Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/1/2007 - Agenda PacketMAY 1, 2007 PB &R COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA City of Newport Beach Parks, Beaches ft Recreation Commission Tuesday, May 1, 2007 - 7pm - City Council Chambers AGENDA ORDER AND ROLL CALL PRESENTATION BY WEST COAST ARBORISTS REGARDING TREE APPRAISALS DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS • Director Morgan • Director Harmon • City Council Actions PUBLIC COMMENTS Members of the public are invited to comment on non - agenda items of public interest. Speakers are limited to three minutes. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar 1 -6 are considered by the Commission to be routine and will all be enacted by one motions in the form listed below. The Commission members have received detailed staff reports on each of the items recommending approval and there will be no separate discussion of the 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. The City provides a yellow sign -in card for those wishing to address the Commission and to assist in the preparation of the minutes. If you do fill out the card please place it in the box at the podium. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of the April 3, 2007 regular meeting. Waive reading of subject minutes, approve and order filed. 2. Park & Operations Division Activity Report. Receive file monthly Activity Report for activities upcoming projects. 3. Recreation & Senior Services Activity Report. Receive file monthly Activity Report for activities upcoming projects. 4. Reforestation Request. Approve reforestation request of five City Cajeput parkway trees by Pacific West Asset Management Corporation adjacent to 4200 Campus Drive. 5. Tree Donation. Approve donation of Howard Hall, SPON of one 36" box Melealeuca linarofolia tree to be located at Bonita Canyon Sports Park. 6. Tree Donation. Approve donation of Ward Mace of one 36" box Black Oak tree to be located at Castaways Park. DISCUSSION /ACTION ITEMS 7. Appeal of Denied Tree Removal. Consider appeal for removal of one City Moreten Bay Fig parkway street tree located at 2421 Holly Lane. Action: Approve / Deny B. Lights at Lincoln Field. Consider request by AYSO 57 to install tights at Lincoln Athletic Center field #3. Action: Approve / Deny 9. Newport Center Park Phase 1 Design Elements. Gather input from the community and make recommendations of park elements to City Council. 10. FY 2007/08 Recreation & Senior Services Department Operating Budget. Presentation of FY 2007/08 Operating Budget to Commission for support at City Council budget Hearings. COMMITTEE REPORTS • Park Development • Other • RSS —Santa Ana River Vision Plan • Budget — Memorial Committee • AD - Hoc — MorinaPark —Youth Sports Liaison — Community Services Award FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS - Matters which Commissioners may wish to place on a future agenda or raise for discussion. ADJOURNED CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Parks, Beaches l3 Recreation Commission Regular Meeting April 3, 2007 - 7pm Convened 7:06pm ROLL CALL Present: Debra Allen Tim Brown Bill Garrett Phillip Lugar Marie Marston Cristine Trapp Absent Greg Ruzicka Staff: Wes Morgan, RSS Director Mark Harmon, General Services Director Teri Craig, Admin Asst )*M.1 5/107 Chair Garrett announced that if anyone in the audience was present for a discussion of Newport Center that it would not be discussed tonight but would be on the May agenda. Director Morgan stated that anyone can speak about any subject during public comments. DIRECTOR COMMENTS Director Harmon - None. Director Morgan stated that he would be his comments concern City Council action of March 27 regarding Newport Center Park. Commissioner Allen stated that she wanted to make a short statement and that is that she had done the survey and had an appraisal done of her property and that she believes that she has no conflict, but in the interest of the good of the order for this Commission she stated that she feels that she has become a distraction and has too much respect for the Commissioner to continue in that position and noted that she was recusing herself from the discussion. Commissioner Allen excused herself to the Council Conference room. Director Morgan stated that at the meeting in May the Commission would consider park design elements for Newport Center Park and it would be noticed within the law and the agenda would be posted. He stated that the January 2"' PBEtR minutes, the February 27th and March 271h Council minutes would be included in the packet. He also stated that at each seat was a copy of the Rec Ft Open Space Element from the "General Plan" and within states the type of parks, and the specific site of Newport Center Park is addressed in terms of its priority and its presently established land use. That will give the Commission 4 weeks to read that over. Director Morgan that at that meeting the Commission will take public comment from any and all that wish to speak on that item and the Commission will discuss what is best for that site and at the end of the discussion the Commission has been asked by Council to forward a recommendation for the park use of that land to City Council and that recommendation can include passive and active uses. He stated that he did not believe that the City Attorney would attend the meeting and stated that he would answer questions from the Commission and then public comments could begin. Commissioner Lugar stated that one of the things that is obviously absent in all the discussions about what we are supposed to took at is City Hall. It is not up for discussion nor as a possibility and stated that it was made clear at the Council meeting. He stated that this had not been talked about in Director Morgan's review. Parks, Beaches 8 Recreation Commission Regular Meeting April 3, 2007 - 7pm Page 2 Director Morgan stated that the majority of the Council said send it back to consider it for active or passive park uses. However, legally people can come to the podium and speak about whatever they want. Commissioner Lugar stated that it is a point of order then and that he would encourage the Chair to maintain order in the discussion. Director Morgan stated that the Commission's purview in this is to consider an active or passive park and that this Commission and staff is not tasked with deciding where a new facility should go. He stated that those were the parameters of the discussion but noted that the Commission would be getting input that could go wider then that. Director Morgan stated that during public discussion that citizens can come to the podium and not be censored. Commissioner Brown stated that the discussion of this issue at the January 2 meeting was to consider a response to City Council regarding placing a soccer field on the site. He went on to say that the debate that night was limited to whether or not the Commission thought that this park or part of it could be an active park and the decision was no and that they encouraged the Council to fund Phase 1 of the passive park. Commissioner Brown stated that this was the extent to which the Commission voted and noted that if now the item comes back that he agreed with Commissioner Lugar and it is simply an issue for the Commission to reconsider whether or not the park should be active or passive. Commissioner Brown stated that it is essential that this is what the debate is limited too. Commissioner Lugar agreed. PUBLIC COMMENTS Novell Hendrickson stated that she had looked at the agenda of January 2 where it listed Newport Center Park as information and discussion only. She stated that she read the staff report of January 2 where it listed June 2, 2001 that a consultant will receive funding opportunities and believes that it does not appear anywhere and a picture of a conceptual plan and so the actual meeting there was a motion and so it appears that the Brown Act was not followed and realizes that a Council Member stated on December 12 when asked if any City Council members have anything to put on a future agenda and that was not an approved item to be placed but rather comments. From that the Commission has been put into a position of trying to figure it out and so she welcomes a full hearing on this issue. Gloria Oakes, 2209 Channel Road stated that she was stunned by the hostile comments made by Commissioner Ruzicka at the March meetings and made the following statements: • Ruzicka stated that there was no hardscape damage. She stated that she did not lie on the application and has photographs of three cracks in the curb and a large crack in the adjacent brickwork. • Ruzicka stated that the tree was surrounded by dirt. She stated that the tree was and still is surrounded by dirt as she is in the process of landscaping and has been waiting until the tree was removed to install irrigation and sod in the section of the parkway. Parks, Beaches l3 Recreation Commission Regular Meeting April 3, 2007 - 7pm Page 3 • Ruzicka made an inference that a tree on the opposite side of the parkway had been taken out by unapproved methods. She stated that it was pure speculation and as a matter of fact a second tree would be planted to be more aesthetically pleasing. • Finally, Ruzicka made an issue regarding the charges to be paid for the process. The cost of reforestation as compared with the value placed on the tree was never a consideration in my request. She was told that the cost would be more and it was never negotiated. Ms. Oakes thanked the members of the Commission for focusing on the fact that the requirements of the process were met and for approving the request. The tree is a nuisance to pedestrians and while the new tree may be smaller it wilt not create a hazardous condition for those that enjoy waling in the community. She stated that she supports all efforts to make Newport Beach a desirable destination for everyone. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of the March 6, 2007 regular meeting. Waive reading of subject minutes, approve and order filed. 2. Park and Operations Division Activity Report. Receive /file monthly Activity Report for activities and upcoming projects. 3. Recreation Et Senior Services Activity Report. Receive /file monthly Activity Report for activities and upcoming projects. 4. Reforestation Request. Approve reforestation request by Elliot Lowe of one City Evergreen Pear tree adjacent to 1973 Port Provence Place. 5. Tree Donation. Approve donation by Howald Hall, SPON of one 36" box Metaleuca linadifolia tree to be located at Bonita Canyon Sports Park. 6. Tree Donation. Approve donation by Ward Mace, of one 36" box Black Oak tree to be located at Castaways Park. Motion by Commissioner Lugar to accept items 1 -6 of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried by acclamation. Director Harmon excused. DISCUSSION / ACTION ITEMS 7: AYSO Presentation — Lights for Lincoln School Field #3. Director Morgan stated that this item was on the agenda because AYSO 57 wants to light a field at Lincoln and is presenting that and noted that this is realty school district property and so the final say will lie with the NMUSD Board of Trustees but the reality is that it is in the City of Newport Beach and if that field were to be lit without anyone being made aware of it - it would become a problem so AYSO has asked for assistance in the process of gathering public input about the proposal and so they are here tonight to present their project, get the Commission familiar with it and staff is supportive of them asking the Commission to be a conduit for public input and this would be conducted at the May meeting. Recreation Manager Sean Levin stated that the interesting thing about Lincoln is that even though it is school property, it is leased for youth sports which includes the gymnasium and so that puts the City in a unique situation because it is maintained, operated and scheduled by staff. So if lights were installed, staff would be accountable for the use and the concerns by residents around the school. He acknowledged that staff is supportive of anything that gives us Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission Regular Meeting April 3, 2007 - 7pm Page 4 more field space in the City because there is not enough. He noted that AYSO has gone to a lot of effort to put together a plan that should not impact the residents too much. He explained that there are lights on two of the three existing fields and this would just be an add -on to what is already there. Gary Wright, AYSO 57 stated that he is here tonight to announce their intention to donate AYSO 57 of nearly $150,000 to light field #3. He displayed some posters with the fields and wh-ere the lights would be installed. He stated that it had been designed in a way to mitigate the impact of nearby homeowners. He stated that AYSO is a volunteer organization and no one is paid and support over 3000 players and the objective is youth development with a key tenant that "everyone plays." He stated that they are not anything like a club sport and are open to anyone in the community that meet the age requirements but primarily serve CdM and the eastern half of the bay which is Districts 4 -7. Mr. Wright stated that the Mussco people are here to answer questions about the lights and stated that the main reason for lights on field #3 is that there are new sports such as Lacrosse, adult soccer, and of course club teams which are expanding and the allocations for AYSO were cut by 33% in terms of the number of fields to use for the sports programs and there are no new lighted fields planned. He stated that the other issue is that the mandate is to continually decrease the size of teams so we will play with smaller teams but the net effect is that you have more teams playing games and more practices and so the impact in just one division has gone from 40 teams to 56 this next season. And for one division they will need 28 fields to play and support kids from age 4 to 19 years of age. Mr. Wright stated that they have worked with Mussco to have minimum impact neighborhoods. He displayed the light fill line and so the good news falls entirely on the public right of way. The lighting illumination is the minimum that the State will accept since it will need to be approved at the State level. There will be electronic controls and a remote control and Mussco installed these lights at Turtle Rock Ridge area. He stated the he personally has called several people on Jetty drive and they are all for it and has written an email to both HOA groups and seek out anyone that might have a concern. He stated that he would be giving an interview to the LA Times tomorrow regarding the issue and so he feels confident that the residents will know about this proposal. He requested that the Commission allow AYSO 57 to use this next Commission meeting to solicit public input to ultimately forward the minutes to NMUSD and start the process which includes their approval and then 4 -5 months of time in Sacramento before a final decision is made on the design. He stated that he hoped that it would be built by next summer. Director Morgan stated that in fairness that should a negative declaration be made for planning purposes and we are not challenged by SEQA regulations this input has been gathered he reminded the Commission that AYSO is very generous, cooperative, patient and there is a house on the hill. Recreation Manager Levin stated that there are houses up on Spyglass Hill that look down and they will be noticed as well but noted that there has been one resident that has some concerns. Commissioner Allen encouraged AYSO 57 to encourage homeowners at Spyglass to visit Turtle Rock and make a presentation at their FICA meeting because the last thing you want is that NMUSD feels that not enough public outreach was done. Commissioner Lugar asked who would own the lights. Parks, Beaches Ec Recreation Commission Regular Meeting April 3, 2007 -7pm Page 5 Director Morgan stated that in the end he believed that it would be the school district because it is physical property on their land; however the City collects hourly rates of $30 /hr for lights and believes that there will be a shared maintenance with AYSO. Mr. Wright stated that they have gone ahead with a 25 year warranty at their cost that covers replacement bulbs and any defect in the way it is lit. He noted that the State would actually own it as the school district is the custodian of the property. He stated that they would actually be making a donation to the State and what they need from the City is that they are ok with the donation. Manager Levin stated that AYSO provides $50,000 in maintenance to the fields each year as a minimum for upkeep; and Little League provided a backstop at $65,000 in addition to the grass work that they pay for. Chair Garrett stated that the Commission is aware of the need for additional lit fields but asked that they be ready for people that could be against it. Director Morgan stated that this issued would be agendized for May 1" Chair Garrett opened the public discussion; hearing none the public discussion was closed. 8. FY 2007/08 Recreation Et Senior Services Department Operating Budget. Director Morgan stated that staff had presented the budget to the Budget Committee and was requesting that the Commission recommend and support the FY 2007/08 Budget to the City Council. He stated that the budget has changed a little after discussions with City Manager. He turned it ove to the staff to make presentation on Recreation programs, Senior Center programs, Newport Coast Community Center and Park Patrol. The following staff presented: • Recreation Manager Matt Lohr • Recreation Manager Sean Levin • Senior Services Manager Celeste Jardine -Haug • Recreation Supervisor Christine Stempleski • Recreation Supervisor Raquel Rodarte • Recreation Supervisor Matt Dingwall • Asst Recreation Coordinator Jessica Reiten Discussion ensued regarding Park Patrol. Manager Levin stated that that there is a financial impact with adding a full -time officer as there is no revenue to cover the service. After the presentation the Commission commended the staff for their presentation. Chair Garrett opened the public discussion Laura Curran asked about planting at Newport Coast Community Center. Discussion ensued regarding Foundations. Motion by Commissioner Allen to recommend approval of the submitted budget and to forward to City Council with their recommendation and to request that City Council consider allowing the Commission to look into Foundations. Parks, Beaches Et Recreation Commission Regular Meeting April 3, 2007 - 7pm Page 6 Commissioner Brown stated that there is a need to get Council's blessing to look into starting a Park Et Recreation Foundation. Chair Garrett stated that he had talked to a Council Member about the issue and had appeared cold on the idea. Amended motion by Commissioner Allen to recommend approval of the submitted budget and to forward to City Council with their recommendation. Motion carried by acclamation Motion by Commissioner Allen to request permission by City Council to look into a Foundation. Motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Allen, Brown, Lugar, Marston, Trapp Nay: Garrett Absent: Ruzicka COMMITTEE REPORTS - Parks- Director Morgan stated he had spoken about this item at the beginning of the meeting. RSS- Nothing to report. Although Commissioner Brown did ask for an update on Mariners. Manager Levin stated that the Landscape Architect was approved at the last Council meeting and staff met with Newport Harbor Baseball, Soccer, etc. and the project will be split up but that the field will be ready to play on March 1, 2008 but to make that happen the restrooms and some of the outside amenities out of the project and work on the field first as we need grass on the ground first to grow for 6 months. The demolition of the old library building will be May 1n. Budget- Presented above. Director Morgan stated that the budget will continue to be refined. AD - Hoc —Youth Sports Liaison - Nothing to report — Community Services Award - Nothing to report. Other —Santa Ana River Vision Plan- Nothing to report. — Memorial Committee- Chair Garrett stated that that it has been sent to art community for a proposal on a type of a memorial. Ensign View Park has been selected as the location. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS The following are new or ongoing items to be discussed: • Fire pit discussion on safety and to regulate what is burned • Discussion of possible implementation of Parks £t Rec Foundation. • Appointment to Marina Park Committee - Garrett has been selected • Tree Valuation • G -1 Policy Discussion • Parking Signage at Back Bay View Park • Dog Park • Updates on Parks ADJOURNMENT- 9:15pm Submitted by: Teri Craig, Admin Assistant so 'al Sir : kPo mot PB &R Commission Agenda Item No. d May 1, 2007 TO: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission FROM: Parks and Trees Maintenance and Operations Support Superintendents SUBJECT: April Parks, Trees, and Operations Division Activity Report Parks Maintenance Division Activities 1. Parks Maintenance Division staff assisted the City's Code Enforcement Division and Police Department, relative to encampments identified at the undeveloped Sunset Ridge Park property, which was cause for concern due to the proximity to residents. The problem was addressed primarily by removing acacia shrubs and juvenile pepper trees that had naturally seeded at this site. 2. The Jamboree median, north of Coast Highway was completely renovated. The project consisted of replacing the old shrubs and ground cover with attractive drought tolerant plantings. Additionally, new irrigation was installed to eliminate an irrigation runoff problem identified. 1 The old Hollywood junipers that had outgrown their welcome were removed from the Channel Park restroom planters, and new plants installed. 4. Parks Maintenance staff provided traffic control for the annual Kring and Chun Newport Beach Triathlon. Staff performed some initial setup on Saturday April 22" , and worked from 4:00 a.m. until noon on Sunday. 5. Parks Maintenance Division staff is presently working with the Public Works Department on numerous projects in planning and construction phases including: Coastal Peak Park, new medians on Superior and Irvine Avenues, Newport Coast Community Center, the Police Department Security Fencing Project, and the new Santa Ana Heights Fire Station. 6. As a final touch to the Corona del Mar State Beach Project, staff installed new plantings in all of the parking lot medians to compliment this new project renovation. • 7. Parks Maintenance staff completed a renovation project surrounding the Buffalo Hills Park sand -play area. Over time, sand that has spilled out from the play area has built f up the grade in the surrounding turf areas, creating a trip hazard and trapping rainwater on the adjacent sidewalk. The project included removal of existing turf, re- grading the high edges, and placement of new sod. 8. Even with the record low rainfall this winter season, native plants at sites such as Bonita Canyon Sports Park, Back Bay View Park, Castaways Park, and the view parks in Newport Coast are bursting with brilliant color displays and rapid growth. Shrubs such as Ceanothus, Black Sage, _ W Sticky Monkeyflower, and California Encelia are now in full bloom. Some of the typical wildflowers displayed are: Goldfields (yellow), Blue -Eyed Grass (lighter blue), Beach Evening Primrose (yellow), and California Poppy (orange). However, as with many of our native plants, the show will only last into the early summer months, since the higher temperatures will force the plants into dormancy until our typically wet winter weather returns. Upcomine Activities for April 1. The planting of replacement shrubs and ground covers will continue Citywide. 2. Continue to work with prospective donors. Trees Division Activities During the month of April, 1,270 trees were trimmed, 24 trees planted, 9 trees removed and • crews responded to 9 emergency tree calls. 1 • 1. The City's tree trimming contractor, West Coast Arborists, is currently pruning trees within the Eastbluff and Corona Del Mar areas, as part of the City's overall grid trimming schedule. Additionally, crews continue to prune trees in the Newport Coast area as scheduled from October through May, which is part of the maintenance agreement between the City and the Newport Coast Community. 2. Since July 2004, under City Council direction and funding, staff has undertaken an extensive root pruning effort. Combined efforts of the Field Maintenance, Tree Maintenance Division, and West Coast Arborists staffs have resulted in the root pruning of 859 trees to date. This effort will mitigate any potential property damage from City tree roots and provide for tree longevity in the urban forest. The extensive work includes root pruning, root barrier installation, and hardscape repairs at each tree site. 3. The attached Tree Activity Report summarizes requests and field activities performed during the past month. Beach Maintenance Activities 1. The annual trek of Spring break visitors during late March and early April were not affected by the wind, clouds, and below average temperatures. This is the time of year the Beach Maintenance staff activity increases significantly on the beach and in the surrounding commercial districts. 2. In preparation for the spring and summer seasons in the Peninsula area, the Beach Maintenance Division staff has been occupied moving lifeguard towers forward, digging trenches for phone lines, pulling back wind blown sand, and grooming oceanfront beaches. 3. Beach Maintenance Division staff has commenced their 540 work week with a 5:00 a.m. start time, in an effort to avoid the large crowds, beat the heat of the day, ensure a safe working environment and increase maintenance coverage. Additionally, increased weekend maintenance activities for the high profile beach commercial districts have also been implemented. These staffing and maintenance schedules will remain in place until after the Labor Day weekend. 4. Beach Maintenance crews have been staying busy cleaning up after wind events, since this past winter did not result in a substantial amount of rainfall, with less than three inches falling in the City's rain gauge at the City Corporation Yard. 5. As a result of the Santa Ana and cold North winds, which have blown on a weekly basis during the winter and early spring season, the mechanical street sweeping operators and hand sweeping crews had to perform additional cleaning. Additionally, when the Santa Ana's stopped blowing, the cold north winds took over, thus inundating oceanfront walkways, bike trials, and street ends with wind blown sand. 6. Once again the wind fencing installed at the west end of the Newport Pier Municipal parking lot, and along oceanfront street ends in west Newport did an outstanding job • • of holding back the blowing sand. The fencing is traditionally removed during the first week of May in order to allow unobstructed access to oceanfront beaches. See attached General Services Department. Activities Report for March 2007. Ver respectfully, (V a 6�� Dan P. Sereno Parks and Trees Maintenance Superintendent Rick Greaney O Operations Support Superintendent Attachments: (A) Tree Activity Report 2006 -2007 (B) General Services Department March Activities Report i ' e(a) "gllo a4 . hl, a a0 '4 1 'Y !V N O O O 9a r,6 o. N D. Cl) as a T JQh M R, O O w Q U d o 'td 9waa c aQ a 9q�d10T cU 0 O y a R 0 0 ow N O s a+ �shO9h O O U O O a a0 O !V N O O O o. N D. Cl) as a W M a) > O O w Q U N cU 0 R 0 0 N O Q � O U O O O a) E . O C O 0 E +a a w 0 0 U o d > 0 N N L m 0 O > 7 O O_ c O O O O Q a a £ H _= a°ia (D EE 'oN O O O E •- E N c o 0 0 O o 2C o 0 O aOi a) ` CL r m LO m 00 N x x • x x x x O O O O O O O N O � x x x m O � O o � o o O LO o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O d- Cl O M CO N O O O O Co O N O O CD N O N N O O O O O O x a N 6 W Q' c O Nai a N > Q Q Q c o 2 N N CD � a> Q m > rn m > 0 N > O E W a) N > rn N O E 0 N � ° W (6 N N OE a) w N H c o r a�'i N > E w W aD W a� o o I E W a� E o-c I` = w w H U � a- a a� O o. D. as a a) > O O w Q U o cU 0 0 0 N O Q � O U O O O< Q a) E . O C O 0 E +a a w 0 0 U o U > 0 N N L m 0 O > 7 O O_ c O O O O Q a a £ _= a°ia (D EE 'oN O O O E •- E N c a a) O U m = = 2C O aOi a) ` CL m LO m 00 N x x • x x x x rj 1 • CLAIM REMOVALS Fiscal Year 2006- 2007 MONTH TREE # LOCATION July -06 0 August -06 1 2200 Heather Lane 2 413 Dahlia Avenue 1 415 Dahlia Avenue 1 520 Dahlia Avenue 1 1902 West Balboa Blvd 1 1746 Tradewinds Lane 1 Begonia Park, CDM 1 2221 Aralia Street 1 3201 Via Lido Bridge 1 1300 Ford Road 1 100 6th Street 1 126 30th Street Total 13 September -06 0 October -06 1 2427 Margaret Drive 2 2801 Seaview Avenue 1 1506 Park Avenue 1 522 Old Newport Blvd 1 2525 Island View Drive 3 601 Irvine Avenue 2 300 Heliotrope Avenue 1 420 Fernleaf Avenue 1 2332 Azure Avenue 1 521 Acacia Avenue Total 14 November -06 0 December -06 0 January-07 0 February-07 1 4633 Tremont Lane March -07 0 April -07 1 127 Abalone Avenue • / • PROBLEM TREE REMOVALS Fiscal Year 2006 -2007 MONTH TREE # LOCATION July -06 0 August -06 4 442 Redlands Avenue 1 1533 Ocean Blvd 1 2215 Port Carlisle Place 2 1300 Nottingham Road 1 618 Acacia Avenue Total 9 September -06 0 October -06 0 November -06 0 December -06 0 January -07 0 February -07 0 March -07 0 April-07 0 u • March 2007 General Services Department Activities Report THIS MONTH TNis MONTH LAs. YEAR TorALTO DATE TTD LAST YEAR ASPHALT /CONCRETE Street Patching (Tons of Blacktop) 501 734 3,643 4,178 Sidewalk Repaired (sq. ft.) 7,865 4,041 35,677 30,508 Curb & Gutter Replacement (lin. ft.) 661 372 3,894 3,149 Sweeping, Beach Cleaning, Demo Materials (tons) 494 314 3,389 3,323 Asphalt/Concrete Recycled (tons) 535 283 3,617 2,820 SIGNS & TRAFFIC MARKINGS Signs Made 541 266 11,666 7,900 Signs Installed 183 255 1,707 1,912 Decals 213 823 1,713 5,219 Special Purpose Signs /Banners 41 30 385 296 Street Striping (lin. ft.) Added /Replaced 2,725 1,002 583,339 581,329 Pavement Markings (including reflective) 11 37 1,179 543 Parking Stalls 19 10 355 753 Curb Painting (lin. ft.) 20,035 16,426 97,961 111,595 Thermoplastic (lin. ft.) 0 5,516 9,614 25,467 Sign Posts Installed 61 88 386 561 GRAFFITI Graffiti Incidents Removed by Staff 179 242 1,578 1,996 Graffiti Incidents Removed by Contractor 83 29 552 327 REFUSE COLLECTION Residential (tons) 3,092 3,196 28,599 29,299 Liquid HazMat Incidents 20 29 38 77 E -Waste Incidents 21 31 54 77 U -Waste Incidents 24 26 62 75 Recyclables (tons) 904 927 7,934 7,955 TREES Trimmed by Staff 61 102 1,070 1,297 Trimmed by Contractor 1,335 1,348 12,460 12,109 Removed 14 5 75 92 Planted 13 33 169 216 Roots Pruned by Contractor 0 0 0 0 Roots Pruned by Staff 8 0 182 447 AUTOMOTIVE Repairs 292 244 2,661 2,592 Preventive Maintenance Completed 71 60 656 588 PM Labor Hours 134 165 1,273 1,233 BEACH MAINTENANCE Beach Area Refuse (tons) 43 83 637 730 Beach Debris (tons) 151 118 750 787 SWEEPING /STORM DRAIN Gutter Miles Swept 5,141 4,659 42,182 41,632 Sweeping Debris (cubic yards) 522 455 4,852 4,616 Storm Drain Debris (cubic yards) 34 58 492 488 u Y, a4 Q min To: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission From: Wes Morgan, Recreation 8 Senior Services Director Re: Recreation and Senior Services Division Monthly Activities Report The following information is enclosed: • Page 2 — Reports on the activities of the Recreation Division. • Page 8 — Reports on the activities of the Senior Services Division. Item 3 H" J, aMr, Recreation Et Senior Services Division Monthly Activities Report Page 2 RECREATION SERVICES • To: Parks, Beaches Et Recreation Commission From: Sean Levin, Recreation Manager Matt Lohr, Recreation Manager Re: Recreation Division Monthly Activities Report ADULT SPORTS SoFreALL - April 18 was the deadline for the summer adult softball team registration which brought faxes, emails, and drop -in customers racing to get their teams registered by the deadline. Just like taxes, most teams wait until the last second to register. The popular league will begin the week of May 14, with schedules distributed the week of May 3. Approximately 120 teams are expected to participate. The 75 teams making up the spring softball season concluded their games by April 30. Blessed with good weather this spring, a minimum amount of games had to be rescheduled. The Friday coed league wraps up on May 4. The winning softball teams are enjoying impressive championship embroidered caps, decked out in through back "Dodger Blue" and grey! VOLLEYBALL - Ric Jennings' popular Thursday coed adult league at Lincoln continues to pack in the teams with Ric looking to bring back the Sunday evening league at West Newport. Two tryout dates have been scheduled for May 20 and June 3 and if successful, the Sunday league will begin June 10. SOCCER - The spring season matches basketball with a record 28 teams in 3 divisions! Demand is expected to remain strong in the summer, with leagues scheduled to begin the week of May 14. Staff will be coordinating with Parks staff to find space in July and early August, as the main football /soccer field will shut down for renovation in late June. YOUTH PROGRAMS SPRING RECESS CAMP - Fifty youth ages 6 to 12 enjoyed an educational session on fire safety, frolicked at Corona del Mar State Beach, learning about sea life and petting ray's at the Aquarium of the Pacific. Campers also toured the CdM fire station during the Spring Recess Camp. Participants were provided with a fun, safe environment to create friendships, engage in hands on activities, and participate in sports. • Recreation Ii Senior Services Division Monthly Activities Report Page 3 PRE - SCHOOL 101 - The 4t" session concluded April 13 and children enrolled in the program took a break during the 2 -week intersession, while staff prepared activities and lesson plans to reach the needs of all the children, of three, four, and five years of age. The last six week session of the year began April 30. YOUTH SPORTS - The 42nd Annual Frank E. Anderson Memorial Youth Track and Field Championships scheduled for April 20`h was rained out and rescheduled April 27`h TEEN PROGRAMMING YOUTH COUNCIL - The Youth Council was a big part of the Spring Egg Hunt held March 30, running the concession stand and picture with the Bunny and raised over $600, which will be used to help support Challenge Day scheduled for May 19. This event is expected to host 100 youth and 20 adult facilitators again this year. If interested in being an adult facilitator please contact the Recreation and Senior Services Dept. CONTRACT CLASSES SUMMER Is HERE - The summer Navigator will be out the first week of May with registration May 7. The Summer Special Preview released in March covered a number of camps and surf classes, but the quartely Navigator includes additional camps, classes and programs for all ages. Some of our new classes premiering this summer include: SuperSTAR FITNESS by Alec Hunter Kinderdance of Orange County Rhonda Felton Cindy Dupuie Susan Mulcaire Devin Dugan Jesse Salinas Sherri Higley Sinjin Smith & Rany Stoklos Scott Morlan Newport SeaBase Ocean Adventures by Jeff Nelson Movies By Kids Dan Glenn, Eddie Rapp, & Kurt Lundberg Beach Boot Camp Kindertots, Kinderdance & Fancy Dancers, Tap 1, Dances of the World Dinosaur Discovery Et Ocean Explorations Cooking Class for the College Bound Student 8 Kids "Cooking" the Healthy Way Student Organizational Skills for the Success in Middle School Improv for Teens, Improv Kids, Ft Improv for Adults Predator Self - Defense Class for Women Beginning Tribal Fusion Beach Volleyball Camps for Teens Endless Fun & Fitness Surfing Junior Aquatics Camp & Squids Camp Sports Enthusiasts Camp Kung -Fu Filmmaking, KTV: Kids TV, My First Music Video, Advanced Claymation, Et Rockin' Music & Animate Anything Newport Harbor Surf & Sand Beach Camp AUDITING CLASSES - Beginning in March, Contract Class Audits have been conducted more frequently, providing important feedback to program instructors. With the opening of the Newport be Coast Community Center, contract classes are expanding at a rapid pace. The City is implementing a more thorough auditing program to better serve the community and improve the already strong classes offered here in the City of Newport Beach. These audits include meeting with the instructors, thorough reports, proper documentation, and photos sent to the instructor. Recreation li Senior Services Division Monthly Activities Report Page 4 AQUATICS RECRUITMENT FOR LIFEGUARDS, SWIM INSTRUCTORS Et RECREATION CLERKS - Staff is currently in the process of interviewing applicants for the summer aquatic programs. As always, staff is appreciative of the work Human Resources provides. Recruitment for summer is ongoing as there are positions left to fill. Staff attended the California State Long Beach University Job Fair, posted job fliers online with numerous colleges and universities, requested Recreation professors to make announcements at class. Staff has also worked closely with the Fire /Marine Department and recruited some ocean lifeguard applicants that were not hired. RENTALS AT CDM /MBAC FOR APRIL 2007 - Sage Hill rental: Monday- Friday from 6 -8pm in the deep end. Sage Hill plans to rent MBAC through the first part of May. SUMMER PROGRAMMING - Staff is currently working on the summer pool schedule. Newport Harbor High School will offer additional programming this summer to compensate for MBAC being closed. With MBAC closed for the renovations this summer, additional swim lessons have been added. The contracted youth swim team (NBAC) and CdM Junior Water Polo teams run by Ted Bandaruk are tentatively scheduled to relocate to Costa Mesa High School for the summer. Newport -Mesa Unified School District and the Recreation Staff are vigorously working out the schedule to accommodate the majority of the summer programming. RECREATION DIVISION SPECIAL EVENTS CDM 5K - Long time CdM 5k volunteer, Patricia Zartler received the City of Newport Beach's CPRS Volunteer of the Year award at the CPRS Awards £t Installation Banquet on in Downey. Patricia Zartler has served on the CdM 5k Committee for 25 years in many capacities with her largest role as the Volunteer Chair. She has recruited over 150 volunteers each year for over a decade! Patricia has not only been an effective recruiter but also has a great wealth of race history and is a pleasure to have at committee meetings. Plans are well underway for this years event which will be held on Saturday, June 2nd 2007. HOPPED INTO SPRING - The 3'd Annual Flashlight Egg Hunt was held March 30. Here are a few of the Recreation i3 Senior Services Division Monthly Activities Report Page 5 _77 7 .. -. ;ik a F— t FACILITIES USE Et REPAIRS 4TH of JULY INDEPENDENCE DAY PARADE - The first meeting between the City staff and the Independence Day Committee took place on April 9 where the logistics for the 35th Annual Parade and Celebration held at Mariner's Park were discussed. The committee is working on the schedules and contacts for the various vendors, entertainment, the layout ft staging of the park, volunteers and staffing. The Committee is geared up to have another successful event, and looks forward to working cooperatively with the City of Newport Beach. During the period of March 16, 2006 - April 15, 2007 there were: • 24 Picnic/ Park Area Rentals • 19 Room Rentals • 18 Field Rentals • 9 Gym Rentals Park and picnic area rentals have increased during this period, as is typical during this time of the year. There were total of (1) wedding reservation rentals for this period: Lookout Point -2- 24.07, attendance:20 PARK PATROL • Requested calls are assigned visits by staff or schedule or phone requests. Customer Contacts are the number of times they stopped and spoke to customers other than requested calls. Due to the timing of the meeting, these monthly summaries will be two months behind (i.e. in June you will receive April summary) During the month of March Park Patrol had the following contacts: 1. Requested Calls 157 with Youth Sports Groups 14 Field related issues /checks- monitored use of fields by Youth Sports organizations and club teams, turned on /off field lights, reported goal posts unlocked at several fields, assisted NBPD resolving issue at Eastbluff school, checked lacrosse event at Peninsula Field, assisted with opening day at Bonita Canyon SP, advised adult softball players not to warm up on facade area at Bonita Creek, provided V Aid to injured softball player at Bonita Creek, stopped private training at Arroyo Field, reported baseball games starting before Sam at BCSP. Reported trash left behind on field at Bonita Creek. Stopped golfing at Peninsula Field. 25 Picnic/ reservation issues /checks: monitored scheduled picnic reservations at various parks. 46 Community Center issues /checks: unlocked and locked various community center rooms /gyms, checked on weekly meetings at community rooms. • 6 Playground checks - checked all playgrounds for safety issues and vandalism, stopped basketball play after dark at 38'" Street Park. 38 other - checked on and monitored surf contest at 56`" Street Beach, monitored and warned numerous commercial photographers at Little Corona Beach, advised numerous park visitors to keep their dogs on leashes. Assisted NBPD looking for a lost pet snake at BCSP, advised couple to pour out alcohol at Lookout Point, assisted staff with egg hunt at Bonita Creek Park, reported graffiti at Las Arenas, assisted staff with Health Wave event at Grant Howald Park, • 8 Pre -event check Recreation 8 Senior Services Division Monthly Activities Report Page 6 • 2 Post -event checks 2. Public Contacts • • 26 education • 3 alcohol • 40 dog related Additional Info: Park Patrol Officer's assisted with several special events this month. Richard Miller completed pepper spray and citation writing training at the Police Department. The Park Patrol officer's advised us of a parking issue at Bonita Canyon Sports Park. Vehicles are parking along the curb behind marked spots and along the driveway entrance and exits making if difficult for park visitors to safely enter and exit. A request to Public Works was made to paint the curbs red along these areas, which was completed this month. Written Warnings Issued- 7 parking violations Citations Issued - 6 for parking violations at Lincoln Athletic Center and City Hall. SPECIAL EVENTS PERMITS As of April 20, 2007, there were 76 Special Event Permits processed and issued for the year. Those events of note for this period are: SpirtRun- Fashion Island, March 25, 2007 Attendance:6000 Flashlight Egg Hunt - Bonita Creek Park, March 30, 2007, Attendance: 3000 NHHS Surf Contest -56`" Street Beach, March 31 -April 1, 2007 Attendance: 220 FACILITIES USE AND REPAIRS MARINERS PARK TOT LOT - Removal of the existing play equipment began April 3. The project includes the installation of a new 5 to 12 yr old play structure in the existing pit, construction of a new 24' diameter play area to house a 2 -5 yr old play structure and installation of rubber safety surfacing to cover approximately 60% of the play surface. The swings and dolphin will remain as part of the new playground design. Additionally, Linnert Builders will install a Space Net play structure and safety surfacing at Peninsula Park adjacent to the Balboa Pier. Both areas are scheduled to be ready for play by May 1". MARINERS PARK - The contract for the reconstruction of the ballfield and restroom were awarded to RJM Landscape Architects. Staff had an initial meeting with RJM, AYSO 97 and Newport Harbor Baseball Association to discuss the project with the goal of having the field open and ready for play by spring 2008. The restroom is being designed for a future second phase to ensure the timing of the ball field. WEST NEWPORT COMMUNITY CENTER - New lockers will be installed thanks to the City concrete crew and the carpenters shop for their assistance in preparing the area for the installation! NEWPORT COAST COMMUNITY CENTER UPDATE - The center is 85% complete and on schedule. Staff has been impressed by the overall quality and team work from General Contractor Bernard's, Architect Betsey Dougherty and Project Manager GKK Works. Staff is now in the process of completing the programming for the center, which include new classes and an emphasis in lifetime and psychical Recreation fx Senior Services Division Monthly Activities Report Page 7 fitness classes. Also, in late April and early May all furnishing will be ordered for the building with includes: table and chairs, sound system, lighting system for stage, office furniture, lobby • furniture, computer and networking equipment, live plants, artwork for lobby, and general sport equipment. The center is scheduled to open Tuesday, September 4, 2007 for classes to the public. The grand opening /dedication is scheduled for Saturday, September 15 in the morning. More information will follow in early July. Recreation lr Senior Services Division Monthly Activities Report Page 8 SENIOR SERVICES . To: Parks, Beaches ft Recreation Commission From: Celeste Jardine -Haug, Senior Services Manager Re: Senior Services Division Monthly Activities Report Special Lecture - A successful lecture given by "Clutter Cleaners" a company that specializes in making people more productive by helping them to clean out their junk. Obviously this is a problem among many people not only seniors. Medical Lecture - A UCI medical lecture on driving safety was presented on April 27 by nurse practitioner and member of the Older Californian Traffic Safety Task Force Camille Fitzpatrick. One of the greatest challenges many seniors people face is staying safe on the road. It is not just a matter of renewing a driver's license of "buckling up ", it is recognizing that if changes occur with aging they affect their ability to drive safely. The speaker provided tips on safe driving and identified resources available in the community for driver safety evaluation and assistance in learning methods to adjust driving habits to stay safe on the road. New Center Design Process - Staff has been proceeding with the design of the proposed senior center. Architect Bob Coffee has been introduced and has interacted with many of the participants at OASIS this month. He is doing a great job at listening to their needs and desires which will help to design a facility that will be acceptable to all. Two groups of 25 people visited 6 sites (Rancho - Cucamunga, Cerritos, Culver City, Laguna Niguel, Yorba Linda, and Irvine) to gather ideas for the centers' design. It was interesting to see how other senior center functions. Each person was given a booklet to write down their thoughts as we walked through each site. Mr. Coffee is now compiling this information to report back to us. Four focus group meetings were held to allow participants to convey their thoughts about the space and the use of a new facility. The groups were broken into staff, Friends Board, and two senior user groups and instructors of classes. Interestingly, by the end of the four sessions, there were many similarities in opinions of what people liked and what they felt was important. One main issue that everyone agreed upon was to make sure that the new facility still maintained the inviting feeling that the Center currently has. Recreation 8 Senior Services Division Monthly Activities Report Page 9 PARTICIPANTS ATTENDING • RECREATIONAL CLASSES PERSONALIZED SERVICES PROVIDED includes: Blood Pressure 52 Housing counseling Braille 0 Information /Referral Counseling- persons 60 Legal Assistance Eldercare 4 Senior Assessment(hrs) Employment 25 Telephone Reassurance HICAP 6 Visual Screening Tax 165 Transportation SENIORS RECEIVING TRANSPORTATION SERVICES Care -A- Van /Shuttle CUSTOMERS RECEIVING NOON MEALS AT THE CENTER VOLUNTEER HRS. OF SERVICES PROVIDED AT THE CENTER Includes: Kitchen ft Home Delivered Meals Front Office Travel Office Gift Shop Library Instructors President Treasurer Vice President Bookkeeper Taxes PARTICIPANTS IN FRIENDS OF OASIS TRAVEL PROGRAMS Day Trips La Quinta Arts Festival 24 Nethercut Museum 18 SPECIAL EVENTS /SCREENINGS /LECTURES Computer Friends 35 Movie - Boyton Beach Club 35 Pacific Symphony 30 UCI Lecture - Shingles 60 Hoag Lecture 16 9,007 CUSTOMERS 3,958 CUSTOMERS 1,829 CUSTOMERS 40 970 6 50 390 4 57 1,246 CUSTOMERS 1,417 CUSTOMERS 1,478.00 HOURS ( *equiv. to 9 full -time employees) Lone Trips Greek isles River Palms Resort French Riveria Week in Washington Death Valley OASIS Golfers Sunday Movies - Chaplin How to Steal A Million Let's Dance Anastasia 115 CUSTOMERS 5 28 2 2 36 442 PERSONS 147 28 30 23 38 • ( a C���FOP� \) Z��.��`'ff�' PB &R Commission Agenda Item No. May 1, 20 7 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission General Services Director Reforestation Request Reeotmmendatisn Staff recommends that the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission consider this reforestation request for approval of Pacific West Asset Management Corporation, property owner at 4200 Campus Drive. Vis-loussion City Council Policy G -1, Reforestation of City Trees requires that individual property owners not residing within a legally established community association area may submit individual requests for • single or multiple tree reforestations. The applicant must submit a petition signed by a minimum of 60 % of property owners within the area defined for reforestation. Per City Council Policy G -1, the City has received a petition from the Pacific West Asset Management Corporation with the required property owner signatures approving the removal of the five City Cajeput parkway trees adjacent to 4200 Campus Drive. The property owner has complied with the requirements of the G -1 Policy, and has agreed to assume the full cost of the removal and replacement of the five City trees, approximately $2,769.00 ($975.00 for five 24" box replacement trees and $1,794.00 removals). Staff has attached a Tree Inspection Report, Tree Inventory Detail, and photographs related to the request. The Pacific West Asset Management Corporation and Ms. Margaret T. Ferrigno, Property Manager have received a copy of this report and a notice of the Commission meeting. �al a NAttachments: (A) (B) (C) (D) (B) Pacific West Asset Management Corporation Letters "Tree Removal Request Application and Petition Tree Inspection and Tree Inventory Detail Photos *Fsseit�al�a�t �P • March 6, 2007 Via U.S. CERTIFIED MAIL Mr. John Conway, Urban Forester CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 62685 RE: PETITION FOR TREE REMOVAL 4200 CAMPUS DRIVE 4,100 CAMPUS DIVE, NEWPORT BEACH, CA Dear Mr. Conway: Enclosed please find the complete and signed Removal of City Tree petition, and Tree Removal or Reforestation Application for the removal of five (5) trees at 4200 Campus Drive, Newport Beach, California. Please review the petition and inform me of the next steps, if arty, that need to be taken on our part. After your review of the petition, please let me know when the removal of the trees is scheduled for. If the trees need to be replaced and the building owner is responsible for • the replacement, we will need additional information such as cost of replacement, type of tree, and planting requirements. Any information you can provide would be greatly appreciated. I look forward to hearing from you with a date for the tree removal. Thank you for all your help with this matter. Sincerely, Paei#e West Asset Management Corporation Natalia Nunes Administrative Assistant fnn Enclosure cc: S. Ference M. Ferrigno Nailing Address • Post Office Box 19068 a Irvine, California 92623 -9888 31910 Airport Loop • Costa Mesa, California 92626 -3404 • (714) 433 -7300 Faz (714) 433 -7338 c�cest ssel anagemenl Corporation • November 2, 2006 Via U.S. Mail and Facsimile (949)650 -5643 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, Attn: Mr. John Conway URBAN FORRESTER P.O Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 62685 RE: TREE MAINTENANCE 4200 CAMPUS DRIVE 4200 CAMPUS DIVE, NEWPORT BEACH, CA Dear Mr. Conway: Per our conversation on October 30, 2006, I am, in writing, requesting the removal of the trees from the City sidewalk along Dove Street at 4200 Campus Drive, Newport Beach, California. The Eucalyptus trees are overgrown and pose a trip hazard. I have enclosed pictures depicting the overgrown trees. Thank you for your prompt attention regarding this matter. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. • Sincerely, Pacific West Asset Management Corporation Natalia Avtaikina Administrative Assistant /na cc: S. Ference M. Ferrigno Mulling Address ♦ Post 0€fi(e Boat 19968 ♦ Irvine, California 92623 -9668 349111 Airport Loop • Costa Mesa, California 92626 -3404 • (714) 433 -7380 Fax (714) 433 -7330 M 8yySy� lot s r 2. MCNAIJGHTON & /ASSOCIATES • REAL ESTATE SALES • DEVELOPMENT • MANAGEMENT November 28, 2006 John Conway, Jr. General Services Department PO Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 Dear John, Regarding: Overgrown trees at 4200 Campus Drive, Newport Beach Thank you for responding to Pacific West Asset Management, the company that manages my building at 4200 Campus Drive in Newport Beach. I wanted to personally write you and express my concerns about the destruction of curbs and sidewalks, and the pedestrian liability issues associated with the overgrown trees and stumps. Once again, thank you • for your prompt response and I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest opportunityn Dent A. • Photos 17 CORPORATE PLAZA, SUITE 21 0, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 W W W. NEWPORTFINEHOMES. COM 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH General Services Department Tree Removal or Reforestation Application Per City Council Policy G -1 (Retention or Removal of City Trees), I am reauestug a tree removal(s) to be reviewed by staff and submitted to either the Parks, Beaohes, and Recreation Commission for consideration at a future meeting or the appropriate City approving authority. Commission meetings are held on the first Tuesday of each month (expect for holidays) at 7PIai at the Council Chambers. Ind €cafe the number and spec€e(s),(€fknown) of tree(s). Locatedat: 4200 CaMus Drive,_(Newport Beach, California Please be as specific as possible Requestor 4gnature: Print Name: Address/ Phone (Daytime) / Email Owner Kent McNaughton Living Trust (4200 Campus) I ity -A iati c/o PacificWest Asset Management Corp. P.O. Box 1906£. Irving, CA 926,73 714 - 433 -7300 Attn: Maggie Ferririno � ., Date: 3 � L �D "l Section A. For Tree RMvel Bete s Only Rem-oval Crites JCbeock one or more) Please provide copies of photos, bills, documents or any other related material that will verify the cheeped items. =Proven and repeated history of damaging public or *private, sewers, water mains, roadways, sidewalks, curbs, walls, fences, underground utilities or foundations. ( *Greater tkan $5049) Repeated history of significant interference with street or sidewalk drainage. "Dying Has no prospect of recovery. Diseased Cannot be cured by current arboricultural methods. In advanced state of decline with no prospect of recovery. . GDIdazardous Defective, potential to fail, could cause damage to persons/property upon failure. Assessment by Urban Forester will identify structural defects, parts likely to fail, targets -if fails, procedures and actions to abate. =Beautification In conjunction with a City Council- approved City, commercial, neighborhood, Project or community association beautification program. dOV2M Section B. For Reforestation Requests Only Reforestation is the concept of systematically replacing Problem or All Other Trees which are creating • hardscape and/or view problems and cannot be properly trimmed, pruned or modified to alleviate the problem(s) they create, or those which have reached their full life, and are declining in health, or are simply the wrong species of tree(s) for the planted location. As initiated by: Property Owner Community Association Other Check all items applicable: RTree(s) causing curb, gutter, sidewalk or underground utilities damage. Wrong tree species for location encroachment has clearly defined contiguous boundaries that include the tree(s) proposed. lential communities, neighborhoods, or business organizations who apply for reforestation must submit a petition signed by a minimum of 60% of the property owners within the area defined. =Areas represented by a legally established community association, may submit a resolution of the Board of Directors formally requesting a reforestation. Individual property owners must submit a petition signed by a minimum of 60% of a maximum of 30 private property owners (up to 15 contiguous private properties on both sides of the street • up to 500' in either direction from the location of the proposed reforestation site) as well as the endorsement of the appropriate homeowners' association, if applicable. *A request for reforestation requires a written agreement submitted to the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission by the petitioning sponsor (Individual private property owner(s) or group) to pay 100% of the costs of the removal and replacement of the public tree(s) in advance of any removal activity. The actual removal and replanting will be coordinated by the General Services Department using the City tree maintenance contractor. *There shall be a minimum of a one - for -one replacement of all trees removed in reforestation projects. Replacement trees shall be a inumnurn size of 24" boxed trees and cost $195 per tree, unless the parkway space will not accommodate a 24" boxed tree or a tree cannot he planted due to planting restrictions contained in City Council Policy G -6. This form does not replace the requirements of any of the City tree policies. Its use is intended to expedite the tree removal or reforestation requests and to ensure compliance with all City requirements. Please refer to individual City Council Policy G-1 for additional information. Requestor Comments: Removals, except emergency, will be subject to the notification processes, time,frames and authority as specified in the City Council G -i Policy. aevr�d osreoos PETITION REMOVAL OF CITY TREE 46 City Council Policy G -1, Guidelines Reforestation of City Trees I or (group), K property owner(s) at: I or (group) am (are) submitting for consideration to the Commission a reforestation request for the removal of # my property located at 42 O CfflA P S D [21 V City of Newport Beach General Services Department EIED NOV 3 Q H06 Signature: am (are) the of Newport Beach's, Parks, Beaches and Recreation City which is adjacent to The decision of the Commission on reforestation requests will be considered final unless called up by at least one Councilmembet or the City Manager. The request for tree removal is based on the criteria under the provisions of City Council Policy G -1, Reforestation of City Trees. Policy G -1 requires that individual property owners may submit a petition signed by surrounding property owners requesting single or multiple tree reforestations. In addition, the petitioner is responsible to pay the full cost of a tree reforestation (including removal and replacement of the public tree). Please see the attached copy of Policy G -1 for specific requirements. 40 Property Owners Signatures Property Owner First and Last Name (please print): Address: Signature Property Owner First and Last Name (please print): .Address: Phone #: Signature Property Owner First and Last Name (please print): Address: Phone #: BeSignature Date Date Property Owner Fast and Last Name (please print): Address: Phone #• • Signature Property Owner First and Last Name (please print): Address: Fhone #F: Signature Property Owner First and Last Name (please print): Address: phone M Signature Property Owner Fust and Last Name (please print): Address: Phone #: Signature Property Owner First and last Name (please print): Address: Phone ##: Signature Property Owner First and Last Name (please print): Address: Phone #: Signature Property Owner First and East Name (please print): Address: Phone #: Signature U Date Date Date Date Date Date Date • E: Property Owner First and Last Address: 401,V5) -A Property Owner First and Last Name (please print): Address: Phone #: Signature Property Owner First and Last Name (please print): Address Phone #: Signature Property Owner First and Last Name (please print): Address: Property Owner First and Last Name (please print): Address: Phone, #: Signature Pmparty Owner First and Last Name (please print): Address: Phone 9: Signature Property Owner First and Last Name (please phut): Address: Phone ##: Signature 61x,0 7 Date Date Date Date Date Date Date Property Owner First and Last Name (please print): Address: Phone #: • Date : Signature Property er First and Last Name (please print): 7J �, (� — �j(� Q L 6 ,V � . of A , Address: 1� Phonne KIM " —4- ariue Date Property First and Last Name (please print): Address: Phone M _ Date P topexty Owner First and Last Name (please print): Address: none #: Signature Date Property Owner First and Imst Nam-- (please print): Address: Phone #: Date Property Owner First and Last Name (please prat): Addrease phom #: Date PmPerty Owner lit and fast Name (please print): w Phone M Dame '. !property Owner First and.-Last Nafne (please print): Address: Phone #: • Date L-b(eo Signature CGtnnhP0'=> Property Owner and am ( piease print): ECU TI v E; FA.OS 5 � r Address: FiFirst Wo Phone y ✓ 1 Ste Property Owner First and Name ({Tease print): Address: Phone #: Data Property Owner First and Last Name (please print): Address: Phone #: Date Property Owner First and Last Name (please print): Address: Phone #: :. Data PWperty Owner Not and Last Name (please, pli io: Asldas: " Phone #: Date Property Owner First and Last Name (pltose praat): Address: Phone #: M Dam Property Owner First aud.last Name (please print): vaev " Date Lit 0 • e e» . Owner and t Name (please print): " ' 6 r t'e rx r _, _ "ate Name: Address: Phone Number: Tree Location TREE INSPECTION REPORT Natalia Avtaikina, Administrative Assistant Pacific West Asset Management Corporation Post Office Box 19068 Irvine, CA 92623 -9068 (714) 433 -7300, ext 209 4200 Campus Drive - Cajeput Tree, 5 trees, tree sites # Side 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 Request: The property owners are requesting of the General Services Department staff, the removal of five City Cajeput trees located on Dove Street based on the criteria of City Council Policy G -1, Reforestation of City Trees. Botanical Name: Melaleuea Quinquinervia Common Name: Cajeput Tree Designated Street Tree: Hymenosporum flavum — Sweetshade Tree Estimated Tree Value: $42,580.00 total value for 5 City trees Damage: The General Services Department, Field Maintenance Division has the following recorded dates of curb, gutter and sidewalk repair performed at this location: • May 25, 2004 — 70 LF of curb & gutter / 90 SF of sidewalk • November 1999-37 LF of curb & gutter/53,6 SF of sidewalk Parkway: Concrete Brick Turf Other Comments: A field inspection confirmed five healthy City trees on Dove Street with apparent property damage. Inspected by: . _ Date: March 21, 2007 John Clonway, Urban For seer Recommendation: Forward the reforestation request to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for review and approval. Reviewed by:. oral �, Date: March 21, 2007 ----------------- - - - - -- ----------------------- -- - - - - - - -- -- home methodology help off �f --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Inventory Detail Search Results Dist: 2 Address: 4200 CAMPUS DR Fictitious: Yes Location: Side -1 On Address: 2150 DOVE ST Species: Melaleuca quinquinervia, CAJEPUT TREE DBH /Height: 25 -30 / 30 -45 Parkway Size: 5 Utility Overhead: No Sidewalk Damage: No Recommended Maintenance: Grid Trim Estimated Value $9,830 WCA Work History Date Work Type Amount 3/10/2006 Grid Pruning $39.00 4/18/2002 Grid Trimming $39.00 Other Work History Date Work Type Notes Crew Job* Crew 8474 4184 MIGUEL MACIAS Acct# Min ArborAccess Forum. Email your Area Manager and CSR View_ sent Email Messages View_ WCA Phone Directory SpectaltyTree Planting Stock Inventory Detail Search Results Page 1 of 1 ----------- - - - - -- ---------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- - -- -- - - - - -- home methodology help - -ign off ----------------------------------------------------------- - --------------------------- ------------ - - - - -- Inventory Detail Search Results Dist: 2 Address: 4200 CAMPUS DR Fictitious: Yes Location: Side -2 On Address: 2150 DOVE ST Species: Melaleuca quinquinervla, CA3EPUT TREE D8P1/Height: 13 -18 / 15.30 Parkway Size: 5 Utility Overhead: No Sidewalk Damage: No Recommended Maintenance: Grid Trim Estimated Value $3,260 WCA Work History Date Work Type Amount 3/10/2006 Grid Pruning $39.00 4/18/2002 Grid Trimming $39.00 Other Work History Date Work Type Crew Dotes Job# Crew 8474 4184 MIGUEL MACIAS Acct# Min ArborAccess Form Email your Area Manager and CSR View sent Email Messages View_ WCA Phone Directory Specialty Tree Planting Stock Inventory Detail Search Results Page 1 of 1 - - - - -- - - horne rnetodioiogY : help *-Mn off Inventory Detail Search Results Dist: 2 Address: 4200 CAMPUS DR Fictitious: Yes Location: Side -4 On Address: 2150 DOVE ST Species: Metaleuca quinqulnervia, CAJEPUT TREE DBH/Helght: 25 -30 / 45 -60 Parkway Size: 5 Utility Overhead: No Sidewalk Damage: No Recommended Maintenance: Grid Trim Estimated Value $9,830 WCA 'Work History Date Work Type Amount lag# Crew 3/10/2006 Grid Pruning $39.00 8474 4/18/2002 Grid Trimming $39.00 4Y84 MIGUEL MACIAS Other Work History Dante Work Type Crew Acet# Mtn 1:1 :1 ArborAccess Forum Small your Area Manager and CSR _View sent Email Messages View WCA Phone Directory Specialty Tree Planting Stock lavelowy D.MU Swdl Rawks PW 1 of 1 jo w ----------------------------------------------.----------------- -- ---- -- ---- --- --- $ n- - -- home methodology help off Inventory Detail Search Results Dist: 2 Address: 4200 CAMPUS OR Fictitious: Yes Location: Side -5 On Address: 2150 DOVE ST Species: Melateuca quinquinervia, CAIEPUT TREE DBH /Height: 25 -30 / 45 -60 Parkway Size: 5 Utility Overhead: No Sidewalk Damage: No Recommended Maintenance: Grid Trim Estimated Value $9,830 WCA Work History Date Work Type Amount Job# Crew 3/10/2006 Grid Pruning $39.00 8474 4/18/2002 Grid Trimming $39.00 4184 MIGUEL MACIAS Other Work History Date Work Type Crew Acct# Min Notes ArborAccess Forum Email your Area Manager and CSR View sent Email Messages V_ iew WCA Phone Directory Specialty Tree Planting Stock Inventory Da l Search ResWu Page i of I jp 40 - - - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- home methodology help off --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Inventory Detail Search Results Dist: 2 Address: 4200 CAMPUS DR Fictitious: Yes Location: Side -6 On Address: 2150 DOVE ST Species: MelaJetxa quinquinerwa, CAJEPUT TREE DBH /Height: 25 -30 / 45 -60 Parkway Size: 5 Utility Overhead: No Sidewalk Damage: No Recommended Maintenance: Grid Trim Estimated Value $9,830 WCA Work History Date Work Type Amount 3/10/2006 Grid Pruning $39.00 Other Work History Date Work Type Notes Crew Job# Crew 8474 Acct# Min ArborAccess Forum Email your Area Manager and CSR View sent Email Messages View WCA Phone Directory Specialty Tree Plantino Stock lavatory Detail Search Results Page 1 of 1 : \� \ ..< . �am:� ���2����y��� \� . /�� \�� \���. « \ .w<« � � ���� �. �� } :: . �am:� ���2����y��� \� . /�� « \ .w<« � � e � � ,.d < \� :j <s.: �.� :.� :� >�« �� �� ��� � /� . \\ \ \� \� �� \ ^? \yam \� ©� 2^ �� 22 (� /� � : �� �. w: :� � � > .2 � �� � : � � /� - � � \� \�� � \ . «§ . a, . . > w_,y,. �� ~ °� .. . a � . \� �- . � � :� d? e) . �,� � � � � � \ � � . , . � . m: � . «< � � .� d «� . .w m . ©� w� ?«?.: . y \yam � � f <� : � yam/ . �d » . ..... . : . - � /� {� %��d�� -�a� :� . . � »�� . : « :����� � � � � � %k�� � � � ? ., ���� �. �� } :: F 1 w 0 r-. • • (S) TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission General Services Director Bench Donation Request Recommendation PB &R Commission Agenda Item No. 4 May 1, 2007 Staff recommends that the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission approve the bench donation request at "E" Street and the Oceanfront boardwalk. Discussion City Council Policy B -17 establishes criteria for parks, facilities, and recreation program donations within the City. The policy is structured to establish a fair and uniform procedure for making gifts to the City, and to make the donation process easier for staff and donors. Per City Council Policy B -17, the City has received a request from Dr. Kenneth Cohn (Attachment A) to donate a bench at "E" Street and the Oceanfront boardwalk. The bench donation (Attachment B) is included on the City's Official Bench List and fits with the other benches at "E" Street and the Oceanfront boardwalk. Attachments C & D show the location of the proposed bench donation and map. Since the value of the bench is greater than $1,000.00, that will be placed on the bench. The submitted plagi complies with City Council Policy B -17. the donation is eligible to receive a dedicatory plaque ie verbiage is "Donated by The Cohn Family ", which The Balboa Peninsula Point Association, Board of Directors approved this bench donation request with dedicatory plaque at the proposed location (Attachment E). Dr. Kenneth Cohn, Council Member Michael F. Henn, and the Balboa Peninsula Point Association have received a copy of this report and a notice of the Commission meeting. Very respec / Mark Harmon Attachments: (A) Dr. Cohn's Gifts for Tomorrow Order Request Form (B) Huntington bench style picture (C) Proposed bench placement location (D) Map (E) Balboa Peninsula Point Association, Board of Directors Meeting Minutes dated April 12, 2007 Balboa Peninsula Point Association Board of Directors General Meeting April 12, 2007 Call to Order by President Sam Aiello at 7:OOpm. Present: Sam Aiello, Julia Matcha, Bob Yant, Ken, Drelishak, John Bonar, Lorel Bonar, Rick Piani, Ralph Bernard, Pete Pallette, Gigi Bourke, Bambi Wiltchik, Paul McKelvey, Gloria Oakes and Lori Sheldon. Minutes from March 8, 2007 meeting were approved. Slate of Officers for the 2007 -2008 Board of Directors was approved as follows and was voted upon and approved: President: Sam Aiello Vice President: Paul McKelvey Secretary: Lori Sheldon Treasurer: Chris Melendres Beach/Boat Ramp: John Bonar, Gigi Bourke Membership: Lorel Bonar, Gloria Oakes Publications: Cathy Kinney Hospitality Shannon Piani, Sue Sanders • Community Liaisons: Airport: George Olson City Council: Ken Drellishak Planning: Rick Piani Police/Traffic: Carl Morabito Parks/Rec: Bob Yant BPPA Website: (Bob Yant) The website is up today 4- 12 -07. User codes and password will be sent out to members in the Pointer. Approved Rules Committees: Paul McKelvey is writing up the rules with John Bonor, Lorel Bonar, Rick Scalzo, and Gigi Bourke. Committee is to review rules with the board at another meeting for approval. Bench Donation: Letter to Mr. Niederhaus is attached. A new bench for the area of E Street and the boardwalk was approved. If people want to replace existing worn out benches with new ones with new plaques they can (end of lettered streets is okay). Bob Yant is to find out about the benches on Balboa Island. No memorials to be placed, no trees, no landmarks or statues. Ramp/Beach: John Bonar- all is well. 0 Membership: Membership went up to $65 per year. A question was raised regarding • giving out our directory to other committees; board said "no." We will offer to send out the information for them. Lorel and Paul think that e- mail addresses need to be collected on -line for membership and website. Hospitality: Lisa Jabara did a great job with the Easter event. Airport: Pete- all is well. Bylaws: Bylaws will be distributed at another meeting and we will have a workshop to make any appropriate changes. City Council: (Ken) Meeting regarding residential rehab facilities and licensing. An article for the Pointer will be written informing members about these issues. Ken also spoke tsunami preparness and awareness. (Sirens) Inviting awareness group to a BPPA meeting. Neighborhood watch is also going to come to a BPPA meeting. New Business: BambiWiltchik wants to have the chili cook -off again. She is writing an article for the Pointer to get interest. Ralph Bernard will have a meeting regarding the 4`h of July next month with his committee. • Bob Yant is writing a letter to the Newport Police Department for all their excellent service to BP. A removable sign is to be made for getting information regarding meeting and upcoming events and to be placed in A street planter. Paul McKelvey is to have the sign made. Sam Aiello is to talk about the NBPD Contact Numbers next meeting. Next Meeting: Thursday, May 10, 2007 at 7:00pm at the tennis club facility. Minutes taken by Lori Sheldon - Secretary • 0 I' 1 1 Gifts for Tomorrow Order Request Form ®- Item # Description Prow 1r✓CGj rS- f-v,-C1- Contact Information pe- vigeff� r()Ga) Wr"\ Name 13 ) 3 Mailing Address 3 2 S I (�2 Phone 3 (0 70 ( r 371q erg $ignaNre - DEDI ATION tAOUE INF Dorrors may elect to provide a dedicatory plaque if the value of the donation is greater than $1.000. Contact city staff for more information. Yes. I am interested in dedicatory plaque for my donation. ague is donated for, First Name fast Name IJON4'kT �Na °'ate. C�� VV _ S 4 xn� ��wr Y�yi roic.mux. +; +,_xu :..—t Aaffi, � „vw 4u"`aeA4:+k zn, A a Y Q ., .� ., {;. �, ��: n�.�:: �. }.;i�q' - A$.. �, ��. �: � 1� , t W, T �S � ~ t �}�� a � Y.lvl��.. � 4# 'AN _f 4S f" { �,.i�y, w '.& 'w` �� � f,.a F t � e*� trr .� J}�t � %ey m } r "�3N 1N � y ids`. ?AL d � �� .QK Fi M1 V y �?Q: - r y # f f � � � t i n ffa _ �» ;� F % _ # i � _� 41 F t - _ e i.; �. ^ -4:.. �.: ,,�, _ §r � i+nP r SB' +x ,�.,� � e ,. ° n ii , �- � °g" a r,� b: f v (4) PB &R Commission Agenda Item No. May 1, 200q- TO: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission FROM: General Services Director SUBJECT: Appeal for Tree Removal Denied at 2421 Holly Lane Recommendation To deny the appeal for removal of one City Moreten Bay Fig parkway street tree located at 2421 Holly Lane. Discussion • On February 27, 2007, the City's Urban Forester and claims adjuster of Carl Warren and Company inspected the City Ficus macrophylla (Moreton Bay Fig), at the request of the property owner due to repeated sewer lateral obstruction and damage. The property owner filed a claim alleging private sewer lateral damage as a result of City Ficus tree roots. The private sewer lateral is owned and maintained by the claimant, and the sewer main is owned, maintained, and controlled by the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. The claim investigation report conducted by Carl Warren and Company concluded that the tree is approximately 23 feet from the private lateral, and the cause appears to be the shifting lateral sections that allowed encroachment of tree roots into the lateral. However, the distance of the tree from the lateral would not be the primary cause of intrusion, but rather a deficient sewer lateral line in need of repair. Staff concurred with the claim investigation report, and concluded that the one City- owned Ficus macrophylla (Moreton Bay Fig) tree located in the adjacent parkway did not meet the criteria for removal as stated in City Council Policy G -1, Retention or Removal of City Trees. The policy requires, "a repeated history of damaging public or private sewers" in order for the tree(s) to be eligible for removal. Additionally, the single claim filed by the property owner does not meet this requirement. This finding was forwarded for review to the General Services Director, Risk Manager, and City Manager, all who concurred with the determination. • In order to mitigate future sewer lateral damage, a sewer lateral line repair will be required. • • i Mr. Devling is requesting an appeal before the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission. Mr. Devling, Mayor Steven Rosansky, and the Newport Heights Improvement Association have received a copy of this report and a notice of the Commission meeting. Very Mark Harmon Attachments: (A) Letter of Denial dated April 13, 2007 from the General Services Director (B) Tree Removal Review, Tree Inspection Report, photos (C) Carl Warren & Company Claim Investigation Report CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • " s GENERAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT e.� oa�11701x * Mark Hannon, Director [Ply April 13, 2007 James N. Devling 2421 Holly Lane Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Devling: On February 27, 2007, the City's Urban Forester and a claims adjuster of Carl Warren and Company inspected the City Ficus macrophvlla (Moreton Bay Fig), and found that the tree does not meet the criteria for removal as stated in the City Council Policy G -1, Retention or Removal of City Trees. Specifically, your removal request did not meet the requirements listed under the removal criteria of Council Policy G -1, All Other City Trees, page 4, Item A (see attached). According to this section of the policy, tree(s) must have a "repeated history of damaging public or private sewers" in order to be eligible for removal. Additionally, the claim investigation report conducted by Carl Warren and Company dated March 20, 2007 (see attached), does not support or conclude a repeated history of property damage. • If you oppose this determination, you may appeal the decision to the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission for further review. It is important to emphasize that under no circumstances are City trees to be removed without City authorization. If an unauthorized tree removal should occur, the City will review all its enforcement options, including criminal prosecution and civil restitution for the value of the trees removed, which may be up to three times their value. Please contact John Conway, Urban Forester at (949) 644 -3083 or email at jconwav(a) y.newport- beach.ca.us if you have any questions or for further direction regarding the appeal process, jhould you decide to appeal. Sincerely, Mark Harmdn, Director General Services Department Attachments: (A) City Council Policy G -1, Retention or Removal of City Trees (B) Investigation Report dated March 20, 2007, from Carl Warren and is Company 3300 Newport Boulevard • Post Office Box 1768 - Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915 Telephone: (949) 644 -3055 -, Fax: (949) 650 -0747 - www.city.newport- beach.ca.us • FROM: General Services Director SUBJECT: Tree Removal Review -Claim Related Removal. Date:02 /22/07 F F a 2 7 2007 PROPERTY OWNER(S). INFORMATION: „'.0 Name: James N. Devling b: U Free Location: 2421 Holly Lane - - The property owner is req!Wting the rejhoval of a City Moreton Bay Fig tree that he has alleged caused extensiv p*t4 . Mr. Devling has filed a claim of which is pending an investigation that will be conducted by Carl Warren and Comoanv. REPLACEMENT TREE: YES E NO ❑ DESIGNATED TREE: Calodendrum capense — Cape Chestnut 'S Signature: Date: -'Z The attached documents are for y64 review and comment(s). Sign, date, and route accordingly. � t FINAL ACTION TO BE TAKEN: ❑ Low Priority ❑ Moderate Priority ❑ High Priority — Forward memo directly to City Manager for immediate removal authority ❑ Emergency — Forward memo immediately to General Services Director Conclusion: Si e REMOVAL:[App'ro_ve�d ❑ Disapproved •Attachments Title Date City Manager Dat 8/142002 TREE INSPECTION REPORT Name: James N. Devling Tree Location: 2421 Holly Lane Request: The property owner is requesting the removal of a City Moreton Bay Fig tree that he alleged caused extensive property damage, and root intrusion into the sewer lateral. He has filed a claim for the property damage which is pending an investigation that will be conducted by Carl Warren and Company. Botanical Name: Common Name: Ficus macrophylla Moreton Bay Fig • Designated Street Tree: Calodendrum capense — Cape Chestnut Estimated Tree Value: $6,080.00 Damage: Damage to sewer lateral by City tree roots is still to be determined. Parkway: Concrete Brick Turf Other Comments: The attached claim suggests extensive property damage as a result of root intrusion from a City Moreton Bay Fig tree. A claim settlement has not been concluded, and a request to remove the tree has been requested by the property owner prior to the claim settlement. Inspected by: Date: February 22, 2007 John onway, Urban Forester Recommendation: Delay decision to remove the City tree until the conclusion of the claim investigation. Additionally, an alternative to tree removal should be considered since there are only 20 specimens of this tree type within the entire urban forest. The tree is located approximately 30' from the sewer lateral of which a trench -less polypropylene sewer lateral could be installed without disturbance to the tree, and ensures a seamless sewer line without the possibility of future root intrusion. Most root intrusions occur within a clay pipe sewer system which has • • • seams and allow feeder root access to the sewer system. A polypropylene sewer line has no seams except at the point of Reviewed by: Reviewed by: Parks #nd Trpes Superintendent Services Director Please Note: Estimated removal ($312) and replacement ($195) = $507.00 total February 22, 2007 V7 ome methodology help osign ff ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - -- Inventory Detail Search Results Dist: 18 Address: 2421 HOLLY LN Fictitious: No Location: Front -1 On Address: 2421 HOLLY LN Species: Flcus macrophylla, MORETON BAY FIG DBH /Height: 19 -24 / 30 -45 Parkway Size: 99 Utility Overhead: No Sidewalk Damage: No Recommended Maintenance: Grid Trim Estimated Value $6,080 �CA Work History Date Work Type Amount Job# Crew 5/28/2002 Grid Trimming $39.00 4790 VENTURA GOMEZ 5/31/2000 Grid Trimming $39.00 2866 MIGUEL MACIAS Other Work History Date Work Type Crew Acct# Min Notes C ArborAccess Forum Email your Area Manager and CSR View sent Email Messages View WCA Phone Directory Soecialtv Tree Planting Stock ventory Detail Search Results Page 1 of 1 • } �\ �A: Genera-1-Services Reforestation Tree Removal or Application Per City Council Policy G -1 (Retention or Removal of City Trees), I am reauestine a tree removal(s) to be reviewed by staff and submitted to either the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission for consideration at a future meeting or the appropriate City approving authority. Commission meetings are held on the first Tuesday of each month (expect for holidays) at 7PM at the Council Chambers. One Ficus Tree Indicate the number and specfe(s),(ff known) of tree(s). Located at: 2421 Holly Lane Please be as specflfc as possible Requestor X Property Owner Community Association Other S *ture: rin ame Jame evlin Address/ Phone (Daytime) / Email 2421 Holly Lane (562) 948 -4850 Date: 2/07/07 If this is a reforestation request taroceed to the reverse side of this form Section A. For Tree Removal Requests Only Removal Criteria (Check one or more) Please provide copies of photos, bills, documents or any other related material that will verify the checked items. FX Proven and repeated history of damaging public or *private, sewers, water mains, roadways, sidewalks, curbs, walls, fences, underground utilities or foundations. ( *Greater than $500) Repeated history of significant interference with street or sidewalk drainage. Dying Has no prospect of recovery. Diseased Cannot be cured by current arboricultural methods. In advanced state of decline with no prospect of recovery. =Hazardous Defective, potential to fail, could cause damage to persons /property upon failure. Assessment by Urban Forester will identify structural defects, parts . likely to fail, targets -if fails, procedures and actions to abate. =Beautification In conjunction with a City Council- approved City, commercial, neighborhood, Project or community association beautification program. Section B. For Reforestation Requests Only Reforestation is the concept of systematically replacing Problem or All Other Trees which are creating hardscape and/or view problems and cannot be properly trimmed, pruned or modified to alleviate the problem(s) they create, or those which have reached their frill life, and are declining in health, or are simply the wrong species of tree(s) for the planted location. As initiated by: Property Owner Community Association Other Check all items applicable: Tree(s) causing curb, gutter, sidewalk or underground utilities damage. Wrong tree species for location View encroachment Area has clearly defined contiguous boundaries that include the tree(s) proposed. Residential communities, neighborhoods, or business organizations who apply for reforestation must submit a petition signed by a minimum of 60% of the property owners within the area defined. =Areas represented by a legally established community association, may submit a resolution of the Board of Directors formally requesting a reforestation. OIndividual property owners must submit apetition signed by a minim_ um of 60 %" of a maximum of 30 private property owners (up to 15 contiguous private properties on both sides of the street up to 500' in either direction from the location of the proposed reforestation site) as well as the endorsement of the appropriate homeowners' association, if applicable. *A request for reforestation requires a written agreement submitted to the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission by the petitioning sponsor (Individual private property owner(s) or group) to pay 100% of the costs of the removal and replacement of the public tree(s) in advance of any removal activity. The actual removal and replanting will be coordinated by the General Services Department using the City tree maintenance contractor. *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" boxed trees and cost $195 per tree, unless the parkway space will not accommodate a 24" boxed tree or a tree cannot be planted due to planting restrictions contained in City Council Policy G-6. This form does not replace the requirements of any of the City tree policies. Its use is intended to expedite the tree removal or reforestation requests and to ensure compliance with all City requirements. Please refer to individual City Council Policy G-1 for additional information. Requestor Comments: City tree has caused continuous sewage blockades sewer and sewer lateral damage, as well as many sewer backups into the residence over the past twelve FAMTwwt4 nt matter would be 4temovals, except emergency, will be subject to the notification processes, time frames and authority as specified in the City Council G-1 Policy. • 1 DECLARATION OF ROBERT (`MMPION 2 3 I, Robert Champion, declare as follows: 4 1. I am a licensed plumber and the owner of Champion Plumbing located at 5 Beach Boulevard, Huntington Beach, California. 6 2. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein, and if called upon as a 7 witness to testify thereto, I could competently and truthfully do so. 8 3. For approximately 12 years, I have roto- rootered out the sewer line at 2421 9 Holly Lane, Newport Beach, California (the "Property -) on at least a monthly basis at the request of 10 the property owners. The roto- rootering is required because of a serious intrusion of tree roots into 11 the sewer line at the Property by a City of Newport Beach ficus tree located at the Property (the 12 "City's tree'). The rotarootering is necessary because the residents of the Property experience 13 plumbing line back ups and poor drainage in sinks and the tub on a regular basis. In addition, on 14 many occasions I have been called out to the Property because of toilet overflows caused by back 15 ups in the sewer line due to the City tree's roots. in the line. 16 4. Champion Plumbing has charged the property owners approximately $60.00 17 each time I have had to roto- rooter the sewer line (at least once a month) for the past 12 years. I 18 would estimate that Champion Plumbing has charged the property owners over $8,500 for services 19 provided as a result of the City's tree. 20 5. Over the last 12 years, the City's tree's root intrusion into the sewer line at 21 the Residence has become greater. In fact, the root intrusion has severely damaged the sewer lateral. 22 23 6. It is my professional opinion as a plumber that the sewer lateral needs to be 24 replaced as a result of the City's tree root damage and the City's tree should also be removed from 25 26 27 28 4"2- 4218 -47052 i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 . 27 28 the Property to prevent the root intrusion from reoccurring. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on February S_!!, 2007 at Huntington Beach, California. 4842 - 421&4705.2 -2- COASTLINE CONTRACTING INC. 16431 Amber Valley Dr Whittier, Ca 90604 1/9/06 FAX TO: CEG Attn: Jeff RE: 2421 Holley Ln, Newport Beach . R &R existing sewer line from property line to mainline in street. R &R asphalt per city stds. Quote based on sewer mainline on short side of street & approximately 8 feet deep. $12,500 Budget for permit fees $ 21000 Total 14,500 Saln • 0 • MBA GRADING & DEMOLITION 911 CRESENT DRIVE, MONROVIA, CA CEO Construction Mr. Jeff Shanholtzer 7901 Crosswav Drive Pico Rivera, CA 90660 REFERENCE- 2421 Holley Lane. — Newport Beach, CA Dear Mr. Shandholtzer: January 31, 2007 MBA Grading & Demolition., Inc. is pleased to provide you with the following quotation for the above referenced job location. The scope of work is as follows: Remove and Re- compact sewer tie end from property line to mainline in street, with asphalt replacement. Quote based on server mainline on short side of street and approximately 8 feet deep. 5 13,950.00 Allowing for permit fees TOTAL 5 15,950.00 Thank you for the opportunity to quote on your requirements. If you should have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at your earliest convenience. SUBMITTED BY: ! I Iy�r Michael B Allen DATE: 1' �?► �0 Z ACCEPTED BY: DA 9 • 0 CEG Construction Mr. Jeff Shanholtzer 7901 Crossway Drive Pico Rivera, CA 90660 REFERENCE: 2421 Holley Lane. — Newport Beach; CA Dear Mr. Shanholtzer: January 31, 2007 B & D Construction Co., Inc. is pleased to provide you with the following quotation for the above referenced job location. The scope of work is as follows: Remove and Re- compact sewer connection from property line to mainline in street. Remove and Re- compact asphalt to city standards. Quote based on sewer mainline on short side of street and approximatelx 8 feet deep. S 14,200.00 Allowing for permit fees $ 2.000.00 TOTAL S 16,200.00 Thank you for the opportunity to quote on your requirements. If you should have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at your earliest convenience. SUBMITTED By " 4d Vernad DATE: ACCEPTED BY DA R Q D CONSTRUCTION CO.. INC tS S ) CDAST _''dCT!D'% CO.•iNC. 4$ 1. 1 -T4 AV - NdE D�IAND, CA ;1786 F 1,, p_c.. _._i5i %4.1 3C9 ? -3 4'i2 i +! _ Yd ` �]6�T _ _ i,°eOt.CCM 0Zf07/2007 09:18 949- 650 -5643 PARKS TREES CLAIM AGAINST THE Cl]rY OF NEWPORT BRACH (FOR DAMAGE1 TO PERMS OR PERSONAL PROPERTY ALLOwASU UNDER THE CAUfORN1A GOVERtMENTCODE •TORT CLAIM ACT) Received by via U.S. Mail later-Office Mail Counter Q (FAX Not Accepted) PAGE 03 _,. a . TTME frA1 A etatm must be riled with the city Clerk of The City of Newport $each r}rhtn 6 ilgp after which the incident or evcol occurred. Be mm your claim is against The dh of Newvott Beach not another public entity. Where space is butu� . please use additional paper and identify informsdon by paragraph otuoher, Complete claims must be marled of detiv� esr, The Gory Cleric, The City b of Link (n Newport pencil). City Flail 3300 Newport Blvd., P.O. I ?do. Newport Beset CA 93658. � to' �Ix or print is blue of blank ink {no pencil). i91S. TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL, The City of Newpon Desch, California The uodersigoed respectRlly submits the following claim and information relative to damage to persons anNor personal property: NADSE OF CLAJ.NfANT: James N. Devlin a. ADORESS OF CLA J%IANT: b PHONE iyo.: • d. SOCLIL SECURITY NO.: c. DATE OF BERTH: — e. DRIVER'S LTC. NO.:_ Nfaiting Address: J. Name, telephone and post orrice address to which claimant desires notices to be sent ilothcr than above: Same as above 3. Occu.: enee or e,crt from +which the elaim arises a DATE: b. TUtE: c. PLACE (exact and specific locatioo): Continuous over the past twelve years However the problems are tt ttino m,t �anrse_ -- J How and under what circumstances did damages or injury occur? Specify the panieulir occurrcoce, event. act or amiss ion you claim caused the injury or dsrnage (use sddirional paper if necessary): City tree roots are enntin,,ni l.. ,. o.aa..,. u__,_____ _ C. Names and addresses or all witnesses to this incident: James N. DevlinQ Madonna L. Deyj iing Robert Champion Ana Velez Ed Rose • f what particular acrioe by the terry, or iu emp"a "", causal the dl<ted damsrpc or ini'my7 The city tree is causin the problem and eou' es i �diatr rgmo a7 Z. Names of City employers itivolved. _ Mr. Sohn Conway (City Urban Forester) h. Give the names of any other patty of parties involved in eausinj the alleged injury and/or damage: N A 4. Give 1 description of the injury, property darrtage or loss, so fu as is Imawn a the time of this claim if thete were no injuries, state "no injuries." S. Name and address of any other person injured for which you are the parent of legal guardian: N/A & Name and address of the owner ofany damaged property: Tames N. peeling s' • The amount of damages you are requesting to resolve your claim: $23' 000.00 a. Amount clairnedasoftbisdate: S 8.500 b. Estimated amo"ot of furor- costs: S 14,500 e. Total =munt chirped: S -23 nnn d. Buis for computation of atoourm claimed (include eopiea of 311 bike, invoices, esama[as, etc.): Monthly sewer roto rootering over the ast twelve ears see enclose e — e h n 2 Fe lacem -- to sewer l teral ee a clo d c n tion of Champion and contractor hids for repla cement. Immediate remo tree (sewer backups in residence are getting much more frequent and we have a small 8. Vames and addresses of all hospitals, doca,rs, modieai providers (physieai therapy), cte. a N/A - -- b. 0. Any addition atintormatioathatmigbtbebclpfulineonsidetincy wc).iun: :......wile «ot.r. An sewer backups into tie res: e FAILI;R£ TO PROVIDE ANY OF TIM ABOVE INFORALATION 76lAY RESULT IN TIM R£TURN Of YOUR CLAIM TOR INSUFFICIENCY AND MAY UNZCESSAPMf y DELAY THE CITY'S rROMrT RE PONSE.TO YOUR CLAIM' WARN'" IGt IT IS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE TO FILE A. FALSE CLAMW (Penal Code 172; Iasursn"Coda 4s` -(P-1) I: have read the monem and sutcenents essade in the above, claim and 1 know the same to he true or my earn kmevkdae. esaeptl those wuncrs %eased upon information er belief and as to sveb vtitunt I believe the same to be true. to l eertih ruder PeO's 7 tip that the foretoin.g is TRUE and CORRECT. S.ssed th.i $fk day of Off ce of the C qty CIe F L ��� . . �� s„ �_ £ t r ,_ E' t y . •� d 0.. I ��.A. � f d', , F _ ; -- i �. March 20, 2007 EVVESTIGATION REPOlIT: . ofNewport Beach O. x 1768 V Newpo each, CA 92658 -8915 %ttention: Ms. F. Farley, Risk Manager RE: Principal City ofNewport Beach D/Event 2/8/07 Claimant James Devling Our File 1446630 MR PREVIEW: Ficus tree roots are alleged to have entered and blocked a private. sewer lateral over time. • PRINCIPAL/Dep artment: City of Newport Beach /+General Services Department, Tree Division as to the tree. The sewer lateral is not connected to our Utilities Division but rather, to the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. OTHER INSURANCE: Claimant -- Homeowner's coverage is probably available but encroachment is excluded. Codefendant — Costa Mesa Sanitary District -- self-insured DATE. TIME & PLACE: This encroachment occurred "continuously" over time but was "discovered" by the homeowner around twelve years ago. No exact date was placed in the space for the "date of discovery" so we used the date on the bottom of the form and used this date as the listed "date of loss" for hacking purposes. It occurred at the residence identified as 2421 Holly Lane, Newport Beach, California. • Date Required Claim Filed: The claim was filed on 2/12/07. CARL WARREN N & CO. CLAIMS MANAGEMENT•CLAIMS ADJUSTERS 750 The City Drive . Ste 400 . orange. CA 92868 Mall: P.O. Box 25180 . Santa Ana, Ca 92799 -5180 Phone: (714) 740 -7999 • (800) 5728900. Fax: (714) 740.9412 1w w LI • Action by Public Entity Returned as late on 2/20/07 for all incidents occurring prior to 2/8/06. Rejection was requested for the portion of the Claim that would be deemed timely. Statute of Limitations: The statute of limitations in this matter will expire on 8/8/07 as to the requirement that an Application for Leave to Present a Late Claim be filed for the earlier matters. PREMISES: The involved location is described as a single story stucco and wood private residence, built in 1954 and owned by the claimant, for the past 12 years. At the time of our visit, we discerned that there was one Ficus tree on the southeast comer of the lot. Defect: Tree roots from a City tree appear to have entered and compromised the claimant's private sewer line. OWNERSHIP /CONTROL: With current information, it would appear that the City of Newport Beach owned, maintained and controlled the City Ficus tree at this location. The private lateral is that of the claimant and the sewer main is owned, maintained and controlled • by the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. CO- DEFENDANT: Actual -- Costa Mesa Sanitary District for their involvement with the main line. FACTS IN BRIEF: Over a twelve year period since Mr. Devling has owned the residence here at 2421 Holly Lane, roots emanating from a City Ficus tree have encroached into the claimant's private lateral causing back -ups into the residence. This unseen tree root encroachment damage to the lateral remains .unresolved but from our inspection, the tree is about 23 feet from the private lateral and the cause appears to be the shifting lateral sections that allowed encroachment in the first place because the tree itself is nowhere near the lateral. OFFICIAL REPORTS: We acknowledge verbal input directly from John Conway Jr., Urban Forester on site regarding tree issues including ownership and maintenance. CITY VERSION: Confirms facts in brief and argues that there is no obvious connection between the tree and the- private lateral other than that tree roots were drawn to the lateral in the first place by leakage. • CLARAANT'S VERSION: James Devling 2421 Holly Lane Newport Beach, CA 92663 is a 43 year -old male resident of this address with phone number (562) 948 -4850. —2— Carl Warren & Co. 11 We met with Mr. Devling early on 2/27/07 where we confirmed on location that due to the distance from the tree, 23 feet, it remains unlikely that we will pay . for this encroachment. He argued simply that City ownership implies liability and that he wants immediate tree removal. Tree removal being a separate issue, we awaited for the arrival of John Conway who weighed in on tree issues. The position on removal remains that he will present it to the PWD Director and if not approved, the homeowner can take it to the Tree Committee. We received a subsequent call from claimant attorney Michael Tedeman who, without confirming representation, inquired and presented the same arguments as the claimant. We reiterated all arguments and the process to request removal etc. Asked him to send a letter of representation to which he replied that he might and will .get back to us (has not been retained yet apparently). DIAGRAM: Enclosed please find a Simple Diagram of the location emphasizing our the distance measurement from tree to private sewer lateral. • PHOTOGRAPHS: We enclose photographs of the residence, the primary City tree, the private lateral location and the current general condition of the area. PROPERTY DAMAGE: The following represents the total real property damage arising from this alleged encroachment at 2421 Holly Lane: Damages: Charges by Champion Plumbing for past 12 years $ 8,500.00 Lowest bid of 3 to repair the sewer lateral by Coastline Contracting . 14,500.00 TOTAL REPAIR / REPLACEMENT $2A,000.00 LIABUM: Generally, upon confirmation of a City owned and maintained tree, the resulting encroachment would be worthy of settlement consideration absent other intervening factors. In this case we have a huge intervening factor— the distance between the tree truck and the private lateral - 23 feet away and 5 -6 feet down (8 feet down per Coastline Contracting Inc.). Public Entities are subject to suit only where liability is explicitly imposed by legislative enactment. (Government Code 815; Zuniga v. Housing Authority (1995) 41 Cal. App 4th 82, 92 [explaining that sovereign immunity is the rule. under California law and municipal liability may only be imposed under express statutory exceptions] and 815.6 Searcy v Gibbel (1986) 177 Cal. App3d 980, 983 et al). • 3 Carl Warren & Co. .0 The City neither had Notice of potential damage 23 feet away and 6 feet down beneath the ground, nor was it negligent in planting the tree too close to a.pnvate sewer line. Consequently, the conditions wherein liability could be imposed under G.C. Section Government Code Section 835 have NOT been met. Finally, we argued that tree roots cannot enter and damage a closed system and note two water vaults right next to the tree base that remain uncompromised, fuuther supporting our defensive arguments. SETTLEMENT/NEGOTIATIONS: No authority request or settlement offer will be made. The claimant could easily overcome much of the Late Claim argument by asserting that the damage was. "continuous," but the distance of 23 feet to the tree base favors our position. COURSE. OF ACTION: Maintain late arguments and our fall back position of rejection of this matter and support John Conway Jr., Urban Forester regarding his recommendation to either keep or remove the tree in question. Prepare to defend the matter in Small Claims Court or a higher Court as appropriate. • WORK TO BE COMPLETED: • Await further input from John Conway Jr., regarding tree removal or retention • Await Service of Court Complaint or Statute expiration CLAIM STATUS: James Deviing Property Damage Reserve— $16,000.00 ENCLOSURES: ✓ Photographs ✓ Simple Diagram ✓ Letter to claimant-2124/07 ✓ Letter to claimant-3/17/07 ✓ Sales brochure for house across the street COMMENT: The ball is in the claimant's court to overcome the legal and physical hurdles to Return f the Late portion of the Claim, Denial of the remainder and in the area of tree removal if wargEnited. Our further report will follow any claimant response. Yours, • Achael Reed Carl Warren & Company —4— Carl Warren & Co. r1 U • V City of Newport Beach, Attention: Mr. John Conway Jr., Urban Forester —5— Carl Warren & Co. f , �� S .. _ did *k ,. ,. . � u^ > �_ fi� 1� r xe'r ::'s'1�..TT J ,�.., .. o: »., .� ,.., � . ��) „' P +i" "r - _ - ,, __ �... ��! y � �' �, L Y{ ' , . 'a1' .. v,i �F �l. � �1` ✓ o }}�, e 9'a +i/�, ,. y tV.'�i._ Y L to � .� ems! :5 : � ��/ � � '1 - n;�y*�j .. �` :4Y'r �- ;" j { . f N . ��• ki `:)k l,` • (9) To: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission From: Sean Levin, Recreation Manager Re: Lights for Lincoln Athletic Center Field #3 RECOMMENDATION Consider the request by AYSO 57 to install Lights at Lincoln Athletic Center Field #3 Item 8 May 1, 2007 BACKGROUND The Lincoln Athletic Center includes three fields owned by Newport-Mesa Unified School District (NMUSD) and leased by the City for public youth sports groups. The facility has three fields, two of which are lighted. All three are maintained, scheduled and operated by the City. A shortage of lighted fields space continues to be an issue for youth soccer throughout the City. Therefore, AYSO 57 is proposing to install lights at field #3 at their expense. NMUSD staff are not opposed to this project. • Attachments 1. Musco Budget Estimate 2. Musco Illumination Summary 3. Lincoln Field Light Addition 4. Aerial Photo with 150' Spill Line 5. Public Notice Postcard mailed to residents with 500 feet of the Center; Spyglass residents were also included. • s _ Lincoln Elementary School Soccer Corona Del Mar, California Date: March 20, 2007 To: Gary Wright Equipment Description Light- Structure GreenM System delivered to your site in Five Easy PiecesM • Four (4) Pre -cast concrete bases • Four (4) 70' Galvanized steel poles • UL Listed remote electrical component enclosure • Pole length wire harness • Twenty (23) Factory -aimed and assembled luminaires Also Includes: • Energy savings of more than 50% over a standard lighting system • 50% less spill and glare light than Musco's prior industry leading technology • 10 -Year warranty including ten years parts, two years labor. Lamps are warranted for two years, with the first year including lamps and labor, and the second year lamps only • Constant light level of 30 footcandles, +/- 10% per IESNA RP -06 -01 • DSA: This project is on school property, and must therefore comply to California Building Code, Title 24 requirements. Musco will supply complete pole and foundation structural drawings, per Title 24 requirements, ready for submittal to DSA by the project Architect/Engineer of Record. • Sales tax on the equipment is not included as part of this budget estimate. Budget Estimate Musco's Light Structure Green TM as described above and delivered to the job site: $ 58,000.00 Installation of Musco's Light Structure Green TM: $ 15,000.00 Installation of electrical system (conduit, wire, switch -gear, etc.): $ 45,000.00 Electrical Engineering Design Services (includes submittal of plans to DSA): $ 7,500.00 DSA plan processing and required inspection fees: $ 5,000.00 Contingency (Approximately 10% of project costs): $ 13,000.00 Estimated Project Total: $143,500.00 Optional Adder: Musco's Constant 25 Warranty, includes: • Musco Constant 25TM warranty and maintenance program that eliminates 100% of your maintenance costs for 25 years, including labor and materials — Based on 500 hours of annual usage • Guaranteed constant light level of 30 foot - candles for 25 years, +1- 10% per IESNA RP -06 -01 • Control Link® Control & Monitoring System for flexible control and solid management of your lighting system Additive Cost: $7,700.00 • Terms Payment of 25% of the contract price is required with order. The contract balance is due no later than 30 days after invoice date. • Late payment will be subject to service charges of 1 1/2% per month'(18% APR). Musco will attempt to coordinate shipment so that delivery corresponds with the customer's payment schedule. It will be the responsibility of the wholesaler to ensure that Musco is aware of this delivery timeframe. We will expect payment within the terms described above unless there is a written statement from Musco's corporate headquarters stating the acceptance of different terms. • Delivery to the job site from the time of order, submittal approval, receipt of stamped /signed approved DSA drawings and contact information for the DSA fabrication inspector, and confirmation of order details including voltage /phase and pole locations is approximately 45 days. Due to the built -in custom light control per luminaire, pole locations need to be confirmed prior to production. Changes to pole locations after the product is sent to production could result in additional charges. Notes Quote is based on: • Shipment of entire project together to one location • Field size of 330' x 190' for Soccer field • Voltage and Phase per electrical system requirement (TBD) • Structural code and wind speed = 2001 CBC -C, 70 MPH • Confirmation of pole locations prior to production • Thank you for considering Musco for your sports - lighting needs. Please contact me with any questions. Mike Marchetti Project Manager Phone: 949- 754 -0503 E -mail: mike.marchetti @musco.com Fax: 949- 754 -0637 0 • E N poll 11 0111 [ 1-1 E1- 1--ALW1 ;rF 2 9 4 N. 4 MAW; Puz " qu 5 8 A 2 ip Pi Di A IN 01 9 4 N. 4 ip Pi Di A IN 01 0 • • ❑3 CDM AYSO Region 57 Field Lighting Addition Lincoln Athletic Center $150,000 Donation Proposal Version 1.0 March 23, 2007 Presented by: Gary Wright Executive Board Member CDM AYSO Region 57 4/25/2007 Lincoln Field Lighting Addition page 5 Lincoln Field Lighting Addition CDM Region 57 AYSO Board of Directors proposes to donate additional field lighting at the Lincoln Athletic • Center. The Center's current lighting serves two diamonds for baseball or two fields for soccer. The expansion would light a dedicated soccer field commonly known as Lincoln 3. Background The American Youth Soccer Organization (AYSO) is a non - profit, all volunteer organization. Our motto is "Everyone Plays." Our objectives are to teach, promote, and develop Youth soccer; to develop our youngsters in body and character and to facilitate a positive experience of soccer competition for such youths. Providing every youth the opportunity to PARTICIPATE is uppermost in our minds. AYSO Region 57 encompasses the communities of East Newport Beach, Corona Del Mar, Balboa Island, Newport Coast, and North Newport Beach. The Region is bordered to the west by the Newport Bay, to the south by the Pacific Ocean, to the east by the City limits of Laguna Beach and to the north by the 73 Freeway (corresponding to City of Newport Beach council districts 4, 5, 6, and 7). In our 2006 -2007 season, we served 2,957 children aged 4 years to 19 years old; 2,149 players in the Fall season, and 808 players in the Spring season. AYSO Region 57 spends over $30,000 annually on maintenance of the fields, in addition to the • cost of striping, field equipment (goals, nets, corner flags, first aid). Many of these fields are shared with adult and club soccer teams who benefit from these improvements but do not share any of the costs. Region 57 also pays the City a fee for field lighting and Park Patrol, and pays NMUSD for the use of their facilities. U Proposal CDM Region 57 AYSO Board of Directors proposes to donate expanded field lighting at the Lincoln Athletic Center. The budget estimate of $150,000 includes: Musco Lighting's Light- Structure GreenTm prefabricated 4 -pole lighting system Engineering design, Division of the State Architect (DSA) plan processing and inspection, installation, and equipment as described in the attached Budget Estimate. This project is on NMUSD school property, and is designed to comply with California Building Code, Title 24 requirements. Musco's Constant 25 Warranty 25 -year warranty and maintenance program as described in the attached Budget Estimate. 4/25/2007 Lincoln Field Lighting Addition page 6 Why Now? Competition for fields is increasing • Player population is growing in both youth and adult sports. AYSO now faces year -round competition for fields from new leagues: lacrosse, adult soccer, and club soccer. Field allocations to AYSO soccer have decreased Region 57 was allocated 33% fewer fields (12) for its 2006 Fall season, down from 18 fields in its 2004 Fall season. Only two of these fields were lighted; both were restricted from use after 8 PM, and one was available only one day per week. Region 57 received zero lighted fields for its 2007 Spring season. No new, lighted soccer fields planned There are no new, lighted soccer fields planned in the City, and City Council has eliminated a proposed soccer field from the Newport Center Park site AYSO National Regulations mandate smaller teams Region 57 is obligated to comply with AYSO National Regulations that dictate team sizes by age division. In the 2007 Fall season, this translates into more practices and games played by more teams, requiring more field time. For example, in the U10 division, there will be an increase of 16 teams, from 40 to 56 (assuming no growth in player count from 2006). U10 will need 112 practice slots and 28 game slots per week. • I Benefits to the Community • Increases available lighted soccer fields by 33% Adds a dedicated, lighted soccer field to the shared facilities (baseball and soccer) at Arroyo and Lincoln 1 & 2. Increases available field time for training sessions, team practice and games During Pacific Standard Time, the field could accommodate 12 practice slots per evening, up from zero. Provides flexibility for rescheduling The Fall 2006 season field schedule had no allowance for rainout — any rainout could not be made up, especially during the Playoffs which relied on lighted fields. Luckily there was only one rainout — a Monday night game. Increases utilization of City - leased facilities Taxpayers get more value from the current City expenditure to lease the Lincoln Athletic Center from NMUSD. 4/25/2007 Lincoln Field Lighting Addition page 7 Impact to the Neighborhood Additional lighting provides the minimum illumination acceptable to the State • The average field illumination is 30 foot - candles, which is the same brightness of existing lighting on Lincoln 1 & 2. Spill light falls entirely on public right -of -way 70' poles minimize the spill light to a maximum of .20 foot - candles adjacent to the nearest private property line. See attached aerial photo showing 150' spill line. Electronic controls manage time of use Key cards and remote control by the City insure that only authorized users may turn on the lights, and they may be turned off remotely by the City if needed. Similar lighting in use below Turtle Rock and Turtle Ridge view homes in Irvine The proposed lighting is similar to lighting recently installed at the new UCI field complex and Irvine's Las Lomas Park (just outside the City of Newport Beach boundary north of the 73 Tollroad). • I Community Outreach • TBD Region 57 will conduct preliminary outreach to homes immediately adjacent to the field and the Spyglass Hills HOA prior to the April 3, 2007 PBR Commission meeting. Support Needed from the City of Newport Beach 1. Recommendation by PBR Commission 2. City Council Support Resolution to NMUSD 4/25/2007 Lincoln Field Lighting Addition page 8 11 • is Attachments 1. Budget Estimate 2. Contractor Information 3. Illumination Summary 4. Equipment Layout 5. Aerial Photo with 150' Spill Line 4/25/2007 Lincoln Field Lighting Addition page 9 PUBLIC NOTICE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission TUESDAY, May 1, 2007 — 7pm . City Council Chambers - 3300 Newrport aoulevard 0 11 The Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission will meet Tuesday, May 1, 2007, 7pm to discuss a request from AY5i7 57 to install tights at Lincoln Athletic Field {#3.. For additional information please visit mvw, AY5057ora or contact Recreation Manager Sean Levin at 644 -3159. a. At 6P`23 1 4/25/2007 Lincoln Field Lighting Addition page 11 (9) 0�.f TO: Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission FROM: Wes Morgan, Director SUBJECT: Newport Center Park Phase I Design Elements Item 9 May 1, 2007 The Newport Beach City Council has directed their Parks, Beaches Et Recreation Commission to conduct a public meeting regarding the design plan for Phase I of Newport Center Park. Active and passive park uses are to be considered by the Commission in this design. This meeting is to include input from the community followed by recommendations from the Commission to the City Council specifying which park elements the City Council should include in Phase I of this park development. Attached are related public documents which pertain to the history of this park site. 1. December 12, 2006 City Council Minutes 2. January 2, 2007 PBEtR Staff Report Et Minutes 3. February 27, 2007 City Council Staff Report Et Minutes 4. March 27, 2007 City Council Staff Report Et Minutes 5. Public Notice Postcard Et City Press Release for May 1, 2007 PBEtR Meeting 6. Recent Correspondence concerning Newport Center Park. �J 0 i! 0 0 x �T .T • F_ -I LJ CD CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Minutes Regular Meeting December 12, 2006 — 7:00 p.m. STUDY SESSION - Cancelled AB1234 ETHICS TRAINING - 4.00 - 6:00 p.m CLOSED SESSION - 6:00 p.m A. RECESSED AND RECONVENED AT B. ROLL CALL C. D. E. F. G. i Present: Council Member Henn, Council Member Curry Rosansky, Council Member Webb, Council M Gardner CLOSED SESSION REPORT - None PLEDGE OF ALLEGUNCE - Council INVOCATION -Pastor John PRESENTATIONS Henn Pro Tem Selich, Mayor Daigle, Council Member Harbor Lutheran Church Library Foundation Presegl6tion of Check - Tom Edwards, President of the Library Foundation, presented the Pify with a check for $121,660. Member Webb welcomed Troop 746 from the Latter Day Saints Church who are on their citizenship merit badge. Council Member Curry noted that contributing to the McFadden Square Project is tax deductible. Mayor Pro Tem Selich requested that a future agenda item relative to a phased development of Newport Center Park come back before Council no later than January 23rd. Council Member Webb requested that the staff report include the feasibility and cost of a soccer field in the upper area and that the sports organizations be contacted relative to the need for active fields. Mayor Rosansky announced that the Operation Christmas Toy Drive will be held on December 14th from 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. Volume 57 - Page 866 o F X11 � "IC�Pt }Yw4 woo, M TO: Parks. Beaches & Recreation Commission FROM: Wes Morgan, Director SUBJECT: Review of the Newport Center Park Development Plan Item 7 January 2, 2007 QD The following is a 6 -year chronological history of the planning for the Newport Center Park site. Staff requests that the Commission review this summary. The City Council is considering moving forward with this Droiect. The following is excerpted information from a Staff Report to Sharon Wood re: Background Materials for Joint Meeting with PB &R dated January 2, 2002 Newport Village Site 1. RECOMMENDATIONS FROM PARKS, BEACHES ft RECREATION COMMISSION On June 2, 2001, the City Council appropriated $35,000 to develop a conceptual plan for the Newport Village site, and referred the project to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission. After several public forums, the Commission approved, on November 6, 2001, the following list of components to be included in the design of the passive view park. No concrete or asphalt paths; use decomposed granite or a natural looking material • This park will not be a destination park (i.e. a park where groups meet for all day events such as picnics, reunions, etc.) Natural look, but user friendly • Protect views of surrounding neighborhoods including only essential use of night lighting • Security Lighting - only what is required for safety Develop parking options — 25 spaces, 50 spaces and 100 spaces — consider improvements to existing onsite library parking — provide cost estimates for grading /parking options — provide alternative off -site parking solutions Develop two concepts — — with more turf — with less turf • Consideration for the environmentally sensitive areas Benches, no picnic tables • List /survey potential users Parking analysis of library • Small amphitheater / outdoor reading area for 30 -50 people Landscaping should consider flowers /trees, location and size, for view protection • Drinking fountains Garden like area Consultant shall also research funding opportunities 2. PARK DEVELOPMENT TIMELINE (From City Council Report dated July 19, 2006) • Throughout 2001, the PBftR Commission oversaw an extensive community outreach process where input from the public was sought on this parcel of property and the type of ocean venue it would be. This outreach led to a concept plan for a passive park to include: — a meadow area — some sort of seating area for small gatherings — an area of native plantings — additional parking for the library. Review of the Newport Center Park Development Plan Page 2 • This plan was well received by the various stakeholders, including SPON, and the environmental interests, surrounding neighborhoods, Board of Library Trustees and the PBEtR Commission. January 2, 2002 — City Council held a joint study session with PBEtR discussing potential park sites. The Jamboree -PCH park site (now named Back Bay View Park) was determined to be the first priority, with Newport Village the second priority. May 14, 2002 — Newport Center site update from Steve Badum during study session, Council directed staff to develop site plans, take it to the PBZtR for a recommendation and bring back to Council for approval. May 17, 2003 — Budget review, Steve Badum proposed Newport Center Park conceptual design with budget of $120,000 from CIP. February 10, 2004 — Joint Meeting with Council and PBEtR to discuss community -wide park sites, deed restriction restricting site use for park site only — no action taken. June 22, 2004 — Council approved $128,950 contract with Hall Et Foreman, Inc. of Irvine to begin Newport Center conceptual park plans. November 16, 2004 — A preliminary concept plan for the park was approved by the PBitR Commission. • January 25, 2005 — Concept plan was presented at study session. The Council's input was favorable. At this meeting an offer was made by a member of the community to, with the Council's permission, gather a group of interested citizens to assist in raising funds needed to move forward on the development of the park. In January 2005 the preliminary cost • estimates for the park were $1.2 M, and these estimates were over a year old and based on a concept plan. The citizen committee had a goal of raising $1M of what was needed. The Council accepted their offer to raise the funds. • June 2005 — A committee of 10 led by volunteer Bernie Svalstadt met a total of 15 times from February to June to develop a fundraising plan, marketing materials including a web site and prospect lists in an effort to raise the $1M. This committee was staffed by Marie Knight and Bob Stein. The committee was ready to roll out their plan and begin the public fundraising but was put on hold when a potential donor surfaced. June 2005 — Staff was contacted by a member of the community interested in assisting with the funding of the park. After several meetings, he stated his desire to donate the entire $1.2 M needed. June 14, 2005 — Council named the park — Newport Center Park. At that time staff indicated to Council that a resident had expressed interest in making a donation in exchange for naming rights. The Council indicated that they would be amenable to this and directed staff to further pursue the issue. June - August 2005 — Staff, Hall & Foreman and Council Member Selich met with the prospective donor to discuss the park site, concept plans and development of the final construction documents. In addition, staff worked to obtain more accurate cost estimates for the completion of the park as well as implementation of the concept plan for the formally landscaped and meadow portions, the native planting areas and the borders of the park. September 27, 2005 — City Council approved the PSA with Hall It Foreman, Inc. for the park • design services in the amount of $158,500 to complete the park design plans. 3 � s1 a f „ xl� R 3 � 3 S F Al �N �•. },.fit t" C k£ 1` �1 rr�!' aa' �t §q N — i g ;dad q 5 �yj � s1 a f „ xl� R 3 � 3 S F Al �N �•. },.fit t" C k£ 1` �1 rr�!' 0 0 0 Review « the Newport Center Park Development Plan X94 / .y.., . . :y » ® ?% \� {� -.yam y \ el I IZ" 2 v,lm r Review of the Newport Center Park Development Plan Page 5 KS I ri } a t � q� �(} 30.. QCs S ! � •°" t z t a M r _r 4 � o � ji rt fx rj j e =' r � \\ y�l =. J{ { ff++jjrffr l \4 1 � � t z t a M r _r 4 � • Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission Regular Meeting January 2, 2007 - 7pm Page 3 Motion by Commissioner Ruzicka to approve the donation of a 24" Torrey Pine tree by M que Faure to be planted at CdM State Beach. Motion carried by acclamation. 6. Request by Newport Beach Little League. Recreation Manager Sean Levin ed that staff recommends that the Commission approve the request by Newport Beach Lit League (NBLL) to install a batting cage between fields 1 and 2 at Bonita Canyon Sports Park. a went on to say that demands for field use continues to rise with increased pressure on th ' ventory of the available fields and that this will provide increased practice opportunities for ms and provide three teams to practice at the same time while increasing the use of the fief y 33 %. He went on to say that Recreation staff met with Parks and Maintenance and NBLL select the best location. Staff has notified the public that live within 500 feet of the locati y postcard of this meeting and noted that NBLL will be responsible for all associated costs a hat the two trees in the location would be replaced with a different type of tree within the par . Chair Garret opened the public discussio Keith Banning, NBLL stated that the ad raised the money a couple of years ago but that this batting cage would be extremel elpfuL with team practice and will free up soccer fields for their use and urged approval the Commission. Jan Vandersloot encour >sed staff to transplant those existing trees to another location. • Chair Garret cl d the public discussion. Discussio nsued regarding the nets for the batting cages and was assured by NBLL that they would a responsible for those. otion by Commissioner Ruzicka to approve the installation of a batting cage between fields 1 8 2 at Bonita Canyon Sports Park with all costs covered by NBLL. Motion carried by acclamation. 8. Review of the Newport Center Park Development Plan. Director Morgan stated that at the December 12 City Council meeting to bring back the Newport Center project and would be discussed again that the January 23 meeting. He went on to say that at that meeting they would review the complete plan and specifications would be seeking approval to go on as planned. He stated that as the discussion moved forward the Council asked for some consideration for soccer fields. He noted that staff has moved forward and has provided information to all with a 6 year plan of the development of the site. He stated that it is up to the Commission as to a motion of how to advise the City Council. He stated that staff are the facilitators and in fairness to all, that it is staff's intention to study the soccer field component as requested by City Council. He went on to say that that these minutes would be provided as part of the Public Works staff report to Council. Commissioner Allen stated that she had walked the site and reviewed the pictures but noted that if this site were to be a soccer field that it would require a lot of grading off the top and a lot of fill at the bottom to flatten the site out because it now has a 70 -80 feet grade from the library to the crest of the hill and would lose the view if it was to be flattened. Director Morgan agreed. Commissioner Brown agreed that there does seem to be enough room if it were to graded to place a soccer field but was concerned that the Commission has tried to use active parks as multiple use Parks, Beaches l3 Recreation Commission Regular Meeting January 2, 2007 - 7pm Page 4 facilities and does not believe that there would be room enough for a soccer field and three Little League fields and does that address the shortage of fields within the City. Director Morgan agreed. Director Morgan stated that he does not want to get into design of the park or ruling out specific activities but that screening and fencing would be required to have a multiple use field. He stated that City Council has specifically asked staff to look at a soccer field. Recreation Manager Levin stated that the site is a parcel of land located north of the Newport Beach Library and south of San Miguel. He reviewed the pictures of the site with the Commission. Chair Garret opened the public discussion. Tom Moulson noted that those were great photographs and that the Commission should get a sense of what a lovely passive park it could be and always imagined that this location would be that. He stated that the City has a Teflon City Council that has trouble sticking to its decision and was concerned that he had to keep coming back to discuss the issue over and over again when he believed that it had been decided. He noted that there are many other people that could not make it tonight that believe that Newport Center Park should only be used as a passive park not a sports field. He urged the Commission to convey to City Council that many people do object to this change in direction. Jan Vandersloot stated that this location has always been categorized as a passive park. He • stated that the community has been working on this park for over 10 years with that assumption and that it is time to have closure and recommended that the Commission urge the Council to approve Newport Center Park as a passive park. Bernie Svalstad stated that in March 2005 he was the chair of a committee tasked to raise $1.2 M for this park site with at least 16 people on the committee and City staff and no one ever mentioned anything about this site being used as an active park. He stated that since then because of procrastinations and problems that a $600,000 donation was lost and noted that if something does not happen soon that he believes that will be lost also. He stated that the park estimates have risen from $1.2 M to $2.2M and possibly more and that costs continue to go up as procrastination continues. He went on to say that the City has spent a lot of money on plans as they changed and so urged the Commission to recommend to City Council that Newport Center Park be used as a passive park. MaryAnn Soden stated that this park should only be a passive park and that there is no synergy between the library and the possibility of a soccer field and would undermine what is a jewel in the community. She went on to say that a soccer field would not be very useful to the Newport Center community and that the money should be raised to make it a beautiful passive park. Hugh Logan from Seaview Community and stated that when this item came before the City Council it was between a City Hall and a park and the Council spoke unequivocally that it would be a park site and the sense of that meeting was that it would be a passive park. He stated that there should be a balance between natural, active and passive parks. He stated that because of the unique view and vista from this location is perfect as a passive park. It would be nice to have more active parks but this location would be difficult to make it a multi sports site. He stated that since 2000 this park has always been a passive park. He urged the Commission to convey to the Council that it remain a passive park. Parks, Beaches ii Recreation Commission Regular Meeting January 2, 2007 - 7pm Page 5 Chair Garret closed the public discussion. Commissioner Trapp stated that traffic and parking is an issue now and noted that anything such as an active park would make that even worse. Commissioner Lugar stated that after reading the City "Council minutes he was astounded that there would be such a plan to make it an active park after all this time. Commissioner Brown added that whenever possible that active parks should be located in neighborhoods. He noted that he is still excited about the amphitheater to be used by the library as a readers' theater which is part of the plan for that location. Motion by Commissioner Allen to urge approval by City Council to move forward as soon as possible to develop the Newport Center Park site as a passive park. Motion carried by unanimous vote. Chair Garrett thanked staff for bringing this to the Commission in such a short time span. COMMITTEE REPORTS - arks Will took forward to meeting to get the Newport Center Park going and following that the c mittee will be actively working on Sunset Ridge, MarinaPark and Newport Coast Park but hopes that • there ill be money allocated by City Council to move forward on Newport Center Park sooner then Later. Ch ' Garrett asked about MarinaPark. Director Morgan stated that Council has reviewed a concept plan and incbded that in the October 3 packet. He noted that it would address a variety of needs in the community butte project has its own timeline because of the residents that still live there and such. He did not that Cain Xstateat a meeting with the Commission to discuss park priorities sometime soon. RSS- Nothing to report Budget- Director Morgmittee meeting will be set for the middle of M arch with a meeting. AD - Hoc —Youth Sports Liait,,, — Community Services Award - Superintendent McGuire stated that staff had received a submission from the OASIS Travel Group and a one for H nah Dean. Chair Garrett stated that he sees no problem with awarding two awards on the same ni Superintendent McGuire stated that we have not done the formal recommendation of these submissibn:�yet - which will be brought forward at the next meeting. Discussion ensued regarding the criteria for n imations. Commission directed staff to agendize the criteria for nominations of a Community Service Award and the nominations for approval at the next meeting. Other —Santa Ana River Vision Plan Commissioner Lugar asked to be removed fro %that mmittee. C hair Garrett asked to be listed as an alternate. — Memorial Committee- Director Morgan stated that Council Member Curry ip a meeting. DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS - \ • • Director Morgan - Nothing to report. • Director Harmon - Thanked the Commission for the Facility Inspections and that it was a bit to Maintenance Division. 0 • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 23 February 27, 2007 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: T Public Works Department Stephen G. Badum 949 -644 -3311 or sbadum @city.newport - beach.ca.us Office of the City Manager Homer L. Bludau 949 - 644 -3000 or hbludau @city.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF WHETHER TO INITIATE THE PROCESS TO DEVELOP PHASE 1 OF NEWPORT CENTER PARK ISSUE: Ol • Should the City Council proceed with the design and eventual construction of Newport Center Park Phase 1 or should the Council maintain the Newport Center Park site as an option for a City Hall location until such time as Council makes a firm decision on a City Hall location? RECOMMENDATION: 1) Direct staff to proceed with the preparation of plans and specifications for the bid package for Phase 1 of the Newport Center Park, (See Selich items for proposed action) and determine whether a soccer field will be a component of the park plan or 2) Take no action on park development until such time as the City Council determines a final location for City Hall. DISCUSSION: Park Development History: The concept of having a park in the general vicinity of what is now the Central Library site has its origins as early as 1990, when a 4 -acre park was publicly discussed. Since 2000, the most recent park concept envisioned a parking area behind the Library, passive park area just to the north of this parking lot with low •water ornamental landscaping, turf, a small amphitheater area, and a. very modest native vegetation refurbishment at the north end of the site adjacent to San Miguel Newport Center Park February 27. 2007 Page 2 Drive. A cost estimate was prepared in November 2004 based on preliminary drawings with costs estimated at $1.1 million. Since that time, various amenities have been added to the design concept including an enhanced circular arbor area, landscaping enhancements along the perimeter of the park on Avocado Avenue and San Miguel Drive, and an enhanced vegetation area was proposed for the north area of the park. In September 2006, a new construction phasing was proposed. The proposed revised phasing was based on a sketch and follow -up conversations with Councilmember Ed Selich and an unnamed donor. The first phase (Phase 1) would construct the passive park area (including the Circular Arbor area and landscaping edge treatment along Avocado Avenue) in the center of the site. Two new elements would be added to Phase 1: a 30- space, on -site parking lot with access near the intersection of Avocado Avenue and Farallon Drive, and an extension of the park area to the south to the existing top of slope. This portion of the park would be sacrificed when grading for the library parking lot (Phase 2) commenced. The second phase (Phase 2), would construct the parking lot behind the library as well as the stairway and ADA ramp to the circular arbor structure. Grading for the parking lot would demolish about 65,000 square feet of park constructed under Phase 1. The third phase (Phase 3), would construct the enhanced vegetation area and adjacent landscaping edge treatment as originally proposed in November 2005. In September 2006, a revised cost estimate was prepared to address the current design concept. A conceptual plan with proposed phases and a detailed cost estimate is attached for more information. Phase 1, Passive Park Central Area $1,420,000 Phase 2, Library Parking Lot $1,569,000 Phase 3. North Park Area $ 764.000 Total estimated cost = $3,753,000 Approximately $200,000 is currently budgeted for the final design and preparation of Plans, Specification and bid documents. Additionally, an unidentified donor has committed to providing the City $600,000 towards the park construction in exchange for naming rights. All work on this project is currently suspended and awaiting direction from City Council as to the park funding priorities regarding this park, Sunset Ridge Park and Marina Park. At the February 13, 2007 meeting, Councilmember Webb requested that staff investigate the possibly of adding an active soccer field element into the park. The 1 addition of a soccer field would require the following: Newport Center Park February 27, 2007 Page 3 • • 1) Additional grading would be required to provide a level playing field that would be recessed in an effort to provide natural barriers and separate it from the adjacent roadways. 2) A small restroom will be needed because of the extended presence of event participants versus the short term passive use. 3) A larger parking lot (from 30 to 60 spaces) will be required to accommodate event participants and the changeover/ overlap of successive games. _ The additional cost to add an active element to the park is estimated at $476,000. The attached exhibits show one potential configuration for a soccer field. Recent Avocado Site Park Planning History June 2, 2001 — City Council appropriates $35,000 to develop conceptual plan for site, referring project to PB &R. November 6, 2001 — PB &R approves /recommends following components to park site: No concrete or asphalt paths; use decomposed granite or natural looking material Park not to be a "destination" park where groups meet for all day events, such as picnics, reunions, etc. • Natural look, but user friendly Protect views of surrounding neighborhoods including only essential night lighting Security lighting — only what is required for safety Develop parking options for 25, 50 and 100 parking spaces Develop two concepts — one with more turf, one with less turf Consideration for environmentally sensitive areas Benches, no picnic tables Small amphitheater /outdoor reading area for 30 -50 people Landscaping should consider flowers/trees, location and size for view protection Drinking fountains Garden -like area 2001 — PB &R does extensive public outreach meetings seeking and obtaining input on what elements the park should contain. January, 2002 — City Council /PB &R joint meeting discussion of park priorities; Back Bay View Park was determined to be first priority, with Newport Village (Center) second priority. i Newport Center Park February 27, 2007 Page 4 May 14, 2002 — Study session update from staff on park site. Council directed staff to , develop site plans, take it to PB &R for recommendation, and bring back for Council review. May 17, 2003 — In budget review, Public Works Director proposes Newport Center Park conceptual design budget CIP project of $120,000. CIP approved with budget adoption in June. February 10, 2004 — Joint Council /PB &R meeting, discussion of park sites June 22, 2004 — Council approves $128,950 contract with Hall & Foreman, Inc. of Irvine to begin Newport Center conceptual park plans. November 16, 2004 — Preliminary concept plan for park approved by PB &R January 25, 2005 — Concept plan presented at Study Session, with favorable response from Council. Council accepts citizen group offer to raise $1M of estimated $1.2M needed (estimate already one year old). June 2005 — Volunteer fund raising committee meets 15 times from February through June to develop fundraising plan; when potential donor surfaces, plan is put on hold. June 2005 — Potential donor contacts City staff. After preliminary meetings, donor • states his desire to donate $1.2M needed for project. / June 14, 2005 — Council names park site "Newport Center Park' and expresses interest in donor obtaining naming right to the park. June - August, 2005 — Councilmember Selich, staff and Hall & Foreman staff meet with prospective donor to discuss concept and plans. September 27, 2005 — Council approves contract with Hall & Foreman, Inc, for $158,500 to complete park design plans. December 13, 2005 — City Council forms City Hall Site Review Committee, votes to exclude the Newport Village site from Committee considerations. May 23, 2006 — City Hall Site Review Committee reports findings to Council July 25, 2006 — Bill Ficker gives proposal for City Hall at Newport Center Park site; Council reaffirms previous vote to exclude park site from consideration. September, 2006 — New three -part phasing plan for park proposed by Councilmember Selich; latest park development estimate of all three phases is $3,753,000 (without soccer field). Newport Center Park February 27, 2007 Page 5 • February 13, 2007 — Councilmember Selich asks staff to place Newport Center Park authorization on agenda for appropriation authorization to proceed with development; Councilmember Webb asked that staff include the option of a soccer field component. Councilmember Selich asked the following actions be presented to City Council for their determination: 1. Approval of construction of the park per the currently approved City Council concept plan, with the addition of the upper parking lot in phases with the middle phase first. 2. Acceptance of the $600,000 donation towards construction of the middle phase in exchange for naming rights for the entire park, with the provision that other naming opportunities will also be available. 3. Conceptual approval to amend the FY 2006 -07 budget to increase the funding for the park from $200,000 to $400,000, subject to final construction bids. 4. Direct staff to complete the construction documents for the middle section phase as soon as possible and put them out to bid, ZONING DESIGNATION The site is currently zoned as "Planned Community" in our General Plan. This designation's permitted uses are limited to open space, including a public park. City • • projects must be consistent with the General Plan. Submitted by: Badum "Homer L. Bludau s Director City Manager 00 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 27, 2007 • direct the City Clerk to record the Resolution with the Orange County Recorder The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Henn, Council Member Mayor Pro Tom Selich, Mayor Rosansky, Council Member Webb, C ember Daigle, Council Member Gardner L. PUBLIC COMMENTS Charles Griffin pr that the property located at the northeast corner of Campus and Bristol North wo a suitable location for City Hall and that the property could probably be acquired t eminent domain. C_O_.NTIN[TED BUSINESS 23. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF WHETHER TO INITIATE THE PROCESS TO DEVELOP PHASE 1 OF NEWPORT CENTER PARK 1100 - 20071. Mayor Rosansky explained the procedures that would be followed for this agenda item. '. City Attorney Aaron Harp responded to Bernie Svalstad's point of order concern and Council Member Webb's response that discussion about where City Hall should be located was not the focus of tonight's discussion. City Manager Bludau stated that the issue regarding tonight's public hearing item is whether the City Council should proceed with the design and eventual construction of the Newport Center Park Phase I or, whether Council should maintain the Newport Center Park site as an option for a City Hall location until such time as Council makes a firm • decision on a City Hall location. He provided a PowerPoint presentation in concert with staffs report that provided a detailed history of the park site planning and included maps, diagrams and a cost summary of the proposed project. Public Works Director Badum spoke about how the concept and design has progressed and changed over time and how the estimated cost has increased from $1.2 million about a year ago to over $3 million today. Mayor Rosansky recalled that the cost was $1.4 million at the time the donor brought forth his offer of $1.2 million to complete the park and that the City would contribute $200,000 toward completion. Council Member Daigle wanted to know if the donor requested additional improvements for the $600,000 donation, and if so, the value of the enhancements and how they have affected the overall budget. Public Works Director Badum moved forward with his presentation to show the costs of improvements and indicated that the original concept did not have a parking lot. The difference between the northern area and the revised design for the passive park account for the difference in estimated costs of enhancements. Public Works Director Badum confirmed to Council Member Daigle that the additional $600,000 donation is offset by the design enhancements. Mayor Pro Tem Selich said he was involved in proposing the enhancements as a direct result of input and that the donor was not entirely responsible for the enhancement cost increases. The original cost was not based on a set of plans. Mayor Rosansky stated that although the original estimate was not based on a set of plans . Council took its action based on the original estimate. Volume 58 Page 60 - City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 27, 2007 Public Works Director Badum agreed with Council Member Webb that there could be a cost savings if the City were to move forward with the entire project rather than phasing the project and that the second phase would result in removal of a large amount of landscape material. In response to Mayor Rosansky, Public Works Director Badum responded that late last year and again at the February meeting Mayor Pro Tem Selich requested the proposal be brought back as a phased project. Mayor Pro Tem Selich explained that the details of the donation have not been worked out with the donor but believed that he expected his contribution would be based upon the completion of Phase I within a reasonable period of time. One of the action items on the agenda this evening is to consummate the agreement. Council Member Webb recalled that the agreement would allow naming rights so that the concept under the CIP budget was a $1.7 million contribution for a total project cost of $1.9 million with the City contributing about $200,000, According to current estimates the $600,000 additional contribution would require the City to contribute 85 percent. Mayor Pro Tem Selich concurred with Council Member Henn that the fundraising would not be limited and further stated that the idea for naming rights was to allow other major contributors to have naming rights as well, although he was not aware of any at this time. Recreation and Senior Services Director Morgan indicated to Mayor Rosansky that he had been with the City for four months and had visited about 40 of its 64 parks. Approximately • two-thirds of the acreage is passive and the demand for park programs is very strong. The City is always trying to enlarge the inventory and there are other needs that could be met, especially for youth. The City owes approximately $3 million on Sunset Ridge Park. The potential development design consists of an overlay of two baseball fields and two soccer fields with estimated construction costs of $6 to $7 million, which is not currently budgeted for. He felt the athletic organizations would welcome a discussion about additional active park space. Recreation and Senior Services Director Morgan responded to Council Member Daigle that he would assume the General Plan was responsive to and in line with community needs and desires. Prior to tonight's meeting he reviewed the Recreation Element and felt it was very fair and he would keep the Sunset Ridge Park and Newport Center Park in the first priority positions because there are approximately 6000 Rids that need to be accommodated during each season. He indicated that generally cities do not have enough park space. Assistant City Manager Wood reported that the current General Plan designation for the site is Open Space and would require a vote of the people to change the designation. She stated that the City's standard is to provide 5 acres of parks and open space for every 1000 residents. Currently there are 10.9 acres needed for Area 9 and there are currently 19 acres available. The West Newport area requires 64.7 acres and the active park acreage plus the beach area totals 43.1 acres, leaving a deficit of 21 acres, exclusive of Sunset Ridge Park. Library Director Katsouleas reported that the library parking problems are legendary and when the building was originally designed it was intended to be part of a complex that included a museum that would provide additional shared parking. Programs are limited due to lack of parking and they lose out on programs because of it. • Volume 58 - Page 61 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 27, 2007 Council Member Webb said he was concerned with whether the Council should look at funding a passive park outside of what was authorized in the CIP. He displayed a photo array of the park inventory and pointed out the views from many of the existing parks. He felt that the City's money should not be used for passive parks when there was such a dire need for active parks and he could not support moving forward with a passive park north of the library. Council Member Gardner said this site was deeded in perpetuity as open space. Three differeUCity Councils have turned away proposals for this site and she felt the City should stand by its promise to the residents. Bernie Svalstad supported the park because the public voted to approve the park and not the soccer field. His committee spent a lot of time fundraising and he felt that in spite of the fact that half of the value of the donation had been lost there would be sufficient donations to complete the project. Allan Beek said the site designated as open space would be a good place for a park and a very poor place for a city hall. Tom Collister urged Council to not approve the site for a park site because it is a high traffic area with safety concerns that would render it inconsistent with the surrounding commercial area. Larry Tucker said he is here to promote good decision making and urged the Council to not make a decision tonight and further explore finding the beat possible location for city hall. He said he believed the Park Plus plan was innovative. • Tom Moulson felt the Council had a moral obligation to support recommendation #1. Shirley Conger supported a passive park above the library and believed the city hall should be developed nearby on a different site. BJ Johnson said that the Corona del Mar Residents Association voted in favor of the park and felt the City Council should move forward with Phase I tonight. She encouraged the City to place Council Member Webb's park presentation on Channel 3 to encourage park usage. Greg Sullivan supported a park and felt traffic generated by a City Hall on the site would promote safety concerns and result in additional taxes to the residents. Jim Robertson thanked Mayor Rosansky for his Park Plus Plan about the most logical site for city hall and acknowledged that an earlier Council may have adversely acted to preclude city hall from this site. He urged Council to vote no and to consider other options for the site based on the best interest of the City and its residents. Ron Hendrickson felt the Council should postpone this decision and move forward to consider the site as the new city hall location. Barry Allen said that 61 individuals signed a petition this evening in favor of saving the park and felt the Council should move forward with Mayor Pro Tem Selich's proposal. Wendy Brooks felt the Park Plus proposal was the perfect solution for the site. Don Udall supported the park and felt the City should keep its word. • Norm Witt supported the Park Plus concept as a win -win solution and urged Council to take Volume 58 - Page 62 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 27, 2007 • no action on the park development tonight. Joe Garrett supported the park and supported the Park Plus program as a win -win solution that would provide a crown jewel for the community. Scott Calder said he supported the Park Plus proposal and could not understand why when a better idea was presented the Council would not give it full consideration. Mary Barrett Blake asked Council Members to open their minds, listen to the residents and support the Park Plus Program because it would create an incredible community center site. Novelle Hendrickson supported the Park Plus program and took exception with portions of staffs report because there was never a public hearing on the matter during regularly scheduled City Council meetings. Val Skoro encouraged approval of Phase I and pursuit of the OCTA as a site for city hall. Gladys Wolcott said this Council voted for a park and asked Council Members to keep their word and build the park. Debbie Stephens said this site has always been designated as a park site and the Council should move forward and build the park. Dick Marowitz offered his full support to the Park Plus program that he believed made fiscal sense. He urged the City Council not to take a vote on this issue until full study of a city hall and park was completed. Hugh Logan urged the City Council to vote yes on Phase I. . Jack Croul felt the site was not suitable for a park but that it would work well for a city hall and the site could include a 9 -acre park. Dan Guggenheim supported the Park Plus proposal and encouraged everyone to consider the possibility that the City could have both a new city hall and park because it would fulfill the needs of past and present Councils and provide value to all residents of Newport Beach. Craig Batley urged the Council to delay making a decision, study the matter and continue the debate. Gene O'Rourke felt the issue before the City Council was that it should wait four months to make a decision about whether the site should include a city hall and park. Marcia Dossey supported the shared use plan proposed through the Park Plus program and asked the City Council to vote no on tonight's proposal. Richard Cabin was opposed to considering a city hall on the site and urged Council to vote yes and proceed with Phase I. Larry Porter said the City Council should proceed with construction of the park. John Moftakhar felt a municipality should be flexible in its decision- making process and believed it would be cost prohibitive to hold a special election for a city hall at the site. Jo Vandervort encouraged the Council to delay its decision and not be pushed into making a decision at this time. Mike Johnson said he was in favor of moving the current city hall site and liked the concept • Volume 68 - Page 68 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 27, 2007 . of efficiency of economies proposed via the Park Plus program. John Heffernan said he was part of the Council who voted in 2005 to remove this site from consideration for City Hall and he now realizes he made the wrong decision. He spoke in support of a mixed -use option with the park and city hall at the location and urged the Council to study it further. Leonard Lane asked Council to keep its commitment and move forward with the park James Turner supported the Park Plus program. Barbara Birney felt everyone could be satisfied with a mixed -use of the site. Bob Shelton believed it was never a mistake to take time to consider all options. The most important promise would be to withhold a vote until all sides were fully vetted and considered. Debra Allen said she supported speakers who asked the Council to keep their promise to build a park and the problem with a mixed -use proposal was that the city hall world take a big chunk out of the middle of the grassy area. Dr. Jan Vandersloot, speaking on behalf of SPON, said this site was designated open space and limited to park use and therefore the City Council should keep the public trust and develop the park. Dr. Jack Skinner believed that the proposed dual use has merit and should not be so quickly dismissed this evening. • Helen McGruder said the City Council has a duty to serve the entire community. The Council should take no action until it commits to a final location for a city hall. Nancy Skinner said she would not support a plan to override a promised park unless a far superior plan were proposed and she would like the opportunity to review a full proposal for a mixed -use on the site and urged Council to postpone its decision for four months. John Connelly felt it was reasonable, practical and responsible for the Council to consider all options and to do otherwise would not be in the best interest of the City and its residents. Christine Carr felt the Council should move forward with the park. Steve Brahs, member of the Site Selection Committee, said he felt there was no better site for a city hall and a vote for Phase I would prohibit further consideration of a city hall on the site. Tim Brown said he strongly supported a passive park on the site and believed it was a clear recommendation of the Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission. Bill Ficker presented 250 signatures in support of asking the City Council not to proceed with the park design and construction until the city hall issue is resolved. He indicated that his plan includes having a park and city hall on the site and an urban park on the current city hall site. Charles Griffin wanted the City Council to move forward with Phase f and said the obvious location for city hall was the airport industrial area. • Laura McCant said a good architect could design the site to accommodate a city hall and a Volume 58 - Page 64 i City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 27, 2007 park and that it was fiscally responsible to build a city hall at that location. Mayor Pro Tern Selich said after listening carefully he came to the conclusion that the easy way was to continue the matter and the right way to handle this situation was to move forward with the park. He said one of his first tasks when he joined the City Council was to build this park and said there are plenty of options in Newport Center for City Hall. Motion toy _Mayor _Pro Tern Selich to direct staff to proceed with the preparation of plans and specifications for the bid package for Phase I of the Newport Center Park as follows: 1) approve construction of the park per the currently approved City Council concept plan, with the addition of the upper parking lot in phases with the middle phase first; 2) acceptance of the $600,000 donation towards construction of the middle phase in exchange for naming rights for the entire park, with the provision that other naming opportunities will also be available; 3) conceptual approval to amend the FY 2006 -07 budget to increase the funding for the park from $200,000 to $400,000, subject to final construction bids; and 4) direct staff to complete the construction documents for the middle section phase as soon as possible and put them out to bid. Mayor Pro Tem Selich clarified that his motion did not include the consideration for a soccer field. Recreation and Senior Services Director Morgan noted that neighborhood residents and library patrons would most likely utilize the passive park and the amenities would dictate the types of uses. Mayor Rosansky said he has not seen a conceptual plan, therefore it would be difficult to vote on the issue. Access would include a 234 -foot switchback ramp that would climb 30 to 40 feet from the library to the top of the hill. • Council Member Webb said that a large area of manicured grass would require a great deal of maintenance. He asked if a soccer field was located in the area would there be more use and Recreation and Senior Services Director Morgan responded that there could be four teams at the same time during practice days and a soccer field would draw more individuals than a passive park use. Public Works Director Badum reminded Council that the conceptual enhanced plan was shown during staffs report and that about 70 percent of the plan was complete. Public Works Director Badum responded that the direction to staff was to include benches and not picnic tables, no lighting, more turf and parking spaces to accommodate the library. Public Works Director Badum explained that phasing was an idea that was brought up late in the game and that there was no construction plans for phasing. In response to questions about redesigning the park, Mayor Pro Tem Selich said he believed the commitment the Council made previously was in accordance with the proposed conceptual plan. Council Member Webb said the reason the Council is taking time to consider this proposal is because this is a passive park that would require a substantial amount of money that could be used to construct active parks. He felt the Council should be very concerned about the cost benefit ratio of a passive use that is by definition not a destination park and for the Council to approve Phase I it might be wasting considerable capital. Substitute motion by Council Member Webb to take no action on park development until such time as the City Council commits to a final location for a new city hall. • Volume 68 - Page 65 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 27, 2007 Council Member Daigle said she recognized the passion and commitment by park proponents, however given the uncertainty about the cost and phasing as well as competing priorities, she recommended this matter be tabled until June when the Council could look at its budget for the ensuing year. Council Member Curry spoke in opposition to the substitute motion and said that during his campaign he clearly stated his position that he would support the park. He said he was disappointed with the leadership tonight because the community has been needlessly divided. It comes down to whether the Council would support the park and put the City Hall at another location. This is a matter of trust going back to 1990 and he is committed to having a park at this site. Council Member Henn said he read and considered every email and felt it was his mandate to consider all issues and input throughout the evening. He stated that it is too early to conclude what is the beat Iocation for City Hall since it is a complex issue that deserves a great deal of consideration. No matter where it goes the cast is likely to be $50 million or more. He rejected the notion that people who live near Newport Center Park are somehow acting in a selfish and narrow manner and their views are to be discounted and said that anyone who lives in or near any project that involves intensive land use are entitled to express their views. After viewing the parks with Council Member Webb it was clear that at least half were not often visited and "bang for the buck" is not the decision rule. He spoke of integrity and stated that the Council needs to act with integrity over time and the first point is that this site has been envisioned as a passive park for 15 years or more. The second commitment is that the City just completed and endured a hard fought election and the voters approved a General Plan for the first time in 25 years. The General Plan included a vision for open space and parks and was a balanced plan that should only be changed for the highest standard. He indicated he would vote for the original motion and against the substitute motion. Mayor Rosansky explained that his questioning of staff was an attempt to elicit information that has not been before the public. Although he had previously voted to keep City Hall in its current location, after reviewing his actions he was willing to correct them if they were not appropriate at the time. The General Plan says that the City has a surplus of passive parks and if the Council is to consider its limited resources it should look at economies of scale. He spoke of the Council's fiscal responsibilities. He indicated that he is a proponent of parks and a proponent of a park in this location and nothing has been said tonight about not building a park at this site. Thousands of residents use the Library on a regular basis and according to the director there is a huge need for additional parking. He reiterated who the basic users of the park would be and noted that there is no direct connection between the proposed park and the library except a long upward winding ramp or staircase. In reference to the time it has taken to build this park, he noted that the land was dedicated in 1992 and if there was such a great need for this park it would have been built 10 years ago and people would not be asking to put City Hall, senior apartments, etc. on the land. Mayor Rosansky said he is Chairman of the Building Committee and the committee has looked at many sites and the bottom line is that none of those sites panned out. Referencing past promises and the commitment to keep them, he noted that on May 27, 2003 and again on February 8, 2005, the City Council voted 6 -1 to keep City Hall at its current location. He explained that the City Council is not keeping that promise because there is new information that has indicated there might be a better location for City Hall. He felt the only promise was that there would be nothing else on the site. The site review committee looked at more than 20 sites and most people feel that the site in question is the best site for City Hall. However, it is incumbent upon this Council to not move forward with funding of this park tonight when • there is a clear need for use of these funds in other areas of the City. Volume 58 - Page 66 i City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 27, 2007 Council Member Gardner took exception to Mayor Rosansky's characterization that a positive decision on this matter was `politically expedient " Council Member Daigle asked if any consideration would be given to changing the phasing so the parking lot would be built first. The substitute motion failed by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Mayor Rosansky, Council Member Webb, Council Member Daigle Noes: Council Member Henn, Council Member Curry, Mayor Pro Tem Selich, Council Member Gardner The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Henn, Council Member Curry, Mayor Pro Tem Selich, Council Member.Webb, Council Member Gardner ( Noes: Mayor Rosansky, Council Member Daigle The Council recessed the meeting at midnight and reconvened at 12:10 am. with all members present. PUBLIC BEARING M. OF N. PL 22. P. CC IN -LIEU PARK DEDICATION FEE ADJUSTMENT - APPRAISAL OF EASTBLUFF AND BOB HENRY PARK f100- 20091. Dr,Jan Vandersloot felt the City should get part of the money from the park in -lieu fees and felt it was perfectly reasonable for the City to increase the fees paid by the homebuilders. Webb to continue this item. The motion carried,by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member ' -Henn, Council Member Curry, Mayor Pro Tem Selich, Mayor Rosansky, Council Member Webb, Council Member Daigle, Council Member Gardner report provided. S26. COMMUNITY PROGRAMMING EQUIPMENT, - None (100 -20091 - No oral 1100- 20071. Assistant City Manager Kiff reported that this is a recommendation that the City invest in cameras and editing equipment to continue the City's programming efforts. Time -Warner has contributed $400,000; Cox $600,000, and Time- Warner will provide`10 -year ongoing support for $90,000 to $100,000 per year. Volume 58 - Page 67 0 r'1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT "RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA PRINTED" 101 0 Agenda Item No. 17 March 27, 2007 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Robin Clauson, City Attorney (949) 644 -3131 or rclauson @city.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF WHETHER TO RESCIND ITS DECISION ON FEBRUARY 27, 2007 TO INITIATE THE PROCESS TO DEVELOP PHASE 1 OF NEWPORT CENTER PARK AND REFER THE PROJECT BACK TO THE PARK, BEACHES AND RECREATION COMMISSION FOR RECONSIDERATION ISSUE: Should the City Council rescind its decision to proceed with the design and eventual construction of Newport Center Park Phase 1 and refer the project back to the Park, Beaches and Recreation Commission (PB &R) for reconsideration? If desired, rescind the City Council's decision of February 27, 2007 to proceed with the design and eventual construction of Newport Center Park Phase 1 including the City Council's decision to: (1) proceed with the preparation of plans and specifications for the bid package for Phase 1; (2) approve construction of the park per the approved City Council concept plan, with the addition of the upper parking lot in phases with the middle phase first; (3) accept the $600,000 donation towards construction of the middle phase in exchange for naming rights for the entire park; (4) approve, in concept, the amendment of the Fiscal Year 2006 -07 budget to increase the funding for the park from $200,000 to $400,000, subject to final construction bids; and (5) direct staff to complete the construction documents for the middle section phase as soon as possible and put them out to bid. DISCUSSION: On February 27, 2007, the City Council directed staff to initiate the process to develop Phase 1 of Newport Center Park. Copies of the staff report and meeting minutes from the February 27, 2007 meeting are attached hereto. Newport Center Park March 27, 2007 . Page 2 Just prior to the February 27, 2007 meeting, Assistant City Attorney Aaron Harp received an inquiry whether Park, Beaches and Recreation Commissioner Deborah Allen had a possible conflict of interest. City GIS staff prepared a map showing that Commissioner Allen's residence was located 375 feet from the Newport Center Park. Mr. Harp informed Commissioner Allen of this in the morning of February 27, 2007. Mr. Harp was present at the Council meeting on February 27h in my place as I was out of state on bereavement leave. When I returned, I looked into the impacts a potential conflict of interest would have on actions already taken by the City Council and the PB &R Commission and determined that an alleged violation of the Political Reform Act could subject the PB &R Commission and City Council actions and decisions related to the park's design and development to a legal challenge. Specifically, the Political Reform Act (PRA) provides that an official may not make a decision, participate in the making of a decision or in any way attempt to use his or her official position to influence a governmental decision in which he /she knows or has reason to know he /she has a financial interest. The prohibition from using the official's position to influence a governmental decision, according to a publication by the Attorney General, "was intended to ensure that public officials do not act indirectly to affect their private economic interests by utilizing their official status or activities. it specifically includes attempting to affect any decision within the official's own agency or any agency appointed by or subject to the budgetary control of his or her agency'. Conflicts of Interest, Office of the Attorney General, page 22. When a decision involves another's real property located within a 500 foot radius of an official's real property, the official's real property is presumed to be directly involved in the decision. Real property directly involved in a decision is presumed to be a material financial effect on the official unless the decision will have no financial effect, "not even a penny." Unless the official establishes by a reasonable, objective method that there is no financial impact on their real property interest they are expected by the regulations to step down and not participate in the decision, or use their position to influence another body of the same agency in making a decision. I have provided the above regulations to inform the Council and the public of the basic provisions of the PRA and regulations that apply. Given the potential conflict of interest, the February 27, 2007 and /or decisions and recommendations of the PB &R Commission could be subject to legal challenge by a resident under the Political Reform Act. Environmental Review: This is not a project under CEQA. Newport Center Park March 27, 2007 • Page 3 Public Notice: This agenda item may be noticed according to the Ralph M. Brown Act (72 hours in advance of the public meeting at which the City Council considers the item). Prepared & Submitted by: Robin Clauson, City Attorney Attachments: February 27, 2007 Staff Report (Agenda Item No. 23) February 27, 2007 Meeting Minutes (Agenda Item No. 23) 11 • City Council Regular Meeting Page 8 of 12 Action Agenda • Planning Director Lepo reported on the following Planning Commission agenda it�for March 22, 2007: Variance No. 2006 -003 for 709 Kings Road; the valet /parking management plan at 1370 Bison Avenue; Use Permit No. 2006 -038 for the Wine Gallery`'a report on parking in -lieu fees: and a GIS application update. The Council recessed at 9:45 p.m. and reconvened at 9:55 p.m. with all members present. XIX. CURRENT BUSINESS 1s. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR COMPREHENSIVE REWRITE OF THE ZONING CODE (TITLE 20) AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT BUDGET AMENDMENT [100 - 20071. Staff Report Associate Planner Ramirez stated that the purpose of the budget amendment is to acquire monies for a rewrite of the, ,Zoning Code and CEQA Review. Motion by Council' Member Daigle to a) approve the PSA with Hogle- Ireland for the Zoning Code Rewrite and CEQA Review; and b) approve a budget amendment (07BA -061) transferring `$632,420 from the unappropriated General Fund reserve to a new Planning Department Account, 2710 -82932 Zoning Code Rewrite. motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Henn, Council Member Curry, Mayor Pro Tom Selich, Mayor Rosansky, Council Member Webb, Council Member Daigle, Council Member Gardner . XV1II. CONTINUED BUSINESS 17. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF WHETHER TO RESCIND ITS FEBRUARY 27, 2007 DECISION TO INITIATE THE PROCESS TO DEVELOP PHASE 1 OF NEWPORT CENTER PARK AND REFER THE PROJECT BACK TO THE PARKS, BEACHES AND RECREATION COMMISSION FOR RECONSIDERATION [100- 20071. Staff Report City Attorney Clausen noted that this matter was brought about as a Parks, Beaches and Recreation (PB &R) Commissioner was discovered to have a potential conflict of interest due to the proximity of her residence to the subject property and whether the alleged violation might result in a lawsuit to rescind the Council's previous decision. Debra Allen, recipient of the alleged charges, said the charges were absolutely false. Upon advise from Assistant City Attorney Harp she contacted the Fair Political Practices Commission and was told there would be no conflict of interest as a citizen and PB &R Commissioner with her speaking on this matter at the February 27 City Council meeting. She was very disturbed that the City had left the impression via a press release that she had a conflict of interest and felt that her reputation had been irreparably damaged as a result. She furnished the City Council with a copy of a certified appraisal that indicated her property value would suffer no financial impact as a result of the Council's decision. Barry Allen provided four documents testifying to the fact that this matter would have no affect on Debra Allen's property. There is no conflict of interest by a PB &R Commissioner and the threat of a lawsuit is merely to get the City to overturn its decision so that further consideration can be given to placing city hall on the site. He encouraged the City Council to vote no on this agenda item. http:// newportbeach .granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php ?view id =16 &clip id =477 4/24/2007 City Council Regular Meeting Page 9 of 12 Elaine Linhoff was upset by Tom Johnson's article in The Daily Pilot and asked the Council • to stand by its vote and move forward to develop the park. Wendy Brooks wanted Council to consider placing a new city hall and park next to the library because it would better serve the needs of the community and its residents. Shirley Conger felt the Tom Johnson article was an attempt to divert attention from the City Council's decision. Allan Beek thanked the Mayor for clarifying the issue at hand and recommended the Council remove this item from the agenda or v¢te no. Tom Moulson found the entire issue laughable. Karen Twingali said she won't speak about how shabbily the City treats its volunteers or how little effort it takes to come up with perceived conflicts of interest. As a resident of Newport Beach she lives 1.8 miles from the park and anyone who speaks in support of proceeding with the building of the park should be heard and the Council should proceed accordingly and support its constituents. Bill Ficker asked the Council to put this matter on hold and research alternative options because the park is one of the lowest priorities in the City's General Plan. Dick Nichols urged the Council to reconsider this matter and give the City time to consider a better plan for the property. Barton Beek felt it would be wise for the Council to reconsider this matter and give the • residents more time to consider this decision by better educating the residents and putting the matter to a vote of the people. Mike Johnson said he has been involved with parks for many years and served on the PB &R Commission in the 1970'x. He felt that the project site should be re- designed as a people - friendly park similar to the park in West Newport Beach. Garrett Smith felt that Debra Allen deserved thanks for her years of volunteerism but should not be singled out because there are many individuals and groups that volunteer their services to the City. He felt the only fair way to resolve this matter was to let the City continue to research the area for the best use and finally put it to a vote of the people. Jack Croul requested the City Council reopen the issue of whether a park should be built on the 12 -acre site because it is clear the residents are divided on how the property should be used. Hugh Logan was confident that Council would fairly review this issue and move forward to protect the site as a park. Bob Shelton felt the real issue was whether or not the decision was the right decision and urged the Council to reconsider the site for joint use. Evvy Compton asked Council to rescind its decision and reconsider using valuable City funds on a project that people would use. Lucille Kuehn urged Council to rescind its motion, refund the donor's money, revisit the issue and bring forth a better solution for use of the site. Phil Arst complimented the Council Members who voted to protect public parkland. The http:// newportbeach .granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php ?view id =16 &clip id =477 4/24/2007 City Council Regular Meeting Page 10 of 12 real issue is where to locate City Hall and in his opinion, this site would not be suitable. . ? Nancy Skinner asked Council to return the matter to PB &R because it would be helpful for the citizens to better understand the proposed design concept for the park. George Schroeder felt the only issue was whether the conflict of interest applied and once determined the Council should move forward accordingly. Ron Hendrickson believed the City was not short on passive parks but was short on active parks. Therefore, this 12 -acre park is not needed at this time and this issue has not been properly analyzed. It would be unfortunate if the City did not consider a small portion of the property for a city hall. _ Jan Vandersloot said that although this decision was not about Debra Allen he asked that before the Council vote tonight it verify whether she has a conflict of interest and whether the Council could ultimately uphold its previous vote. City Attorney Clausen responded to Council Member Webb that the accuracy of the GIS maps are to within five feet and reiterated that it is not the Council's responsibility to determine whether there is a conflict of interest. Council Member Curry said that based on the Counsel's input he would recommend rescinding the vote and returning the matter to the PB &R Commission for developmental review of the park design and careful review of the potential conflict of interest involving Debra Allen. Motion by Council Member Curry to rescind the City Council decision of February 27, 2007 and refer the matter back to the PB &R Commission for 30 days on a de novo basis to consider the design of the park and to report back to the City Council. After discussion the motion was amended to direct the PB &R Commission to report back as soon as possible, however within 60 days. Substitute motion by Mayor Rosansky to rescind the City Council decision of February 27, 2007 to proceed with the design and eventual construction of Newport Center Park Phase 1 and refer the matter back to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission in order to conduct a full public outreach effort. The substitute motion failed by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Mayor Rosansky, Council Member Webb Noes: Council Member Henn, Council Member Curry, Mayor Pro Tern Selich, Council Member Daigle, Council Member Gardner The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Henn, Council Member Curry, Mayor Pro Tem Selich, Council Member Webb, Council Member Daigle, Council Member Gardner Noes: Mayor Rosansky XIX.—'Et R,RENT BUSINESS (contd). 19. LEGISLATION_RELATING TO GROUP HOMES [100-20071. ................. Staff Report Assistant City Manager Kiff explained that Senator Harman's bill..addresses homes owned by the same owner and that the original intent of the IROC was to increase the,_distance to 1000 feet and felt the 1000 feet should apply between facilities and did not limit it' "tvtlxe http:// newportbeach .granicus.com /MinutesViewer,php ?view id =16 &clip id-477 4/24/2007 0 PUBLIC NOTICE • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission TUESDAY, May 1, 2007 — 7pm City Council Chambers - 3300 Newport Boulevard The Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission will meet Tuesday, May 1, 2007, 7pm to conduct public outreach for the design of Newport Center Park Phase 1, located directly behind the Newport Beach Public Library between Avocado and MacArthur Boulevard. For additional information please contact Recreation Director Wes Morgan at 644 -3157. I� u 0 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Marilee Jackson Public Information Officer 949- 644 -3031 DRAFT CITY OF Newport Beach PARKS, BEACHES AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETS TUESDAY, MAY 1, 2007 REGARDING NEWPORT CENTER PARK DESIGN NEWPORT BEACH, CA (April 24, 2007) —The City of Newport Beach Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission will be conducting a public outreach meeting on Tuesday, May 1, 2007, at 7:00 p.m. in City Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California for the purpose of discussion on the design of Newport Center Park Phase One. The proposed park land is located behind the Newport Beach • Central Library between Avocado Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard inland from Pacific Coast Highway. For more information contact Recreation and Senior Services Director Wes Morgan at 949 - 644 -3157. # # ## Stop Polluting Our Newport P.O. Box 102 Balboa Island, California 92662 April 16, 2007 Chainnan William Garrett and _ Newport Beach Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Newport Center Park: Support Passive Park Use Dear Chairman William Garrett and Newport Beach PBR Commissioners, At its Steering Committee meeting of April 9, 2007, SPON unanimously passed a motion reiterating its support for development of Newport Center Park as a passive park. ift Since the dedication of the land above the library to the City of Newport Beach as part of the 1992 CIOSA Agreement, SPON has been a consistent advocate for creating a passive park consisting of a turf grass area that would allow visitors to enjoy the spectacular views of the ocean and coastline all the way to the Palos Verdes Peninsula, as well as enjoying the natural experience afforded by the coastal sage and riparian ravines and wetlands present on the site. SPON feels that a passive park is more appropriate for the site, affording quiet reflection and enjoyment of the view while walking, running, lounging, or reading adjacent to the library and amphitheater, and for resource protection of the adjacent natural area. Such experiences help to offer all the citizens of Newport Beach an opportunity to escape the hustle and bustle of the city and enjoy an oasis of tranquility in the center of the city. It is quite arnazing to note the peace and quiet while visiting the park, because it is buffered from the noise and traffic of MacArthur Boulevard and Avocado Avenue. SPON has remained engaged in the planning process by attending numerous meetings of the Park Development Committee on the subject of the Newport Center Park and has written letters opposing the development of a City Hall and a soccer field on the site. SPON also offered the City a conceptual plan that provided the basis for the approved park plan. Please uphold your previous votes to approve the Newport Center Park as a passive park. 40 PBR Commission Chairman William Garrett Newport Center Park April 16, 2007 • Page 2 of 2 Thank you. Sincerely, ie4 7� '« ._� � Fes-. ✓(�. - Marko Popovich and Brent Cooper SPON Presiding Officers cc: Mayor Steve Rosansky and Newport Beach City Council Members City Manager Bludau Assistant City Managers Kiff and Wood • Page 1 of I Morgan, Wes From: Evie Compton [eviecompton @sbcglobal net] Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 9:44 PM To: Rosansky, Steven; Henn, Michael; dwebb @city.newportbeach.ca.us; Daigle, Leslie; Selich, Edward; Curry, Keith; Gardner, Nancy Subject: PB &R Park Review _ . April 4, 2007 Dear Members of the City Council ; RE: Fashion Island Park OR Newport Beach Civic Center and Park I have researched the statements regarding the process used by the PB &R commission and confirmed that there was never any community out reach ever, on this proposed park. Now that the City Council has returned the park issue back to PB &R, the PB &R Commission should do what all other proposed parks must go through and have a community outreach at this time. This land belongs to all of us and all of us should be given the opportunity to be heard as to how to develop this open space. If the development is to be a park then the park should be open to discussion through out reach meetings. It seems that the vocal minority has gotten this park through without the majority of Newport Beach • residences having a voice. It's not to late to be fair minded and open to all of the people that live in the city. Eight million dollars is a lot of money and twelve acres is a lot of land. is I live in West Newport and a former City Council promised us that the City Hall would stay in it's present location. If this current City Council breaks the promise and moves the City Hall to another location, then I would expect that it would be spectacular and a monument and source of pride for all. This could be accomplished at the site adjacent to the Library. Then and only then would I say moving the City Hall was OK. We do enjoy having the City Hall in West Newport, it is needed here for many reasons. Thank You, Evie Compton 4/23/2007 April 30, 2007 Chairman William Garrett and PBR Commissioners ^� City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport 81vd UF�ev'V�' ort Beach, CA 92663 Re: Agenda Item #4, Reforestation Request Please Oppose Dear Chairman Garrett and PBR Commissioners, This is a request that you deny the reforestation request for the five city owned Cajeput trees at 4200 Campus Drive. The reforestation request appears not to comply with the G -1 Policy on reforestation. The G -1 Policy on reforestation states on page 7, paragraph A: "The proposed area must have clearly defined contiguous geographical boundaries that include the tree(s) proposed for removal and replacement, street address(es), block number(s), or other geographical information..." What is the area defined for reforestation? What are the geographical boundaries that this reforestation request includes? It is not stated in the staff report. The G -1 Policy on page 7, Paragraph B states: "Residential communities, neighborhoods, or business organizations who apply for reforestation must submit a petition signed by a minimum of 60% of the property owners within the area defined for reforestation..." "All petition signatures shall be verified by city staff for private property owner status of the persons) signing the petition ". How many property owners exist in the "area defined for reforestation "? The petition includes property owners on both Campus Drive and Dove Street and the same signature appears on 3 of the petitions. The property owner at these addresses are not identified and the signatures are not legible. Has staff verified property ownership status and the persons signing the form? The G -1 Policy states on page 8, Paragraph C: "Individual private property owners not residing within a legally established community association may submit individual requests for single or multiple tree reforestations. The applicant must submit a petition signed by a minimum of 60% of a maximum of 30 private property owners (up to 15 contiguous private properties on both sides of the street up to 500 feet in either direction from the location of the proposed 0 eestation site) .... All petition signatures shall be verified by City staff for private property owner status of the person(s) signing the petition." petitions been circulated along the street for 500 feet in either direction of the proposed reforestation site? It appears that only four addresses beyond the applicant address of 4200 Campus Drive have signatures: 4300 Campus Drive, 4320 -4360 Campus Drive, 4060 Campus Drive, 4100 Campus Drive, the latter three addresses with the illegible signature and no name. Only three persons seem to be the signatories, Kent McNaughton, Christine Johnson and illegible signature. Are these the only property owners within 500 feet of the proposed reforestation? The map at the back of the staff report shows addresses of 4200 Campus drive, 4222 Campus Drive, 4262 Campus Drive, 4201 ? 2101 ?. These addresses are not represented on the petition. These trees are not causing any problems to the hardscape according to the report from John Conway, Urban Forester, on the Tree Inspection Report. Mr. Conway states under Comments: "A field inspection confirmed five healthy City trees on Dove Street with no apparent property damage." The concern seems to be overgrowth of the tree bases over the sidewalk, causing in the applicant's opinion, a pedestrian liability. Has this situation been attempted to be rectified perhaps by pruning the base of the trees away from the sidewalk so that they don't overhang the sidewalk? The first paragraph of the G -1 Reforestation section states that reforestation is considered where trees "are creating hardscape or view problems and cannot be properly trimmed, pruned, or modified to alleviate the problem(s) they create —" I believe that this reforestation request is not appropriate, it is not clear that the geographical are of reforestation is defined with the appropriate number of property owner signatures, and that tree modification may be done to alleviate the stated problem. Therefore, I request you deny this reforestation request. The City values its trees and the overall intent is to preserve our urban forest. Thank you. Sincerely, Jan D. Vandersloot, MD 0 Vandersloot, MD E 16th Street Newport Beach, C 92663 (949) 548 -6326 Teri •From: Iryne Black [ayeblack @sbcglobal.net] Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 1:23 PM To: Craig, Teri Subject: Passive Park adjacent to the Library I believe the population of Newport has shown its continuing support for a passive park at this site. We need now and have always needed a park there. To have such a good library there, without any place we can go and read and-be left alone with the view, the birds and nature in its true sense, is disgraceful. In this case it is not just a developer doing it, it is our Newport Beach City leaders. Stay the course, please... Sincerely, Iryne Black, 1646 Irvine Ave., NB 92660 C� J • 4 " -*q • 11 CI Craig, Teri From: elinhoff @aol.com Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 10:33 PM To: Craig, Teri Subject: Neewport Center Park Bill Garrett, Chairman PBR Commission City of Newport Beach, CA Dear Mr. Garrett: Page 1 of 1 Rt: 1 "#-9 I hope that the PBR Commission will reconfirm its approval of a passive on the site above the Central Library. There is no other place in the city for a spacious park with such an incomparable view. Sincerely, Elaine Linihoff 1760 E. Ocean Blvd. Balboa CA AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. 04/30/2007 Page 1 of 1 • Craig, Teri From: JonV3 @aol.com Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 1:02 AM To: Craig, Teri Subject: PBR Commission Agenda No. 9 Newport Center Park, Approve Passive Park May 1, 2007 Chairman William Garrett and PBR Commissioners City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beac Agenda Item No. 9, Newport Center Park Public Outreach Support Passive Park Dear Chairman Garrett and PBR Commissioners, I request that you uphold your previous votes to approve Newport Center Park as a passive park. This park has been designed with community input over the past 7 years. The issue of the perception of a conflict of interest with Commissioner Allen is a red herring, designed to delay the park development so that a city hall could be placed on this site dedicated as open space parkland. I urge you to not delay, but to approve your previous votes to create the park with the current passive park design. This is a terrific design and all Newporters will be proud of the park once it is built. A passive park is a great • compliment to the adjacent library, and provides a peaceful environment with fabulous views that can be enjoyed by all. • Thank you. Sincerely, fan D. vanderstoot, %D Jan D. Vandersloot, MD 2221 E 16th Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 (949) 548 -6326 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww�www +w,twwfw See what's free at http: / /www.aol.com. 05/01/2007 • To the PB &R Commission Members As a resident of the City but not one affected by the location of the new City Hall I find myself in a somewhat objective position, I have no axe to grind. I find myself mystefied by the reluctance of the Commission to consider the park site for the City Hall. 1 worked in Fashion Island for many years, am a frequent user and supporter of the Library, and I have recently driven around that site several times trying to understand the objection to using it for the City Hall. Previous agreements aside, it is a lousy place for a park, it will not be used by anyone for anything. It's only apparent purpose is to provide some green space in the area, which is a nice gesture to be sure. But Mr. Ficker's idea seems to be a good one, utilize the area as both a City Hall site and provide a park like appearance, sounds to me like a wonderful compromise. I don't understand the objection unless there are some underlying personal interest issues going on here. Hopefully the long term interests of our community will outweigh any individual issues; the City Hall and park will both outlive anyone involved in the decision - let's think and act for the long term benefit of future generations. from Dudley Johnson Email: dudjan @pacbell.net Sent at 5/1/2007 10:13:05 AM C, J • • -- • • Craig, Teri From: JonV3 @aol.com Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 12:51 AM To: Craig, Teri Subject: PBR Commission Agenda Item 7, Support Staff, Deny Appeal May 1, 2007 Chairman William Garrett and PBR Commissioners City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Bea Re: Agenda Item No. 7, Appeal for Tree Removal Denied at 2421 Support Staff Report, Deny Appeal Dear Chairman Garrett and PBR Commissioners, Page 1 of 1 Gc1 This is a request to support the staff recommendation and deny the appeal. The homeowner is blaming a tree that is 23 feet away from the private sewer lateral, and the problem seems to be the sewer lateral itself, not the tree. The sewer lateral needs repair, rather than removing the tree. Once the sewer lateral is repaired, tree roots won't be a problem. The General Services Director, Risk Manager and City Manager all concur that the requirement of repeated history of damaging public or private sewers is not met in this case and the tree is therefore not eligible for removal. The City values its mature trees. I recommend that you vote to deny the appeal and ask that the homeowner repair his sewer lateral so that tree roots won't enter the currently impaired sewer lateral. Thank you Sincerely, fan 1). vandersfoot, W0 Jan D. Vandersloot, MD 2221 E 16th Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 (949) 548 -6326 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww See what's free at http: / /www.aol.com. 05/01/2007 • CANYON CREST ESTA TES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION April 30, 2007 Wes Morgan Newport Beach Parks, Beach and Recreation Committee 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 1:771�� :Z� • � y71�1► 1�16r/ �[ f�C. Y> ��1II ►[K�J_/1► /:���14��[K�]�I��y�I.7 Dear Mr. Morgan: The Board of Directors of Canyon Crest Homeowners Association wish to express their concerns • regarding the proposed new lights at Lincoln Athletic Center. The Board is opposed to these lighting installations under the auspices that noise levels will increase as well as traffic activity. Should you have any questions regarding the above referenced information, please do not hesitate to contact Management at (949) 450 -1515. • Sincerely, VILLAGEWAY MANAGEMENT, INC. asey Wells Property Manager At the Direction of the Board of Directors Villageway Management, Inc., P.O. Box 4708, Irvine, CA 92616 949 -450 -1515, far 949 -585 -0146 Main Office: 2 Venture, Suite 500, Irvine, CA 92618 CADocuments and Settings \Yvonne Boyd \Local SettingsUemporary Internet Files \01,K32\043007 • Newport Beach Parks and Recreation (2).doc To: City of Newport Beach PB &R Commission 5/1/07 From: Ron Hendrickson 1991 Port Claridge Pl. 949 644 -8644 ronovLcox.net Subject: General Plan Table RI, Parkland Acreage Needs, pg 8 -10, and Park Service Area Boundaries. Dear Commissioners: In the interest of having our General Plan depict our parks as correctly as possible, I offer the following comments. 1. I think Table RI, Pg 8 -10 of the G.P. is somewhat misleading in that it leaves the impression we have a deficit of 38.8 acres of park. No mention is made of future designated parks, one of which, Coastal Peak park is under construction. Sunset Ridge Park area is now owned by the City. The future parks would make up the deficit. Table Rl indicates 50 acres of park needed for Newport Coast, but assigns it no park acreage. A footnote indicates there are 58.1 acres of private parks. What is really difficult for me to understand is why the 240 acres of Crystal Cove State Park on the ocean side of PCH, which is within the city limits ofN.B, is not counted in our park acreage. Granted it is managed by the State, but it is for our citizens, particularly those who live in the Newport Coast. Shouldn't this acreage be added to our park inventory to truthfully reflect what we really have. 2. Another concern I have is that the CDM Park Service Area shows a shortage 9.1 acres. Harbor View Park Service Area to the north shows a surplus of 27.3 acres. The line of demarcation between these 2 park service areas is drawn along 5s' Ave., and Grant Howell park, which really serves CDM is on the north side of 5u' Ave., putting this park in the Harbor View Service Area, and therefore fictitiously indicating a shortage in CDM. The Councilmanic District line between Districts 6 (CDM) and District 7 (Harbor View) includes Grant Howald Park in CDM. Therefore, it would appear logical to adjust the Park Service boundaries to more correctly reflect the situation, and let CDM know that they really don't have a park shortage. Thank you very much NO Mai-C To: City of Newport Beach P &R Commission 5/1/07 From: Ron Hendrickson - 1991 Port Claridge Pl. 949 644 -8644 ronov(a cox.net Subject: General Plan Table RI, Parkland Acreage Needs, pg 8 -10, and Park Service Area Boundaries. Dear Commissioners: In the interest of having our General Plan depict our parks as correctly as possible, I offer the following comments. 1. I think Table RI, Pg 8 -10 of the G.P. is somewhat misleading in that it leaves the impression we have a deficit of 38.8 acres of park. No mention is made of future designated parks, one of which, Coastal Peak park is under construction. Sunset Ridge Park area is now owned by the City. The future parks would make up the deficit. Table RI indicates 50 acres of park needed for Newport Coast, but assigns it no park acreage. A footnote indicates there are 58.1 acres of private parks. What is really difficult for me to understand is why the 240 acres of Crystal Cove State Park on the ocean side of PCH, which is within the city limits of N.B, is not counted in our park acreage. Granted it is managed by the State, but it is for our citizens, particularly those who live in the Newport Coast. Shouldn't this acreage be added to our park inventory to truthfully reflect what we really have. 2. Another concern I have is that the CDM Park Service Area shows a shortage 9.1 acres. Harbor View Park Service Area to the north shows a surplus of 27.3 acres. The line of demarcation between these 2 park service areas is drawn along 5'h Ave., and Grant Howell park, which really serves CDM is on the north side of 5a' Ave., putting this park in the Harbor View Service Area, and therefore fictitiously indicating a shortage in CDM. The Councilmanic District line between Districts 6 (CDM) and District 7 (Harbor View) includes Grant Howald Park in CDM. Therefore, it would appear logical to adjust the Park Service boundaries to more correctly reflect the situation, and let CDM know that they really don't have a park shortage. Thank you very much t To: City of Newport Beach PB &R Commission 5/1/07 From: Ron Hendrickson 1991 Port Claridge Pl. 949 644 -8644 ronovC&..cox.net Subject: General Plan Table RI, Parkland Acreage Needs, pg 8 -10, and Park Service Area Boundaries. Dear Commissioners: In the interest of having our General Plan depict our parks as correctly as possible, I offer the following comments. 1. I think Table RI, Pg 8 -10 of the G.P. is somewhat misleading in that it leaves the impression we have a deficit of 38.8 acres of park. No mention is made of future designated parks, one of which, Coastal Peak park is under construction. Sunset Ridge Park area is now owned by the City. The future parks would make up the deficit. Table RI indicates 50 acres of park needed for Newport Coast, but assigns it no park acreage. A footnote indicates there are 58.1 acres of private parks. What is really difficult for me to understand is why the 240 acres of Crystal Cove State Park on the ocean side of PCH, which is within the city limits of N.B, is not counted in our park acreage. Granted it is managed by the State, but it is for our citizens, particularly those who live in the Newport Coast. Shouldn't this acreage be added to our park inventory to truthfully reflect what we really have. 2. Another concern I have is that the CDM Park Service Area shows a shortage 9.1 acres Harbor View Park Service Area to the north shows a surplus of 27.3 acres. The line of demarcation between these 2 park service areas is drawn along 5s' Ave., and Grant Howell park, which really serves CDM is on the north side of 5s' Ave., putting this park in the Harbor View Service Area, and therefore fictitiously indicating a shortage in CDM. The Councilmanic District line between Districts 6 (CDM) and District 7 (Harbor View) includes Grant Howald Park in CDM. Therefore, it would appear logical to adjust the Park Service boundaries to more correctly reflect the situation, and let CDM know that they really don't have a park shortage. Thank you very much t t Bill Garrett, Chairman PBR Commission City of Newport Beach, CA Dear Mr. Garrett: Page 1 of 1 Rc: I JR.M41=9 I hope that the PBR Commission will reconfirm its approval of a passive on the site above the Central Library. There is no other place in the city for a spacious park with such an incomparable view. Sincerely , Elaine Linihoff 1760 E. Ocean Blvd. Balboa CA AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.eom. 1�lLIZCK1I1yl Craig, Teri From elinhoff @aol.com Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 10:33 PM To: Craig, Teri Subject: Neewport Center Park t Bill Garrett, Chairman PBR Commission City of Newport Beach, CA Dear Mr. Garrett: Page 1 of 1 Rc: I JR.M41=9 I hope that the PBR Commission will reconfirm its approval of a passive on the site above the Central Library. There is no other place in the city for a spacious park with such an incomparable view. Sincerely , Elaine Linihoff 1760 E. Ocean Blvd. Balboa CA AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.eom. 1�lLIZCK1I1yl Teri From: Iryne Black [ayeblack @sbcglobal.net] Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 1:23 PM To: Craig, Teri Subject: Passive Park adjacent to the Library I believe the population of Newport has shown its continuing support for a passive park at this site. We need now and have always needed a park there. To have such a good 'Library there, without any place we can go and read and -be left alone with the view, the birds and nature in its true sense, is disgraceful. In Lhis case it is not just a developer doing it, it is our Newport Beach City leaders. Stay the course, please... Sincerely, Iryne Black, 1646 Irvine Ave., NB 92660 t : L " *q I ;� Burred I. !Lot 16i ;� Burred I. • e 0 � ,- Dear City of Newport Beach General Services Department, We are unable to attend the meeting this evening regarding the Corona Highlands POA's request to remove the beautiful Italian Stone Pine at the comer of De Anza and Cabrillo Terrace. We were not aware that the CHPOA made this request, or notified of this as an agenda item at any homeowners meeting and wanted to let the city know that we strongly oppose the removal of this wonderful tree. We have enjoyed this magnificent tree for 20 years that we have lived in Corona Highlands. Our three boys have grown up climbing and playing in the tree, and spent countless hours among its branches. We admire the pine's beauty and majesty every day, and feel very lucky to have such a beautiful, rare, old tree in our neighborhood. It is trees like this one that continue to make Corona Highlands a very unique neighborhood. We would love to see the city protect this tree, not remove it. We live next door to Paul and Kim Rockley and have watched their diligent efforts, along with those of the City of Newport Beach, to reduce the size of the tree and it's impact on neighborhood views (I believe those to be the Rogers and the Lumsdens).We fully support the city's efforts to properly maintain this tree so that it can continue to provide beauty, enjoyment, and its special charm to our neighborhood for years and years to come. Over the years, our neighborhood has lost many of these beautiful old pine trees to beetle and disease infestation. It would be a terrible shame to lose this magnificent Italian Stone Pine, too. We are very encouraged to know the City of Newport Beach is actively protecting and maintaining our Urban Forest This wonderful old pine tree is approximately 60 years old and deserves to be recognized as the tremendous asset it is, both to Corona Highlands and the City of Newport Beach. Thank you for recognizing the importance of trees to our urban landscape in Newport Beach. We appreciate your ongoing efforts to protect these valuable environmental and esthetic assets, especially at a time when their existence continues to be threatened both by humans and by disease or infestations. Sincerely, Tom and Carrie Rolfes 456 Cabrillo Terrace Corona del Mar, CA 92625 949 -759 -9016 i C- t? r?. 4z6zS C$ . tNZ tPKI-600 Acs �u �52- &br Dace_ COYb 1�-Q Mw, CA J=-225 okuu- CIA°7 laudlet ?7 ,'6x,,V& q� - (�V.vc78 Ct,4vv� dc( vV*&,C1, 12415 1 i i gz��5 Rq q -I�o 5 ©3% y 1'I Como \ C.s CnQ�cA - -7 -a 3 0