Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWRITTEN COMMENTS 11-03-15November 3, 2015, PB&R Agenda Comments Comments on Newport Beach Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission agenda submitted by: Jim Mosher ( jimmosher@yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item 5.A. Minutes of the October 6, 2015 meeting. The following minor corrections are suggested: Page 2, Item (6)A, paragraph 1: “Director Pisani introduced the item, noting that it an appeal of a denial of her a request to remove two City Eucalyptus trees at 445 Begonia Avenue.” [without reading the staff recommendation that precedes this, readers may have trouble determining who “her” refers to] Page 3, paragraph 1: “In response to Commissioner Hamilton, Manager Sereno stated that he counted approximately 30 similar trees on both public and private property along 2nd Avenue. He added that the trees on Poppy are a different species of Eucalyptus trees and react less-favorable favorably to pruning that the subject trees on Begonia.” Page 3, paragraph 8: “Discussion followed regarding the power given to the City Manager, specifically regarding the G-1 Policy and City Council. He expressed concerns that trees could be wiped out at the discretion of the City Manager and asked how that could be changed.” [It’s not clear from the context who “He” refers to. I seem to recall it was Commissioner Englebrecht, but it could have been Chair Howald. Ideally the minutes should identify who said this. If that is not possible, the comment should be rephrased in the passive voice.] Page 4, paragraph 1,sentence 2: “The plan is almost complete and will be being presented to residents.” Page 4, paragraph 2: “Director Detweiler commented on the recent OASIS Senior Resource Expo and Taste of Newport OASIS, …” [I don’t know if the Director misspoke, but in the City’s event announcement this was called "A Taste of OASIS" and consisted of offerings from four senior living facilities. “Taste of Newport” (involving local restaurants) was an annual event at Newport Center, originally, as I understand it, started as a fundraiser for the City Arts Commission but later taken over and expanded by the Chamber of Commerce. It has not been held since 2012.] Item 5.B. Parks & Operations Division Activity Report The September report once again indicates the number of trees removed substantially exceeded the number planted. Item 5.D. Tree Donation - Ensign View Park While the $3,000 contribution from Arbor Real Estate was certainly generous, media reports indicate the replacement tree that went towards was slightly damaged during planting and may November 2, 2015, PB&R comments by Jim Mosher Page 2 of 4 itself need replacement. However, Councilman Petros’ oral report at the last City Council meeting made it sound like the new tree will do fine. Was or will there be a second replacement? And what was or will be the City’s total cost for replacing the original failed landmark tree? Item 5.E. Tree Donation - Grant Howald Park 1. It would seem helpful to say what the total amount of a donation like this is, rather than merely saying it “is greater than $1,000.” 2. Since the donor made specific requests regarding the species of tree she wanted to donate, it would also have been helpful to indicate why staff is proposing a different species and if the donor is agreeable to the change. 3. I believe that at the last PB&R meeting Chair Howald asked staff to try to provide some information about the person being honored by commemorative donations like this (for example, Who were they? How are they connected to the donor? Were they a longtime Newport Beach resident? Did they have some other special connection to the place chosen?). I am unable to find any such information in the present report. Item 6.A. Tree Removal Denial - 901 Chestnut Place 1. The “Tree Poster” reproduced as Attachment C on the last page of the staff report suggests the present issue was mis-noticed to the public. The poster says staff is recommending removal of the posted tree. In fact, staff is recommending denial of the removal, that is, retaining the tree. If this is truly what the poster says, then those passing my may make a decision to request (or not request) further information or attend (or not attend) the hearing based on misinformation. 2. Also under the current City Council Policy G-1 it would appear that the Eastbluff Homeowners Community Association should have been notified of the possibility of the tree being removed as a result of the appeal. The staff report does not appear to indicate they were notified. 3. The staff report mentions a lapsed prior (monetary?) claim against the City but does not make clear what new specific removal request triggered the present item. a. Policy G-1 appears to require initiating private removal requests by use of an official “City Tree Removal form.” Was there a written request for removal with the requesters’ explanation in their own words? Or is the form referred to in the policy the same as staff’s “Tree Removal Request” memo provided as Attachment A to the report (from which it appears the complaint is debris in an adjacent pool and patio)? November 2, 2015, PB&R comments by Jim Mosher Page 3 of 4 b. Whether or not there was a written request, it would have been helpful to provide some site photos showing the City tree’s proximity to the Heinfeld’s yard and its alleged impacts on it. Item 6.B. Special Tree Removal - 431 Santa Ana Avenue 1. As with the previous item, it is unclear where the “City Tree Removal form” completed by the requester is. Apparently staff’s “Tree Removal Request” memo provided in Attachment A substitutes for it. That is fine, but as a result the Commission is potentially deprived of seeing the requester’s explanation in their own words (although in this case their letter is included two pages before the site photos). 2. The “Tree Inspection Report” (also part of Attachment A) dated September 8, 2015, seems to be based on slightly outdated tree policies. According to the City Council Policy G-6 adopted the night before there is no longer a single designated street tree for Santa Ana Avenue. 3. Although the reason for the removal of the City tree (that it is blocking access to a garage) seems meritorious, it does not actually appear to fit any of the grounds for removal allowed in the current policies. a. It might have been helpful to indicate the sequence of whether the garage was built knowing access to it was blocked by the City tree. b. Policy G-1 calls for the City to replace the trees removed under this protocol, but that does not seem to be planned in this case per the note on the “Tree Map/Inventory Detail” page. It is not clear how the Council policy can be ignored. c. Policy G-1 also calls for the City to bear the full cost of the removals (and subsequent replacements) initiated in this way, yet in this case the removal seems solely for the benefit of the private requestor and provides little benefit to the public in general (except possibly one less car on the street). It is not clear to me why the public should bear the cost. 4. Finally, this appears to be a rather unusual street in which the private property lines are close to the houses and on which instead of sidewalks, what most would assume are private front yards are actually public right-of-ways (hence the City tree in what seems like a private yard). This makes one wonder how the fence enclosing the public area got approved? November 2, 2015, PB&R comments by Jim Mosher Page 4 of 4 Item 6.C. Special Tree Removal - 1700 Starlight Circle 1. The staff report seems self-contradictory in that it says “If the removal is approved, a replacement tree will be planted at the same location,” yet the aerial photo (second page from the end of Attachment A) is marked showing the location of the tree to be removed and a different location for the replacement tree. a. If relocation is being recommended, the staff report fails to explain why. b. And if the marked location is the proposed location for the replacement tree, does it meet the standard of being “15 feet back of beginning of curb returns at intersections” specified in Section III.2 of Policy G-6? 2. In the Google Maps street level photo of what is apparently the subject tree, the area of what is alleged to be needed curb and sidewalk repairs is not visible. a. Showing those would have been helpful. b. Is it safe to assume the repairs are needed to correct damage caused by the subject tree? 3. This is not the first case to come before the Commission claiming a need to remove trees of this species in this area, either because of damage to streets/curbs/sidewalks or to allow repairs of same. Yet the recommendation is to replace the offending tree with another of the same species. Does staff have a longer term solution? Or is this regarded as a normal reforestation cycle? Item 6.D. Relocation Bench Donation - Buena Vista Blvd & West Edgewater Avenue 1. This staff report also seems to be self-contradictory in that it says “Staff is attempting to contact the donor,” but then goes on to claim the “bench donor(s) have received a copy of this report.” It is hard to understand how the original bench donor could have received notice if staff is uncertain how to contact her. 2. As for the reason for moving the bench, the original donor presumably had some reason for wanting it where it is. Honoring that wish should be weighed against the current applicant’s belief that another location would have a “better view.” 3. Since the current location is on public property separated from the current applicant’s home by a public walkway, it is likewise unclear to me how the presence or absence of a bench on that public property and facing away from his home materially affects the residents’ “privacy.”