Superintendent Lomeli stated that he would discourage any additional plantings, and that
children using the park should be supervised
Ms. Conger stated that children play with balls and that without a hindrance, that the children
follow the ball out into the street. She stated that all of the neighbors agree that there should
be a barrier.
Eric Parker, 400 1/2 Iris, stated that the problem continues to be the placement of the
equipment. He stated that enjoyment of his living room has been lost because of the
placement of the play equipment and the noise. He stated that he has visited several nurseries
and has been told that the Sweetshade trees are not the right choice for the location and that
these trees do not perform well. He urged the Commission to completely remove the bench
and to consider other ideas for the plantings.
Superintendent Lomeli stated that the bench had been moved 20 -25 degrees to the west and
that it does not face into the bedroom window, as requested by Ms. Rappaport at the last
meeting.
Commissioner Beek asked Mr. Parker when he feels that the park is most heavily used.
He stated that it is most used on Saturday and Sunday between 9 and 12.
Commissioner Beek stated that this park is not heavily used.
• Again, Mr. Parker stated that he wants the bench removed.
M
Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission
Regular Meeting
November 3, 1998
• Page 4
Chair Beek closed the Public hearing.
Superintendent Lomeli stated that at the planning meeting which several residents attended, a
bench was requested by residents to be placed there.
Commissioner Pfaff stated that it was an ideal location for a bench.
Motion by Commissioner Sinclair to keep the park bench on the east end of the tot lot so that
it faces Iris Avenue and keep the landscape area along the north wall as designed and planted.
Motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes:
Beek, Franklin, Glasgow, Pfaff, Sinclair, Skoro, Tobin
Noes:
None
Absent:
None
Abstain:
None
Bayside Drive Beautification - Phase I— Superintendent Lomeli stated that 80 notices were sent
\wther wners, no negative responses have been received.
rson, landscape architect, reviewed the conceptual plan for beautification of Bayside
hase I to the Commission.
io r Glasgow noted his concern about the hill, and stated that it is unstable, and
• ed w ther it will cause any additional problems.
rson state hat the addition of the wall would almost create a dam and eliminate any
. ion Skoro state at the Irvine Terrace Community, Mai Kai, and Balboa Island
ment Associations ha enthusiastically received this plan.
Commissioner Glasgow stated thaNis plan for beautification is long overdue
Chair Beek opened the public hearing.
Jan Vandersloot, 2221 E 16" Street, state hat this location would be ideal for native
California planting, and recommended that thatN Commission consider that.
Superintendent Lomeli stated that in future phases the beautification, based on the soil
condition and limited growth space, that Mr. Vandersl s suggestion could be considered
for shrub plantings.
Chair Beek closed the Public hearing.
Commissioner Skoro asked that staff explore the possibility of up ' hung on some of the
plantings.
Motion by Commissioner Glasgow to approve the conceptual plan of ph e I for Bayside
Drive and forward to Public Works, and direct staff to look into an option for Ii ing. Motion
carried by the following vote:
• Ayes:
Beek, Franklin, Glasgow, Pfaff, Sinclair, Skoro, Tobin
Noes:
None
Absent:
None
Abstain:
None
0
LJ
(Item 11)
February 1, 2000
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Arts Et Cultural - Library - Recreation - Seniors
To: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission
From: Andrea McGuire, Senior Recreation Manager
Re: West Newport Park Playground Renovation
BACKGROUND
The City will be replacing both playgrounds at West Newport Park — one in FY 1999/00;
the second in FY 2000/01. This work is part of the ongoing systematic replacement of
two playgrounds per year with equipment that complies with ADA and current national
regulations. These regulations call for the separation of play equipment for toddlers
and from that intended for school -age children. At the West Newport Park, both play
areas are too small to effectively comply with this regulation.
Staff obtained designs for the two new playgrounds. In order to accommodate safety
• requirements and provide interesting playgrounds, it is recommended that one
playground be designated for preschool and one for school -age children.
RECOMMENDATION
Set a public hearing at the March 7, 2000 Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission
meeting to receive public comments about this change in the age designations for the
West Newport Park playgrounds.
Attachments - Handbook for Playground Safety from U.S. Consumer Project Safety Commission California Regulations
(Pages 8 -9)
!Ti
•
•
Handbook for Playground Safety
5.1.7 Composite Play Structures
The above recommendations for individual pieces of
equipment should be used as a guide in establishing the
use zone around the perimeter of a composite play
structure. (Vote that in Sections 12.6.2 and 12.6.4 it
is recommended that swings not be attached to a
composite structure.
In playgrounds where occasional overcrowding is likely,
a supplemental circulation area beyond the use zone is
recommended. Whether to provide such a supplemental
circulation area should be based on the professional
judgement of the playground designer and /or
owner /operator.
6. LAYOUT AND DESIGN OF PLAYGROUNDS
6.1 Choosing a Site
When planning a new playground, it is important to
consider hazards or obstacles to children traveling to or
from the playground. A barrier surrounding the play-
ground is recommended if children may inadvertently
run into a street. Such a barrier should not prevent
observation by supervisors. If fences are used for such
barriers, it is recommended that they conform to
applicable local building codes.
When selecting a site, consideration should be given to
slope and drainage, especially if loose -fill surfacing
materials are going to be installed. While a gentle slope
may aid in drainage, steep slopes could result in loose
fill materials becoming washed away during periods of
heavy rain. Such sites may require re- grading.
6.2 Locating Equipment
The playground should be organized into different areas
to prevent injuries caused by conflicting activities and
children running between activities. Active, physical activ-
ities should be separate from more passive or quiet
activities. Areas for play equipment, open fields, and
sand boxes should be located in different sections of the
playground.
In addition, popular, heavy -use pieces of equipment or
activities should be dispersed to avoid crowding in any
one area. The layout of equipment and activity areas
should be without visual barriers so that there are clear
sight lines everywhere on the playground to facilitate
supervision.
Moving equipment, such as swings and merry-go-
rounds, should be located toward a comer, side or
edge of the play area while ensuring that the use zones
around the equipment, as recommended in Section 5,
are maintained. Slide exits should be located in an
uncongested area of the playground. Use zones for
moving equipment, such as swings and merry-go- rounds,
and at slide exits should not overlap the use zone of
other equipment, regardless of height.
Composite play structures have become increasingly
popular on public playgrounds. Care should be taken
to ensure that the play and traffic patterns of children
using adjacent components on composite structures
are complementary.
6.3 Age Separation of Equipment
It is recommended that for younger children, play-
grounds have separate areas with appropriately sized
equipment and materials to serve their developmental
levels. The following items of playground equipment are
not recommended for preschool -age children (2 through
5 years):
• Chain or Cable Walks
• Free Standing Arch Climbers
• Free Standing Climbing Events with Flexible
Components
• Fulcrum Seesaws
• Log Rolls
• Long Spiral Slides (more than one turn — 3600)
• Overhead Rings
• Parallel Bars
• Swinging Gates
• Track Rides
• Vertical Sliding Poles
In this handbook, there are several specific recommen-
dations for equipment designed for preschool -age
children. These recommendations, together with
references to the sections in which they are discussed,
are as follows:
• Rung Ladders, Stepladders, Stairways and Ramps
(Table 2)
0
0
•
• Handrail Height (10.3.1)
• Guardrails and Protective Barriers (11.3, 11.4, and 115)
• Stepped Platforms (11.7)
• Climbers (12.1.2)
• Horizontal Ladders and Overhead Rings (12.1.5)
• Merry -Go- Rounds (12.2)
• Spring Rockers (12.5)
• Single -Axis Swings (12.6.2)
• Tot Swings (12.6.3)
The intended user group should be obvious from the
design and scale of equipment. Some playgrounds, often
referred to as "tot lots," are designed only for preschool -
age children, so separation is not an issue.
In playgrounds intended to serve children of all ages
the layout of pathways and the landscaping of the play-
ground should show the distinct areas for the different
Handbook for Playground Safety
It is important to recognize that preschool -age children
require more attentive supervision on playgrounds than
older children.
7. INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF
EQUIPMENT
7.1 Assembly and Installation
Proper assembly and installation of playground
equipment are crucial for structural integrity, stability,
and overall safety. The people who assemble and install
playground equipment should not deviate from the
manufacturer's instructions. After assembly and before
its first use, equipment should be thoroughly inspected
by a person qualified to inspect playgrounds for safety.
age groups. The areas should be separated at least by a The manufacturer's assembly and installation instruc-
buffer zone, which could be an area with shrubs or
benches. Signs posted in the playground area can be
used to give some guidance to adults as to the age
appropriateness of the equipment.
6.4 Supervision
Playgrounds that are designed, installed and maintained
in accordance with safety guidelines and standards can
still present hazards to children in the absence of ade-
quate supervision.
Depending on the location and nature of the playground,
the supervisors may be paid professionals (full -time
park or school /child care facility staff), paid seasonal
workers (college or high school students), volunteers
(PTA members), or the parents of the children playing in
the playground. The quality of the supervision depends
on the quality of the supervisor's knowledge of safe play
behavior. Therefore, supervisors should understand the
basics of playground safety.
Playground supervisors should be aware that not all
playground equipment is appropriate for all children
who may use the playground. Supervisors should look
for posted signs indicating the appropriate age of the
users and direct children to equipment appropriate
for their age. Supervisors may also use the information
in Section 6.3 of this handbook to determine the
suitability of the equipment for the children they are
supervising.
tions, and all other materials collected concerning the
equipment, should be kept in a permanent file.
7.1.1 Stability
When properly installed as directed by the manufactur-
er's instructions and specifications, equipment should
withstand the maximum anticipated forces generated by
active use which might cause it to overturn, tip, slide, or
move in any way. Secure anchoring is a key factor to
stable installation, and because the required footing
sizes and depths may vary according to equipment type,
the anchoring process should be completed in strict
accordance with the manufacturer's specifications.
7.2 Maintenance
Inadequate maintenance of equipment has resulted
in injuries on playgrounds. Because the safety of play-
ground equipment and its suitability for use depend on
good inspection and maintenance, the manufacturer's
maintenance instructions and recommended inspection
schedules should be strictly followed.
A comprehensive maintenance program should be
developed for each playground. All equipment should
be inspected frequently for any potential hazards, for
corrosion or deterioration from rot, insects, or weather-
ing. The playground area should also be checked
frequently for broken glass or other dangerous debris.
Loose -fill surfacing materials should be inspected to
9
76
•
0
0
a
ii 9
PB &R Commission Agenda
Item No. I
February 1, 2000
TO:
FROM:
Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission
General Services Director
SUBJECT: Tree Removal Appeal
Recommendations
Approve the removal of one to four trees at each of two locations.
or
Retain all trees.
Background
Mr. Richard Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager, Public Works
Department has requested that a total of four City trees be removed at two separate locations. One
site (two trees) is to provide clearance for traffic signal displays and the second removal site (two
trees) would provide for visual clearance of a recently installed stop sign. The Urban Forester and
the Acting Park and Trees Superintendent reviewed the request on site in December 1999. The
Urban Forester subsequently prepared a Tree Inspection and Tree Appraisal Report (Attachment A).
The reports detail distances between each tree and the traffic devices.
Discussion
The Transportation and Development Services Manager's letter dated November 4, 1999 to the
General Services Director requested tree removals at two locations indicating traffic signal
displays and a stop sign were partially blocked by City trees as indicated on the attached work
orders # 99 -076 (Attachments B and Q.
Dr. Jan D. Vandersloot's letter dated January 13, 2000 requested an appeal of the tree removals
to the Commission (Attachment D). The General Services Director has informed Dr.
Vandersloot of the pending Commission meeting and that staff would prepare his appeal for
inclusion on the agenda.
C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\TmMcDivisionAppe ll.doc
7/
0
0
Additionally, the General Services Director has requested Mr. Edmonton to appear before the
Commission to explain any additional extenuating circumstances or provide information to
support the necessity for the trees to be removed as a result of traffic concerns and liability.
Dr. Vandersloot and Mr. Edmonston have received a copy of this report and a notice of the
February 1, 2000 Commission meeting.
Very respectfully,
David E. Niederhaus
DEN/MGL /pw
Attachments
A. Tree Inspection Report and Tree Appraisal Report
B. Transportation & Development Manager's letter dated November 4, 1999
C. Work Orders # 99 -076
D. Dr. Vandersloot's letter dated January 13, 2000
Cc \WINDOWS\ 'TEMP \TrafficDivisiooAppeall.doc
7 �-
0
•
i
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
TREE INSPECTION REPORT
Name: Richard Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager, Public
Works Dept., City of Newport Beach
Address: 1. N/E comer of San Joaquin Hills Rd. and Santa Rosa.
2. S/E corner of Eastbluff Dr. and Vista Del Oro
Phone Number: 644 -3345
Request:
1. Remove two City Eucalyptus trees to provide clearance for two traffic signal heads as
described on work order # 99 -076.
2. Remove two City Fig trees to provide clearance for stop sign as described on work
order # 99 -076.
Botanical Name: 1. Eucalyptus sideroxylon, tree sites # 1 and 3
2. Ficus rubiginosa, tree sites # 1 and 2.
Common Name: 1. Red ironbark.
2. Rusty leaf fig.
Designated Street Tree: 1. Same.
2. Same.
Estimated Tree Value: 1. Approximate Value = $1866 (See attached appraisal report).
2.Approximate Value = $4190 (See attached appraisal report)
Damage: N/A
Parkway: Concrete Brick Turf Other
X
Comments: Afield inspection and review of sites indicates that at site #1 (San Joaquin)
the farthest tree was approximately 320' from the second signal and 174' from the first
signal. Each tree is approximately 25' from each other. Site #2(Eastbluff) indicates that
the farthest tree was approximately 47' from the stop sign. The nearest tree was 10' from
the stop sign. �-
Inspected by
,�. S,r•�, C „d.k,
Date: January 19, 2000
Recommendation: Undetermined at this time pending comment from the
Transportation and Development Services Division, Public Works Dept.
Reviewed by: Date: January 19, 2000
73
0
a
w
in
H
a
w
z
LL
O
U
•
z
w
a
a
w
0
V)
w
v
W
N
J
W
z
w
0
T
2 m
W
o�
o
C
C m
N
(a
a
a
J
a
U)
9
a
a
a
W
W
W
co o CNi
Q
ED m m
�j
as
6a
m
z
to
p N
coo
H NQ
o
m
U) H
UcQ i
°
w
I o
fA
z
Q y
co
U) O
ao L6
z
00
OU
U
z
O
N
F
w Q
CO OD
m o
fAN
W LL
Cl
IL y
N f/J
J
U
U W
N o
oco
Q J
O �
m
r nj
61)� t6l
m m
z
z
c c
W
L
W y
a °
U
i
a
W
N
N r
U y 0
M
0
z
Cl U W
U)
Y K
`n U?
z F
n
H
w
Y
N C CO)
O Pik ik
d a;
O
W
2 N N
IL
N
W N N ED
N F
7�-
0
_
�
m
�
�0
a
w
z
b
W�
�Gj
0
e
z
w
s
�
«
a
w
0
�
w
Q
�
w
�
�
z
w
0
/
675
k�
)\
k
■
¢
�
a
IL
«
w
LLJ
�
*
a-
0
\
CL
��
|
Lq T7
°
k
k
®
§ k
»
E0
»
(
\\
§)
§�
rl 00
(
\\
0)
L)
04 0
§
\
L)2
®
U)2
G
u
vq00
0
co �\
z
\
0
u
w
V)
19t LO
§§
0
7\§
S U)
_-
e@
/LU
0)
w
)k{ § §
§
�\)2
��
I�
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
3300 NEWPORT BLVD.
P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 -8915
(949) 644 -3311
DATE: November 4, 1999
TO: David Niederhaus, General Services Director
FROM: Richard Edmonston, Transportation & Development Services Manager
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF TREES AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS
Attached are work orders for the removal of trees at the following locations:
1) Northeast corner of San Joaquin Hills Road @ Santa Rosa /Big Canyon. Remove
two (2) trees and trim two (2) trees that obstruct the traffic signal heads.
2) Southeast corner of Eastbluff Drive @ Vista del Oro south. Remove two (2) trees
blocking the recently installed STOP sign.
Thank you in advance for your assistance and cooperation.
Cc: Marcy Lomeli, General Services
John Conway, General Services
\ \MIS_l \SYS \Users \PBW\T13rine \Tree Removal Memo.doc
c
w
Z
z
Z
w
• �I
w
n
a
m
M o
U
L^
L
i O
O CU
O
r
c6
U o
ca
00 m
� N
to
O (40
c
L
2
C
�
cc N
++ E
Cc
Tcc cu
i Q�
i L
'3
c4 N
O N
O
C E
c3 a)
� cr
UO
O
L
y
y U
� o �
cm V
C C13
m
1— N
u, m
m y
` L
♦J Y
N
M
o �
E W
� N
� r
UOAUBO BIB
Z
N
U7
`i
r
T
m
Y
U
O
F5
T
ca
L
f0
a
y
c
c0
Q�
l6
c
rn
a
N
C
6
O
7
C
CD
Blues
Q
I
O V
O
Of 0
A
Y I
k
C � O
o w
u
O m
- u
o z
O 3
U U I
� U
z §I0
0: �I
m m
a
o
ggo I
U S �
O an a�
O p p
c
E
Lo
Ta'
ra
o °u
— —77o / /
. r
w
Z
Z
m
• LL
I
L
u_
L
u
L
•
s
p o
LL y
U LL. `
m J y!
`c m >
O U O
Q E
z W �
z
U O U
w
O
a
2
Z
CD
`} y
ui
0< C-9
? W
CO �jc
W O it
F m cr
°
b
O
r
0
LL
lL
J
m
ui
a
W
oao laa e}sm
mlm
a
Aw
O O
W
i
k Y
m
0
2 �
V �
U
U
� O
V Q S
g8
5
� m
m Q
T �
o �
O
o
0 °
U °
°
� o 0
u �
Lol
'a
8 z �
z
fr
O � Uu
1 -18 -2000 2:46PM FROM GENERAL SERVICES 949 650 0747
From,.. P.Vrvx.b.( M.p, 9 19tMib.K itl. 9..KCAMq F.9; MAW V.Iq:90AM UTa!U 9B.9 z
JAN D. VANDERSLOOT, M.D.
2229 East 16th Stmt
is Newport Beach, CA 92663
(949) 548 -326 FAX (714) 8488643
January 13, 2000
David E. Niederhaus
General Services Director
3300 Newport Blvd
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658.1768
P. 1
F12,203 rn-- eY.Jxwery 1 ;7009 lO O M PM
Re: Appeal to PBR Commission, proposed tree removals (2) on Eastbluff Drive
Dear Dave,
As allowed under the G -1 Policy, 1 am appealing the proposed tree removals
on Eastbluff Drive, which allegedly block the stop sign at Vista del Oro near Corona
del Mar High School.
As examined by myself and Dr. Kelley on this date, neither of the trees are
blocking the stop sign and we would like the Commission to examine this situation
as well.
Therefore, 1 am filing an appeal, as I did verbally at the PBR Commission study
session tonight. I am FAXing this appeal to you, as you stated to us tonight that the
I
rees would not be removed until after I had a chance to file the appeal tomorrow.
This FAX should reach you the morning of January 14, 2000, so I request you
inform the workers not to cut down the trees until after the PBR Commission has
heard the appeal.
Thank you
0
Sincerely,
"Jan D. Vandersloot, M.D.
-79
so
PB& R Commission Agenda
Item No. 13
February 1, 2000
TO: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission
FROM: General Services Director
SUBJECT: Revision of Council G -1 Tree Policy
Recommendation:
Approve in concept the proposed additions and deletions to the Council G -1 Policy
(Retention and Removal of City Trees)
40 Background:
Agenda reports from the December 7, 1999, January 4, 2000 (special study session), and
January 13, (special study session) are attached to provide the background on the revision
process.
Discussion:
The current revised policy is attached for your review.
Very respectfully,
David E. Niederhaus
DEN/k r
Attachments: (A) Proposed G -1 Tree Policy dated January 14, 2000
(B) PB &R Commission Agenda Item 10 of December 7, 1999
• (C) PB &R Commission Agenda Item SS -1 of January 4, 2000
(D) PB &R Commission Study Session Minutes of January 4, 2000
(E) PB &R Commission Study Session Minutes of January 13, 2000
rwrik
FAZM
•
Revised Proposal - January 14, 2000 G -1
RETENTION OR REMOVAL OF CITY TREES
The purpose of this policy is to establish definitive standards for the retention, removal,
maintenance, reforestation, and supplemental trimming of City trees. City street trees
are an important part of the character and charm of Eer-tain Een4mtFdfies the entire
Cam. and Regular care, trimming, maintenance, and programmed replacement are
necessary to preserve this charm while at the same time protecting public and private
property.
SPECIAL CITY TREES
It is the City's policy to retain City trees categorized as landmark, dedicated, or
neighborhood trees, which contribute to and give character to an entire neighborhood.
Landmark, dedicated, and neighborhood trees are identified on Attachment 1, and shall
hereinafter be referred to as Special Trees. Trees within these categories shall be
established, mapped, recorded and mak-Aained administered by the Parks, Beaches &
• Recreation Commission ( "Commission ").
Special Trees shall be retained, unless there are e.,,,,. al- overriding problems, such
as death, disease, or the creation of a hazardous situation which require their removal.
Prior to consideration for removal of Special Trees, the General Services Director, or
designee, shall prepare a report identifying and implementing specific treatment to
retain the tree(s). If specific treatment is unsuccessful in retaining a tree(s) then a full
report shall be made to the Commission before any further action considering removal
is taken. Prior to any removal of Special Trees, the City must comply with the noticing
provisions of the Removal of City Trees section set forth in this Policy, unless a tree is
considered hazardous that necessitates an emergency removal Anv such removal
requires the approval of the City Manager.
r1
LJ
During normal sidewalk, curb, and street repair activity requiring root pruning, all
steps will shall be taken to retain Special Trees. If tree roots are to be pruned in
association with hffdseape- sidewalk, curb, and u� tter improvements, sufficient timing
in advance must be planned to ensure that pruning will not destabilize or kill the tree.
If both sides of a tree's roots are to be pruned, one side should be pruned a year- 6
months to a year in advance of the other side depending upon the species and other
related factors. If root pruning methods are not practical and /or critical to the health of
the tree, then alternate or special hardscape improvements shall be installed by the Citv
1
Attachment A W
• G -1
in order to retain the tree. All Rroposed root pruning shall be assessed by the Urban
Forester.
ALL OTHER CITY TREES
It is the City's policy to retain all other City trees unless removal is necessary for one of
the following reasons:
A. The City tree has had a proven and repeated history (defined as two or more
occurrences within an 18 -month ep riod) of damaging public or private sewers,
water mains, roadways, sidewalks, curbs, walls, fences, underground utilities, or
foundations based on City records or other competent and reliable authority
despite specific treatment by the City to alleviate repeated damage. Water or
sewer stoppage that results from tree roots and causes significant documented
shall damage attributed to a failure by the property owner to perform such
preventive maintenance.
B. The City tree has had a repeated history (defined as two or more occurrences
• within an 18 -month eriod) of significant interference ifAerferi g with street or
sidewalk drainage, despite specific treatment by the City to alleviate repeated
damage.
C. The City tree is dead, diseased, or-dying, or hazardous, and presents a significant
liabili to the Cy. Diseased trees are defined as those trees that cannot be
cured by current arboricultural methods are in an advanced state of decline and
have no prospect of recovery. Dying trees are those that have no 1rospect of
recovery. Hazardous trees are defined as those that are defective have a
potential to fail, and would cause damage to persons and properly upon failure
The Urban Forester will perform a hazard assessment whenever a tree is
identified as hazardous. The assessment will identify structural defects of the
tree, parts of the tree most likely to fail targets where imminent personal injury
or property damage may result with tree failure, and procedures or actions
necessary to abate the hazard
Y.
The tree(s) have been requested to be removed in conjunction with a City
Council- approved Cft, commercial, neighborhood, or community association
• beautification program.
2
2p-
• G -1
E. The City Manager, upon the advice of the Risk Manager, shall have the authority
to remove trees for whatever reason to resolve claims against the City.
REMOVAL OF CITY TREES
The initiation to remove any City tree may be made by the General Services
Department, Public Works Department, a legally established community association, or
a private property owner by making application w44h to the General Services Director.
After receipt of the application a tree inspection report shall be prepared by the City's
Urban Forester (Attachment 2) to determine if the tree(s) meets the criteria outlined in
the above All Other City Trees section for consideration for removal. Simultaneously,
the Urban Forester a-neaee shall be- provided a notice of the proposed tree removal to
the affected property owner, and the owners immediately adjacent to the applicant's
property, and the appropriate community association if applicable, (not applicable to
the emergency removal of hazardous trees with trees under Item C above). The Urban
Forester shall determine whether in his /her judgment additional specific treatment can
. be initiated to retain the tree. If a tree(s) is to be removed, the tree(s) will be eked
posted at least 30 days prior to the removal w4h
pested with a sign notifying the public that they have the right of appeal. The sign shall
also note a staff contact. Once a recommendation is made by the Urban Forester and the
Park and Tree Superintendent to the General Services Director and the General Services
Director or designee concurs, then the applicant, the adjoining owners, and the
community association, if applicable, shall be notified of the decision to remove or
retain the tree within 30 days of the proposed removal. The General Services Director,
or his designee, shall report at a regularly scheduled PB &R Commission meeting of all
trees recommended for removal using the Trees Division Activities Report, except for
those trees categorized in Paragraph -3-Cin the preceding section on All Other City
Trees. An applicant, an adjoining property owner, or any interested party may appeal
the decision of the General Services Director to the Commission] and if the appeal
eapanet be resolved at the Cefra�pdssien level, then the fimd resolugen wig be determinpii
at the City Ce„fe:l l^^ ^l. The Commission and , in considering any appeal,
shall determine whether the removal meets the criteria outlined in this Policy, as well as
any unique factors which may be pertinent to the removal or retention of tree(s). The
decision of the Commission will be considered final unless called up by at least one
Councilmember or the City Manager. An appeal to the r •,.uReil ardk-^
the General Sen4ees Department no - - - --
than 14 ealendar- dam 1�- fOxivwing the ,late of the eiraidssien deeision. The Grna, Ri
•Ser-,.4ees Department will ,L.1....., any tree ,.,.f...., als „fail the appeal period Has e9g94e 3_or-
3
Y3
• G -1
until the QuReil has `ed upen the a The General Services Department will
delay any tree removal(s) for at least 14 calendar days following the date of the
Commission decision in order to allow time for a Councilmember or the City Manager
to call the item.
The City will endeavor to replace all trees removed in accordance with the All Other
City Trees removal criteria Replacement trees will be a minimum of a 24" boxed size
REFORESTATION OF CITY TREES
The concept of systematically re 1p acing trees which are creating hardscape and /or view
problems and cannot be prO early trimmed pruned or modified to alleviate the
problems they create, or those which have reached their full life and are declining in
health, is referred to as reforestation
It is recognized and acknowledged that City trees were planted many years ago and in
some cases were planted with specific species that when fully mature ereat
cause damage to curb gutter, sidewalk or underground utilities. In certain
neighborhoods, mature City street trees may encroach into blue water views from
• public and private property depending on the length of time since the trees were last
trimmed, or the age and height of the trees.
•
T'sday, Arborists ha roped continue to develop lists of tree species which are able
to will grow in restricted parkway areas without causing significant
d_ amage to curb, gutter, sidewalk, utilities or views. The eeneeet of giFstematiral1v
As a City which understands the importance of trees and the beauty it-they brings to a
community, the City desires to continually improve the urban forest through
reforestation. In areas where City trees have been removed through City initiation, the
City should expeditiously replace them with the appropriate designated City tree.
Reforestation may also be initiated by residents utilizing the process outlined below.
V
.� ...
• G -1
Individual private property owners, as well as community associations, may apply for
single or multiple tree reforestation individuals er par-fies a to reforest C ?v bn°es
in their respective area by submitting a request to the General Services Director for
consideration by the Commission that meets the following requirements:
A. The proposed area must have clearly defined contiguous boundaries that include
the tree(s� proposed for removal and replacement, street addresse(E , block
number Us or other geographical information. This section applies to individual
and group requests.
B. Residential communities, neighborhoods or business organizations must submit
a petition signed by a minimum of 60% of the property owners within the area
defined for reforestation. A neighborhood is defined for the purposes of this
policy as ten or more homes in any given area of the City. As an alternative,
areas represented by a legally established community association empowered
with CC & R's, may submit a resolution of the Board of Directors formally
requesting a reforestation with a statement that all members of the community
association having their residential views affected, have been officially notified
and given an appropriate opportunity to respond before the Board voted on the
• request. Individual private property owners living within a legally established
community association area empowered with CC &R's must petition for
reforestation through their respective association.
•
C. Individual private property owners not residing within a CC & R based
community association area may submit individual requests for single or
multiple tree reforestation. The applicant must submit a petition signed by a
minimum of 60% of the residents within a one block distance in either direction
from the reforestation site as well as the endorsement of the appropriate
homeowners' association, if applicable.
D. A written agreement must be submitted by the petitioning sponsor individual
rip vate property owners or oup) to pay 100% of the costs of the removal and
replacement of the public trees in advance of any removal activity. The actual
removal and replanting will be coordinated by the General Services Department.
The total costs shall include only the contractor's removal and replacement costs
and be paid in advance of any removal actions.
E. The replacement treeW for reforestation R+ust shall be the designated street
tree(j as prescribed by City Council Policy G -6, or the organization must request
and obtain approval from the Commission of the designation of a different tree
6i
K
• G-1
species prior to submitting any reforestation request This section ap hp 'es to
individual or group requests.
F. There shall be a minimum of a one - for -one replacement of all trees removed in
reforestation projects. Replacement trees shall be a minimum size of 24 36"
boxed trees, unless the parkway space will only accommodate a 24" boxed tree.
If there is not room for the replacement tree within a specific site as prescribed by
City Council Policy G -6 then the replacement tree shall be planted in the same
neighborhood. This section applies to individual or group requests
The decision of the Commission on reforestation requests will be considered final unless
• called Lip by at least one Councilmember or the City Manager.
The City shall require the proper care and watering of replacement trees to ensure their
proper growth and development as outlined in City Council Policy G -6 Furthermore
no person shall tamper with replacement trees in violation of Section 13 08 040 of the
Municipal Code.
All encroachment permits (permits for private vroverty development which has
encroached upon the City right of way) that involve the removal or replacement of City
trees must be specifically noticed by the property owner to City staff prior to the
building and /or demo permit process whenever possible The proposed construction
Mans must indicate preservation of existing City trees wherever possible (exempt dead
dying or in an advanced state of decline ). If the proposed development as deemed by
the General Services Director, requires removal of City trees the property owner may
submit a reforestation request and shall Pav all related removal and replacement costs
as indicated in the Previous paragraphs
TREE TRIMMING STANDARDS /SUPPLEMENTAL TRIMMING
The City Council has adopted tree trimming cycles for trees of different ages and
species. The current tree trimming cycles and trimming standards represent the
• maximum feasible frequency and extent of trimming given current fiscal conditions.
Ni
14 1
Y.
.
NOW
The decision of the Commission on reforestation requests will be considered final unless
• called Lip by at least one Councilmember or the City Manager.
The City shall require the proper care and watering of replacement trees to ensure their
proper growth and development as outlined in City Council Policy G -6 Furthermore
no person shall tamper with replacement trees in violation of Section 13 08 040 of the
Municipal Code.
All encroachment permits (permits for private vroverty development which has
encroached upon the City right of way) that involve the removal or replacement of City
trees must be specifically noticed by the property owner to City staff prior to the
building and /or demo permit process whenever possible The proposed construction
Mans must indicate preservation of existing City trees wherever possible (exempt dead
dying or in an advanced state of decline ). If the proposed development as deemed by
the General Services Director, requires removal of City trees the property owner may
submit a reforestation request and shall Pav all related removal and replacement costs
as indicated in the Previous paragraphs
TREE TRIMMING STANDARDS /SUPPLEMENTAL TRIMMING
The City Council has adopted tree trimming cycles for trees of different ages and
species. The current tree trimming cycles and trimming standards represent the
• maximum feasible frequency and extent of trimming given current fiscal conditions.
Ni
• G -1
Except as provided in this Section, trimming shall be in accordance with the standards
of the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA).
The City will consider, and as a general rule approve, requests to trim certain trees
more frequently or to trim trees consistent with practices applied prior to the adoption
of ISA standards (to enhance public and private views, preserve required
sight /distance standards, or other public purposes) which are submitted by affected
residents or the board of a legally established community association and the request is
accompanied by a completed "Supplemental Tree Trimming Form" and full payment.
However, since these practices often require 'topping' or severe disfig tring of a tree
and are often aesthetically displeasing and injurious to a tree reforestation shall be
considered once this practice has occurred more than twice within a one year period
The General Services Director shall establish procedures to implement the supplemental
trimming provisions of this Policy. An approval must be obtained from a legally
established association by the requestor in areas with an active homeowners'
association.
[Attachment 1- Preservation of Special Trees]
• [Attachment 2- Tree Inspection Report]
Adopted - May 9,1966
Amended - August 14,1967
Amended - November 9,1976
Amended - November 12,1985
Amended - November 28,1988
Amended - March 14,1994
Formerly I -9
•
7
Amended - April 11, 1994
Amended - February 26,1996
Amended - July 14,1997
Amended (Administratively) -
November 24,1997
Amended - August 10, 1998
RA
0
•
n
u
LANDMARK
TREES
DEDICATED
PRESERVATION OF SPECIAL TREES
Balboa Library
Balboa Library
West Jetty (near Historical Marker)
Dover Drive at Westcliff
400 block Poinsettia
Ocean Blvd. Corona del Mar
Westcliff & Dover (Groves)
Main Street (between East Bay
Ave. and Balboa Blvd.)
TREES No. Mariners Park (Marcie Schrouder)
Mariners Park (Frank Tallman)
No. City Hall grounds (Billy Covert)
City Hall grounds (Walter Knott)
City Hall grounds
(Calif. Bicentennial)
Las Arenas Park (Ed Healy)
Attachment 1
G -1
Eucalyptus globulus
Phoenix canariensis
Phoenix canariensis
Liquidambar styraciflua
Eucalyptus corynocalyx
Phoneix canariensis
Eucalyptus globulus
Ficus nitida
Pinus radiata
Pinus radiata
Ficus benjamina
Pinus halepensis
Pinus halepensis
Melaleuca linarifolia
Mariners Park (Isy Pease) Pinus halepensis
City Hall grounds
(U.S. Bicentennial Freedom Tree) Harpephyllum caffrum
Buffalo Hills Park (Bahia
Community Earth Day Celebration) Erythrina caffra
Peninsula Park
(Gray Lunde Memorial Tree)
Cliff Drive Park
(Gary Lovell)
Begonia Park
(Cheryl Bailey Ringwald)
Castaways Park
(Jan Vandersloot)
can Watt
Peninsula Park
(Don Perdue)
Grant Howald Park
1 (Pete Munro)
2 (Mark Munro)
Bob Henry Park
(Bob Henry)
Chamaerops humilis
Quercus agrifolia
Prunus cerasifera
Quercus agrifolia
Ravenea rivularis
Metrosideros excelsus
Ficus Rubi onsa
MW
,@
0
DEDICATED Cliff Drive Park
Ouercus aglifolia
TREES (contd.) (Dr. Vandersloot)
Veterans Park
Lagenstroemia
(Rosemary Rae Hill Hansen)
indica faueri
Mariners Park
Stenocarpus
(N. Beach Sunrise Rotary Club)
sinuatus
(Christopher & Marisha Thomposn)
Pinus eldarica
(Meghan & Camielle Thompson)
Pinus eldarica
NEIGHBORHOOD
TREES Parkway in Shorecliffs
Erythrina caffra
Marguerite Avenue
Phoenix canariensis
Goldenrod Avenue
Washington robusta
Dover Drive (Mariners to Irvine)
Eucalyptus globulus
15th Street (Newport Heights)
Eucalyptus cladocalyx
Irvine Avenue Median
Eucalyptus globulus
Holiday between Irvine & Tustin
Eucalyptus globulus
. Along Avon Avenue
Eucalyptus globulus
Via Lido Bridge
Eucalyptus globulus
Marine Avenue (Balboa Island)
Eucalyptus rudis
Seaview Avenue (Corona del Mar)
Pinus radiata
Poppy Avenue (Corona del Mar)
Eucalyptus rudis
Heliotrope Avenue (Corona del Mar)
Pinus radiata
Candlestick Lane, etc. (Baycrest)
Eucalyptus citriodora
Commodore
Eucalyptus citriodora
Starlight
Eucalyptus citriodora
Glenwood
Eucalyptus citriodora
Candlestick
Eucalyptus citriodora
Sandalwood
Eucalyptus citriodora
•
Adopted - May 9, 1966
Amended - November 9,1976
Amended - November 28,1988
Amended - October, 1993
Amended - July 14, 1997
Amended - January 25, 1999
Attachment 1
G -1
00
j
� I
a
R'
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
TREE INSPECTION REPORT
Name
Address
Phone Number
Request
Botanical Name
Common Name
Designated Street Tre
Estimated Tree Value
Damage
Parkway: Concrete Brick Turf
_Other
Comments
Inspected by
Date
Recommendation
• Reviewed by
Date
Attachment 2
G -1 ,-
1
A A
r y
PB& R Commission Agenda
Item No._ / ( j
December 7, 1999
TO: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission
FROM: General Services Director
SUBJECT: Revision of Council G -1 Tree Policy
Recommendation:
Approve in concept the proposed additions and deletions to the Council G -1 Policy
(Retention and Removal of City Trees).
Background,
On April 12, 1999, the City Council directed staff to review the G -1 Policy (Retention
and Removal of City Trees) as a result of citizens complaints about the difficulty in
administering the tree policy and obtaining approval for the removal and replacement of
City trees.
Staff prepared the attached report (Tree Policy Analysis) for the June 28, 1999 Council
meeting. Subsequent Council direction was to proceed with a public review of the Policy
to improve the workability of the Policy as well as provide solutions to tree problems.
Staff prepared draft additions /deletions to the Policy which were reviewed by the City
Manager. Following this review, a series of three meetings were held with various
interested parties to assess the Policy changes and accept public input and comments.
A final policy review by the staff and the City Manager resulted in the attached draft
Policy.
The Tree Subcommittee of the Commission then reviewed the changes and the decision
was made to place the revised draft policy on the agenda for the December meeting of the
Commission.
Discussion:
The majority of the changes are self explanatory, clarify the language of the original
•policy, or define procedures or time limits related to the retention or removal of City
trees.
Attachment B % 1
r
t
The definition developed for hazardous, diseased, or dying trees is a good example of the
clarification of the wording (Page 3).
The proposed Policy places the major emphasis on the decision of the Parks, Beaches and
Recreation Commission for tree removal requests in that appeals to the Council of the
Commission decision may only be proposed by the Council or City Manager (Page 3).
The most significant change to the Policy is the application of the reforestation
procedures to the replacement and removal of single trees. The current Policy was
originally crafted to apply to community associations requests. The single . tree
reforestation modification should ease some of the current frustration felt by individual
citizens who want only to address an individual tree problem, although in areas with
legally established or CR &R based community associations, an endorsement from the
association is required of the individual requesting tree removal (Page 4).
A second significant change to the reforestation policy is the upgrading of the size of
replacement trees from a 24" boxed specimen to a 36" boxed specimen. While this
change will result in a doubling, or in some cases tripling of the cost of the replacement
tree to the applicant, it does ensure the planting of the most mature trees available in the
City parkways (Page 5).
. The clarification of the use of Encroachment Permits as related to tree removals,
addresses an ongoing problem for staff and relates this activity back to a reforestation
process with the associated requirements (Page 6).
The limitations of two Supplemental Trimmings of trees in one year prior to the
consideration of reforestation will ensure all adequate measures have been taken before
removal of mature trees are considered (Page 6).
A number of additions to the Dedicated Trees list are included in the proposed Policy.
These additions represent trees planted over the past year (Attachment 1, Page 1).
In summary, staff has attempted to draft changes to the Policy that would ensure the
continued quality and size of the urban forest while addressing and facilitating the
handling of individual or group tree removal or trimming requests.
Very respectfully,
David E. Niederhaus
DEN/kr
•
Attachments: (A) Council Agenda Item - June 28, 1999 (Tree Policy Analysis)
(B) Proposed Council G -I Policy (Retention and Removal of City Trees)
in
U )o S
amw
PB& R Commission Agenda
Item No.
January 4, 2000
TO:
FROM:
Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission
General Services Director
SUBJECT: Revision of Council G -1 Tree Policy
Recommendation:
Approve in concept the proposed additions and deletions to the Council G -1 Policy
(Retention and Removal of City Trees).
Background:
The agenda item of the Commission of December 7, 1999 agenda provides the extensive
history and revisions to the Policy (Attachment A).
After a lengthy discussion and public review session on December 7, the Commission
continued the matter to a future study session or regular meeting. This decision was
partially based on the erroneous public testimony that the City Manager had no objections
to a delay by the Commission of the consideration of the proposed changes to the tree
policy. The City goal was and continues to be to forward the proposed policy to the City
Council at the earliest date in order to resolve at least 41 pending tree removal requests
that have accumulated since July 1999.
Discussion:
Staff has revised the proposed policy (Attachment B) as a result of Commission and
public comments on December 7 as follows:
Page One, Fourth Paragraph —
"and/or injurious to the tree" has been changed to "and/or critical to the health of the
tree."
Page Two Paragraph A
Add individual word:
"Water or sewer stoppage that results from tree roots and causes significant documented
private rp operty damage "
Attachment C
y3
Page Two Paragraph D
' Delete the following sentence:
Any trees removed must comply with the criteria for reforestation as contained in the
Reforestation of City Trees section of this policy.
Page Three First Paragraph
Add to Paragraph E:
The City Manager, upon the advice of the Risk Manager, shall have the authority to
remove trees for whatever reason to resolve claims against the City
Page Three, Third Paragraph Third Line
Add underlined phrase:
if above in the All Other Trees section for consideration for removal."
Page Four, First Paragraph
"The General Services Department will delay any tree removals for at least 14 calendar
days following the date of the Commission decision in order —"
Page Five, First Pa graph
Add two words:
"Individual np •vate property owners, as well as community associations, may -"
Page Five, Paragraph A
Add the sentence:
(Applies to individual and group requests).
Page Five, Paragraph B
Add the sentence:
(This paragraph applies only to group requests and not those of an individual private
property owner).
Page Five, Paragraph D�
Add the underlined w
A written rega y the petitioning sponsor (individual private property owner or group)
to pay -"
Page Six, Paragraph E
Add the sentence:
(This section applies to individual and group requests)
Page Six, Paragraph G
Add the sentence:
• (This paragraph applies to individual and group requests)
V
.,
Page Six, Fourth Paragraph
Delete entire paragraph
'l5., the event "
Page Six, Fifth Paragraph
Add the sentence:
The decision of the Commission on reforestation requests will be considered final unless
called up by at least one Councilmember or the City Manager.
The above changes have been reviewed by the City Manager.
Staff has noticed the intent to conduct another Commission public review of the policy
changes to all interested parties.
Very respectfully,
David E. Niederhaus
' DEN/kr
Attachments: A) PB &R Commission Agenda Item 10 of December 7, 1999
B) Proposed G -1 Tree Policy
0
IM
City of Newport Beach
Parks Beaches and Recreation Commission
Special Study Session Minutes
January 4, 2000
Meeting Convened at 8.00PM By Chairman Beek
Present: Beek, Franklin, Skoro, Pfaff, McFarland, Sinclair
Absent: Tobin (Excused himself at 8:05PM)
Staff: David E. Niederhaus, General Services Director
Chair Beek opened the meeting by explaining her knowledge of the history of the
Council G -1 tree policy. Further she provided the Commission her revised version
of the policy and explained why she felt changes were needed.
Public Comments
Elaine Linhoff, Balboa Peninsula, noted four concerns about the current proposed
policy: one, that Special Trees should be root pruned at one year intervals, two,
objected to the phrase "having their residential views affected ", tree reforestation
proposal should be two for one on tree replacement, and finally, tree appeals
should be allowed by any interested party.
. Dr. Alden Kelly, Certified Arborist, volunteered to help rewrite the policy and
"value" trees for the City. He opined that reforestation was actually the planting of
trees and should not be related to tree removal.
Dr. Vandersloot, Newport Heights, questioned why certain interested parties
needed to be included further in the policy revisions. He felt that the proposed
policy was too liberal toward tree removal.
The General Services Director noted that he had prepared an agenda item for
Commission review at the regular meeting that addressed the comments of the
public and the Commission made at the last regular scheduled Commission
meeting of December 7, 1999. That agenda item had subsequently been deleted
from the regular agenda by the Chairman. It had been subsequently reinstated to a
Special Study Session by the Chairman, however, only 3 pages of the extensive
report had been forwarded to the Commission. Director Niederhaus felt it was
impossible to discuss the proposed policy because the Commission did not have
copies of the proposed policy.
,The General Services Director noted he had only received the Chairman's
proposed policy version at the start of the meeting and objected to making
significant format changes at this stage of review of the policy, particularly since
the majority of the interested parties were not present.
Attachment D 9�
It was decided that Chairman Beek and the General Services Director would meet
on January 10 to discuss any changes to the proposed policy. Further, copies of
the original agenda item would be forwarded to all Commissioners by January 7.
A second study session was then scheduled for January 13, at 7PM in the Council
Chambers to discuss the proposed policy.
The Special Study session adjourned at 9:30PM.
Submitted by:
David E. Niederhaus
General Services Director
q?
City of Newport Beach
Parks. Beaches. and Recreation Commission
Special Study Session Minutes
January 13, 2000
Meeting Convened at 7:15PM By Chairperson Beek at Council Chambers
Present: Beek, Skoro, Pfaff, McFarland
Absent: Tobin, Franklin
Staff: David E. Niederhaus, General Services Director
Public Comments
Dr. Vandersloot questioned two street tree removals on East Bluff Drive. Staff
explained the removal proposal. Dr. Vandersloot noted his interest in appealing
the removal request. He also requested an update on an earlier tree removal
request for Santa Ana Avenue. Dr. Alden Kelly also questioned the proposed tree
removals on East Bluff Drive
G -1 Tree Policy
The Commission discussed the various changes to the current proposed tree policy.
The attached letter of Commission Franklin was also reviewed. A number of
changes were made to the proposed policy as a result of Commissioners'
comments or those of the public. A copy of the amended policy is attached.
Meeting adjourned as of 9:50PM.
Respectfully submitted by:
.,_.`
David E. Niederhaus
General Services Director
Attachment: (A) Commissioner Franklin's letter dated January 11, 2000
(B) Amended G -1 Tree Policy
Attachment E I
JAN 11 2000 15:10 FR PACIFIC LIFE 949 721 5130 70 96500747 P.02iO3
To.
Chair Pat Beek
From:
Commissioner Marc Franklin
RE:
Revised GI Policy
Date:
1 /11 /00
On a philosophical note, I feel the major change to the revised GI is the addition of
"single tree reforestation ". I agree with Mr. Niederhaus that this in practice really just
adds an "aesthetic" criterion to the GI. You can already remove a single tree for the non-
aesthetic reasons enumerated in the existing policy. As a result, I am inclined to oppose
the revision when we actually vote on the matter.
Nevertheless, since the revision might be adopted, I would like to comment on its details
as well. I do admit that the wording represents an improvement in many respects over
the existing policy. Here are my comments, based on the underlined draft dated 12/13:
Page 2, Item A. Should we note at the end of the paragraph "Regular drain/pipe clearing
shall not constitute such damage, nor shall damage attributed to a failure by the owner to
perform such maintenance."
/Page 2, Item B. I would modify "interfering" to "significant interference "; otherwise a
t/ photo of a small puddle will suffice for removal.
. i Page 3, REMOVAL.... In the two areas where Paragraph C is exempted I wonder if
Paragraph E should be exempted as well. I am not for exemptions, but I think adding E is
in the spirit of having C exempted (both City actions without a requirement for PB&R
review).
Page 5, Item B. The underlined phrase adds the concept of residential view, but every
j house has a view of something. Do we mean ocean view? Sweeping view? As was
y/ pointed out at our last meeting, any house that can view the tree would need notice, as
their view would be affected by removing the tree. I am OK with it, if that is what we
mean.
Page 5, Item C. Two issues. In the petition sentence, I think we should note 60%
"approval', otherwise someone could submit enough signatures on a petition, even if
they were all opposed, and we would have to approve it! I don't understand the last
line... "...endorsement of appropriate Homeowner's Association if applicable ". The
paragraph says it is for individuals NOT residing in a CC &R based community
A associ What am I mis §ing, is there a subtle - difference?
age 5, Item E. change "...the designated street tree..." to "...a designated street tree ",
since we are going to a system where there will be more than one tree in many cases.
✓
/Wage 6, Item G. I do not understated this paragraph. It conflicts with B on the previous
t' page, and I am confused. What is it supposed to do?
qJ
JAN 11 2000 15:11 FR PACIFIC LIFE 949 721 5130 TO 96500747 P.03iO3
age 6. After the sentence "The Decision of the Commission on reforestation requests
Ll Will be considered final unless..." I think we should add the verbiage found on page 4
that there will be a 14 day delay before removal.
Page 6. The paragraph that starts "All encroachment..." has the phrases "whenever
possible" and "wherever possible ". I don't like these phrases, they add nothing, and I
think they should be removed. You are either supposed to do something or not. These
two phrases create a loophole someone could drive a truck through! Also, this section
should includc remedies/fines/penalties for failure to comply.
Page 7: The underlined sentence says "However, since these practices often require
"topping" or severe disfiguring of a tree and arc often aesthetically displeasing and
injurious to a tree, reforestation shall be considered once ctic occurred
more than twice within a one year period." .1 olded phrase m ? Who
will consider it? Do we mean to add it to the ore n avrng this
sentence here so prominently makes it seem like an automatic removal right. It seems out
of place.
These are my comments. I have a conflict and c 't make the study session but please
introduce them into the public record.
Sincerely,
a __ 4,dL,
Marc Franklin
Commissioner, PB &R
Cc: Dave Niederhaus
•
** TOTAL PRGE.03 **