Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/04/2007 - PB&R CommissionSEPTEMBER 4, 2007 APPROVED PB &R COMMISSION MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Parks, Beaches l} Recreation Commission Regular Meeting September 4, 2007 - 7pm Convened 7:07pm Rnl I rAl I Present: Debra Allen Tim Brown Bill Garrett Phillip Lugar Greg Ruzicka Cristine Trapp Absent Marie Marston Staff: Wes Morgan, RSS Director Mark Harmon, General Services Director Dan Sereno, Parks l3 Tree Superintendent Teri Craig, Admin Asst DIRECTOR COMMENTS Director Morgan reminded the Commission that the Newport Coast Community Center Grand Opening Dedication Ceremony on September 15 and Sunday FunDay on September 16. • Director Harmon stated that staff is through their final summer weekend and made it through a very crowded Labor Day. Commissioner Ruzicka stated that people were looking for parking on the Peninsula for over 2 hours and finally decided that the parking ticket of $47 was worth it. City Council Actions — Director Morgan stated that Council did not hold a second meeting in August and so no action was taken; however items of interest are: • Mariners Ball Field - 13 bids were received with a low bid of $881,000 with some contingencies. It will be awarded at the September 11 City Council meeting to be ready in March. • OASIS Concept Plan - will be presented at the September 25 meeting. PUBLIC COMMENTS Commissioner Allen asked that the record show she is aware of what Mr. Ficker will be speaking on and would like the record to reflect that she will not participate in any kind of discussion should there be one. Bill Ficker stated that he had no intention of making any comments but instead to bring the model for the Commission's observation because of the many comments that have been made about the City Hall in the Park for and against and I am sure that there will be many more and just wanted to make people aware of the model for the community. Shirley Conger stated that she supports maintaining Newport Center Park as a passive park and • should not be considered as a location for a City Halt because of traffic issues and should be considered as a location for art exhibits to add value to it as a passive park. Commissioner Lugar stated that he felt that the model should not be left on display as it is inappropriate unless there is a model of the passive park. Parks, Beaches ft Recreation Commission Regular Meeting September 4, 2007 - 7pm • Page 2 Chair Brown stated that he believed that it is permissible and that if you do or do not want to took at it you have the right. Discussion ensued regarding the City in the Hall Park. Director Morgan stated that Mr. Ficker would be picking up the model in the morning and that it should be treated as if it was a handout. Hugh Logan stated that he appreciates Mr. Ficker bringing in the model but reminded everyone that Bill Ficker has backed an initiative which says nothing about a park nor require that a park be built and in terms of the legal requirements of the initiative - no park. He went on to say that he would like everyone to recognize that this is the situation as you review the model. Karen Tringath encouraged the Commission to support recommendation for a passive park at Newport Center and requested that the approved plans be made available to the public as well. Jan Vandersloot requested that the City come up with some sort of a model or graphic commissioner by the City to educate people on what is planned for the area and would be useful in the upcoming debates. CONSENT CALENDAR • 1. Minutes of the August 7, 2007 regular meeting. Waive reading of subject minutes, approve and order filed. 2. Item removed by member of the public 3. Recreation ii Senior Services Activity Report. Receive /file monthly Activity Report for activities and upcoming projects. 3. Bench Donation. Approve donation of one bench from Susan Kennedy to be located at the 10" Street and West Bay Avenue bay front beach area. 5. Item removed by Commissioner Ruzicka. Motion by Commissioner Allen to accept items 1, 3 and 4 of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried by acclamation. 5. Reforestation. Commissioner Ruzicka questioned the reforestation of one City Rusty Fig Leaf parkway tree from Christine Marr adjacent to 2238 Port Carlisle Place. He stated that he was concerned with the comments made regarding repeated history of private property damage because as he read the report that the field inspection displayed a healthy tree with no apparent property damage. He noted that he wanted to reconcile the complete contradiction and if there was repeated damage he asked if someone could articulate dates, times, etc. He stated that his vision is 20/20 and he did not see any damage and cannot understand how these types of representations can be made and that it seems to be in direct conflict of staff's analysis of the tree. Superintendent Sereno stated that there is no current damage at the site but that there had been in the past. • Commissioner Allen asked if this was a reforestation -within an approved HOA. He answered yes. She went on to say that in that situation that when in comes to Councit Policy G -1 if in this situation when the Board of Directors of an approved CCEtR's Association has requested that a tree be reforested she asked if she was not correct in that as long as the HOA has followed its own policy that the Commission really has no discretion whatsoever. Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission Regular Meeting September 4, 2007 - 7pm Page 3 - Director Harmon stated that his understanding and nodded to Commissioner Allen that she probably understood this policy better then most that is that there still must be some reason on the application such as infrastructure damage or drainage issues, etc., and did not know if those can be waived for trees in a community association. Commissioner Ruzicka stated that he finds it offensive that somebody is prevaricating on the application because he would have no reason to question the integrity of staff when they say that _ there is nothing wrong with the tree and that he can concur with that. Discussion ensued regarding the legality issues of the application and questions regarding replacing trees. Commissioner Allen stated that she believes that it is not the job of the Commission to micro manage the HOA CCFtR's. Director Harmon stated that staff was looking at page 6 of the G -1 Policy and that staff believes that the Commission does have discretionary power regardless of it being in a HOA or not. Commissioner Allen stated that was not the intent of the G -1 when it was adopted and that it was the belief of the Committee that if a tree appeared in an approved CCBR neighborhood and that the Board of Directors determined that a tree should be reforested with another tree that it was not the job of the PBEtR Commission or the Council to govern the trees in those neighborhoods and gave that • power to the association even though they are City trees. Commissioner Lugar asked why this reforest request is before the Commission. Commissioner Allen restated what the intent was and that the Commissioner was to confirm that the HOA was doing their due diligence and that it has happened in the past that some did not follow those rules. Commissioner Garrett states that Urban Forester Conway commented about some fruit droppings and asked if the reason that this item was on consent and the next item was under discussion was because of the HOA. Director Harmon stated that the next item was listed under discussion because of some late returns. But he did note that staff did visit this tree site and that Superintendent Sereno was correct that there was no infrastructure damage at all but that the sidewalk was replaced a year ago and no indication that the sidewalk is being lifted or cracked at this time; but will certainly defer to Commissioner Allen if that is the intent of G -1 then staff will defer to that but in reading the policy it does not have a separate section for HOA's individual tree reforestation but does list the criteria for staff to bring forward. He went on to say that if staff's role in HOA's is simply that the Board has approved it then that makes it a much easier process and staff can simply put these requests on the Consent Calendar but noted that has not been the way staff has done this in the past. Commissioner Garrett again stated that he read that the fruit droppings were a severe problem but asked for some clarification on claims. • Director Harmon stated that we do not remove trees based on fruit or leaf droppings. Commissioner Lugar asked Director Harmon if the way G -1 is written if the Commission has the discretion to reject the application. Parks, Beaches 8 Recreation Commission Regular Meeting September 4, 2007 - 7pm • Page 4 — Director Harmon stated that as far as staff is aware of the G -1 Policy that the Commission does have the authority to approve or reject a reforestation regardless of whether it is part of an association of not. He stated that at that point the reforestation is considered final unless City Council calls it up for additional action. Commissioner Lugar stated that based on that assumption that he would agree with Commissioner Ruzicka and vote to reject the reforestation application. Commissioner Trapp stated that she still did not understand why it was put under Consent if the Commissioner does have discretionary powers. Director Harmon stated that it could be put under Discussion and that one of the things that staff will begin will be not to make a recommendation on these items but will simply bring forward the process on whether it was followed or not and leave the decision to the Commission. Discussion ensued regarding whether they should be put under consent or discussion. Commissioner Ruzicka stated again that he finds if offensive that we make these applications and no burden is place on these people to show merit that it is truthful and asked if a notation could be made that a homeowner must sign saying under penalty of perjury. Chair Brown stated that we have had this same kind of discussion at least a dozen times and asked staff to request the City Attorney to come to a Study Session to clarify the G -1 Policy then these discussions can stop. Director Harmon stated that he would contact the City Attorney and requested that this item be pulled from any more discussion and noted that staff would not bring back any more reforestations until the Study Session is scheduled. Commissioner Ruzicka stated that in 20 years his grandchildren would be wondering why all the great trees were gone as we keep chipping away. Chair Brown opened the public discussion Jan Vandersloot stated that he has been involved in tree issues for over 10 years and basically on opposite sides but at no time in the last 10 years has the City abdicated the authority of trees to community associations and read from page 7 of the G -1 Policy. He stated that it is the Commission's responsibility to decide if the request is reasonable and that this particular application does not make sense and believes that this item should be tabled until a Study Session has been scheduled. Christine Marr stated that she did not mean to mislead the Commission by checking the box but that there had been damage in the past and that there are a number of reasons why the tree should be replaced. She stated that the tree has caused damage to the sidewalk but also that there are 100's of berries that drop from the trees that clog the gutters and made the dog sick and nervous that her children will pick them up at eat them and requested that a more family friendly tree be planted. She stated that many of the trees on her street have been replaced. Discussion ensued regarding the age of the tree between 30 and 40 years old. Chair Brown closed the public discussion Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission Regular Meeting September 4, 2007 - 7pm • Page 5 Commissioner Garrett stated that he believes that there are concrete reasons for removing the trees and believes that it would be very cavalier of the Commission deny this request because if it was in his front yard he would want it out. Motion by Commissioner Trapp to table item 5. Motion fails for lack of second. Motion by Chair Brown to approve reforestation of one City Rusty Leaf Fig parkway tree adjacent to 2238 Port Carlisle Place. Motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Allen, Brown, Garrett Noes: Lugar Ruzicka Abstain: Trapp 2. Park and Operations Division Activity Report. Jan Vandersloot stated that he was concerned about the number of trees removed versus how many were planted. Director Harmon stated that these were emergency removals and that they will be replaced but that they do not always happen in the same month and that there will be times when it will appear this way. Motion by Commissioner Allen to accept Item 2 of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried by acclamation. . DISCUSSION /ACTION ITEMS 6. Reforestation Request. Request by Stephen Matoon to reforest one City Flowering Gum parkway tree adjacent to 414 Narcissus Avenue. Commissioner Trapp asked staff if they could confirm the number of trees to be reforested. Superintendent Sereno confirmed that it was just tree to be reforested. Commissioner Trapp asked if staff had confirmed that the tree was indeed diseased. Superintendent Sereno confirmed that the tree does have rot inside the trunk and the reports states that there is a threshold for rot in the trunk. Staff does have a machine that will measure the amount of rot which was 23% and the threshold is 40% and noted that when a tree has about 35 to 40% rot then staff would recommend removal. Commissioner Trapp stated that she assumed that the Flowering Gum was the street tree at one time but when you view the photographs you can clearly see that there are several trees missing and or replaced. Superintendent Sereno stated that yes over the years several trees have been removed due to rot and branches breaking. • Commissioner Trapp stated that there really is not a strong statement of numerous Eucalyptus' on thig'-street and that a lot of them are already gone. z Superintendent Sereno stated that another type of Eucalyptus is the replacement tree for the street. Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission Regular Meeting September 4, 2007 - 7pm • Page 6 Superintendent Sereno stated that staff is asking the Commission for their consideration of the reforestation and it is an individual property owner and has attained 60% of the residents although there is a caveat because Mr. Matoon turned his paperwork in late; although he did complete his due diligence in trying to contact property owners because some of those houses are rentals and so some were out of state or out of the country and did not respond immediately and that is why staff brought it forward regardless of the late entry. Commissioner Ruzicka asked the Commission to look through the pictures and commended staff on their comprehensive report but noted that there is a picture towards the back where the silver jeep is facing the tree and you look behind it and see these matchstick trees on the street and noted his concern of granting these applications and replacing these great trees with matchstick trees and wondered if those trees are the replacement trees for that block. Superintendent Sereno stated yes. Commissioner Lugar stated that in the application the homeowner letter to his neighbor's states that by removing the tree it will protect their cars and questioned if all these people have garages. He noted that this did not seem to be a very good reason to take a tree out especially when there are garages that the occupants can and should use. Commissioner Ruzicka stated that this is very indicative and noted that he is a pilot and noted that they fight this constantly all over southern California with a bunch of commissions where we • have airports that have been there for 40 years and all of a sudden housing developments pop up and residents noted that gee these airplanes make a lot of noise and want to get rid of them. He went on to say that this is the same story with these trees where these trees have been here since 1975 and then there are homeowners that buy a home two months ago and now they want to remove the tree and stated that he just does not feel good about it. Commissioner Garrett stated that by looking at the photographs that it is obvious that this tree is in the wrong spot kind of like the 500 pound gorilla in your living room. He went on to say that you cannot ignore it and it is so big that it must cause damage. Frankly landscape architects usually plant fast growing trees to add to the ambience in a short amount of time and then later there are problems for people that have to live there and take care of it. He stated that it seemed to be the case here - wrong tree for the location and if you note the berries on the ground you can see just what a mess it causes. He stated that he believes it should come out. Commissioner Ruzicka asked if staff could tell when the smaller trees were planted. Superintendent Sereno stated that he did not know. Chair Brown opened the public discussion Stephen Matoon stated that timing sometimes means everything that this is just really terrible timing for this request. He apologized if any of the information has been misleading and noted that he in fact had written an email to Council Member Gardner where he stated that he has a total of 32 large Cypress trees on this lot and provide a beautiful landscape accompanied by various other trees and that he had noted that after Urban Forester Conway and City staff had • injected the tree with nutrients that they still found a 23% decay and while subjectively a tree with 40% decay is considered a potential hazard. He went on tesay that those small trees in the photos are certainly small and that he would of course like a larger tree such as a 32 inch box Cypress that grow quite large and tall and provide greenery and aesthetic beauty. He stated that the issue is that those small trees were planted about a year or so ago. Mr. Matoon stated that when you look at the photos in the report is that beyond the debris and that he certainly Parks, Beaches fi Recreation Commission Regular Meeting September 4, 2007 - 7pm . Page 7 understands that trees are not removed just because of debris but noted that if you take a look at the sidewalk that was replaced a couple of years ago those roots are cut along that sidewalk and his major concern is that when you take a look at the angle of the tree of where it sits you can clearly see that the tree leans towards the house and with those roots cut and acknowledging a 23% tree rot disease within the tree trunk you are talking about a 17% before it is noted as dysfunctional or a hazard. He noted to the Commission that he is the one that is living in front of the tree and if someone tells you that well you are 17% off from the tree rot necessarily causing a hazard and that he has lived in CdM for a number of years and has seen these larger trees come down in storms. He reiterated that his concern is that he would sweep off the pods and the mess but noted that this tree would never be planted today because of its size and asked that the Commission look at the size of the trunk and that the actual size of the tree takes the entire space between the sidewalk and the curb and that it is actually pushing the curb out. His main point is that when you cut the roots of the side of the tree towards the house it will push the curbing from the other side and your take a took at the angle and size of the tree over the house and noted that it is just too large and that with the amount of rot and the propensity for storm and wind damage that it just might have to be removed when it has already caused a lot of damage versus this opportunity to remove the tree and replace it with the appropriate type of tree for that space. He noted that to Mr. Vandersloot he would replace it with two trees. Jan Vandersloot stated that the requirement for getting 60% signatures from 20 properties when the G -1 states that the applicant must submit the petition with a minimum of 60% of a maximum of 30 signatures and that the attached map displays 31 properties on it not 20 and the signatures are from both the top and the bottom areas and in actuality there should be 60% times 30 or 18 signatures. Secondly these trees are very pretty and that there are several trees in that area and the City in the past has actually fixed the gutters and asked the Commission to review the pictures that he submitted and noted that having the roots cut and you can see that these other trees have had their roots cut in order to accommodate the size of the tree and noted that there are more then a dozen on the street that have had that kind of treatment. Mr. Vandersloot noted that the curb has somewhat bowed out to accommodate the tree and that the point is that the City has a policy of retaining trees and has done yeoman's work in the past to retain trees in that section of CdM and that this tree should not be removed as it would cause a precedent for getting rid of other trees on that street. He went on to say that the City has done work to accommodate the tree and urged the Commission to retain the tree. Commissioner Garrett asked Dr. Vandersloot if he lived in a house below that tree would he have any concern whatsoever with the root pruning and the angle of the tree as it leans. Dr. Vandersloot stated that he has a tree in the back that leans like that but has some rot but otherwise appears healthy but he realizes that is a consideration but assumed that there is a standard for 40% rot as opposed to 23 %. Commissioner Garrett stated that he is sure that this is not an exact science and if the tree fell on your house he was sure that the neighbors would not care if it was 23% or 40% rot. Dr. Vandersloot stated that there are a dozen other trees that have had this kind of treatment and noted that it is the bottom of the root that is hold the tree and not the top. He noted that trees can be removed because of hazards and that this tree does not meet tfiat definition nor the definition for signatures. Commissioner Garrett stated that he is personally just looking at the safety part of having a tree like that in front of a house. Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission Regular Meeting September 4, 2007 - 7pm • Page 8 Commissioner Lugar asked about side root stability versus top root. Superintendent Sereno stated that al( trees in the City have some kind of rot and obviously trees of this age have more. He noted that there is a lot of stability that is created by the upper roots and that is why the G -1 states that they will only root prune one side of the tree and that it must be a year or two later to root prune the other side. Commissioner Lugar asked if staff could say that the tree is unsafe. Director Harmon stated that he did not believe that it is a fair question and went on to say that that staff does their best to test these trees but cannot tell the Commission that these trees won't come down. Commissioner Ruzicka stated that there is an empirical standard that someone has devised of 40% is the threshold and that this one is at 23 %. Commissioner Allen noted her concern about the 31 properties but only 20 were done but noticed on the petition that the first two are two property owners on one property and that there could be more like that but if we are not at 60% then we should not be discussing this. Director Harmon stated that staff does not have that answer but that there could be two owners • for one property but if that is something that the Commission wants staff to come back with that could be done. Mr. Matton stated that he dealt with the addresses that were provided by the City but frankly there are a couple of homes that have been converted to a full lot from a dual to a single but noted that he received no negative responses. Chair Brown closed the public discussion Chair Brown asked if there was a motion. Commissioner Lugar stated that he wanted to take exception from Commissioner Garrett and from Director Harmon noting that he believed his question was fair as far as safety because everyone is arguing safety and who are we as we are looking at our professional staff to give us the appropriate feedback and recommendation. Director Harmon stated that staff is not recommending removal because it is a hazardous situation but if you are asking me if that tree is going to come down in the next 1 -2 years then how could you know. Commissioner Garrett stated that if it was a hazardous situation you would just go to the City Manager and have it removed. Commissioner Lugar stated that this is exactly the argument by the applicant. • ' Motion by Commissioner Lugar to deny the Fequest for reforestation on a City Flowering Gum tree adjacent to 414 Narcissus. Motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Allen, Brown, Lugar, Ruzicka, Trapp Noes: Garrett Parks, Beaches 8 Recreation Commission Regular Meeting September 4, 2007 - 7pm • Page 9 7. Temporary Lights at Bonita Canyon Sports Park. Director Morgan stated that this issue was formatted so that the Commission could make the decision on whether to allow temporary lights at field #5 at BCSP. He stated the public notice was made to over 950 addresses; over and above what is required. Superintendent Levin stated he had received a letter from Tom Anderson from NM Soccer Club and that he did receive one phone call from a resident on the Port streets and that he believes that temporary means that some day they will be permanent. Commissioner Allen stated that she appreciated the public outreach that was done Chair Brown opened the public discussion Tom Anderson, NM Soccer Field Coordinator stated that his soccer club is a non - profit organization and that serves exclusively in the Newport -Mesa area and noted that Club Soccer is usually the next step once children have moved from AYSO. These are fore kids that continue after elementary school years. He stated that there are 25 teams with over 350 children, more then 275 of them are NB residents with 64% girls. He stated that these lights would not be shining into any homes and urged the Commission to approve the request. Pam Brusic stated that she was not thrilled to have the lights but that it is the continued activity of the park and the City negotiated that an agreement was made not to have lights and believes that if temporary lights are granted that they will eventually become permanent. Chris Anderson stated that she lives next door to Ms. Brusic and supports the use of temporary lights. Melissa Leisure stated that she was here for Ms. Meckler and that she urged the Commission to approve the temporary lights. Chair Brown closed the public discussion Commissioner Ruzicka stated that this request is not permanent and that should the lights become an issue that homeowners should call Park Patrol and that the Commission would review this again. Commissioner Allen stated that at any of the other sites where temporary lights have been approved that they must come to the Commission every year for approval and that if something is not working that the Commission can reject the use of lights in the future. Commissioner Garrett stated that this park is far enough away from the residents that he believes that this will not cause any problems but if it should there are ways to handle the situation. Motion by Commissioner Ruzicka to approve the request to place temporary lights at field #5 at Bonita Canyon Sports Park by Newport Mesa Soccer Club. Motion carried by acclamation. 8. Marine 1/1 Monument at Castaways Park. Commissioner Garrett stated that Castaways has been selected for the site of the memorial because it is visible to Coast Highway and that it will have minimal view impact. He stated that the Committee is very excited. Chair Brown opened the public discussion Jan Vandersloot stated that he has been instrumental in the Castaways Park and that he supports the monument being placed at this park. Parks, Beaches Ft Recreation Commission Regular Meeting September 4, 2007 - 7pm • Page 10 Chair Brown closed the public discussion A consensus vote was taken and the Commission believes that Castaways Park is a great location for the 1 /1 Marine Memorial. COMMITTEE REPORTS - Chair Brown asked if anybody was interested in switching Committees Parks - Director Morgan stated that a meeting would be held in October. RSS - Nothing to report. Bud¢et - Nothing to report. AD - Hoc —Youth Sports Liaison - Nothing to report — Community Services Award - Superintendent Levin stated that he will bring some additional information to the commission in November/ December. Other —Santa Ano River Vision Plan- Commissioner Trapp stated the committee has met to refine the mission statement and goals- - 1/ 1 Marine Memorial Committee- Discussed above. — MarinaPark - Commissioner Garrett stated there were some issues with the American Legion and that a meeting had been scheduled for September 26. Laura Curran asked if any design plans were available for the Back Bay View Park. Director Morgan stated that he was unaware of any concept plans that were available at this time •FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS The following are new or ongoing items to be discussed: • Fire pit discussion - safety; regulate what is burned • Possible implementation of Parks a Rec Foundation • G -1 Policy Discussion ADJOURNMENT- 8:55pm r Submitted by: Teri Craig, Admin Assi tant • Parking Signage at Back Bay View Park • Dog Park • Updates on Parks