Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/6/2000 - Agenda PacketJUNE 6, 2000 PB &R COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Parks, Beaches Et Recreation Commission Tuesday, June 6. 2000 - 7Dm City Council Chambers AGENDA ORDER AND ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES (Enclosed) May 2, 2000 PUBLIC COMMENTS Members of the public are invited to comment on non - agenda items of public interest. Speakers are limited -to three minutes. CONSENT CALENDAR NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar (1 -8) are considered by the Commission to he routine and'witl all be enacted by one motion in the form listed below. The commission members have received detailed staff reports on each of the items recommending approval. There will be no separate discussion of these items prior to the time the commission votes on the motion unless members of the commission, staff, or the public request a specific item to be discussed and /or removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. Members of the public who wish to discuss a Consent Calendar item should come forward to the lectern upon invitation by the Chair, state their name and Consent Calendar item number, and complete the sign -in card provided at the podium. Speakers are limited to three minutes on agenda items. Correspondence 0 Park and Tree Division (Item 2) Report of Park and Tree Division during April and upcoming projects in May. 3. Community Services (Item 3) Report of activities of Recreation It Senior Services during April and upcoming activities in May. 4. MarinaPark Status (Item 4) Copies of current MarinaPark review documents. 5. Bench Donation (Item 5) Accept bench donation from Robert Weiner at Newport Pier. 6. Dog Nuisance Dispensers (Item 6) Accept donation of 5 dog nuisance dispensers from Newport Hills Community Association to be installed at Buffalo Hills Park, Nature Park and green belt adjacent to Manning Tract. 7. Dog Nuisance Dispensers (Item 7) Accept donation of 5 dog nuisance dispensers from Harbor View Community Association to be installed at Buffalo Hills Park. 8. Castaways Park (Item 8) Accept grant proposal. DISCUSSION ITEMS Policy Guidelines for Surf Contests (Item 9) Discussion /Approval of amendment to Council Policy 1 -8 10. Report of Park It Open Space Committee (Verbal Report) Discussion of committee meeting of May 17, 2000 regarding request for park at Harbor Cove. 11. Tree Removal (Item 11) Discussion /decision of request for removal of two Brisbane Box trees by Judy Van Winkle, 915 Aleppo Street. 12. Tree Removal (Item 12) Discussion /decision of request for removal of one Eucalyptus tree by Myrtle Asahino, 1323 Ashford Lane. 13. Tree Removal (Item 13) Discussion /decision of request for removal of one Eucalyptus tree by Patrick Hoag, 501 Poppy Avenue, #B. 14. Tree Removal (Item 14) Discussion/ decision of request for removal of two Ficus Box trees by Jack Reinert,1200 Nottingham Lane. 15. Tree Removal (Item 15) Discussion /decision of request for removal of one Monterey Pine tree by John Bubb, 439 Irvine Avenue. 16. Tree Removal (Item 16) Discussion /decision of request for removal of one Melaleuca tree by Sorrell Wayne, 1364 Hampshire Circle. 17. Tree Removal (Item 17) Discussion /decision of request for removal of one Queen Palm tree by John Morton, 613 Narcissus Avenue. 18. Tree Removal (Item 18) Discussion /decision of request for removal of two Ficus trees by Judy Lockyer, 1100 Essex Lane. 19. Tree Removal (Item 19) Discussion /decision of request for removal of one Eucalyptus tree by David Miller, 536 Santa Ana Avenue. �. Tree Removal (Item 20) Discussion /decision of request for removal of two Brazelian Pepper trees by Bellany Beaumont, 715 Larkspur Avenue. 21. Subcommittee Reports • Budget o Tree • Oasis Liaison o Community Services Award • Beach FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Matters which Commissioners may wish to place on a future agenda or raise for discussion. ADJOURNMENT 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission Regular Meeting May 2, 2000— 7pm CONVENED AT 7:05pm ROLL CALL Present: Allen, Beek, Franklin, Macfarland, Pfaff, Skoro, Tobin Staff Present: LaDonna Kienitz, Community Services Director /City Librarian Marcelino Lomeli, Park Et Tree Superintendent Andrea McGuire, Senior Recreation Manager Teri Craig, Admin Assistant Chair Beek introduced new Commissioner Debra Allen and asked her to give a brief history. Commissioner Allen stated that she had been a City resident for 16 years and an attorney for 15. In the 1970's had served on the Planning Commission and is a Harbor View Hills resident. She also had her own florist business in Newport Beach for a few years. APPROVAL OF MINUTES . Motion by Commissioner Pfaff to approve the regular minutes of April 4, 2000. Motion carried by acclamation. PUBLIC COMMENTS None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Correspondence - None received 2. Item removed at the request of Commissioner Macfarland 3. Item removed at the request of Director Kienitz. 4. Item removed at the request of a member of the public 5. Bench Donation - Accept bench donation from Mr. Et Mrs. James Wright at West Jetty View Park. 6. Item removed at the request of Chair Beek 7. Trash Receptacle Donation - Accept donation of three trash receptacles from Fred Crook at Gateway Parks. Motion by Commissioner Skoro to accept items 1, 5 Et 7 of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried by acclamation. 3 0 Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission Regular Meeting May 2, 2000 Page 2 2. Park Et Tree Division - Commissioner Macfarland asked staff for an update on the infestation of lerps on Holiday Road. Superintendent Lomeli stated that on May 22, staff will begin a mico- injection treatment on the infested Red Gum trees, beginning on Holiday Road, which according to the flyer attached to the report has a 90% success rate. He stated that he would keep the Commission updated. Jan Vandersloot, 2221 E. 16th Street, stated that he had walked the site behind the library with City Manager Bludau and had offered interested volunteers to keep the site clear and avoid weed abatement. He also commended the Parks Division for looking into treatments for the lerp infested trees instead of just removing them. 3. Community Services - Manager McGuire stated that the approval of the contract for the Bonita Canyon Sports Park is on the agenda at the May 9, 2000 City Council meeting. Construction is almost ready to begin on Arroyo Park rending completion of the plan check for the restroom facility. Manager McGuire introduced new Recreation Manager Darin Loughrey to the Commission who comes from the City of Tustin. The Commission welcomed him. Commissioner Franklin asked about the bid opening on Bonita Canyon Sports Park. Director Kienitz stated that two of the bids had come in about $5.9 M. The staff report from the Public Works Department regarding the awarding of the contract will be forwarded to the Commissioners when it is received later this week. 4. Request for Park behind Harbor Cove - Cort Ensign, 1428 Newporter Way, stated that he and his neighbors had a vision to a park for the children and families to congregate in Service Area 9. The space is on a point with a spectacular view and it would have the capability for 50 parking spaces without any obtrusion. Mr. Ensign asked that this item be forwarded to the Park it Open Space Committee for consideration. Chair Beek opened the public hearing Steve Levenson, 1433 Newporter Way, President of Harbor Cove, also urged that the the Commission forward the request to the Park Et Open Space Committee. He noted that there is not an area for the children to play. Brian Glabman, 1434 Newporter Way, also expressed his support. Jan Vandersloot, 2221 E. 16th Street, asked that he be notified of any meetings pertaining to this subject. Chair Beek closed the public hearing Chair Beek asked staff to set up a meeting of the Park fx Open Space Committee and that all interested parties be notified. 0 Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission Regular Meeting May 2, 2000 Page 3 6. Doe Nuisance Dispensers - Chair Beek stated that she was aware of the donation and asked staff prepare a letter from her thanking the Castaways Homeowners Association for the donation. Motion by Commissioner Skoro to accept items 2, 3, 4 and 6 of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried by acclamation. DISCUSSION ITEMS 9. Temporary Installation of Netting at Lincoln Athletic Center - Manager McGuire discussed the past history of balls damaging cars at the Bayport Apartment complex. She stated that Little League has agreed to assume responsibility for one -half of the cost ($1,000) and for the installing, removing and storing of the netting each year and for subsequent repair. Manager McGuire stated that this will not solve all the problems. Chair Beek opened the Public Hearing. Hearing no comments, the Public Hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Franklin to approve the temporary installation of netting at the Lincoln Athletic Center. Motion carried by acclamation. 10. Continuation of Co- Sponsorship of National Junior Basketball - Manager McGuire stated that through no fault of the National Junior Basketball, application for co- sponsorship and /or approval has not been done in approximately three years. She stated that all paperwork has been received. Discussion ensued regarding past problems and follow - up. Motion by Commissioner Skoro to reinstate co- sponsorship of the National Junior Basketball. Motion carried by acclamation. 11. Spyglass Hill Park - Manager McGuire stated that with the playground equipment for Spyglass Hill Park is scheduled for replacement in FY 2000/01. She stated that modifications would also be needed within the playground area. She noted that an onsite meeting was held and no neighbors attended, although two phone calls were received, callers were satisfied with the information supplied. Commissioner Franklin asked that a sign be installed informing residents of the changes and timeframe. Chair Beek opened the Public Hearing. Hearne no comments, the Public Hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Pfaff to driect staff to proceed with the planned modifications of playground and equipment replacement of the Spyglass Hill Park. 8. Presentation by Dave Kiff, Deputy City Manager - Kiff updated the Commission on that status of the annexation of Newport Coast, Santa Ana Heights and Bay Knolls. He stated 1 Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission Regular Meeting May 2, 2000 Page 4 that the City plans to file the application at the end of June, schedule public hearings for July and August and hope to finish the annexation process by January 2001. Discussion ensued regarding IRWD monies, possibility of additional parks. Chair Beek thanked Mr. Kiff for his time. 12. Tree Removal - Superintendent Lomeli stated that Pat Schwary has requested the removal of two Ficus trees at 107 Island Avenue. He stated that request does not meet the criteria for removal and that staff confirms that trees are healthy and disease free. Chair Beek opened the public hearin¢ Pat Schwary, 107 Island Avenue, stated that these two trees have a thrip insect, common for the Ficus trees. She stated that they have had these trees trimmed several times at their own expense. Superintendent Lomeli stated that thrip will not kill the trees. He also stated that the trees would be trimmed, root pruned as necessary and injected with a pesticide to kill the thrip. 10 Discussion ensued regarding the possibility of requesting a reforestation versus a tree removal request. Jan Vandersloot, 2221 E. 16`" Street, SPON, urged the Commission to uphold the staffs recommendation. He stated that the thrip disease is curable. He also reminded the Commission that you cannot just ask for a reforestation for any reason, it must have a specific reason, and Ms. Schwary's request does not meet the guidelines for reforestation. Alden Kelly, SPON Arborist, stated that thrip is an insect, not a disease, and can usually be cured by injection. Chair Beek closed the public hearing Commissioner Macfarland asked the Chair that if items 12 - 21 on the agenda do not even meet the criteria for removal, why have they been forwarded to the Commission, and is there a need to even discuss them? Chair Beek stated that on future agendas requests for removal would not come to the Commission if they do not meet the specific guidelines and criteria. Superintendent Lomeli stated that during the review of the new G -1 Policy, many requests for removal were received and postponed until the completion of the new policy. The backlog would include requests going before the Commission in June and July. He stated that the Policy does not include for staff to make the decision to remove 0 0 Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission Regular Meeting May 2, 2000 Page 5 or retain a tree, it must be the Commission. He suggested that the Tree SubCommittee and staff meet to discuss methods to clarify the process of Commission review. Commissioner Pfaff stated that they should only come to the Commission as an appeal of the staffs decision. Superintendent Lomeli stated that the policy has no provision for appeal and that requests will be decided by the Commission. Motion by Commissioner Franklin to deny the request for the removal of two Ficus trees by Patricia Schwary at 107 Island Avenue. Motion carried by acclamation. 13. Tree Removal - Superintendent Lomeli stated that Tim Daum has requested the removal of one Eucalyptus tree at 1909 Commodore Road. He stated that this particular tree was an excellent candidate for the micro injection which will be done the week of May 22. The tree is declining in health but we should wait and see if this process will work. Commission Pfaff asked staff for a schedule of trees that are on this list and that it be updated monthly on their status. Commissioner Allen asked what the procedure was for homeowners that had requested removal because of diseased trees but were denied because staff would be trying other options. Would they need to request removal again. Superintendent Lomeli stated that after these procedures were done and it was deemed that they were not working that they could be reviewed again by the Commission. Chair Beek opened the Public Hearing Hearing no comments the Public Hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Skoro to deny the request for the removal of one Eucalyptus tree by Tim Daum at 1909 Commodore Road. Motion carried by acclamation. 14. Tree Removal - Superintendent Lomeli stated that Ralph Warrington has requested the removal of one Ficus trees at 2830 Bayview Drive. He stated that request did not include any documentation regarding repair bills and that it was uncertain whether the crack discussed in the request was actually on the retaining wall. Chair Beek opened the public hearing Ralph Warringron, 2830 Bayview drive stated that in a nutshell the tree is just in the wrong place in regards to the house and that it has an aggressive root system. Mr. Warrington distributed pictures of the tree and his last sewer bill. He stated that the tree was 8 feet from the house. He stated that when the plumber was last called out 0 that the snake actually went 90 feet, and that the City took care of the last invoice. 7 Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission Regular Meeting May 2, 2000 Page 6 Chair Beek stated that the G -1 Policy specifically states that there must be two occurrences within 18 months. At this time request does not have supporting documentation. Commissioner Allen asked if application were to provide documentation from the plumber of imminent danger, could that be cause for removal. Superintendent Lomeli stated that the policy stipulates two occurrences in 18 months. Alden Kelly, SPON Arborist, asked if there were holes in the pipes as roots will only go there if there is a break. Jan Vandersloot, 2221 E. 16`" Street, urged Commission to uphold staff recommendation. And that if documentation were to be received regarding imminent danger it would need to be corroborating independent documentation. Chair Beek closed the public hearing Commissioner Franklin asked staff to go to the house and look at the roots and the retaining wall. Motion by Commissioner Tobin to deny the request for the removal of one Ficus tree by Ralph Warrington at 2830 Bayview Drive. Motion carried by acclamation. 15. Tree Removal - Superintendent Lomeli stated that William Gulley has requested the removal of one Camphor and two Brisbane trees at 63 Cambria Drive. He stated that requestor has asked that request be pulled from the agenda under the recommendation of their attorney. 16. Tree Removal - Superintendent Lomeli stated that Nancy Bradley has requested the removal of one Ficus tree at 1124 Pembroke Lane. He stated that request does not meet the criteria for removal and that staff has not received any supporting documentation. Chair Beek opened the public hearing Nancy Bradley provided a copy of an invoice dated July 17, 1999, for $1134 for main line stoppage. She stated that there is a severe liability and safety issue here. Many of her elderly neighbors have tripped because of the roots. Discussion ensued regarding the possible continuation of a red curb in front of the tree. • Ms. Bradley stated that the request for removal was basically because of the liability issue, damage can be dealt with. She did provide a sewer bill for one incident. I Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission Regular Meeting May 2, 2000 Page 7 Jan Vandersloot, 2221 E. 16`" Street, stated that he did not go by and look at the tree but that the Commission should abide by the G -1 Policy. Chair Beek closed the public hearing Motion by Commissioner Franklin to deny the request for the removal of one Ficus tree by Nancy Bradly at 1124 Pembroke Lane. Motion carried by acclamation. Motion by Commissioner Tobin to deny the request for the removal of one Ficus tree by Ralph Warrington at 2830 Bayview Drive. Motion carried by acclamation. 17. Tree Removal - Superintendent Lomeli stated that Dave Blackman has requested the removal of one Ficus tree at 1927 Mariners Drive. He stated that staff can confirm the repairs by the Utilities Division on February 12, 2000 and that the Risk Manager has paid claims for $300 and $2,000 for damages. The Risk Manager substantiates that homeowner does meet the criteria for removal. Chair Beek opened the public hearin Dr. Melinda Blackman, 1927 Mariners Drive, stated that despite preventative measures by the City, that this Ficus tree has caused numerous backups in their house. She stated that root guards have been installed but have not solved the problem. She commended Jeff Sankey and his crew for their fast response and clean up. She stated that these backups cause hazards to her house and her family. She urged that the Commission approve the removal of the tree. Commissioner Allen asked staff if they were confident that by removing the tree it would solve the problem. Superintendent Lomeli stated that there are no other trees in the proximity. If approved the tree would be replaced with a Jacaranda. Discussion ensued regarding surviving roots, and if the tree can be salvaged. Superintendent Lomeli stated that with its root base it would need to be moved 12 feet away, it is not possible. Alden Kelly, SPON Arborist, stated that the only plausible reason to remove a tree is crushing of pipes. This tree is clearly doing that and recommends removal. Jan Vandersloot, 2221 E. 16`" Street, reminded staff and the Commission that the Street Tree Redesignation List has not been approved yet, and that the replacement tree is probably not the Jacaranda. He also stated that he disagreed with Mr. Kelly and that the tree should not be removed. Chair Beek closed the public hearing Motion by Commissioner Pfaff to approve the request for the removal of one Ficus tree by Dave Blackman at 1927 Mariners Drive. Motion carried by acclamation. Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission Regular Meeting May 2, 2000 Page 8 18. Tree Removal - Superintendent Lomeli stated that Charles Nance has requested the removal of two Liquidamber trees at 1000 Somerset Lane. He stated that request does not meet the criteria for removal and that no supporting documentation has been received. Chair Beek opened the public hearine Charles Nance, 1000 Somerset Lane distributed diagrams and stated that he has always maintained his property and any problems that have occurred because of the this tree has been taken care of. He stated that a car accident several years ago had caused this tree to weaken. Mr. Nance also stated that City crews had come out and removed the upper third of the tree. He distributed a letter from Ed Black, Arborist of Ellers Tree Service stating that the tree is in distress and should be removed. Mr. Nance stated that he should have been notified when staff was going to come by and inspect the tree he could have added addition information that would have been helpful. Superintendent Lomeli stated that he ask for an onsite meeting with staff. Commissioner Macfarland stated that it would probably be better that in the future that a plumber be called so that there is appropriate documentation. Jan Vandersloot, 2221 E. 16`" Street, SPON, stated that he likes the Liquiamber trees especially the colors. Recommends denial of the request. Debra Nance, 1000 Somerset Lane, stated that these Liquidamber trees do not change colors, it is an eyesore and that it drops round pods on the ground and that it could cause a slip and slide hazard. She also noted that the sidewalk has been repaired in the past. She also noted that Mr. Conway had marked the tree for removal back in December but nothing had come of it. Alden Kelly, SPON Arborist, stated that this is a borderline decision, the impact of the crash has caused failure in the amount of mineral getting to the tree. He stated that euthanasia might be kindest thing to do for this tree. He recommended that the soil be analyzed. Chair Beek closed the public hearine. Commissioner Skoro asked staff how dead or alive should it be before it meets the criteria of removal. • Superintendent Lomeli recommended that staff take soil samples, augment the nutrients of the tree, recovery should happen by the end of the summer. He recommended that the tree be reevaluated in 6 -12 months. /v Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission Regular Meeting May 2, 2000 Page 9 Motion by Commissioner Pfaff to deny the request for the removal of two Liquidamber trees by Charles Nance at 1000 Somerset Lane, but that staff move forward with their recommendation. Motion carried by acclamation. 19. Tree Removal - Superintendent Lomeli stated that Andrew Schultz has requested the removal of one Eucalyptus tree at 1317 Ashford Lane. He stated that Mr. Schultz has asked that item be pulled for further discussion with staff. 20. Tree Removal - Superintendent Lomeli stated that John Murdock has requested the removal of one Eucalyptus tree at 2100 Windward Lane. He stated that request does not meet the criteria for removal and that sewer damage was not confirmed. Chair Beek opened the public hearing. Mr. Murdock asked that action be deferred until he can discuss options with staff. Chair Beek closed the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Skoro to defer action on the request for the removal of one Eucalyptus tree by John Murdock at 2100 Windward Lane. Motion carried by acclamation. 21. Tree Removal - Superintendent Lomeli stated that Jan Nguyen has requested the removal of one Eucalyptus tree at 2627 Alta Vista Drive. He stated that request does not meet the criteria for removal and that further monitoring of the tree is needed. He stated that the tree is a good candidate for recovery. Chair Beek opened the public hearing. Jan Vandersloot, 2221 E. 16`h Street SPON, stated that he appreciates staff approach and that this should be encouraged. Alden Kelly, SPON Arborist, stated that if tree does not respond that mercy killing should be used. Chair Beek closed the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Franklin to deny request for the removal of one Eucalyptus tree by Jan Nguyen at 2627 Alta Vista Drive. Motion carried by acclamation. Commissioner Franklin asked that staff to provide tree appraisal reports as in the past on how the costs of the tree are assessed. 22. Subcommittee Reports • Budget — Nothing to report Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission Regular Meeting May 2, 2000 Page 10 • OASIS Liaison — Nothing to report. • Beach — Nothing to report • Community Services Award — Nothing to report. • Park ft Open Space — Next meeting will be May 17, 4pm. • Tree — Chair Beek stated that a meeting needs to be convened to discuss the current forms and the G -1 policy. Staff will contact committee members with the date. Chair Beek asked staff to provide each month a table showing removals, reforestations, emergency removals. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Irvine Terrace Park - Encroachment Permit ADJOURNMENT - 9:50pm Submitted by: • Teri Craig, Admin Assistant 1 y 0 r1 U Q �gW ART � r b u y� i a P <�[oaN� Gee t ar. ViRPA Re PB &R Commission Agenda Item No. OS' June 6, 2000 SUBJECT: Parks and Trees Divisions Activities Report Park Division Activities 1. Staff continued coordinating construction projects regarding Bonita Canyon Sports Park, Grant Howald Park Ballfield Renovation Project, Seashore Street End Improvement Project, Eastbluff Park Reclaim Water Project, and the Irvine Avenue Median Improvement Project with the Public Works Department. The renovation of Grant Howald Ballfield started in late April with completion of the project scheduled by September. 2. Staff completed irrigation renovation and plant replacements at various sites. 3. The Bonita Canyon Sports Park contract has been awarded with a tentative construction start date in June. 4. The Irvine Company has contracted for the construction of Arroyo Park and has tentatively scheduled construction to begin in June. 5. Staff completed coordinating with the Public Works Department and the Corona del Mar Business Improvement District (BID) for improvements to the East Coast Highway medians between MacArthur Boulevard and Iris Avenue. The work included the removal of asphalt replaced with stamped concrete along with landscape improvements on the median across from the Port Theatre. The work was performed by contract and funded by BID. 6. The three donated trash receptacles approved by the Commission at the May 2, 2000 meeting donated were installed at the Gateway Parks. 7. One approved bench donation was installed at West Jetty View Park. 8. The deteriorated turfgrass at Newport Island Park was replaced in May. The project included removal of the existing lawn, soil amending and preparation and the installation C:RVRaDOW S \DeskropNTjune2000 .doc 13 of 4,0000 square feet of new sod. The sod was donated by two residents of Newport Island and was installed by Park Division staff. Attached are some photos of the work. Upcoming Activities for June 1. The planting of replacement shrubs and ground covers will continue Citywide. 2. Staff will continue to monitor the Fletcher Jones and Arches Mitigation Sites in the Big Canyon area. 3. Staff will continue coordinating the annual control of rodents by contract services. 4. Staff will perform irrigation and turf renovations at various City facilities. Tree Division Activities During the month of May, 736 trees were trimmed, 7 trees were removed at 2401 Clay Street per City Manager approval, and 4 emergency calls were responded to regarding trees. The Urban Forester received 53 tree maintenance requests. . 1. The City tree - trimming contractor, West Coast Arborists, completed work within the Westcliff, Lido Isle, and Balboa Island areas. Work also continues within the Newport Heights area and trimming will be completed by July 1. Thereafter, the Balboa Peninsula area is scheduled for trimming with expected completion late this fall. Additionally, beginning in July, Fashion Island, and Cameo Shores areas will be trimmed. 2. The annual Arbor Day event coordinated with the Community Services Department was held on May 24, 2000 at Buffalo Hills Park with third and four grade classes participating from Anderson Elementary School. The event included students participating in tree planting, student presentations, and the presentation of the Arbor Day Flag and Tree City USA Award by a State Department of Forestry and Fire Protection representative to the City. Additionally each student received a tree seedling donated by West Coast Arborists, the City tree trimming contractor. 3. The first phase of the Bayside Drive Beautification Project began on May 22 with the completion scheduled within the month of June. Phase I of the project includes a decorative wall with planters, irrigation, landscaping with colorful shrubs, two specimen palm trees and several Golden Medallion (Cassia leptophylla) trees. The second phase of the Bayside Drive Beautification Project was completed with the parkway street tree planting of 28, (24" boxed trees) Gold Medallion Trees on the northside of Bayside Drive between El Pasco Drive and Jamboree Road. The trees will be watered with a water truck until an irrigation system is installed if future funding is approved. IL[ Q\W INDO W S \Desktop\PTjun0000 .doc . 4. The Urban Forester coordinated the Citywide Sidewalk Replacement Program with the General Services Department Concrete Supervisor and the Public Works Inspector. This involved the Urban Forester inspecting City street trees as related to sidewalk repairs. 0 5. The injection of 200 Eucalyptus street trees with pesticides began on Wednesday, May 24, 2000 to control the lerps infestation. This work included the Eucalyptus trees on Holiday Road. Staff will monitor the effectiveness of the pesticide treatment and keep the Commission informed. 6. The attached Tree Activity Report shows in detail what has transpired relative to tree removal and/or reforestation requests for the month. This new reporting format will be updated and submitted to the Commission on a monthly basis. 7. The City Council at the May 23, 2000 meeting unanimously approved the New Street Tree Redesignation List. The new list culminated several hundred hours of work by Commission and staff that was appreciated by the City Council. resp tfully, omeli Park and Trees Maintenance Superintendent Attachments: Newport Island Park Photographs Tree Activity Report 2000 C: \WINDOWS \Desktop \PTjune2000 .doe E April May 0 Tree Activity Report 2000 Reforestation Reforestation Removal Removals Requests Approvals Requests Approved Trees Emergency Other Planted Removals Removals (Item 3) t June 6, 2000 • COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT 0 Arts 8 Cultural - Library - Recreation - Seniors To: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission From: LaDonna Kienitz, Community Services Director /City Librarian Re: Recreation and Senior Services Division Monthly Activities Report Reports on the activities of the Recreation and Senior Services Divisions for the past month are enclosed. Both divisions have undertaken a full range of public activities and services, as well as remodeling and refurbishment projects. Monthly Activities Report Page 2 . COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Arts ft Cultural - Library - Recreation - Seniors To: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission From: Andrea McGuire, Senior Recreation Manager Re: Recreation Division Monthly Activities Report (Item 3) June 6, 2000 YOUTH PROGRAMS -The City of Newport Beach sent 90 boys and girls to compete in the Orange County Track and Field Championships on May 13. Each child qualified for the county meet by finishing in first through fourth place at the Newport Beach City Track and Field Meet, conducted by department staff on April 14 at Newport Harbor High School. ADULT SPORTS - The Community Services Department's adult softball leagues started their summer season on May 19. A total of 133 teams are participating at seven different Locations throughout the City including Lincoln Field 2, Eastbluff, Bonita Creek Fields 1 ft 2, Bob Henry Park, San Miguel Park and Corona del Mar High School Fields 1 ft 2. AQUATICS Water Polo - May is the height of the season for Newport Beach Aquatics Club and Jr. Water Polo. During May, the Swim and Jr. Water Polo teams registered 39 and 32 participants respectively. Practice time has been extended to 6:30pm Monday through Thursday to accommodate all of the Jr. Water Polo players. Swim - Adult lap swim logged in 987 participants in May. Olympic Men's Team - The US Olympic men's team requested increased practice time to prepare for the 2000 Olympic Games in September. The team is practicing three nights a week through the end of June. The U.S. Cup that was previously scheduled for June 28 -July 2 at Marian Bergeson Aquatics Center was moved to Los Alamitos. CLASSES /INSTRUCTION Spring Session - The current session of classes ends June 10. Final figures will be available at end of June, however, to date program enrollment is 2071. Summer Session - Class registration for summer session began May 2; classes begin June 19. At this date, summer enrollment is 1,557 with revenues totaling $122,600. Time slots for popular classes such as surfing, tennis, golf, swimming, sailing, and pre- school sports development are already filled. Monthly Activities Report Page 3 (Item 3) June 6, 2000 Contract Classes - New contracts for FY 2000/01 were mailed to 67 independent contract class instructors. Each contractor also received a Guidelines and Procedures Manual explaining the services provided by the Community Services Department and their role and responsibilities. SPECIAL EVENTS Youth Government Day - Youth Government Day was held at Newport Beach City Hall on May 24; 65 students participated from Corona Del Mar and Newport Harbor High Schools. During the event, each student spent several hours working directly with a department head or manager. The students concluded the day by conducting a mock City Council meeting, in which the students held roles of council members, city staff and public. Corona del Mar Scenic 5K - The Community Services Department and the Corona Del Mar Chamber of Commerce will host the 19`h Annual Corona Del Mar Scenic 5K event on Saturday, June 3. Approximately 3000 individuals are expected to participate in the day's festivities, which include running and walking events, live music and a sampling of foods from 20 Newport's restaurants. Tennis Festival - Community Services tennis staff, Recreation Management Services and Devin's Pro Shop held a Tennis Festival on May 6 at San Joaquin Hills Tennis Courts. The event featured four 30- minute clinics and demonstrations of the latest racquets. There were 38 participants. Arbor Day - Recreation Division, and the Parks Division of General Services and Andersen Elementary School celebrated Arbor Day at Buffalo Hills Park on Tuesday, May 24. Presentors included Council Member Thomson, Chair Pat Beek and Thom Porter, California Urban Et Community Forester. Five trees were planted as a part of this celebration. Approximately 80 students attended and each received a seedling tree to plant at home with their parents. FACILITIES. REPAIRS Et REFURBISHMENT Newport Theatre Arts Center - Facility improvements completed this month include the replacement of the damaged patio beams, exterior and interior painting, new trash receptacles and removal of debris. Lincoln Athletic Center - The additional netting along the fenceline has been installed in an effort to defray foul balls from entering the Bayport Apartments parking lot. Marian Bergeson Aquatic Center - The installation of replacement cabinets, shelving and • carpet will be completed by the middle of June. Las Arenas Park - Tennis courts resurfacing has been completed. Monthly Activities Report (Item 3) June 6, 2000 Page 4 Storage Racks - This past month the California Coastal Commission approved the City's application for the construction of a two -tier storage rack on the sand at 1780 Balboa Boulevard West. Construction has begun and will be completed by month's end. The rack will be used for the storage of the City's 14 sabots. The summer sailing program, which begins June 19, annually reaches over 400 participants, primarily youth. NEW STAFF - Recreation Division welcomed two part -time staff members, Kathleen Ensley and Jaleah Duarte in May. Both will be a vital part of the customer service team, processing registrations, facility rentals and answering telephones. PARK DEVELOPMENT Arroyo Park - Stilt in plan check. Bonita Canyon Sports Park - The bid was awarded to Castella Construction of San Diego and work is scheduled to begin June 12. Grant Howald Park - Renovation of the park is moving quickly and should be finished by the second week in June. Peninsula Park - Playground equipment has been ordered; installation is anticipated in Is approximately six weeks. 0 West Newport Park - The funds for this project were deferred to FY 2000/01 budget to permit both playgrounds to be replaced at the same time and reduce installation costs. 2-3 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Arts @ Cultural - Library - Recreation - Seniors To: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission From: Celeste Jardine -Haug, Senior Services Manager Re: Seniors Division Monthly Activities Report Jazz Concert at OASIS - The OASIS Center presented the Crazy Rhythm Hot Society Jazz Band on Sunday, May 7. This band, one on the most sought after for their presentation of old favorites of the twenties and thirties, was brought back by popular demand. The Friends of OASIS Schonek Fund sponsor this concert, providing the low ticket price of three dollars. Computer Friends Meeting - Jenny Ellsworth, MIS Technical Support Specialist, City MIS Division, spoke How to Organize Your Hard Drive at the monthly Computer Friends meeting on May 10. This will be the third time this group has had the pleasure of learning from Jenny. The Computer Friends Group continues to be an extremely active group with 150 to 200 people at their meetings on the second Wednesday of each month. OASIS Memorial Gifts - The Friends of OASIS Memorial Committee spent approximately $6,500 from memorial gifts on beautifying the Center in recent months. The Memorial Fund includes gifts in honor of OASIS members who are no longer living. The recent projects include painting of patio furniture, replanting patio planters and gazebo beds, installing shade screening on the new patio structure, carpeting the library room, planting 4 Carrotwood trees at the front entrance, remodeling the horseshoe pits, and providing 3 teak benches for the community garden area. The Center is greatly benefited by these gifts. Older Americans Month Celebration - OASIS celebrated Older Americans Month on May 20, with a 2 -mile walk through Corona del Mar. The event, part of a statewide walk called Step Out for Senior Centers, in which seniors throughout the state, walk to increase the awareness of senior centers and promote a positive image of aging. Upon return to the Center, the OASIS participants enjoyed a BBQ lunch and the sounds of the Coyote Hills Jazz Band. The walkers received a t -shirt and a goodie bag. CIP Proiects - As the FY 1999/00 year comes to a close, staff is completing the last of the CIP projects at OASIS. Badly needed carpeting is currently being installed in the classrooms and the Multipurpose Room. The outside of the building is receiving a fresh coat of paint on the walls and trim. By the end of June, the building should be in good shape. Board of Directors Elections to be held at OASIS - The Friends of OASIS will hold elections for 7 positions on the Board of Directors at their meeting on Friday, June 2. The Board of Directors is responsible for overseeing the management of the non - profit Friends of OASIS, Inc., which substantially contributes to the Center and the total senior service program. Monthly Activities Report (Item 3) June 6, 2000 Page 6 OASIS SENIOR CENTER PARTICIPANTS ATTENDING 34 7,023 CUSTOMERS RECREATIONAL CLASSES CENTER 2,671 CUSTOMERS PERSONALIZED SERVICES PROVIDED Kitchen & Home Delivered Meals 1,846 CUSTOMERS Includes: Gift Shop Library Another Passage 1 Treasurer Blood Pressure 60 Housing counseling 134 Braille 30 Information /Referral 1,165 Counseling 81 Legal Assistance 13 Eldercare 2 Senior Assessment(hrs) 45 Employment 26 Telephone Reassurance 275 HICAP 6 Visual Screening 8 SENIORS RECEIVING TRANSPORTATION SERVICES Care -A -Van 578 Shuttle 322 CUSTOMERS RECEIVING NOON MEALS AT THE CENTER 34 Flower Fields, VOLUNTEER HRS. OF SERVICES PROVIDED AT THE CENTER Includes: Kitchen & Home Delivered Meals Front Office Travel Office Gift Shop Library Instructors Pres/VP Treasurer Pancake Breakfast Taxes PARTICIPANTS IN FRIENDS OF OASIS TRAVEL PROGRAMS Day Trips Japanese Tease 34 Flower Fields, 25 Carlsbad Show me the money 30 San Luis Rey 22 ATTENDEES TO MEETINGS AT OASIS Board of Directors 16 General Membership 50 900 CUSTOMERS 1,126 CUSTOMERS 1,725.00 HOURS (•equiv. to 11 full -time employees) 155 CUSTOMERS Long Trips Laughlin /Harrahs 44 66 PERSONS SPECIAL EVENTS Pancake Breakfast 167 259 PERSONS Osteoporosis Lecture 40 Taxes 52 �S (Item 4) June 6, 2000 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Arts 8 Guttural - Library - Recreation - Seniors To: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission From: LaDonna Kienitz, Community Services Director /City Librarian Re: Marinapark Proposals Update In February, the City Council received several proposals for the use of the Marinapark property on Balboa Peninsula. At the May 9, 2000, City Council meeting staff presented a report on the proposals received. To keep the Commission apprised of Council activities on this area, the following documents are provided: • Staff report to City Council, May 9, 2000 • Minutes of the May 9, 2000, City Council meeting, for that part of the meeting which contained the MarinaPark discussion. 0 0 ?E rP�Rr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3300 NE1%'PORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659 (714) 644 -3200; FAX (714) 644 -3250 Hearing Date: Agenda Item No.: Staff Person: REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL May 9, 2000 19 Sharon Z. Wood (949) 644 -3222 SUBJECT: Economic Analysis of Proposals for Future Use /Development of A'Iarinapark SUGGESTED ACTIONS: 1. Continue to consider proposals, and request additional information from: a. Terra Vista Management b. American Legion c. Ayres Group d. Sutherland Talla Hospitality 2. Provide direction to these proponents on the following issues: 10 a. Retention of public and quasi - public uses on site b. Goals for marina c. Alinimum ground lease d. Land use entitlements On March 14, 2000, the City Council reviewed a summary of the eight proposals in response to the Request for Proposals (RFP) for Marinapark, and gave staff direction on review of the proposals. This report provides the economic analysis of the proposals, as well as their estimated traffic impacts and the land use entitlements that would be required. The relocation impact report has been started, and is expected to be complete by Economic Analvsis Staff retained the fine of GRC Associates, Inc. to perform the economic analysis. This firm has extensive experience in reviewing development proposals for redevelopment agencies, and is very familiar with the development potential of property, development costs, proformas, and financing. The report from GRC is attached and Stephen Copenhaver, who prepared it, will be at the•meeting to answer questions from the Council. Staff is providing this report to all the parties who responded to the RFP. GRC contacted or attempted to contact those proponents from whom additional proposal infonnation was needed for analysis. Even with this effort, GRC found that three of the i, proposals do not satisfy all the RFP requirements, and was unable to analyze them further. The PB &R Commission's proposal is in this category because it does not have economic impacts for the City. However, staff recommends that the City still consider this proposal, as the Commission's intent is to retain the City's recreational facilities along with other use of the remainder of the site. a7 GRC placed the remaining proposals into two categories for further analysis: those that accommodate existing uses, and those that propose to redevelop the site. The analysis concludes that a combination of the two proposals to accommodate existing uses, Terra Vista Management (mobile home park) and the American Legion, could significantly increase City revenue with very low risk to the City. The redevelopment proposals could generate higher revenue, but with greater risk. GRC believes the Ayres Group and Sutherland Talla Hospitality proposals have a reasonable level of risk associated with their revenue potential, and should be considered further by the City, along with the existing use proposals. For the City's further consideration -of this shortlist of proposals, GRC is recommending that the City request more detailed proposals, to include more evidence of market support for the proposed uses, specific lease terns, more accurate site plans, more detailed budgets, financing plans, equity investment and lease guarantees. GRC also is suggesting that the City provide additional direction to the proponents for the next phase of consideration. The areas in which additional City guidance would assist in the preparation of more detailed proposals are the need to retain the public and quasi - public uses on site, the City's goals for a visitors' marina and marina facilities, establishment of a minimum ground lease payment, and resolution of the land use questions associated with the tidelands boundary. Traffic Impacts Public Works staff has done a preliminary analysis of the traffic impacts that would result from each of the proposals, which is included as Attachment 2 to this report. The net number of average daily trips ranges from a reduction of 286 with the PB &R Commission proposal and no new uses, to an increase of 7,031 with the Bendetti proposal. For all of the proposals, the majority of trips would occur outside of the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Citv Land Use Entitlements Planning staff reviewed the proposals to determine their requirements for City land use entitlement, and a summary of those is shown on Attachment 3. Only building permits would be required for the American Legion and PB &R Commission proposals. All other proposals would require amendments to the General Plan and Local Coastal Program, as well as approval of a Planned Community development plan. The proposals involving redevelopment of the site rather than continuation of existing uses also would be subject to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. SHARON Z. WOOD Assistant City Manager Attachments: 1. Report from GRC Associates, Inc. 2. Traffic Projections 3. Entitlement Process 4. Proposals Summary Paget ?� ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Memorandum To: From REDEVELOPMENT Date: REAL ESTATE CONSULTING (Subject AjTAc.rI MEVT Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Stephen Copenhaver, GRC Associates April 27, 2000 Marinapark Proposals AFFORDABLE HOUSING Pursuant to your direction, GRC has reviewed the Request For Proposals prepared by your office and the responses received from the entities expressing interest in the property. Our review also included inspecting the subject property and the surrounding property in the field, securing comparables for the various land uses addressed in the proposals and reviewing past analysis of the property prepared for the City. We reviewed the summaries of the proposals prepared by the City staff. We also attempted to speak to the companies submitting 1.9 proposals when further explanation or detail to reasonably interpret the results was required. Businesses in the immediate vicinity of the subject property were also contacted. Our review did not consider property factors pertaining to the Local Coastal Plan or the exact boundaries of the developable land. The Tidelands issue is currently being reviewed by an engineering firm for the City and it is beyond the scope of our review. Our basic assumption is that with sufficient effort, the appropriate plans could be amended and approvals secured for the chosen development and if approvals were not forthcoming that development plans could be amended while keeping the basic concept intact. Review of the subject proposals presents an interesting challenge because the level of detail addressed in the proposals varies dramatically and suggested land uses ranged from institutional to residential uses. This outcome should be expected because the RFP was structured to be a flexible document not designed to limit the 1340 VALLEY VISTA DRIVE creativity of the project proponents but encourage the "highest and best use analysis from each perspective. As a consequence, proposals SUITE 120 were submitted by developers, property management entities, leasehold interests, a municipal department, and institutional uses. i- - D BAR, CA 91765 This range of interests in the property provide the City a broad range of alternatives to consider. None of the proposals provided a sufficient T: (909) 396-7714 F: (909) 396 -7913 /; Sharon Wood April 27, 2000 Page 2 level of detail, nor the required tenant and financial commitments to be selected on the basis of the materials presented. Consequently, we envision that this review will assist in narrowing the options and helping to define the shortcomings of each proposal. Our approach to the review consisted of first separating those proposals which were not responsive to the requirements of the RFP. Three of the proposals fell into this category. Following this determination, the remaining proposals were divided into those proposals that revolved around restructuring existing or expired leases with some redevelopment and the third category were proposals that set forth development schemes that would introduce new uses to the majority of the site. Responses Deemed Unresponsive to RFP Requirements The following submittals were judged as not having sufficient detail to be considered responsive to the intent of the RFP requirements. • 1. Ficker & Stevens. This proposal is very conceptual and outlines a public/private partnership between the City and the private entities. However, the proposal does not attempt to define square footages, revenues, and financing methods. The proponents suggest that the appropriate use for the property would be a combination of public and marine uses including a visitors marina; public shipyard, marine oriented retail, restaurants and service facilities to support the visitors marina. The proponents point out that they are very qualified in the management of complex projects and that they would serve as the general partners and assume responsibility for securing the necessary partners and financing for the project. The venture addresses the need for a 50 -year lease and that net profits would be allocated with the City receiving one -half of all revenues generated by the development. The proponents bring with them very impressive design, development and marine experience, but the proposal does not reflect the effort and detail of the other proposals and, in our judgment, it does not begin to . meet the minimum requirements of the RFP. H:V'ROJCCTSWGWPORT%FI NALDOC _ Ai Sharon Wood April 27, 2000 Page 3 2. RHC Communities. This proposal is based on a concept of a boutique hotel, retention of the mobile home park, construction of new building spaces for the American Legion, Girl Scouts and the Balboa Community Center, a parking structure, park uses for children and adults, community boating facilities and even low income housing if desired by the City. The proposal sets forth the obligations of RHC and the City but does not address the development and financing of several of the project elements including the hotel, the marina improvements, institutional buildings and certain public facilities. The project proponents have attempted to develop a "plan" more than a development concept. The plan addresses a very wide range of the potential interests in the subject property, but it does not provide any indication of how the plan would be implemented and paid for. The only financial provision within the proposal is for a 55 -year ground lease with a base rent of $1.1 million per year. Additionally, there is a reference to a potential for transient occupancy tax of $280,000 and restaurant sales tax equal to $80,000 per year. The base rent has a relationship to the revenue produced by the mobile home park lease, but lease rates per space are not addressed in the proposal. The economics of the hotel and other project elements or the responsibility for developing these elements are not addressed. RHC is a very experienced manager of mobilehome parks and is becoming increasingly active in the apartment community. In total, they own several thousand units. The background documents do not indicate any non - residential development experience. Overall, this proposal was deemed unresponsive to the minimum requirements of the RFP because the proposal was very conceptual and did not include specific budgets or adequate detail on projected costs and revenues. 3. Newport Parks. Beaches and Recreation Commission. This proposal from a municipal entity saves the institutional uses and expands the park and public uses on the site. The proposal states that approximately 2.5 acres of the site would be used for the park uses, but the conceptual site plan and the text don't appear to be totally i� consistent. The site plan indicates that the proposed public uses and H:NROIECTS NMPORT- TINALDOC 2 1 Sharon Wood April 27, 2000 • Page 4 the modified American Legion property occupy all of the site between 15'h Street and 17'h Street which is approximately two- thirds of the available property.. A detailed budget is included in the proposal and financing for the park improvements, estimated at $2.0 million, is based on anticipated revenues from Proposition 12 recently approved by California voters. Operating costs are not addressed. This proposal, although containing elements that the City may wish to pursue, is not consistent with the goal set forth in the RFP to identify a secure future revenue stream from the property even though it addressed only a portion of the site. Proposals Accommodating the Existing Uses Two proposals were submitted that essentially restructure prior leases at current market rates. These two proposals provide some additional enhancements to the existing development with options for minor expansion. Neither proposal reflects significant new investment in is comparison to the proposals calling for redevelopment of the site. Also, these two proposals could be based on shorter term lease commitments from the City and they reflect substantially less risk than the proposals that call for the redevelopment of the site that would require significant financing, pre - leasing, entitlements and outside management companies. The following summarizes the two proposals. Although not planned for by the proponents of the two proposals they could work together to address the entirety of the property. 1. Terra Vista Management. This proposal is based on two alternative plans. The first is simply the maintenance of the existing uses with certain other specified uses. These include the expansion of the public restroom facilities, improvements to the boat launch, landscaping, the adoption of new standards for upgrading the mobile homes and approximately 40 new metered parking stalls on the American Legion site and 18th Street and Balboa Boulevard, improved public access to the bay and minor improvements to the Boardwalk. The second alternative provides for the reconstruction of the tennis courts, elimination of the City Community Services and the Girl Scout buildings and the addition of 12 new home sites. H:PROJECfSMWMRM- NALDOC `1 "�r- Sharon Wood April 27, 2000 Page 5 Terra Vista met the requirements of the RFP through the provision of detailed operating budgets and development plans. The company also characterized their proposal as a joint proposal with the mobile home park homeowners association and the proposal included a letter of support from the president of the organization. The proposal effectively doubles the rent to the homeowners and provides for annual increases equal to the full percentage change in the CPI. The specific proposal for the first alternative plan is to ground lease the mobile home site for an amount equal to the greater of 75% of the gross lease revenue or $1,000,000 per year plus 5% of sales price of all mobile homes sold in the park. The proposal sets forth a rental schedule of $2,300 for waterfront as opposed to the current rate of approximately $1,150. Water view lots are $1,800 and tennis view lots would be $1,600 per month. Both the minimum rent and the percentage rents would increase with the CPI. No term is set forth in the proposal. The projected monthly rental rates were based on the rents charged by Terra Vista at the Bayside Village mobile home park which are $100 less per month than those proposed. The Marinapark facility has a superior location. Private investment required to achieve the first alternative is $25,000 and the second alternative, which includes rebuilding the tennis courts, would require an investment of $400,000 to accomplish. The development provides that the proponents would receive a credit against lease payments for this additional investment. This proposal provides for minimum private investment but also minimum return to Terra Vista. The proforma indicates that the park operating costs plus the ground lease rate to the City equal the gross rents of the park except for 5% off -site management fees and Terra Vista's participation in resale values which is approximately 7% to 8% of the sales price. This level of operating costs is consistent with our experience in reviewing the operation of mobile home parks. The second alternative increases the cost of the project but also increases the base ground rent approximately $80,000 per year due to the increased number of home sites. The credit for the $400,000 in leasehold improvements for this second alternative would consume the It increased ground lease revenue for 7 years at a 9% interest rate. H:NROI GCTS W EWPORTNFI 4ALDOC 33 Sharon Wood April 27, 2000 Page 6 Terra Vista agrees that a significant number of the mobile homes require upgrades. Their proposal indicates that they are willing to adopt standards for upgrading the homes upon re -sale or upon entering into a new lease with the homeowners once they take over the park and the existing two -year extension expires. The company appears to be very qualified to manage mobile home communities and they currently manage,over 1,500 units in California and Nevada. 2. American Legion Post 291. This proposal is very straightforward. The American Legion desires a long term lease or the relocation to a comparable facility in close proximity. They are willing to invest up to $500,000 in the existing building improvements to bring them up to current codes and they are willing to make lease payments based on the appraised value of the site which apparently would take into consideration some of the public benefits offered by the Legion. The proposal gives no indication of value and only points out that Post 291 continues to grow 5% to 10% per year and that because of their large membership basis that they are financially capable of fulfilling a new lease with the City. We would anticipate that an appraisal of fair market value that disregards the "public benefits" would be equal to the value of the marina at market lease rates plus the value of the 1.35 -acre site. Based on the projected revenue for these facilities in a prior City sponsored study, the value would be approximately $1.5 million; however, the real estate market has improved in the last two years and an appraisal could easily exceed this amount. The preceding two proposals represent significantly less risk to the City than redeveloping the site. Revenues are effectively assured, the terms could be less than one -half the term required to finance new development and the uses do not require any additional financing. Proposals to Redevelop Marinapark The following proposals are unique in that they take a much more aggressive look at the site and essentially look to redevelop all or major portions of the Marinapark with a range of new and existing uses. HMRO1E NZWPORT INALDOC M Sharon Wood April 27, 2000 Page 7 . Three proposals fall within this category and they address developments with hotel, restaurant, retail and residential uses. The proposals all were deemed to meet the minimum requirements of the RFP. Although meeting these minimum requirements, they vary significantly in detail and quality, particularly with respect to the substantiation of values utilized, property comparables and project economics. The three proposals range from a low- density hotel and marina proposal to a proposal for a small hotel and residential development to a proposal that has retail, residential, hospitality, office and marina uses. Each of these proposals vary from the preceding proposals in that they address secondary income from transient occupancy tax and sales tax as an additional attraction of their proposals. The following summaries address the specifics of each of the three proposals. 1. Ayres Hotel Group. This proposal incorporates a 83 -room boutique hotel on the bay front plus 49 residential lots to be located on the bay front or Balboa Boulevard. The hotel would include a it restaurant and lobby area fronting on Balboa Boulevard for visibility and exposure. The proposal does not attempt to capture any land from the American Legion, expand the marina facilities nor eliminate the municipal park or tot lot, but it does eliminate the tennis courts, the Community Services and Girl Scout buildings in favor of residential lots. The proposal provides alternatives for the purchase of the residential lots at $15.75 million or annual lease payment equal to $1,102,360. Ground lease payments for the hotel are noted as negotiable. However, the hotel proforma included in the proposal indicates an escalating ground lease payment of approximately $230,000 annually during the first five years of the project. Average daily room rates are estimated at $170 per night the first full operating year. Lease rates during the 10 -month construction period are not addressed and the term of the required ground lease is not addressed. A very detailed operating budget is provided for the hotel, but development proformas for the residential development and the hotel were not provided. The proposal makes reference to a hotel development budget of $20 million. This is substantially in excess of the amount that would be required to develop the proposed project. KIPROJECTSN[N.PORNIN ALDOC Sharon Wood April 27, 2000 Page 8 Combining the different revenue generating elements of the proposal indicates that municipal ground lease revenue, room tax revenue, restaurant sales tax revenue (GRC estimate) is approximately $1.75 million per year. The proposal is not sufficiently detailed to precisely define the specific terms of the proposal and additional information needs to be provided by the developer. This is especially true with respect to the proposed restaurant use. If the residential lots were sold, the proposed project generates additional one time value and less ground lease value; however, if the sale proceeds were invested at the approximate City reinvestment rate of 7 %, the lease rate and the for -sale value are equivalent. We believe the valuation of the residential lots is appropriate based on our review of housing values in the area. With respect to development experience, the Ayres Group lists five hotels developed in the last three years in southern California and a total of 14 projects that they have completed. Several of the projects are located in Orange County. They also have two hotels currently under construction. They manage their own projects. Although the proposal does not address the firm's residential experience, the Ayres family and business entities have developed large residential developments throughout southern California. 2. The Bendetti Company. This proposal is by far the most complex of the proposals and it addresses the full range of land uses including: a) maintaining 52 of the 58 mobile homes on the site; b) developing 17 new single - family residences (2,400 sq. ft.) and 24 new townhouses (1,500 sq. ft.); c) 34 boat slips for a visitor marina; d) on- shore facilities for showers, restrooms and laundry; e) a .44 -room luxury inn; f) 12,000 square feet of conventional, marine and seaside oriented retail; g) 9,000 square feet of office space; h) a 5,400- square foot restaurant; i) 2,400- square foot coffee shop; j) a new 8,600- square foot American Legion facility; k) 200 parking spaces; and 1) an enhanced bay front boardwalk, street furniture, theme lighting, large theme based architectural features at the boarders of the project along the waterfront. To accomplish the proposed development, the developer believes that it will require a 65 -year lease and a 40 -month timeline. The proposed ground lease payment to the City is $2.0 million per year with H APROJ GCTS W Rw PORTTI N ALDOC Sharon Wood April 27, 2000 Page 9 payments commencing upon the completion of construction. The City is to receive all revenue from the mobile home park and marina during the construction period. Following completion of the development, the proposal offers in addition to the $2.0 million ground- lease payment, 60% of the net cash flow generated by the proposed development. This is estimated by the developer to be just shy of $1.0 million to the City per year. A third source of revenue to the City consisting of one -half the one -time profit generated by selling the homes and the townhomes estimated at nearly $3.0 million will also- go to the City. The proposal contains a number of drawings illustrating homes, commercial buildings and architectural features with a strong Cape Cod and cottage design theme. The proforma indicated that the cost of the project would be approximately $41.0 million including the residential components and $24.0 million without the residential uses. After the ground lease payments, the proforma submitted by the developer provides for nearly a 16% return on costs and net cash flow the first stabilized year of $1.62 million. Lease rates for the mobile home park are very similar to the rates found at the Bayside Village mobile home park. Residential prices are approximately $302 per square foot for the single family on leased land and $283 per square foot for the townhouse and stacked units. Ground lease payments for these units are 3% of the sales price per year or approximately $1,813 for the single family and $1,063 for the attached housing. Boat slip revenues are based on $15 to $18 rates per lineal foot for the private marina and approximately $2.00 per foot per day for slips for visiting yachtsmen. Restaurant space is estimated at a lease rate of $1.95 triple net. Bay front office space at $1.95 per square foot triple net ($2.25 gross). Retail is estimated at $1.75 triple net. American Legion rental rates are set at $0.00 and no contribution towards construction costs of the 8,500- square foot facility is required under the proposal. The qualifications statement for Bendetti indicates that they have been in business for 51 years and have developed over 3.5 million square feet of commercial space. The developer's recent experience includes a 1.02 million square foot industrial park in Cerritos built in 1971; a 305 -unit mobile home park built in Cypress in 1968; Fernwood mobile home park in Stanton built in 1975; Americana mobile home park in Downey; a 248,000- square foot business center in Ontario built H: NROIECTSNEWPOMnNALDOC 37 Sharon Wood April 27, 2000 Page 10 in 1989; and a 262,000- square foot business center in Paramount built in 1970. Two current projects including a golf course with 641 units in Cathedral City is in the planning stage for the company and a 221,000 square foot distribution center in Ontario is under construction. This proposal is v -ery difficult to review because the site plan needs to be developed further, particularly with respect to the American Legion proposal and the parking solution for both the commercial/hotel/office and residential sections of the project. It is our opinion that the retail development proposed without Balboa Boulevard frontage may not be feasible. Retail areas on the Peninsula have not been that strong and with limited visibility and premium rental rates it would be even more difficult to have a viable development. The developer informed us that they are willing to undertake a market study to determine the demand for retail space. An operator for the hospitality element of the project is another step that the developer would identify in the future if selected by the City. With respect to the potential revenues, the developer is definitely on the aggressive side. For instance, the room rates exceed the prior proposal by $43 per room night but the capital cost of the hotel is substantially less. Restaurant space is at relatively low cost and the residential components at a direct cost of between $165 and $200 are at a very high cost even for smaller units. The ground lease rate for the single - family homes is equivalent to adding $243,000 to the acquisition cost which would bring the cost of the single - family homes up to slightly less than $975,000 for a 2,000 to 2,400 square foot home on Balboa Avenue but probably with a second story view to the Bay. The attached housing is also priced on the aggressive side at the equivalent of approximately $569,000 and the interior units are stacked units. The highest value residences in the immediate vicinity of the site are directly to the east on Bay Avenue. Realtors in the area informed us that Waterfront values are from $1.2 million and up and the second tier homes are from $800,000 and up. These are for larger homes some with second units. In comparison, the Bendetti proposal is suggesting a higher sales price per square foot in an environment not as attractive as Bay Avenue. 3. Sutherland Talla Hospitality. This proposal takes a very different approach than the mixed -use proposals. The proposal H:V'ROJ ECMN1EW I'ORT%FINALDOC _ 7 Sharon Wood April 27, 2000 Page 11 suggesting a higher sales price per square foot in an environment not as attractive as Bay Avenue. 3. Sutherland Talla Hospitality. This proposal takes a very different approach than the mixed -use proposals. The proposal describes a five star hotel use complemented by marina facilities for visiting yachtsmen and two restored vintage yachts to be added to the guess room count. The proposed resort requires the entirety of the site and is a very low- density project configured in 18 Italian style villas. Two restaurant spaces are provided, hospitality rooms for visiting yachtsmen and a modest amount of hotel serving commercial is included. The project also includes a meeting and banquet area of 7,600 square feet and a spa. The proposal relocates the playground and park to the 18th Street side of the property and reconfigures the tennis courts into a Racquet Club for the use of the hotel guests and Newport Beach residents. The proposal does contain one alternative to construct a new American Legion hall on the 181i Street frontage at no cost to the Post and at a ground sub -lease rate of $1.00 per year. The proposal reserves the right to dedicate up to 20 of the 156 guestrooms for fractional ownership as long as the City receives compensation for the loss of room tax. The proposal identifies the hotel operator as Regent International Hotels, an operator of high line resort hotels. Regent International included a letter in the proposal indicating their interest in the project. The term of the proposed lease is 60 years and the developer is offering the City ground lease payments of $800,000 for the first two years, $1.2 million for the third lease year and $1.4 million for years 4 through 10. The lease is to be adjusted every 10 years thereafter based on the CPI increase but it is capped at 2% per year. The proposal also defines the potential transient occupancy tax and the sales tax that the City may receive from the development of the project. Over the first 10 years of the project, the developer estimates that the City's 9% share will vary between $1,222,000 and $2,151,300 per year and that sales tax will vary between $46,000 and $71,600 per year. The developer's commitment to implement the project is conditioned upon the completion of an acceptable market feasibility study. The proposal also indicates that the developer will be seeking undefined concessions towards the cost of building r permits and fees. C9R9NDOW S�THh1 PT INA L. DOC 7 Sharon Wood April 27, 2000 Page 12 relocation of the park facilities, or the tennis courts. These costs may be addressed in the overall site costs but the costs do not appear to be a complete summary of potential hard and soft development and financing costs. With respect to average daily room rates, the project is structured at between $325 per room night for the junior suites and double queens and $425 per night for the suites. The visitor's marina projects 10 yachts in transit for 50% of the year at an average of $225 revenue per yacht. The projected average room rates for the hotel exceeds the rates of any local hotels by a very wide margin. The developer included correspondence from the Four Seasons, Ritz - Carlton and the Beverly Wilshire to illustrate that the proposed room rates are in -line with the best hotels in southern California. A subsequent letter submitted by the developer points out that the proposed room rates are actually low because they were based on off - season rates and that the Four Seasons is a four star rather than a five star hotel which is reflected in the lower room rates. The proposal contained yearly gross revenue projections but did not include a traditional hotel operating statement for the project. The project proponents consist of Stephen Sutherland, the owner of an architectural, engineering and construction management firm that has been involved in a wide range of resorts in Mexico, San Francisco and Texas. Michael Talla is the financial partner in Sutherland Talla Hospitality. Mr. Talla is the majority stockholder in the Sports Club Company, Inc. noted in the proposal as a $160.million company that is involved in the development of athletic clubs throughout the nation. A letter of interest from Burham Capital Markets was also included in the proposal as a potential loan broker. This firm represents a wide range of insurance companies and underwriters and they secured funding for two Orange County hotels in the past year. Analysis Implementation and Market Risks The proposals represent a wide range of landlord risks to the City. Principally, these include the strength of the market demand for the proposed projects, the risk of implementing the proposals and securing entitlements. HAPRO) ECMN E&PORTIR NALDOC , (-n Sharon Wood April 27, 2000 Page 13 We suggest that any analysis of the subject proposals would eliminate the three proposals that were not responsive to the requirements set forth in the RFP. Of the remaining two categories of proposals, the City is facing an interesting risk- reward equation. The combination of the existing mobile home park and a rent - paying American Legion could generate significantly more income than currently received by the City and the term of the lease could be limited to a relatively short period of 10 to 20 years depending on negotiations. Lease revenue would be easily administered and any default could be readily cured through cancellation of the lease. The market risk of implementing this revised lease structure with the existing uses is very low because there is a direct comparable to indicate the market lease rates for a mobile home park on the Peninsula. The development proposals on the other hand vary in risk from the Ayres proposal which incorporates conservative product to the other two proposals by Bendetti and Sutherland Talla which contain very unique products. The Ayres proposal values waterfront lots at approximately $625,000 and Balboa Boulevard lots at $200,000 and includes a hotel to be developed by a group with significant local hotel experience in both building and operating developments. This proposal carries with it a significant entitlement risk because of the waterfront homes and the tidelands issue but a modest market demand risk. The value of the residential lots was based on data that the firm secured from local realtors active in the local market and it appears to be consistent with residential values in the area. The proposal from the Bendetti Company carries with it a design risk because the site plan is not sufficiently developed and a development risk that the proponents can achieve the project. The submitted qualifications did not indicate that they have any experience in the implementation of mixed -use projects. This project also has market risk, due to the commercial development included in the proposal. The one significant area where the Bendetti Company proposal minimized risk is that the majority of the mobile home park remains so that it is unlikely the tenants would attempt to mount a legal effort similar to what has occurred in other locations. The strength of this proposal is the treatment of the marina facilities and the weakness is the commercial component which consists of substantial square footage in H:UROJECTaNENVPOR TV[ N ALDOC W Sharon Wood April 27, 2000 Page 14 a secondary location with poor visibility. The parking solution needs additional design work. The Sutherland Talla Hospitality proposal, although well prepared and perhaps as comprehensive as any of the proposals, is based on a five star hotel concept. This proposal also needs additional work in order to address project costs, parking and the market for such a project at Marinapark. The drawings in the proposal for a low- density very high - quality project are extremely attractive,. We reviewed room rates at the Surf and Sand in Laguna, the smaller hotels on the Peninsula and received some guidance from PKF on appropriate comparable hotels and we are not comfortable with the proposed room rates. Even at lower room rates this project is very attractive. However, we feel that the project needs to evolve and the issue of the American Legion needs to be resolved. Furthermore, budgets need to be prepared with greater precision. The development team appears to be very strong from the design and financial capability perspectives but they are not an established development company and this would be the first project • with the proposed partners. In terms of market demand and the difficulty of implementation, disregarding tidelands issues, we feel that Ayres' proposal would represent the lowest risk and the Bendetti project would represent the highest risk. Municipal Revenue The projected municipal lease and tax revenue projected by the developers varies significantly with the specific proposals. Assuming that each project proponent would be successful in implementing the proposed developments, the City would approximately receive the following revenues illustrated in Table 1. These projections are based on the developer's estimates as provided in their proposal. In general, we do not believe that the proposals have evolved to the point that meaningful revenue projections can be made except in a couple of instances. The proposals do clearly indicate that a hospitality use will generate the maximum amount of tax revenue per acre. The proposals vary in occupancy rates and room rental rates but assuming a conservative 72% occupancy and $175 average room rate each hotel room H: TROILCTSW[WPORTPU2ALDOC , / l,- Sharon Wood April 27, 2000 Page 15 potentially would generate approximately $4,140 in transient occupancy tax per year. Additionally the property tax valuation of a hotel room per square foot of building area is substantially higher than other commercial and office uses. With respect to. ground lease revenue, residential uses appear to generate the highest value per square foot of available land d. The new residential units in the proposals average ground lease payments of slightly less than $19,500 per unit and the mobile home park generates approximately $16,500 per unit per year after operating costs. We are not convinced that retail other than strong destination retail uses (i.e. the kayak store on Balboa Boulevard) can be successful at the subject location. The hotel and marina uses support only a modest amount of retail square footage and the limited off -peak population base presents difficulties in supporting existing retail areas on the Peninsula. The Marina income is not being maximized by many of the proponents and this can be a source of additional municipal revenue if operated as part of an overall development or if operated by the City. The addition of the visitors marina as suggested by two of the developers appears to be a good revenue source that could look forward to generating significant public and private revenue with the proper management. - Recommendations Secure More Detailed Proposals From Developer Shortlist The proposals at this stage are in very rough form. This is understandable from the perspective of companies not wishing to invest too much time and effort into a process open to any interested party. It would be our recommendation to narrow the list of developers and to secure more detailed proposals. The one proposal that is essentially in final form other than the specifics of the lease terms and the issue of two -story mobile homes is the Terra Vista proposal to maintain the existing uses at current market rates. The other proposals need to be developed further with more evidence of market support for the proposed uses, specific lease terms, far more accurate site plans and more detailed budgets. It is our recommendation to invite the Sutherland Talla Group and the Ayres Group to continue in H: N R OJ ECPSN 1:W PO R TFI R A L DOC �/3 Sharon Wood April 27, 2000 Page 16 the process and develop more detailed submittals and to have the Terra Vista Group clarify some of the offered lease terms. A reasonable time frame for developers to submit adequately detailed proposals would be not less than 90 to 120 days. Requirements for a subsequent proposal round would include dimensioned site plans, detailed financing plans, hotel operator commitments and additional feasibility analysis in support of proposed development. Additionally, it would be expected that offered lease terms and conditions would be more comprehensive than the City received in the first round. Clarify Need for Public and Quasi Public Uses We believe that the City would get the best results from clarifying certain policy issues on the need to maintain the public and institutional uses currently on the site. This would permit consistent proposals that can be more readily compared. We also believe that the American Legion should be paying a reasonable rent which they state they can afford based on their extensive membership. Several of the proposals were based on the assumption that the American Legion needs to be located in the existing building or even a new building at effectively no rent. Define Potential Marina Options and Goals The quality of the proposals would also increase if the marina options were more well defined in terms of municipal goals for a visitors' marina and the scope of the marina facilities that could be added adjacent to the site. Clarify Financing Plans Subordination Issues and Lease Guarantees Topics that received very little attention from the developers were the method of financing the developments, the level of equity investment required, the ability to achieve the desired development on the basis of an un- subordinated ground lease and the offered lease guarantees. These are all very important topics that should be addressed before any developer selection occurs. The City may also wish to consider a minimum annual ground lease payment on the order of $1.2 million to $1.3 million for the site which would serve as the base rent. H:PROJECT$ W EN'pORT1FINALDOC C7 Sharon Wood April 27, 2000 Page 17 Entitlement Issues Some of the more difficult entitlement issues need to be clarified with respect to the tidelands boundaries and the status of the various plans that impact use of the site. This work is currently in progress by the City. Any level of clarification would help in the process of defining the best alternative for the property. These issues could alter the proposals significantly and consequently the revenue available to lease the site. H:NROIEC S W EH'PORTVINAL DOC I I 9 • c O U m 0 L r a N O 7 Z C L� r L C CL _O C) O M n r p O N m m N N M O K3 (f3 O 0 0 C O O 0 0 0 0 0 r O O O In '- O o a Q� o o o ° m a > ia t6 m m X mco N m (5 L c Fn U) FI p C M O n r p O N m m N N M O K3 (f3 a i d N � a 1 C O w c i R< ss m < `R a o ( i - S O R ( C � N j ( N � m � o m z m ( > a C r N O 0 R O R y N a O O L j G 0 c n O m E 9 0 U C C O 1 '0 'D i O 7 � U j N O R i a i a X U L R C y o � c m y w � i o 0 i Z � i of e 4L � N 0 0 0 0 0 0 F- o r � N (5 L Fn EA p C M O C CS C < '0 N N m ._ E9 v L_ m O o_ O _ O ` O O O C ? r O O ` @> d N Cl) O O } � O O N y i» a vi N vs e» M N d J C O co 0 N O � J � O N > N U N m E >`, w 5 < < m co a i d N � a 1 C O w c i R< ss m < `R a o ( i - S O R ( C � N j ( N � m � o m z m ( > a C r N O 0 R O R y N a O O L j G 0 c n O m E 9 0 U C C O 1 '0 'D i O 7 � U j N O R i a i a X U L R C y o � c m y w � i o 0 i Z � i of e 4L 0 A- 17AC-H M E RIT a N O CL .m c d U a F� Y m 0 m C m G C C m a a Ei 75 ! mlm l l ! 2 j E ¢ ! m EI cu 'm o 2: a I ! N E ! a) LL m� LL a) E o R N ° E0)0 a) a) a) E I o o C o v M 3�x a: x° v ! dl a) 0 ° d mm�� C Q) ma a) LL mm C mm C N o0 0 o E n C N m U 2 x0����(7muf0 a) m` ac ay �YYp i� ¢ ¢ < d Q Q ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ Q ¢ ¢ Q ¢ ¢• Q ¢ Q I 03 f m m a) 03 m m m m m m m m m m Comm m m I m m m � I Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z' Z Z Z iz Z Z Z Z Y y M O C (� aA N M CO n O O N q n C M N M N cD C M' N M tr (y C M Co (ry Lo a a j I 0) LO (y a I Y y ! ICI N NI NIA tD �I V toa �n 0) N r O N a. 3- I N NI �' INI IN ! N C a7 Q M (D N n m C m O M n '- O M W (D M 0) N N co O N tl� Q) pMj i•" y n N (V O N N N (p V a a - Y a (D n O (p ()R Cl) O a) m ncv O n rnrn O O Mn N O O O M CL Y a d n m (O o n (-^mac. O') 0) (O co .- Coco n (O N N c0 r n m o 0 0 o v 000 0 �fO 0 Q F'- n (D n M e CO U] (O 0) n (D C C (D (O u] (O 0) O —05 oQ0ic p 000) Q m rn n rn I � c a C) - O O C N O C 0 J 3 _ N _ N U C E m°o °o 'm c c cam, Q o00 m c ( O N c N ° N r aj E E a ° ° _ o CN 14 E E p d L E E E m E m H y O p U 0 L a J > N m N m C c N v p N C co mm C °— U I 0 0 E V) O i.? a_ ! N O T Q) .O O �' N E m N O O ° O 0 L .0. O m U C dl v; v; 'col w rn.4 .r-+amIN I v.. E m E E mo m ..U.. N.n N U E O N N E .O a) E. V E m = co a! •�'c Ic, L C N'oojd 0 (D o o mglo.al pi��c '0` �� m x' 1— I�!E c m m 3 u v o o O o o n 3 ed (p ° Elm, I>.po > a c E O!— o c c > v ? .? m m cu > 3 w!m 3 N Y N > N > r' !¢!c! !Q'o �o �E E 21 m!o,pi o o 0)I ts D N Z ay o o c 2 0 0 o cl2 x 2• mc°! J. 'Q IC'I :M!m',Q v o:.Zl ml v!w n C v v v ml aE'a `m IW LL v aE o m p U:c IQ N � ¢ QI¢ 6121 OLIO < Zi I� K :E <I< Z! N O CL .m c d U a F� Y m 0 m C m G C C m a a 0 0 0 V N O c c �. N U 0 1 � Y m CL cu0 C C •C C Z a /vI 7� II V U IE°c�tn �E E o p p _ = U �•c r °n (, m � m I U 0 0 'o a 1 .0 o ° 0 3 0 � m m m m m m m m m Z z z z z z z Z z (nD n . O) co N C') O) 1 n r r rn rn N � 1 I in i�co 0 n 0 �-- 0 41 (O m 0 Q) 0 '7 O co co co O) N N AOC) � inn n 0 I r O C1 (D O O N N O O O O O O O r .n rn cp )n cp (p v v C6 d 0 N � y O O � v N E � v c Ll-` '�' N V p gym. d C C C N •C CN m N° yoy E EE y c E E 0 x° E° rn E rn c)t E E p p 3 m J p N 7 c F m .p E , N E m U o m E 'ti 0'r w p o p V �p w0 E ¢ p "Z N c E E o r,: _U ¢ O C fU W lo n co N vZ o E EE N F E u m a j m.w o m ¢12 V N O c c �. N U 0 1 � Y m CL cu0 C C •C C Z a /vI 7� t �TTf} .PA5NT to N J a U a N V a O o O o w C c o ayyi d d~ c d~ c N F- B c o m E c o c E c 0 p .a c ca .� ` c .� '0 . o m n c o a) a c a� 0 d c a� m (D < w (D < w m c(D w y t vi v `0 0 d t Q)i vi E ti 0 ui ai a) 0 0 m c c E 0) o E L 0 E E T c L 0 L o 0 m Z c U a> E o o a K N a o oo o v Z E E a) E o m C O O N m Z Z m O -O w :5 C� O N 'U C p ,N C 'O U) (D O .-. "- m m r axi o m E N m o .v° v, O O) N 7 m 0 iO N O 0 m J N m �` m cm I U N N L N .3. m E N w N m Ul 3 -O w 7 ? 0 3 m 0- m e c c m o i a) m Q 5 0 O m u -0 y a) Cn Y () .N C '6 a) .cn m N N m co Q 'O .a 9 Q) -0 N tF- N J .0 C N X-0 s m°0 c0o a E d Z m N N oO Z$ N m 0 O O (n C O p O N E E CL O_ a ; Q�O E (n 0 m m m N E co O L N (D C Q) �? L N Z to .O m O L-• a) N N E O J C C > a) L O N co N 0 O a) U O O ,C d@ m N N m C a) _ `) > co m •C L L N N G O h T a y p N N N 0 CL C n N 0_ E E a) Y 4 J o U U iA a z m cD w 06 0 m aS Y E > m m _0 Q Q 07 CL u_ W Q m U o uW 3 • Q) U N to C @ C c CL U O d U ° CL IL a@ a J +@, J a @ -Uj U J V c o C TJ O o) @ @ E — O O C N @ N O O O L 'O O a- E c a E c a c C) _ m a m ° O N -0 ° a) m a) a) d E c W a) N d E C W N-0 c c N c a c G L N C O U Q C N a) C •N C 'N _ @ T OJ C @ a N @ U E @ E N O N ¢ N -0 0- N 'm N L ° + Y J Q) N N O a) @ U �- Q L a Q) "= N O C 3 E 0 0 ° E N O � @ @ 'C O O E O N p O 0 ° L E E N E co Z " m 7 m co Q) U N to a) @ C Q) Ql C O Z E ° ai 3 E o)' •C C O c o C TJ O o) @ @ E — O O C N @ N O O O L 'O O N O a C 'x Y N O C) >. N O O N @ (D m N @ O O O N 2 N O L a) 'O 0 G L N C O p C N a) C •N C 'N _ @ T OJ C @ a N @ O J @ E N O N O N -0 0- N 'm N C + Y J Q) co @ �c E O U U LL .Q N 0 ca H v C @ aa) L_ 7 Lo N O U N @ 3 D Y L @ N 'Q O C U 41 U E n Q o c Q- t @ (U @ C O E c �o E @ w j C o O @ C O- N O E N c N L U C ° @ c C E O U m E a) m @ c @ @ @ a) 2 C Q) U c t c 3 @ N N C 7 .O C O N a) O O T p L U > C -0 C N O o @ 3 E m ° N p) o O C m O O N U) @ @ L a) c N CO O ._ a) E a) rn @ c @ @ N_ Lm N C ,O C U � N U a @ � U a) CL Q O vi m Q) .0 O i+ q) w E a � U W O Q) 'C3 -Q CO N 0 w @ U C N @ cc a Q) Cr- 10 a �a m o C n) C7 m c CS C y L Q) W O ° � N Z � � 56 U N @ C Q) Ql Z E ° ai o •C a) N c o c O O C) =3 O O a) N O Q) N O O O L 'O O C O O Y N O C) >. N N N _ O O a O o @ o co 'N 0 T O N � O J @ E N -0 j 'L N C + 7 Q) O O @ U �- Q L a m N O s 3 E O O .Q N 0 ca H v C @ aa) L_ 7 Lo N O U N @ 3 D Y L @ N 'Q O C U 41 U E n Q o c Q- t @ (U @ C O E c �o E @ w j C o O @ C O- N O E N c N L U C ° @ c C E O U m E a) m @ c @ @ @ a) 2 C Q) U c t c 3 @ N N C 7 .O C O N a) O O T p L U > C -0 C N O o @ 3 E m ° N p) o O C m O O N U) @ @ L a) c N CO O ._ a) E a) rn @ c @ @ N_ Lm N C ,O C U � N U a @ � U a) CL Q O vi m Q) .0 O i+ q) w E a � U W O Q) 'C3 -Q CO N 0 w @ U C N @ cc a Q) Cr- 10 a �a m o C n) C7 m c CS C y L Q) W O ° � N Z � � 56 ATrAc-Hl4fEAJ - elz r)�r E E w v v v mn - ` o 4 z z Nn < 0 m a? o °iEZ mE — o � a a E 5 E E E o f 0 op i o'c E g o n po,o o n a -O o° 8 va e '^ ° E E E� � � E E E; E c° 0 a m =.D E E a E E a E of u d � m 3 vo n N m E_ E E N E a c E "� A N O o E ° E a [ [ ' rL G G O L Lr y �- C G r)�r City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes May 9, 2000 INDEX update based on the feedback. The committee could use the information to refine their recommendation and develop a draft work program for Council to consider and identify necessary resources to accomplish the work. He stated that, if Council then determines to commence witiance e Gener n update, the committee can form the basis for a steering c bring in more stakeholders on an "as needed" basis, and provi to staff and consultants on what areas of the General need to be looked at for changes. Mayor Noyes reque at this item be brought back at the next meeting so that Co an form the General Plan Update Committee and he can ap embers to the committee. RENT BUSINESS 19. - ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF PROPOSALS FOR FUTURE USE/DEVELOPMENT OF MARINAPARK. Assistant City Manager Wood stated that, in addition to the economic analysis, a traffic impact analysis and the types of planning entitlements that would be required for the proposals are included in the staff report. She reported that the maximum average daily trips that any of the proposals would generate are a little over 7,000 and that there would not be significant traffic impacts since a majority of the trips would not occur during the morning and evening peak hours. With the exception of proposals from the American Legion and the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission (PB &R), she reported that the other proposals would require amendments to the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program, as well as a Planned Community Development Plan. Additionally, the projects requiring redevelopment would also require compliance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Ms. Wood stated that, if Council follows the recommendation to narrow the proponent list, staff feels it would be helpful if Council also provide direction relative to the retention of public and quasi-public uses, goals for a public marina, determine the minimum ground lease if one is set, and the entitlement issue with the State Lands Commission. She clarified that the relocation impact report has been started and is expected to be completed by August. Stephen Copenhaver, GRC Associates, Inc., utilized a Power Point presentation throughout his report. He stated that the property is about 8.8 acres and that the request for proposals (RFP) included goals to seek high quality development, a secure revenue stream, development that is sensitive to the adjacent properties and government regulations, a feasible project, and a catalyst for the peninsula. He added that the RFP asked detailed questions relative to experience and financing capabilities, project description, development proforma, schedule, and consultant team; however, he believed that none of the proposals met all the requirements of the RFP. Mr. Copenhaver highlighted the eight proposals as outlined in the staff report, adding that Ficker and Stevens did not put together a real proposal; RHC Communities did not provide a preforms and an explanation of how the buildings would be funded; PB &R would probably require more than the C -3316 Marinapark Use and Development (38/73) Volume 53 - Page 355 �ry 1. City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes May 9, 2000 INDEX proposed 2.5 acres; Terra Vista Management suggested that the City would receive five percent of the resale value of any mobile home and they would receive about six to eight percent; the American Legion can afford a much higher lease rate since it has an increasing membership, strong revenue stream, and the marina can create substantial revenue; Ayres Hotel Group values the lots on Balboa Boulevard at a much lower rate than those that have harbor views; Bendetti Company may be trying to do too much on the property and there is a concern about having retail business that is not visible from Balboa Boulevard; and Sutherland Talla Hospitality provided no real market feasibility information in the proposal. He indicated that the proposed revenues range from $1 million to more than $3 million; however, he believed that the City could not make any type of decision based on the information in the RFPs. Volume 53 - Page 356 Mr. Copenhaver reported that residential uses lend the highest land value to the area. The City would receive about $19,500 in land lease proceeds for each residential unit that is constructed on the site and $16,500 for mobile homes. However, a hotel would be the greatest revenue generator for the City because the City nets nine percent from the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT). Assuming a room rate of $175 a night with 72 percent occupancy, he stated that each hotel room would generate about $4,100 a year in TOT. He added that GRC suggests that not much emphasis be placed on retail uses or office development. Mr. Copenhaver stated that GRC recommends that the City short list, but not discard proposals that restructure the leases as suggested by the American Legion and Terra Vista Management. However, the City should short list at least to the two developers that are suggesting redevelopment and provide them time to respond with a more detailed proposal. He added that narrowing the list will also give the City better proposals. He reported that many of the proposals did not discuss the topics involved with leasing property. Regarding public uses, he pointed out that many of the proposals assumed that the American Legion had to be included in either the same building or a new building, rent free. Further, the concept of a visitor marina was included in many of the plans since past studies discussed it. He believed that the City should clarify the American Legion issue and whether the City desires a visitor marina. Regarding the tidelands boundary, he reported that the City hired an engineer to study this and emphasized that the boundaries could have an immense impact on the proposals. He strongly suggested getting the results of that effort from the engineer before requesting the proponents to produce more detailed plans. He recommended that the minimum rent be $1.25 million a year, based on the range of land uses, prior studies, and developer concepts. Mayor Pro Tem Adams asked how much flexibility the short listees will have to change their proposals. Mr. Copenhaver believed that the proposals should be substantially in compliance with the original proposal. He indicated that it would be difficult to keep the revenue stream calculation in substantial compliance since real proformas were not included. Noting that the State and the City have about $20 million worth of property in this site, Council Member Thomson reported that the return is only a Volume 53 - Page 356 0 0 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes May 9, 2000 11NO little more than six percent if the minimum rent is $1.25 million a year and asked if this could be increased to ten percent. Mr. Copenhaver pointed out that the amount of developable land is reduced when public uses are included. Council Member Ridgeway stated that he lives a block from Marinapark and that the property is in his district. He indicated that he cannot agree with GRC's recommendations, reporting that the RFP was not responded to well and that he does not want to cut anyone out at this point by short listing. He noted that this will start to become very expensive for the proponents since they need to prepare a specific site plan, detailed proforma of cost and rent, and take the political environment into consideration. He indicated that he met with each of the proponents and believed that a strong direction needs to go back to them. He reported that he believes PB &R will not compete and that the American Legion probably will not compete either. He expressed the opinion that the City should have a long term income stream. Regarding the State Lands Commission, Council Member Ridgeway believed that the tidelands issue will be resolved in hopefully six months and noted that the City Attorney has been given clear direction on clarifying that matter through a court process. He concluded by stating that he believes that any proposal should include open space since many of the amenities are shared with the peninsula and that everyone is on notice that they will have to spend time, money, and effort to bring back a bankable proposal. Mayor Pro Tem Adams stated that he agreed with short listing after reading the report. However, if a short list does not happen, he expressed concern about the investment that all the proponents would have to make. He indicated that he would not be willing to short list the Bendetti Company since their proposal is too dense for the peninsula. Council Member O'Neil stated that everyone has their opinions about this property and how to use it. He emphasized that the City has to deal with the problem of the two existing uses on the property (American Legion and mobile home park) and noted that the American Legion remained a permitted use on all the proposals but the mobile home park was only included in some of the proposals. He believed that Council does not have a problem with giving the proponents direction on the American Legion, but the mobile home park residents will probably not voluntarily agree to abandon the site. He emphasized that appropriate uses and the tidelands /uplands issue should be resolved prior to requiring any of the proponents to conduct studies and invest the money and effort that is required to zero -in on something that Council can better evaluate. He questioned how they would be able to make a proposal without this information. He indicated that he is not in favor of eliminating anyone because it is still undecided on what can be placed on the site. Council Member O'Neil pointed out that the report indicated that none of the proposals provided a sufficient level of information to fully evaluate the project. He agreed that Council needs to provide direction and guidance to the proponents, but they are not in a position to do that now because of the tidelands issue. He reiterated that he favors not short listing the proposals or getting further information while the City is involved in developing a relocation plan in the event the mobile home park is closed and involved in Volume 53 -Page 357 5� City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes May 9, 2000 the legal effort to define tidelands and uplands boundaries. He believed it would not be fair or right to eliminate anybody in the interim. INDEX Council Member Ridgeway stated that he reminded all the proponents that the area is a residential neighborhood and that the project should be compatible with the neighborhood. He reported that a hotel is compatible, but a highly dense commercial project is not since the peninsula is overzoned for retail, commercial, and office. He believed that Council should look at rezoning other areas in the peninsula for more residential zoning and that a timeframe should be set to get further financial statements and more specificity to the programs so that the proponents can be eliminated as the process moves forward. Council Member Thomson believed that no possible uses should be eliminated since the City may be six months away from receiving a decision from the State Lands Commission and that another developer may come forward. He added that Council should not just narrow the list down to the individuals who responded to the RFP. In response to Council Member Debay's question, Mr. Copenhaver believed that it would be premature to have the proponents bring back a more detailed proposal when the City has not received a decision about the . tidelands issue which determines what can be placed on the site. Regarding Council Member Debay's request that a traffic study be included in a future study, he noted that there are no dimension drawings. She expressed the opinion that the site is underutilized and indicated that the best use for the residential nature and for the benefit of the City would figure into any decision she makes. Motion by Council Member Ridgeway to continue to consider all proposals (no short listing) and request financial statements, a specific proposal plan, and preliminary proformas on revenue to the City. Dr. Patricia Frostholm, 1805 W. Bay Avenue, provided Council with correspondence which indicates that she and her husband stand to be most affected by a change from the quiet residential area to a hotel since they live very near to the site. She reported that they currently suffer from the noise from the Best Western Hotel located at the back of them. She believes that it was a big mistake for Council to permit Best Western to add two units since they actually built five units and only created two parking spaces. She expressed the opinion that the site should be used to build a community center and public park. Noting that most people cannot afford to stay at an expensive hotel, she expressed hope that Council will utilize the site so that everyone can enjoy it and stated that their decision will affect the soul of the community forever. Regarding the American Legion, Dr. Frostholm stated that the City let them use the land because they were grateful for the sacrifices made by these people in World War II and that the City would be very ignorant and mean to take that away from them. Val Skoro stated that he agreed with Council Member Debay's statement that the site is a jewel and believed that it should be a benefit to the entire City. He indicated that, as years have passed, views have eroded throughout Volume 53 - Page 368 J City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes May 9, 2000 INDEX the City, but that it would be beautiful if there was still an open window to view the bay and boats while driving down Balboa Boulevard. He added that he understands the need for a revenue stream, but believed that no rational decision can be made until the tidelands issue is resolved. In response to Ms. Wood's question regarding a timeframe, Council Member Ridgeway amended his motion to also direct staff to bring this back at the July 25 Council meeting. In response to Council Member Ridgeway's question, Public Works Director Webb stated that the City does not have boundary surveys but has a GIS system that includes the tract boundaries and shows a fairly good record of the dimensions of the property. City Attorney Burnham added that he does not believe that a tract map has even been filed. In response to concerns relative to the proponents spending additional funds, Council Member Ridgeway indicated that he has been involved in these types of processes and that it would be easy to spend $25,000 even though they are still in a competition. He asked if it would be appropriate to do a boundary survey, but Mr. Webb indicated that it would not do the City any good until the tideland boundaries are determined. Mr. Burnham added that the City has a report which assists them to place a line on the map that is consistent with what is believed to represent the line of mean high tide. Regarding planning purposes, Mr. Webb reiterated that the GIS mapping system will give the dimensions, plus or minus five to ten feet. Ms. Wood stated that she did not think that Council was requesting dimension drawings at this point, but just requesting financial information. Council Member Ridgeway concurred, but noted that dimension site plans are needed to do an accurate proforma so that all costs can be calculated. The amended motion carried by the following roll call vote Ayes: Thomson, Glover, Debay, Ridgeway, O'Neil, Mayor Noyes Noes: Adams Abstain: None Absent: None 20. RENEWAL OF McFADDEN PLACE FARMERS MARKET AGREEMENT. Motion by Council Member Ridirewa v to approve the Firs endment to the Encroachment Agreement, which allows fora renewal by the City Manager for up to three one -year terms an reduce the monthly lease payment to $130 year round. The motion carried by th owing roll call vote: Ayes: son, Glover, Adams, Debay, Ridgeway, O'Neil, Mayor Noyes • N None Abstain: None Absent: None Market Agreement (38) Volume 53 - Page 359 —5- is 40 • Eali1C al lehc: Sim- PB & R Commission Agenda Item No. 5 June 6, 2000 TO: FROM: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission General Services Director SUBJECT: Bench Donation Recommendation To accept a bench donation from Mr. Robert A. Weiner that will be installed at the Newport Pier. Discussion Staff received an inquiry from Mr. Robert A. Weiner regarding a proposed bench donation for the Newport Pier. Subsequently, the donor submitted the attached letter dated May 15, 2000 requesting the approval of a proposed bench donation (Attachment A). The bench will an enhancement to the pier. The verbiage and size of the donor plaque will conform to City Council Policy G -5 (Attachment B). Mr. Weiner have received a copy of this report and notice of the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission meeting. Very respectfully, David E. Niederhaus Attachments: A. Mr. Robert A. Weiner letter dated May 15, 2000 B. City Council Policy G -5 C \WINDOWS\ Desktop \weinerbenchPRR2mayO0 -doc 6 7 MAY 23 100 09:39AM ANFLICON FINANCIAL 714 436 6624 P.1 `J May 15, 2000 Mr. Marcelino d. Lomeli Parks and Tree Maintenance Superintendent P. O. Bob 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Dear Mr. Lomeli, Pursuant to our recent telephone conversation, I am writing to you regarding donating a bench to the City of Newport Beach. I would like to donate one bench to be installed at the Newport Beach Pier, along with a standard 2" by 6" plaque with the permitted verbiage that will read, "Donated for Aaron H. Weiner M.D. I understand that this request is subject to approval by the City of Newport Beach and will be included as an agenda item at the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission meeting scheduled for June 6, 2000. If you have any questions or require additional information you may reach me at (949) 645 -9586 (home) or (714) 436 -6555 ext. 454 (work). Thank you very much for your assistance. Sincerely, Robert A. Weiner 29 Encore Court Newport Beach, CA 92663 OCINT G -5 PARK AND STREET IMPROVEMENT DONATIONS The City Council recognizes the need to provide residents with the opportunity to donate trees, benches, drinking fountains or related park and street improvement items. This policy establishes criteria for donations to assure attractiveness, usefulness and the capability to be maintained. Tree Donations The tree -lined walkway at Oasis Passive Park beginning at 5th Avenue and Marguerite in Corona del Mar shall be identified as one area where a tree with a bronze plaque can be installed. Other trees with plaques can be donated and installed at locations recommended by the General Services Director and approved by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission. Bench Donations It shall be the responsibility of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission to designate the type, style, design, and placement of City-owned benches on City property. Areas of placement may be parks, streets, along the beachfront, within villages, commercial districts, and neighborhoods, on a specific island, etc. Once an area has been designated with a certain style or type of bench, the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission may require that the designation be changed only by a formal request for a redesignation. The factors to be addressed in preparing the list of approved benches for the City as well as the final design for a specific site will include at a minimum: size, usage, vandalism, traffic, security, view obstructions, location, style reflective of neighborhood and cost The Arts Commission will provide design review assistance as required. Donation requests will be submitted to the General Services Department and meet the following requirements. a. Bench donations along a City street or beach front will require the approval of the General Services Director and the Traffic Engineer. b. Bench donations within a commercial district will require notification of, and an endorsement from, the local business association. c. Bench donations for parks within a residential community will require notification of residents within 300 feet of placement and an endorsement from the homeowners association, when applicable. 5j G -5 0 Park and Street Amenities Items such as benches, drinking fountains, tables, etc., can be donated to be - included in the public park system. Recognition on the item shall be a 2" x 6 ".. plaque and limited to Donated by (Name) or Donated for (Name) as a means of identifying the donation. Donors of major park improvement gifts may elect to provide a dedicatory plaque not exceeding 5" x 7' with name, date and appropriate text not exceeding 25 words. All donations must be approved by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission. The cost of a donated item, including identification plaque, shall be borne totally by private funds. The City will assume ownership and maintenance if accepted and placed in a public park or on a sidewalk unless other arrangements have been agreed upon. The City will not assume responsibility for replacement due to vandalism or theft. Adopted - July 22,1992 . Amended - January 24,1994 Amended - June 27,1994 Amended - June 24,1996 Formerly I -15 E 2 (06 I 0 0 0 4 aEVrPORr O U ,p Z C"<IFO M1N`P tuft Was PB & R Commission Agenda Item No. LD June 6, 2000 TO: FROM: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission General Services Director SUBJECT: Dog Nuisance Dispensers Recommendation To accept a donation of five dog nuisance dispensers from the Newport Hills Community Association (NHCA) that will be installed at Buffalo Hills Park, Nature Park and the green belt adjacent to Manning Tract. Discussion Staff received an inquiry from Ms. Jill Schwalbe, Property Manager of NHCA, regarding a proposed donation for dog nuisance dispensers at Buffalo Hills Park, Nature Park and the green belt adjacent to Manning Tract. Subsequently, the donor submitted the attached letter dated May 17, 2000 requesting the approval of a donation of five dispensers (Attachment A). The dispensers will be purchased and stocked by NHCA. The City will install the dispensers. The dispensers will significantly improve the environment of the parks. Ms. Schwalbe has received a copy of this report and notice of the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission meeting. Very respectfully, David E. Niederhaus cc: DEN /MGL/kr Attachment: Ms. Schwalbe letter dated May 17, 2000 C \WINDOWS \Desktop \dognuisancePBR600. doe / ( PA. Box 4"708. Irvine. CA 926; 6 22 I y Irvine. CA CA 92618 Proyeriy Management fax 949.85.0146 vmievaiagoway cum May 17, 2000 City of Newport Beach Parks & Trees Division Attn: Marcelino Lomeli P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 RE: NEWPORT HILLS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION DOG BAG DISPENSERS Dear Marcelino Lomeli: Please accept this letter as the Newport Hills Community Association's agreement to donate the money to purchase 5 dog bag dispensers and the bags to filt the dispensers on an as needed basis. We would like to request that the dog bag dispensers be installed throughout the Buffalo Hills, Manning and Nature Park located within the community. The Association will work with the City staff to determine the beat locations for the dispensers. We appreciate your prompt attention to this matter. Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at (949) 450 -1515 ext. 240, thank you. Sincerely,cp QQnn ,� oo 0P,A, Jill hwalbe Pro rty Manager On Behalf of the Board of Directors °t) C IAI 011 ProVaing HOmCO,,O?r ASS ...noon Manayemen: Since 1969 J =._, r CJ wM (l/-)— (l/-)— 0 0 a UK " arvicla- PB & R Commission Agenda Item No. `% June 6, 2000 TO: FROM: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission General Services Director SUBJECT: Dog Nuisance Dispensers Recommendation To accept a donation of five dog nuisance dispensers from the Harbor View Community Association (HVCA) that will be installed at Buffalo Hills Park. Discussion Staff received an inquiry from Ms. Holly Bullock, Property Manager of HVCA, regarding a proposed donation for dog nuisance dispensers at Buffalo Hills Park. Subsequently, the donor submitted the attached letter dated May 17, 2000 requesting the approval of a donation of five dispensers (Attachment A). The dispensers will be purchased and stocked by HVCA. The City will install the dispensers. The dispensers will significantly improve the environment of the park. Ms. Bullock has received a copy of this report and notice of the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission meeting. Very respectfully, David E. Niederhaus Cc:DEN /MGL/kr Attachment: Ms. Bullock letter dated May 17, 2000 C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\dognuisanceliarborviewPBR60O.doc �a May 17, 2000 City of Newport Beach Parks & Trees Division Attn: Marcelino Lomeli P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 RE: HARBOR VIEW COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION DOG BAG DISPENSERS Dear Mr. Lomeli: P.O. Box 4708, Irvine, CA 92616 22 Mauchly Irvine, CA 92618 949.450.1515 fax 949.585.0146 vmi ®villageway.com Please accept this letter as the Harbor View Community Association's agreement to donate the money to purchase 5 dog bag dispensers and the bags to fill the dispensers on an as needed basis. We would like to request that the dog bag dispensers be installed throughout the Buffalo Hills Park area, by the Tot Lot and by the baseball fields in the community. The Association will work with the City staff to determine the best locations for the dispensers. Our thought is that the bags could be installed under the posted "Dog" signs on the light poles in several areas. We appreciate your prompt attention to this matter. Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at (949) 450 -1515 ext. 260, thank you. Sincerely, VILLAGEWAY MANAGEMENT, INC. Z Hotyi 1 ck, CCAM® Property Manager On behalf of the Board of Directors /hab RECEIVED . MAY t 9 2000 GS PAr+xw-I HEFS 4* 9�H Providing Homeowner Association Management Since 1969 �oi �' � M WILLAGE ' B rojectsWarbor View 063TacilitiesTacilities Corresp%Dog Bag Request CNPB.doe ' "" "` °� 0 0 Q SEW PORT t n � r G[�roaNSP suvicar PB & R Commission Agenda Item No. g June 6, 2000 TO: FROM: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission General Services Director SUBJECT: Castaways Park Recommendation To accept the recommendation from the Castaways Park Advisory Committee to submit a grant proposal to the California Coastal Conservancy for the funding of planting, irrigation installation, and maintenance establishment at Castaways Park. Discussion The Castaways Park Advisory Committee has been meeting for the last year and developed a planting and irrigation plan that was implemented as Phase I. The Phase I project included the installation of an irrigation system and the planting of California native plant material this past winter. The work was completed and is being monitored and maintained by a landscape contractor that specializes in California natives. The funding for this project was from private donations and City funding and was approved by the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission last Fall. The Committee has determined that similar phases are necessary in order to landscape the remainder of the Park and that the project would be an excellent candidate for a State grant. Staff received the attached letter dated May 15, 2000 from Mr. Bo Glover, Chairman of the Castaways Advisory Committee, requesting the approval of submitting a grant proposal to the California Coastal Conservancy. The grant proposal would request 100% funding for the installation of California native landscaping and irrigation, exotic plant eradication, and a maintenance establishment program for the new planting (Attachment). The grant program will significantly improve the environment of the Park. Mr. Glover has received a copy of this report and notice of the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission meeting. C:\ WINDOWS \O sklop\ 992000\ KRParks \P1IR \PRRlune \,a,tawaysPBR600&, Cl F 0 0 Very respectfully, David E. Niederhaus Attachment: Mr. Glover letter dated May 15, 2000 C:MNDOWS \Desktop \99 2000\ KRParks\ PBR \PBRJune \castawaysPRR600.doc L 41 enc Environmental Nature Center May 15, 2000 Mr. David E. Niederhaus, General Services Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Dear Mr. Niederhaus: On behalf of the Castaways Park Advisory Committee, I respectfully request approval from the City of Newport Beach Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission to submit a grant proposal to the California Coastal Conservancy to fund continued revegetative efforts at Castaways Park. I will take this opportunity to update the Commission on Phase I of the park's development. The main line of the irrigation system was installed to provide supplemental watering to the Phase I planting area. The plant material, as determined by the Castaways Park Advisory Committee, was purchased from the Tree of Life Nursery in San Juan Capistrano. Sonora Bolanica Landscaping was selected as the planting contractor. Sonora produced a landscape design of the plantings. Sonora continues to eradicate, as part of their maintenance contract, much of the non - native vegetation (Fennel, Artichoke Thistle, Caster Bean, etc.). Sonora has planted the native plant species, installed the supplemental irrigation system off of the main line, and will provide six month maintenance for the site. The committee has continued to meet over the last several months and has determined all additional phases of the parks development. The grant to be submitted to the Coastal Conservancy will include all of the additional phases and will address irrigation, revegetalion, exotic eradication and continued maintenance. The estimated cost of these additional phases is $150,000. The grant, if approved, will cover the entire cost. Please feel free to contact me at (949) 645 -8489 if you have any further questions. Sincerely, 504V�__ Bo Glover I* Executive Director (,o7 1601 Sixteenth Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663 -5977 (949) 645 -8489 • FAX (949) 645 -0618 . (Item 9) June 6, 2000 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Arts & Cultural - Library - Recreation - Seniors To: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission From: LaDonna Kienitz, Community Services Director /City Librarian Re: Policy Guidelines for Surf Contests RECOMMENDATION Due to increased demand for surf contests in Newport Beach and the subsequent impact on beach users, residents and lifeguard staff it is recommended that Council Policy 1 -8 be amended to include Surf Contests as follows: Surf contests using City beaches shall not be conducted during Memorial Day weekend or summer (June 15- September 10). No more than eight (8) events shall be permitted during any calendar year and events shall be scheduled at least three (3) weeks apart. Surf contest permits will be granted for specific dates only. No more than one surf contest will be scheduled per day. Surf contest permits do not allow for the exclusive use of the ocean or contest area and are always subject to blackball rules and regulations. There will be a maximum of six (6) contests at any one location per calendar year. The Fire Department determines acceptable locations for surf contest. Background Council Policy 1 -8 — Bike and Foot Race Policy was adopted in 1983 and revised in 1994 to control the number of foot and bicycle race events held in the City of Newport Beach. The frequency and size of these events was impacting City resources, residents and traffic. Surf Contests have become increasingly popular. The City of Newport Beach issued special event permits for 6 surf contests in 1997; 9 in 1998; 7 in 1999; and have received 10 applications in 2000. The Community Services Offices receives calls from residents regarding the frequency and noise levels of these contests. Because the surf is better and the beach less crowded between 54th and 58th Streets, the majority of the contests are held in that area and therefore impact those residents more heavily. 6V Policy Guidelines for Surf Contests Page 2 Location Breakdown of Surf Contests from 1997 Location 1997 1998 1999 2000 Total 54`h- 58`h Street 3 (6 days) 5 (5 days) 5 (6 days) 7 (16 days) 20 401h Street 0 2 (2 days) 0 1 (2 days) 3 Blackies 4 (4 days) 2 (2 days) 2 (2 days) 2 (2 days) 10 215` -28th Street Prospect Street 0 0 0 0 0 61St -69th Street Orange Street 0 0 0 0 0 67`h -69`h Street Summit 0 0 0 0 0 74`h Street The Fire Department was consulted regarding this amendment. Currently City staff have no authority to Limit the number of Special Event Permits issued for Surf Contests. Attachment -( . BIKE AND FOOT RACE AND SURF CONTEST POLICY The purpose of this policy regarding the use of City streets and beaches for conducting bicycle races, running events, surf contests and other athletic contests is to minimize the inconvenience to City residents, and to eliminate any potential City liability for injuries resulting from the event. All bicycle races, running events, surf contests and similar athletic contests shall be required to secure a Special Event Permit, comply with all of the conditions to the permit, and comply with the provisions of this policy. Races, running events and other athletic contests using City streets shall not be conducted during the summer (June 15 through September 10). No more than twelve (12) such events shall be permitted during any calendar year. three (3) weeks apart. The person or entity primarily responsible for administering the event must prove their ability to pay for all required City safety and maintenance services prior to issuance of any permit. Proof of ability to pay for these services shall be in the form of a cash deposit, bond, or similar instrument. The permittee shall, prior to the event, provide the City with evidence of insurance, with the City named as an additionally insured, with minimum coverage of 1 million dollars per occurrence unless the City Attorney and City Manager determine that due to the circumstances surrounding the event, more insurance coverage is necessary. No permit shall be issued for any race, running event, surf contest or athletic contest which is sponsored or financially supported by a tobacco or alcohol company and no alcohol or tobacco shall be permitted to be dispensed or available in the event there are participants under the age of 21. for surf contest. Adopted - February 14, 1983 Amended - November 14, 1983 Amended - September 22, 1986 Amended - January 24, 1994 Formerly 1 -21 0 76 0 is Q SEW PORT o m a C94Fp 0.H�P General Sertees D PB &R Commission Agenda Item No. I June 6, 2000 TO: FROM: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission General Services Director SUBJECT: Tree Removal Request Recommendation To have the Commission consider a tree removal request. History Ms. Judy Van Winkle, property owner of 915 Aleppo St., has submitted the attached Tree Removal Request form pursuant to City Council Policy G -1. Staff has attached a Tree Inspection Report, Tree Appraisal and photograph for the request. Discussion Property owner has cited a hazardous condition due to fruit drop. A recent field inspection by staff did not confirm a hazard. Periodic tree trimming and corrective pruning would address concerns of the property owner. This request does not meet the minimum requirements of the City Council Policy G -1. Ms. Van Winkle has received a copy of this report and notice of the June 6 Commission meeting. Very respectfully, <W David E. Niederhaus Attachments: (1) Tree Removal Request Form and letter (2) Tree Inspection Report and photo (3) Tree Appraisal C :\WINDOWS \DesktonM 2000 \KRPark \PBR \PBR1une \VanWinAle.doc . . _ ., P(, �'T � n Cq </ FO FLC�`P Per City CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH r - , General Services Department Tree Removal or Reforestation Request or Removal of City Trees), I am requesting the removal of: Indicate the number mid specie(s),(if known) of tree(s). Located at: March 3, 2000 Please be specific as possible Requestor Property owner unitv Association .l Services Department Works Department c Signature: ��� Dater a,ocib Section A. For Tree Removal Requests Only Removal Criteria (Check one or more) =Proven and repeated history (two or more occurrences within an 18 month period) of damaging public or *private sewers, water mains, roadways, sidewalks, curbs, walls, fences, underground utilities or foundations. ( *exceeding 8500) =Repeated history of significant interference with street or sidewalk drainage, despite specific treatment by the City to alleviate repeated damage. PDead 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. If this is a Reforestation (Removal and Replacement Request of a City tree at homeowner's expense), please proceed to second page. e ' n r in Reforestation is the systematic removal and replacement of problematic trees at requestor's expense that have been unresponsive to modifying treatments. As initiated Private property owner Community Association City Department Other Check items applicable: Tree(s) causing curb, gutter, sidewalk or underground utilities damage. View encroachment Area has clearly defined contiguous boundaries that include the tree(s) proposed. Group application must include a signed petition of at least 60% of the property owners within the defined area. *Groups are defined as at least 10 properties in any given City area. =Application by a legally established Community Associations govemed by CC &R's. Requires notification prior to voting by Board, of affected property owners. (Individuals within an Association must petition through their respective associations.) Individual property owner's requests accompanied by a signed petition of at least 60% of the neighboring property owners within a one block distance in either direction from the reforestation site, as well as the written endorsement of the appropriate homeowners' association, if applicable. A request for reforestation requires a written agreement by the petitioning sponsor to pay 100% ofthe;costs of the removal and replacement of the public trees in advdirce of the removal activity_ The actual removal &rid replanting ,; will be coordinated by the General Services Department.' Each street in the--City, has'.a desi ated street tree by species'; Only replacement tree(s) designed by the Designated Street Tree List will be considered A mramum of a one for one replacement is required and a minimum size of M6 boxed tree(s) must be planted "Where space does no�all this accommodation, replacements will beplanted in the'sae neighborhood Norma�liiemoval and replacement m costswill vary from $600 to $1, 000 per tree and are theso7e obliggtion of the properly owner who- is malang the request ,_ P 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 to ensure compliance with all City requirements. Please refer to individual Council Policy Gl for additional information. Requestor Comments: reld inspection made: Emergency Removals Only: Removals, except emer'geticy, C(1 Ll"Ttra+ iY1� C�'Il i,�l L' (� I ii it n ra -► i �{ �� lye EQ m o\,aL ff cytt— -� LU C U M,-Il z T4 �L 1725 ty� �uL h��z [ALL, — 6-at �fu s - = va l� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT TREE INSPECTION REPORT Name: Judy Van Winkle Address: 915 Aleppo Street, Newport Beach 92660 Phone Number: 949 - 760 -9717 Request: Remove 2 parkway trees due to hazardous fruit drop and intrusion into private pine tree. Botanical Name: Tristania conferta Common Name: Brisbane Box Designated Street Tree: Tristania laurina Estimated Tree Value: 2 trees, $977.01 Damage: None apparent. Parkway: Concrete Brick ur Other Comments: Applicant cited hazardous fruit drop and intrusion into a private tree. A field inspection did not confirm a hazardous condition. Periodic trimming and corrective pruning would minimize both concerns. Inspected by: Date: 5/23/00 Recommendation: Applicant ' di ated a willingness to incur costs under Reforestation- Individual property owner but failed to provide a petition of at least 60% of neighboring property owners endorsement, nor was the appropriate Home Owners Association endorsement included. Therefore, the request does not meet the criteria for removal per G -1 policy. Forward request to Parks, Beaches and Recreation Comr .ssion f consideration and public comment. • Reviewed by: Date: 5/23/00 0 ■ u w z LL O U • z Cw C a d W 0 U) w U w J4 L�L w z w 0 d d L w M 0 a CL 0 0. rn N i V a aA J Q U) 9 (L a Q w w H W o Lf1 O 0 J t U W ¢ m ^ m d > N 61). x z � .�. (n ° 0 H a a ° v o v O z M p o to z U W O U z N O M N F W l0 v3 U_ W 4 O a N N y a J U rn N LLI N � � a J m j ^ vi z Z w � F U N a° U � IL W d' N N W z U U) O � z I U 60W N Y W z F O � � a H 0 iD Wm ° C U W m a`> o N C IL N c o m U C m a N m u Wo ILO 0 r) CIO bQ N�Nnp� ca N d— ( °O 10 `Q LO o LO m ti Q p im N o �3 ye- 00 e o , °° Z r, �� J a ti oy � ° 8 S ST ---- D© e J m w S1 �z �� � Q AR AM A 00811" 2200 �AS�gtuF °R LL ,■ AV ID I A LUCI O 0o N -77 �gW PpR T U S �<icoa"•r PB &R Commission Agenda Item No. l a' June 6, 2000 TO: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission FROM: General Services Director SUBJECT: Tree Removal Request Recommendation To have the Commission consider a tree removal request. History Ms. Myrtle Y. Asahino, property owner of 1323 Ashford Lane, has submitted the attached Tree Removal Request form pursuant to City Council Policy G -1. Staff has attached a Tree Inspection Report, Tree Appraisal and photograph for the request. Discussion The property owner cites a hazardous condition and repeated property damage as a result of the size of tree within the parkway. Staff could not confirm the property damage as indicated. Any such damage should be addressed through the City claim process. This request does not meet the minimum requirements of the City Council Policy G -1. Ms. Asahino has received a copy of this report and notice of the June 6 Commission meeting. Very respectfully, �_�•�,1�.�. -ate David E. Niederhaus Attachments: . (1) Tree Removal Request Form exd4etter (2) Tree Inspection Report and photo (3) Tree Appraisal CAW INFO W S\Desktop\99 2000\ KRParks\PBR\PBRIone \Asahino.doc r WP (4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH m General Services Department Tree Removal or Reforestation Request FO �N�P Per City Council G- policy (Retention or Removal of City Trees), I am requesting the removal of: the number and specie(s),(if known) oftree(s). Located at: l YfCt / ? �� �1'CeL' -�% L l /'✓ t Please be specific as pyssible Requestor ' Name /Address Private Property owner Myrtle Asahino Community Association 1323 Ashford Lane 0 Other Signature: I Services Department Works Department March 3, 2000 Newport Beach, CA 92660 e;n Date:' Removal Criteria (Check one or more) Proven and repeated history (two or more occurrences within an 18 month period) of damaging public or *private sewers water mains ,roadways sid we a ur , walls; fences, underground utilities or foundations. ( *exceeding $500) Repeated history of significant interference with street or sidewalk drainage, despite specific treatment by the City to alleviate repeated damage. Dead Dying Has no prospect of recovery. Diseased Cannot be cured by current arboricultural methods. y irZf In advanced state of decline with no prospect of recovery.,C 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. If this is a Reforestation (Removal and Replacement Request of a City tree at homeowner's expense), please proceed to second page. 70 03/15/2000 at 03:40 PM Job Number: 14582 FLETCHER JONES COLLISION CENTER License #:AA164441 WE ALWAYS EXCEED YOUR EXPECTATIONS . 3300 Jamboree Road Newport Beach, CA 92660 -8528 (949)718 -3350 Fax: (949)718 -3388 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE Written by: Doug Cleghorn # Adjuster: Insured: LY Claim # Owner: LY Policy # Address: Deductible: Date of Loss: Day: Type of Loss: Evening: Point of Impact: 11. Left Front Inspect Location: IS Insurance Company: Days to Repair 96 BENZ C220 4- 2.2L -FI 4D SED GRAY Int: VIN: WDBHA22E3TF380990 Lic: Prod Date: Odometer: Air Conditioning Rear Defogger Cruise Control Keyless Entry Dual Mirrors Clear Coat Paint Metallic Paint Power Steering Power Brakes Power Windows Power Locks Power Driver Seat Power Antenna Power Mirrors Power Trunk Anti -Lock Brakes (4) Driver Airbag Passenger Airbag 4 Wheel Disc Brakes Cloth Seats Bucket Seats Automatic Transmission Alloy Wheels NO. OP. DESCRIPTION QTY EXT. PRICE LABOR PAINT 1 FRONT BUMPER 2 R &I Face bar 0.6 3 FRONT LAMPS 4 R &I LT Headlamp assy 0.6 5 Repl Aim headlamps 1 0.6 6 FENDER 7* Rpr LT Fender 30 2.5 8 Add for Clear Coat 1.0 9 R &I LT Upper molding 0.2 10 R &I LT Lower molding 0.3 11 R &I LT Splash shield w/o skid cont 0.8 12 HOOD & GRILLE 13 Blnd Hood 1.5 14 R &I RT Seal 0.3 15 R &I LT Seal 0.3 IS THIS IS A PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE BASED ON OUR VISUAL INSPECTION AND DOES NOT COVER ADDITIONAL OR HIDDEN DAMAGE WHICH MAY BE FOUND AFTER THE WORK HAS BEEN STARTED, AND IS NOT INCLUDED IN THIS ESTIMATE. ALL PARTS PRICES ARE SUBJECT TO INVOICE AND WILL BE DISCARDED UNLESS REQUESTED IN WRITING AT TIME OF WRITE UP. PLEASE REMOVE ALL PERSONAL BELONGINGS. 2 �1. 03/15/2000 at 03:40 PM Job Number: 14582 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE 96 BENZ C220 4- 2.2L -FI 4D SED GRAY Int: NO. OP. DESCRIPTION QTY EXT. PRICE LABOR PAINT 16 R &I Grille assy 0.5 17 WINDSHIELD 18 R &I RT Nozzle heated 0.4 19 R &I LT Nozzle heated 0.4 20 FRONT DOOR 21 Bind LT Outer panel 1.1 22 R &I LT Weatherstrip around door 0.5 23 R &I LT Weatherstrip lower 0.2 24 R &I IT Body side mldg 0.3 25 R &I LT Belt molding 0.3 26 R &I LT Molding window frame 0.3 27 R &I LT Mirror w/o housing 0.6 28* R &I LT Run channel 0.4 29 R &I LT Handle, outside 0.5 30 R &I LT Trim panel door, w/o leathe 0.6 31# Cover car 1 0.5 32# Color match 1 1.0 33# Colorsand & polish 1 1.5 1 34# Hazardous waste removal 1 5.00 X Subtotals - -> 5.00 13.2 7.6 Parts 0.00 Body Labor 11.7 hrs @ $ 32.00 /hr 374.40 Paint Labor 7.6 hrs @ $ 32.00 /hr 243.20 Colorsand & Polish 1.5 hrs @ $ 32.00 /hr 48.00 Paint Supplies 7.6 hrs @ $ 22.00 /hr 167.20 Body Supplies 3.0 hrs @ $ 2.00 /hr 6.00 Sublet /Misc. 5.00 ---------------------------------------------------- SUBTOTAL $ 843.80 Sales Tax $ 173.20 @ 7.7500% 13.42 GRAND TOTAL $ 857.22 ADJUSTMENTS: Deductible 0.00 --------------- - - - - -- CUSTOMER PAY $ 0.00 INSURANCE PAY $ 857.22 THIS IS A PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE BASED ON OUR VISUAL INSPECTION AND DOES NOT COVER ADDITIONAL OR HIDDEN DAMAGE WHICH MAY BE FOUND AFTER THE WORK HAS BEEN STARTED, AND IS NOT INCLUDED IN THIS ESTIMATE. ALL PARTS PRICES ARE SUBJECT TO INVOICE AND WILL BE DISCARDED UNLESS REQUESTED IN WRITING AT TIME OF WRITE UP. PLEASE REMOVE ALL PERSONAL BELONGINGS. 2 �1. 0 0 03/15/2000 at 03:40 PM Job Number: 14582 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE 96 BENZ C220 4- 2.2L -FI 4D SED GRAY Int: Estimate based on MOTOR CRASH ESTIMATING GUIDE. Non- asterisk( *) items are derived from the Guide ER15814. Database Date 1/2000. Double asterisk( * *) items indicate parts supplied by a supplier other than the original equipment manufacturer. Pound sign (S) items indicate manual entries. CAPA items have been certified for fit and finish by the Certified Auto Parts Association. NAGS Part Numbers, Prices and Labor Times are provided from National Auto Glass Specifications, Inc. Pathways - A product of CCC Information Services Inc. 3 C1� i CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT TREE INSPECTION REPORT Name: Ms. Myrtle Asahino Address: 1323 Ashford Lane, Newport Beach 92660 Phone Number: 949 -548 -0254 Request: Remove large parkway tree due to fallen limbs. Botanical Name: Eucalyptus citriodora Common Name: Lemon Gum Designated Street Tree: Estimated Tree Value: Damage Parkway: Curb /gutter Concrete Same $7817 Brick ur Other Comments: The work records (attached) indicate the tree was trimmed January 2000 and August 1997. The tree has high asthetic and shade value. Tree trimming will minimize limb failure. Inspected by: Date: 5/23/00 Recommendation: The applicant cited fallen branches and property damage as reason for tree removal. The applicant provided an automotive repair estimate which did not clearly indicate a fallen City tree limb had caused the damage, nor was a police report or incident report provided. Staff has attached work history of tree with no fallen limbs documented. The applicant could pursue her cost of damages through the City claim process. The request does not meet the criteria for tree removal per G -1 Policy. Forward request to Parks, Beaches and Recreation Co ission for consideration and public comment. u��►�i►,►n1L Date: 5/23/00 X - �y w z LL O H U 0 z w Q a w 0 W w J w z W 0 J O t N Q M N M N a 211 J Q a Q w w O O w O O � J n ti n ti a co 00 z O o lC O N ° H Q J O 00 O U J z O O O F h o p a O W n z U O U z o O_ 4 tn ~ W a ° N U 2 O N. w w a rn 0 (n y J U 0 w j ° N N m > N k, z z w 2r w N U O a U J a w W z N LO vy0 z 0 U O U w N Y W z F � p � N N 7 @ W_ U o_ o T O C7 W q O d N U . i E W m J CD Z; O F 2 aM ! U ° O D ❑ U 0° 2 W o Cl o E m J d NM � N mm a p Z U O 0 0 0 0 m C pR N J ) J E N ¢ N N R Z N fA fA g cp ❑ O 0 I O c T ¢ ro r J m O � 0 0 m EI D m m .. ` E D m n v o, o o m rn rn .. d O E m o ' d U E z z U U .�i E O Z O N N ul (7 O D 2 ji•C�Cy�^r _ cn m W 3I O O U Q U Z m v co ! N O° 0 ❑ p x m a c p p 0 N ¢ U c c ._ ro 4--4 a�i �— g E E E E a E" ¢ cc ❑ F 1- H ¢ H 7�. '1 y LL `m E W N N O V H d T O U O ti mp 0 ZZ yap 3❑ _❑ F- U i Z� 0 0 (1) Ron" SW*K PB &R Commission Agenda Item No. 13 June 6, 2000 TO: FROM: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission General Services Director SUBJECT: Tree Removal Request Recommendation To have the Commission consider a tree removal request. History Mr. Hoag, property owner of 501 Poppy Avenue, has submitted the attached Tree Removal Request form pursuant to City Council Policy G -1. Staff has attached a Tree Inspection Report, Tree Appraisal and photographs for the request. Discussion Property owner has cited a hazardous condition due to constant tree sap upon the sidewalk and entry to his property. Staff has tried to remedy the problem to no avail after several attempts per attached Tree Inspection Report. This request does meet the minimum requirements of the City Council Policy G -1. Mr. Hoag has received a copy of this report and notice of the June 6 Commission meeting. Very respectfully, David E. Niederhaus Attachments: (1) Tree Removal Request Form axd-letter (2) Tree Inspection Report and photo (3) Tree Appraisal 3 l C:\W INDOW 5\Desktop \99 2000 \KRParks\PBR\PBRJune \Hoag.doc t PpRT Cq i_I FO FN,P CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, _ General Services Department Tree Removal or Reforestation Request Per City Council G -1 Policy (Retention or Removal of City Trees), I am requesting the removal of: 1-Z e the number and Located at: Please be specific as possible known) of tree(s). Requestor Private Property owner Community Association General Services Department Public Works Department Other Signature: Date: =`3 = Section A, For Tree Removal Requests Only Removal Criteria (Check one or morel March 3, 2000 =Proven and repeated history (two or more occurrences within an 18 month period) of damaging public or *private sewers, water mains, roadways, sidewalks, curbs, walls, fences, underground utilities or foundations. ( *exceeding $500) =Repeated history of significant interference with street or sidewalk drainage, despite specific treatment by the City to alleviate repeated damage. [Jjad ing Has no prospect of recovery. seased Cannot be cured by current arboricultural methods. In advanced state of decline with no prospect of recovery. =$azardous Defective, potential to fail, could cause damage to persons/property upon (S r; t:iX4 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. If this is a Reforestation (Removal and Replacement Request of a City tree at homeowner's expense), please proceed to second page. 96 Section B For Re&r stati n Requests Only Reforestation is the systematic removal and replacement of problematic trees at requestor's expense that have been unresponsive to modifying treatments. As initiated by: Private property owner Community Association City Department Other Check it applicable: Tree(s) causing curb, gutter, sidewalk or underground utilities damage. View encroachment Area has clearly defined contiguous boundaries that include the tree(s) proposed. Group application must include a signed petition of at least 60% of the property owners within the defined area. *Groups are defined as at least 10 properties in any given City area. =Application by a legally established Community Associations governed by CC &R's. Requires notification prior to voting by Board, of affected property owners. (Individuals within an Association must petition through their respective associations.) =Individual Wiper owner's requests accompanied by a signed petition of at least 60% of the neighboring property owners within a one block distance in either direction from the reforestation site, as well as the written endorsement of the appropriate homeowners' association if applicable. g � � R�tt,, "''� �*`..,J,a✓�e �, p RraC c ?i t '4F q; B'YF' 't++n /4� x' x5,w 1`tx.i F ki r .f�: A request�or reforestation requires a wntten Agreement }? the pelttwnrng, p F�sor,, payv: 0°a.o t o -'c 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 to ensure compliance with all City requirements. Please refer to individual Council Policy Gl for additional information. Field inspection made: emergency Removals Only: t 8,- mow, .?. t� ex;rs�m ="¢�a f §fx'<'S�iG..X'< . :xl =iR �yx,'u , •..� , CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT TREE INSPECTION REPORT Name: Mr. Patrick Hoag, 1914 Country Club Lane, Redlands, CA 92373 Address: 501 Poppy Avenue #B, Corona del Mar, 92625 Phone Number: 909 - 798 -4800, pager 909 - 386 -0167 Request: Remove diseased Eucalyptus tree on Second Avenue Botanical Name: Eucalyptus sideroxylon, tree site S -1 on Second Avenue Common Name: Red Ironbark Designated Street Tree: Same Estimated Tree Value: $7329.13, see attached tree appraisal Damage: Repeated sidewalk slippage from tree sap. Parkway: Concret Brick Turf Other Comments: Tree appears to have Slime Flux disease. After several tree trimmings to reduce debris and sap drop, along with steam cleaning the sidewalk repeatedly, the discoloring and sour odor reappear. See attached photos. Although the tree may not die, there is no control for Slime Flux. Inspected by:U Date: 5/23/00 Recommendation: Request meets criteria of G -1 Policy. Forward request to Parks, Beach s and Recreation Commission for consideration and public comment. %. A , Reviewed cc: Ms. Linda Horton 501 Poppy Avenue #A Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Date: 5/23/00 Mail to: P.O. Box 3274 Tustin, CA 92781 1 �' 0 u w z LL O H U E z w N� Lf� a w 0 U) w U w N J w z W 0 3 C N a a Q O CL O in YI d L a J a CL CL a w w ■ m m w J of of N N Q > m m 1-: 64 64 Z O rn M f0 O as o O m ~ o�co J Z O tn N H N o ti Lo cQ o O Z U O V Z o O p W Q O N U U o W 4 IL V) ER W N a J U 0 U W M p W Q J O m > C z z W U N O Q U J a w ir N W Z O O O = N O Z 0 U N Y W Z F �a � p o m N D O m w V a x � o W T L N a. N O ■ J o� , o, to ca l , @o SE ARD 2 RD Aw d r� oo I I 9 `f `J 0 0 Q NEWPORT O + r V ek P ��F00.�` PB &R ComIm�is.sion Agenda Item No. June 6, 2000 TO: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission FROM: General Services Director SUBJECT: Tree Removal Request Recommendation To have the Commission consider a tree removal request. History Mr. and Mrs. Jack Reinert, property owners of 1200 Nottingham Lane, have submitted the attached Tree Removal Request form pursuant to City Council Policy G -1. Staff has attached a Tree Inspection Report, Tree Appraisal and photograph for the request. Discussion Property owners have cited a beautification project as basis for tree removals. Fruit drop has been a problem in the past but recent tree trimming has minimized the amount of fruit drop. The trees are beginning to recover and will improve in appearance. This request does not meet the minimum requirements of the City Council Policy G -1. The request is not in conjunction with a City Council approval City, Commercial, Neighborhood, Community Association beautification program. Mr. and Mrs. Reinert has received a copy of this report and notice of the June 6 Commission meeting. Very respectfully, David E. Niederhaus Attachments: (1) Tree Removal Request Form (2) Tree Inspection Report and photo (3) Tree Appraisal !y C: \W JNDOW S \Deskbp \99 2000 \KRParks\PBR\PBRJune \Reinert.do . CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT TREE INSPECTION REPORT Name: Mr. and Mrs. Jack Reinert Address: 1200 Nottingham Lane Phone Number: 949 - 548 -3067 Request: Remove messy and ugly trees per request Botanical Name: Ficus rubiginosa — 2 each Common Name: Rusty Leaf Fig Designated Street Tree: Tabebuia avellanedae (Lavender Trumpet Tree) Estimated Tree Value: 2 trees, $2736.11, see Tree Appraisal Damage: None apparent Parkway: Concrete Brick ur Other Comments: Trees were recently trimmed as a result of an overall trimming program for Wes liff area. Trees appear healthy. Inspected by: �"N 044, Date: 5/23/00 Recommendation: Request do of meet removal criteria per G -1 policy. Fruit drop and fallen debris could be minimized by more frequent trimming (bi- annual, yearly, etc.). Forward request to Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for consideration an public c mment. Reviewed by Date: 5/23/00 9 q 1 i■ 1, u w z LL O U z w a a. w a U) w w N J W z w C J m d0 C 0 O Z O O N 1/1 N d a a G J a a a a w w 166 L J 00 cu l0 47 M m 6p, N x Z O to to O a a o ( F- U U O r ss z O to 0. H N o O D J O Z U O r U z LO O (j W U O IL N W N V1 Q J U 0 cj W m LO Q J O °° > C6 z z W H W V N QO U J CL W w N W N z U N 2 M Z 0 U N Y yuj Z H O � � Q � G N N t6 :r y W y O jp W IL _w l Q N y fr 166 � SEW Pp�r Cq�I FO 9114NP Per City Council CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH General Services Department Tree Removal or Reforestation Request (Retention or Indicate the number and speeie(s),(if known) Located at: March 3, 2000 of City ees), I am requesting the remov 1 of: Let ,e(s)' / Please be specific as possible Requestor Private Property owner Community Association General Services Department Public Works Department Date: .2 . d, o Removal Criteria (Check one or more) =Proven and repeated history (two or more occurrences within an 18 month period) of damaging public or *private sewers, water mains, roadways, sidewalks, curbs, walls, fences, underground utilities or foundations. ( *exceeding $500) =Repeated 'history of significant interference with street or sidewalk drainage, ,despite specific treatment by the City to alleviate repeated damage. Dead 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. If this is a Reforestation (Removal and Replacement Request of a City tree at homeowner's expense), please proceed to second page. 161 Section B For Reforestation Requests only Reforestation is the systematic removal and replacement of problematic trees at requestor's expense that have been unresponsive to modifying treatments. As initiated y: Private property owner Community Association City Department O Check items applicable: Tree(s) causing curb, gutter, sidewalk or underground utilities damage. View encroachment Area has clearly defined contiguous boundaries that include the tree(s) proposed. Group application must include a signed petition of at least 60% of the property owners within the defined area. *Groups are defined as at least 10 properties in any given City area. =Application by a legally established Community Associations governed by CC &R's. Requires notification prior to voting by Board, of affected property owners. (Individuals within an Association must petition through their respective associations.) =Individual proprrty owner's r quests accompanied by a signed petition of at least 60% of the neighboring property owners within a one block distance in either direction from the reforestation site, as well as the written endorsement of the a ms corm does not replace the requirements of any of the City tree policies. Its use is intended to expedite the tree removal or reforestation requests to ensure compliance with all City requirements. Please refer to individual Council Policy Gl for additional information. Requestor Comments: inspection made:. " >• /4-� Y 0 (1) PB &R Commission Agenda Item No. I .S June 6, 2000 TO: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission FROM: General Services Director SUBJECT: Tree Removal Request Recommendation To have the Commission consider a tree removal request. History Mr. and Mrs. John Bubb, property owners of 439 Irvine Avenue, have submitted the attached Tree Removal Request form pursuant to City Council Policy G -1. Staff has attached a Tree Inspection Report, Tree Appraisal and photographs for the request. Discussion The property owners have cited a hazardous condition due to large surface roots throughout the front yard. Additionally, the owners intend to install a fence but state the tree roots prohibit the installation. Staff has suggested that possible solutions prior to tree removal be considered such as root pruning to accommodate a fence installation. This request does not meet the minimum requirements of the City Council Policy G -1. Mr. and Mrs. Bubb have received a copy of this report and notice of the June 6 Commission meeting. Very respectfully, David E. Niederhaus Attachments: (1) Tree Removal Request Form (2) Tree Inspection Report and photo (3) Tree Appraisal CAWINDOW S\DeskWp \99 2000 \KRParks\PBR\PBRJune \Bubb.doc lU S Cq�t Fp RN-4- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH General Services Department Tree Removal or Reforestation Request Per City Council,('i -1 Policy (Retention or Removal of City Trees), I am requesting the removal of: Indicate the number and specie(s),(if known) of tree(s). Located at: March 3, 2000 Please be specific as possible Requestor / Private Property owner Community Association General Services Department Public Works Department r Signature-% Date: / Section A. For Tree Removal Requests Only Removal Criteria (Check one or more) =Proven and repeated history (two or more occurrences within an 18 month period) of damaging public or *private sewers, water mains, roadways, sidewalks, curbs, walls, fences, underground utilities or foundations. ( *exceeding $500) =Repeated history of significant interference with street or sidewalk drainage, despite specific treatment by the City to alleviate repeated damage. Dead Dying Has no prospect of recovery. Diseased Cannot be cured by current arboricultural methods. i 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. If this is a Reforestation (Removal and Replacement Request of a City tree at homeowner's expense), please proceed to second page. /6-6 As initiated Reforestation is the systematic removal and replacement of problematic trees at requestor's expense that have been unresponsive to modifying treatments. ite property owner munity Association Department Check items applicable: Tree(s) causing curb, gutter, sidewalk or underground utilities damage. View encroachment Area has clearly defined contiguous boundaries that include the tree(s) proposed. Group application must include a signed petition of at least 60% of the property owners within the defined area. *Groups are defined as at least 10 properties in any given City area. =Application by a legally established Community Associations governed by CC &R's. Requires notification prior to voting by Board, of affected property owners. (Individuals within an Association must petition through their respective associations.) =Individual rn oTerty owner's requests accompanied by a signed petition of at least 60% of the neighboring property owners within a one block distance in either direction from the reforestation site, as well as the written endorsement of the appropriate homeowners' 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 to ensure compliance with all City requirements. Please refer to individual Wield inspection made: c �' ' t' + Urban Fnre Cer CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT TREE INSPECTION REPORT Name: Mr. and Mrs. John Bubb Address: 439 Irvine Avenue, Newport Beach 92663 Phone Number: 949 - 646 -1921 Request: Remove large parkway tree to accommodate a fence installation and cause of concern due to large surface roots. Botanical Name: Common Name: Pinus radiata Monterey Pine Designated Street Tree: Magnolia `Samuel Sonners' Estimated Tree Value: $13,742 Damage: None apparent other than large surface roots throughout front of property. Parkway: Concrete Brick ur Other Comments: This tree has a high asthetic value. It is one of the few remaining large Monterey Pines without signs of pitcb canker disease in the City. Therefore, consideration to retain the tree and careful analysis of any root pruning to accommodate a fence should be a priority. Inspected by: k 1p8L/ { Date: 5/23/00 Recommendation: An onsite insVection with a consulting arborist and a fence contractor together should be considered to review all possible solutions. Therefore, the request does not meet criteria for tree removal per G -1 policy. Forward to Parks Beaches and Recreation Commission for consideration and public comment. L d I is Reviewed by: Date: 5/23/00 6y u w z LL O H U z Cw G IL w cl W w cn J W z W 0 N 3 C N Q O C M N N d L Q J Q N a a a w w 16 9 O O W 7 N N J n j M M fPr ER Z O N p +O+ O U) N O U M J 114 z Q O N J O n o° � U t09- Z O O �6 H Wo U 00 W O CL N h to J U 0 ° U w NQ p J O m j C1 z Z W N U Q V J a. w W d' H w Z � 0 On U N O Z 0 U � U N N Y W Z I- �g �Q �0 0 M U1 C W N m 2 U c N 0 O 16 9 llb E • (1) �� In 11 r PB &R Commission Agenda Item No. I Lf June 6, 2000 TO: FROM Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission General Services Director SUBJECT: Tree Removal Request Recommendation To have the Commission consider a tree removal request. History Mr. and Mrs. Sorrell Wayne, property owners of 1364 Hampshire Circle, has submitted the attached Tree Removal Request form pursuant to City Council Policy G -1. Staff has attached a Tree Inspection Report, Tree Appraisal and photographs for the request. Discussion The property owners have cited a hazardous condition due to tree roots. City staff indicate solutions should be considered prior to tree removal. This request does not meet the minimum requirements of the City Council Policy G -1. Mr. and Mrs. Wayne have received a copy of this report and notice of the June 6 Commission meeting. Very respectfully, David E. Niederhaus Attachments: (1) Tree Removal Request Form (2) Tree Inspection Report and photo (3) Tree Appraisal CAW1ND0W5\ Desktop \992000VCRParksWBR\PBRJu a \Wayne.doe rr3 �EWPp�,T CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH General Services Department " Tree Removal or Reforestation Request cq�t Fo RN�v- March 3, 2000 Per City Council G -1 Policy (Retention or Removal of City Trees), I am requesting the removal of: Indicate the number and specie(s),(if known) of tree(s). Located at: Please be specific as possible Requestor Private Property owner Community Association General Services Department Public Works Department Other Name /Address/Phone t;3w� l- lfYmr�ch i rr. C� 6rGl e. A1r) gzd t 19 Signature: .4tfy� Date:`�an� Section A. For Tree Removal Requests Only Removal Criteria (Check one or more) Proven and repeated history (two or more occurrences within an 18 month period) of damaging public or *private sewers, water mains, roadways, sidewalks, curbs, walls, fences, underground utilities or foundations. ( *exceeding $500) =Repeated history of significant interference with street or sidewalk drainage, ,despite specific treatment by the City to alleviate repeated damage. Dead 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. If this is a Reforestation (Removal and Replacement Request of a City tree at homeowner's expense), please proceed to second page. Section B For Reforestation Requests Only Reforestation is the systematic removal and replacement of problematic trees at requestor's expense that have been unresponsive to modifying treatments. a, initiated by: Private property owner Community Association City Department Other Check it applicable: Tree(s) causing curb, gutter, sidewalk or underground utilities damage. View encroachment Ama has clearly defined contiguous boundaries that include the tree(s) proposed: Group application must include a signed petition of at least 60% of the property owners within the defined area. *Groups are defined as at least 10 properties in any given City area. =Application by a legally established Community Associations governed by CC &R's. Requires notification prior to voting by Board, of affected property owners. (Individuals within an Association must petition through their respective associations.) Individual property owner's requests accompanied by a signed petition of at least 60% of the neighboring property owners within a one block distance in either direction from the reforestation site, as well as the written endorsement of the appropriate homeowners' association. if aDDlicable. 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 to ensure compliance with all City requirements. Please refer to individual Council Policy G-1 for additional information. Requestor Comments: Oeld inspection made: Emergency Removals Only: 9 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT TREE INSPECTION REPORT Name: Mr. and Mrs. Sorrell Wayne Address: 1364 Hampshire Circle, Newport Beach 92660 Phone Number: 949 - 646 -0414 Request: Remove parkway tree due to large surface roots which creates a trip hazard. Botanical Name: Melaleuca quinquenervia Common Name: Cajeput tree Designated Street Tree: same Estimated Tree Value: $2442.70 Damage: Curb, gutter Parkway: Concrete Brick ur Other Comments: The tree has high shade value an alternate solution should be considered, such as root pruning, hardscape repair, irrigation repair, landscape improvements and private property repair to alleviate applicants concerns. Inspected by: Date: 5/23/00 Recommendatio : Alternate solutions should be considered prior to tree removal. The request does not meet criteria for tree removal per G -1 policy. Forward request to Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for consideration and public convent. Ili. Reviewed by: tw(, kywlV o / Date: 5/23/00 1 ■i T u 2.11 w z LL O H L) z Cw G a a w a U) W w N J w z W 0 N U L U i L N CL E 2 Lo W m N N d v a J a Cl) a a w w /1/ 0 0 w n n M N V N � J d � 9 N N k z 0 6 O N rl. O Q J o N W 0 U N J z m O F N O m LO O J 0 O oU U z O W 0 W g: 0 m C y N N Q J U 0 U W � 0 n Q n m j z w LUF W N 00 i U a w m N W z = n N O Z = U d cJ N N Y yLJ z F m m mQ F- N i N C C W IL m a CT 6 � /1/ ■ i�■ a{� ®rte av u �IIf3�t j ski T /'" (1) PB &R Commission Agenda Item No. June 6, 2000 TO: FROM: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission General Services Director SUBJECT: Tree Removal Request Recommendation To have the Commission consider a tree removal request. History Mr. and Mrs. John Morton, property owners of 613 Narcissus Avenue, have submitted the attached Tree Removal Request form pursuant to City Council Policy G -1. Staff has attached a Tree Inspection Report and photograph for the request. Discussion Property owners have cited hazardous situations as reason to remove a City tree. Staff indicated there is not a hazardous condition. Tree was recently trimmed to eliminate fruit droppings. This request does not meet the minimum requirements of the City Council Policy G -1. Mr. and Mrs. Morton have received a copy of this report and notice of the June 6 Commission meeting. Very respectfully, David E. Niederhaus Attachments: (1) Tree Removal Request Form and letter (2) Tree Inspection Report and photo CAWIND0WS\Desktop\99 2000 \KRParksTBR\PBRJune \Momn.doe � SEW PART O ,d C'q</ FO RN�P CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH General Services Department Tree Removal or Reforestation Request Per City Council G -1 Policy1Retention or Rer Indicate the number and specie(s),(ifknown) Trees), I am requesting the removal of: Located at: , �, / 5 /t%r\,�, <5 u !- G � P • /1. Please be specific as possible Requestor Private Property owner Community Association General Services Department Public Works Department Other Name /Address/Phone j W, JViVL March 3, 2000 Signature: �.%or� : `- Date: Section A. For Tree Removal Requests Only Removal Criteria (Check one or Criteria (Check one or more) =Proven and repeated history (two or more occurrences within an 18 month period) of damaging public or *private sewers, water mains, roadways, sidewalks, curbs, walls, fences, underground utilities or foundations. ( *exceeding $500) =Repeated history of significant interference with street or sidewalk drainage, ,despite specific treatment by the City to alleviate repeated damage. Dead Dying Has no prospect of recovery. Diseased Cannot be cured by current arboricultural methods. In advanced state of decline with no prospect of recovery. [ZHazardons Defective, potential to fail, could cause damage to erP sons/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. If this is a Reforestation (Removal and Replacement Request of a City tree at homeowner's expense), please proceed to second page. 1-�3 cl i ili t�'ffs�� !/YL f'" iar�"fy�it/ �� a-� mot/ ..i -r2✓ �%��/'c� V. M. & J. D. Morton { 31594 W Nine La una Ni uel, CA 92677 0 ��,� ` %= r- vim....;. JY,ze;•r_:- ,��ca�y -, � .. GG� % ✓' G'r f C ✓i � / ��. i''hl ! : G.:�: 1`.:�� J.J. L/• F%1� �!-: 4-J /�n Ia t,._ J fir. -�: � �.•+�. - ;�x`;�v' - -�1 j`'%{ps„'� � �r�ivit:f J y �� C.,t� -1�.• �'':� �✓ Yom. J v/J F, l lam- J �r1;J •!itu /r t .�^%-%�.-F J �i'yl".1� 1�- r L l _ � � J'r��',,��,rrt•5 1s.` �'t�,/n�� Lrrr -��:� r� i�� c-� Z Z CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT TREE INSPECTION REPORT Name: Mr. and Mrs. John Morton Address: 613 Narcissus Avenue Phone Number: N/A Request: Remove messy palm tree due to fruit drop Botanical Name: Arecastrum romanzoffianum Common Name: Queen Palm Designated Street Tree: Eucalyptus torquata (Coral Gum) Estimated Tree Value: $3750 Damage: None apparent Parkway: oncrete Brick Turf Other Comments: The palm was recently trimmed to eliminate any fruit drop. Supplemental tree trimming is an option to the property owner rather than tree removal. Inspected by: �`�� Date: 5/23/00 Recommendation: Request does not meet criteria for tree removal per G -1 policy. Forward to Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for consideration and public com nt. Reviewed by: Date: 5/23/00 0 U a w m w z LL O H U 0 z ¢w G a IL w w w N J W z ♦w V O C d a N J N z Z m tD N N m L ZO J a a a a w w F w O O 7 O O J Ln LO bs �r Z 7m °a ~ a J U O U J Z O N P N c J Z U O U Z O W U U — W L_ IL y V1 N a J O O U W w O LO N J m � mEfl z z w N W Qo U J IL w N Z O Z 0 U &C, N In ZH L C:L L i 0 N 0 M 0 3 .60 Q ry j„� Ui En N E c E w 2t6m W N N O N U � U R d a E d 0' /-)--V a o e u s e.. X94 FOa��P 0 PB &R Commission Agenda Item No. June 6, 2000 TO: FROM: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission General Services Director SUBJECT: Tree Removal Request Recommendation To have the Commission consider a tree removal request. History Mr. and Mrs. David Miller, property owners of 536 Santa Ana Avenue, have submitted the attached Tree Removal Request form pursuant to City Council Policy G -1. Staff has attached a Tree Inspection Report and photograph for the request. Discussion Property owner cites street, private sidewalk, and curb damage as a result of City tree. Although property damage, both private and public are evident, property owners did not provide records or documents to verify repeated history of property damage. Informationally, a street rehabilitation program administered by the Public Works Department, will start within a few months which will address most of Mr. and Mrs. Miller's concerns. This request does not meet the minimum requirements of the City Council Policy G -1. Mr. and Mrs. Miller have received a copy of this report and notice of the June 6 Commission meeting. Very respectfully, David E. Niederhaus Attachments: (1) Tree Removal Request Form: (2) Tree Inspection Report and photo CAW INDOW S \Deskbp \99 2000\ KRParks\PBR\PBRJune\tdiller.doe 13� PART C'9<i Fp RN`P CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH General Services Department Tree Removal or Reforestation Request Per City Council G -1 Policy (Retention or Removal of City Trees), I am requesting the removal of: Indicate the number and specie(s),(if known) of tree(s). Located at: 5 � 3,c 0_ lA t March 3, 2000 �ilQy� /n Yr ;��LJ J Please be specific as possible Requestor Private Property owner Community Association General Services Department Public Works Department Other Name /Address/Phone C12k aa-1f50 Signature: Date: Section A. For Tree Removal Requests Only (�1n� Removal Criteria (Check one or more) ac Eaus W� ��ticryu rw =Proven and repeated history (two or more occurrences within an 18 mon h period) of damaging public or *private sewers, water mains, roadwa s side ks curbs walls, fences, underground utilities or foundations. ( *exceeding $500) t =Repeated history of significant interference with treet or sidewalk draina e despite specific treatment by the City to alleviate repeated damage. Dead 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. If this is a Reforestation (Removal and Replacement Request of a City tree at homeowner's expense), please proceed to second page. 139 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT TREE INSPECTION REPORT Name: Mr. and Mrs. David Miller Address: 536 Santa Ana Avenue, Newport Beach Phone Number: 949 - 722 -1807 Request: Remove parkway tree due to curb, gutter, sidewalk, and roadway damage. Botanical Name: Eucalyptus leucoxylon Common Name: White Ironbark Designated Street Tree: Calodendrum capense (Cape Chestnut) Estimated Tree Value: $1759.10 Damage: Curb, gutter, private walkway Parkway: Concrete Brick ur? Other Comments: Tree has high asethic and shade value, therefore, alternate solutions should be considered before tree removal. Hardscape repair, both private and public, should be considered along with root pruning, root barrier installation and tree trimming. City will be performing street rehabilitation work in the future and this will reduce major concerns. Inspected by: � /, "L Lr- � Date: 5/24/00 Recommendation: Although property damage, both private and public are evident, property owners did not provide records or documents to verify repeated history of property damage. Therefore, the request did not meet the criteria for removal per G -1 policy. Forward request to Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission fiDI-consideTation and public comment. i Reviewed by: Date: 5/24/00 1Yd 0 T 11 • w z LL O OWN 0 z W a a w 0 W w J W z W 0 d 7 C Q m C Q m c m N m N J a a Q w w w 1q] 0 0 W M O O J L[) LO E4 t R 6 6 Z 0 N O l0 r O N o (3) ~ Q J U O W n U O r Q3 z O N 00 W o Q O U O �r U z � O op N F ;I- n W 1a O 64 aN N N a J U O Vw J Lq Q co m j to z z W N V 60 U J IL w M N W Z N .4 LO VNO N Z 0 U O U N N W z Z H �a g co 4 O 9 a U w m o a N w °' r 3 1q] V Wd PB &R Commission Agenda Item No. -M June 6, 2000 TO: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission FROM: General Services Director SUBJECT: Tree Removal Request Recommendation To have the Commission consider a tree removal request. History Ms. Bellany Joan Beaumont, property owner of 715 Larkspur Avenue, has submitted the attached Tree Removal Request form pursuant to City Council Policy G -1. Staff has attached a Tree Inspection Report, Tree Appraisal Report and photographs for the request. Discussion Property owner has cited proven and repeated history of property damage as a result of two City trees. The applicant did not provide additional documents or information to substantiate proven and repeated history of private property damage, but there exists damage to public property that is in need of repair. City staff recommends some alternate solutions to eliminate problems relative to tree roots. This request does not meet the minimum requirements of the City Council Policy G -1. Ms. Beaumont has received a copy of this report and notice of the June 6 Commission meeting. Very respectfully, David E. Niederhaus Attachments: (1) Tree Removal Request Form and letter (2) Tree Inspection Report and photo CAWIND0W6 \Desktop \99 2000 \KRPuks\PBR\PBRJune\Beaumont.doc j �� MAR -24 -00 02:10 PM BINNIE BEAUMONT r � �E�yJPp�T p 4 u C,J. 7147590190 V CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH General Services Department Tree Removal or Reforestation Request Per City Council G -1 Police (Retention 9{,Rcnruval of City Trccs), I am requesting the removal of Indicale lke number and specle(s),(if knowhf oflree(s). Located at: P -01 March 3, 2000 Please be specific as possible Requestor N�aTne /!Address /Phone Y. � l W l Privatc Property owner $ CJL�I R W J�A-1 Mn' e� 7' Community Association ri i�➢ C General Services Department Public Works Department f4q 7F' Oi Other Signature: � Dat ,Zl E70 Section For Tree Removal Req uegs Only Removal Criteria (Check on or oral Proven and repeated history (two or more occurrences within an Is month period) of damaging public or *private sewers, water mains, roadways, sidewalks, curbs, walls, fences, underground utilities or foundations. ( "exceeding $500) =Repeated history of significant interference with street or sidewalk drainage, despite specific treatment by the city to alleviate repeated damage. Dead Dying Has no prospect of recovery. Diseased Cannot be cured by current arboriculturai 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 a56U4;1AUVlt v1 V*""' If this is a Reforestation (Removal and Replacement Request of a City tree at homeowner's expense), please proceed to second page. /!- 0 O 3.ff-ny Goan B,,wnont &Tona d, -Mat, IfIllfoznla 92625 3 -23 -2000 John Conway, Urban Forester City of Newport Beach, General Services Dept 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, Ca 92658 -8915 Dear John, Thank you for the information concerning my tree removal request. I am requesting that the city remove the two Brazilian Peppers in front of my property at 715 Larkspur Avenue. I have lived here since January 1991 and am enjoying my tenth year in this community. I think that it is in everyone's best interest to remove these two trees. They are currently damaging our property at 715 Larkspur, and have severely damaged the sidewalks. Last summer the sidewalk in front of the house was replaced without root pruning the trees. Several years ago, the sidewalk was ground down with a Bartels (sp ?) grinder. I do not think that replacing the sidewalks periodically is a responsible resonse to the real problem- the inappropriate choice of trees for the area. For almost 9 years, I have attempted to grow a miniature ivy groundcover on the parkway. The only effect of that expensive effort was to grow Brazilian Pepper roots -see enclosed photo. Last summer the roots had invaded my front yard and tried to grow another tree on my patio. Currently there is a 7 inches circumference root easily visible in the low planter to the far left on the front, which borders on 713 Larkspur. It has broken the low wall next to the sidewalk. Clearly, it is time for action! My first preference is for the city to remove the Brazilian Peppers and replace them with Pittosporum, as you and I discussed last Spring. Should that not be a possibility, I am requesting the most severe root pruning possible of the parkway, and the area between the sidewalk and my newly planted landscaping. I have recently spent in excess of $7000.00 to re- landscape my front yard. I would greatly appreciate your help in the beautification of the area surrounding my new landscaping. Thank you very much for your help with this matter. MoAwl,& t sincerely, /� b fAA- `� be ,L ''- .:,:: h ,.,.; � L .rte• . i �o � t �K i k k. S rya: i ..4h, -. AA CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT TREE INSPECTION REPORT Name: Ms. Bellany Joan Beaumont Address: 715 Larkspur Avenue Phone Number: 949 - 759 -0190 Request: Remove 2 parkway trees due to repeated history of damage to public property. Botanical Name: Schinus terebinthifolius Common Name: Brazilian Pepper Designated Street Tree: Stenocarpus sinuatus (Firewheel tree) Estimated Tree Value: 2 trees, $3126.98 Damage: Curb and gutter Parkway: Concrete Brick ffuR Other Comments: Although the trees have high shade value, they are in a limited growth, 3' with the likely hood of continued hardscape damage and root intrusion. However, due to the high shade value, a root pruning program which would involve curb and gutter repair, root pruning, root barrier installation and landscape improvements should be considered before removal. Inspected by: Qom, �"' �� Date: 5/24/00 Recommendation: The property owner cited repeated history of property damage, both public and private, in her request. However, the applicant did not provide additional documents or information to substantiate proven and repeated history of private property damage but there exists damage to public property that is in need of repair. City staff recommends some alternate solutions to eliminate problems relative to roots. Therefore, the request does not meet the criteria for tree removal pe -1 policy. Reviewed by: Date: 5/24/00 1V U a w m w z LL O U P J z w Q CL w 0 C0 w U w N J w z w 0 N 3 C Q 3 Q s L m J U7 ti n N N d 9 24 J a U) 9 a a a w w H 00 W M J t lM0 � N ti N M X z O h t Q Q Ur U O LQ O e» J z O n No LO J O z O U z m O nj N F W d V _U 0 cv W a: O W 64 0. N Vl (n a J U 0 U W n (r Q O 00 j MEfr z Z w �U) U N J U CL W N W z M = N O Z K U N Y w z H 7 � i Q W .� N c r W CL U C N V% N N N � �+ m I I N l • PB &R Commission Agenda Item No. i 2 June 6, 2000 TO: FROM: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission General Services Director SUBJECT: Tree Removal Request Recommendation To remove two street trees at 1100 Essex Lane due to repeated hardscape damage. History Ms. Judy Lockyer, property owner of 1100 Essex Lane, has submitted the attached Tree Removal Request form pursuant to City Council Policy G -1. Staff has attached a Tree Inspection Report, Tree Appraisal Report, and photograph of the trees. Discussion The property owner cites sewer lateral damage, irrigation damage, and root intrusion onto private property as grounds for tree removal. However, Ms. Lockyer has not submitted any bills nor documents to confirm property damage. She stated in her attached letter that she recently spent $402.50 on sewer repairs due to the trees evasive root system and also mentioned that an invoice for this work was enclosed, but is was not. Staff could not ascertain any supporting evidence that the trees are hazardous. The City has no record of any sewer problems at this address. However, the General Services Department Concrete Maintenance Supervisor records show that in 1994, the curb and gutter was replaced, in late 1996 a portion of sidewalk was replaced, and in May 1999 a major portion of sidewalk and some of the driveway was replaced due to repeated hardscape damage by the tree roots. These repairs, although outside an 18 month period, exhibit a significant repeated history of hardscape repairs due to the tree roots and although the removal request does not meet the requirements of the City Council Policy G -1, removal and replacement of the trees is recommended to avoid further hardscape damage and avoid further liability from the private property owner. The replacement trees will be 24" boxed Coral Gum trees. CAW INDOW S \TEMP\Lockyer_.doe .1 E 0 Ms. Lockyer has received a copy of this report and notice of the June 6 Commission meeting. Very respectfully, David E. Niederhaus Attachments: (1) Tree Removal Request Form and letter (2) Tree Inspection Report and photo CAWINDOWS\ Deskt op\ 992000VKRParks \PBR \PRRJuoe \Lockyer .doe /-3 0( \<tFOt;'�; CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH General Services Department Tree Removal or Reforestation Request March 3, 2000 Per City Council G -I Policy (Retention or Removal of City Trees), I am requesting the removal of: t:;? / 4,e 6 (�- �Q TS Indicate the number and specie(s),(if known) of tree(s). Located at: lf�l0/07 /✓die // Ai 02 i Co/ �f7 e Please be specific as possible R I Criteria (Cbeck one or or Proven and repeated history (two or more occurrences within an 18 month period) of damaging public or *private sewers, water mains, roadways, sidewalks, curbs, walls, fences, underground utilities or foundations. ( *exceeding $500) =Repeated history of significant interference with street or sidewalk drainage, despite specific treatment by the City to alleviate repeated damage. =Beautification Project Has no prospect of recovery. Cannot be cured by current arboricultural methods. In advanced state of decline with no prospect of recovery. 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. In conjunction with a City Council- approved City, commercial, neighborhood, or community association beautification program. If this is a Reforestation (Removal and Replacement Request of a City tree at homeowner's expense), please proceed to second page. 13 '�--- 0 Judy Lockyer RN.WU 1100 Essex Lane Newport Beach, CA: 92660 Telephone: 949- 646- 76h3, Fax: 949- 646 -7683 Mr. Conway Urban Forester 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, Ca: 92658 -8915 March 6, 2000 Dear W. Conway; After speaking with Mr. Marcelino Lomeli, l was referred to your department. The existing and ongoing problem is with the trees located on our street between the sidewalk and curb. They are overgrown with roots showing 1 -Ys foes above the ground, and some of them are under the sidewalk and have traveled far onto the lawn close to the house itself. We have battled these roots and the problems they present for 3 years and continue to do so. Just recently sewage appeared on the sidewalk. The mainline pipe was found to be strangled with roots. These roots had to be cut out of the pipe and then the pipe had to be chemically treated. The preferred and recommended procedure for this severe problem was estimated at approximately S 3,000.00. We elected a short-term fix for S 402.50 for DOW. Secondly, these tree toots have caused broken and elevated sidewalks, which the city repairs annually, however it is like applying a Band -Aid and not solving the real problem, because now our sprinklers are broken and are flooding under the sidewalk. Our sprinklers have been broken over and over again and flood the sidewalk, waste water, soak the lawn, and we are left to repair the problem at least 2 -3 times per year. i would appreciate an opportunity to discuss this problem with you. Please contact me at your earliest convenience. I may be reached at the above numbers. I have enclosed a bill for the most recent expense caused by these trees. S' Judy Lockyer 133 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT TREE INSPECTION REPORT Name: Ms. Judy Lockyer Address: 1100 Essex Lane Phone Number: 949 - 646 -7673 Request: Remove Ficus trees that have repeated damage per attached letter. Botanical Name: Ficus microcarpa `nitida' 2 trees Common Name: Indian Laurel Fig Designated Street Tree: Eucalyptus torquata (Coral Gum) Estimated Tree Value: 2 trees, $6596 Damage: None current or apparent, records indicate repeated sidewalk, curb, gutter repairs Parkway: Concrete Brick ur Other Comments: Property owner cited sewer lateral damage, irrigation damage, and root intrusion onto private property. However, no bills have been forwarded to date. Hardscape repairs have occurred due to tree roots which have been monitored by City staff. Inspected by: ()!--I— G ' —� Date: 5/24/00 Recommendation: To date, request does not meet criteria for removal per G -1 policy. Although trees have high shade value, they are existing in a limited growth space (3' parkway) which will increase the likely hood of hardscape and utility line damage, the high shade value the trees offer must be considered. Root pruning and subsequent irrigation repair would be an alternative to tree removal and minimizing hazardous conditions as cited by the applicant. Forward request to Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for consideration and public comment. 111'1, 1, Reviewed by: IU MM- Date: 5/24/00 13y u w z U. O F U F- z W a a w 0 N W w J W z w 0 N C �a J x O LJ W 0 O ti h N w v Z, J a a a a w w W N O M N O J W N 01 N p N LO N � x Z O N N lC M O N Q J o O 00 N ~ O U cyi J z O O N p Z J U O OD L O U z O Ln O 00 m °0 4 w a N (n J U 0 LO U Q J m m j z z w 2F wN U 0 � U a W ix Vl W Z Lq LO Uy O N Z o U O U y N Y w 2 H c K Q F' p c0 N d w N m m U O wU w _ p Z- a N �S /3r` /3L • • • (1) PB &R Commission Agenda Item No. June 6, 2000 TO: FROM: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission General Services Director SUBJECT: Tree Removal Request Recommendation To have the Commission consider a tree removal request. History Mr. and Mrs. David Miller, property owners of 536 Santa Ana Avenue, have submitted the attached Tree Removal Request form pursuant to City Council Policy G -1. Staff has attached a Tree Inspection Report and photograph for the request. Discussion Property owner cites street, private sidewalk, and curb damage as a result of City tree. Although property damage, both private and public are evident, property owners did not provide records or documents to verify repeated history of property damage. Informationally, a street rehabilitation program administered by the Public Works Department, will start within a few months which will address most of Mr. and Mrs. Miller's concerns. This request does not meet the minimum requirements of the City Council Policy G -1. Mr. and Mrs. Miller have received a copy of this report and notice of the June 6 Commission meeting. Very respectfully, David E. Niederhaus Attachments: (1) Tree Removal Request Form (2) Tree Inspection Report and photo C: \W INDOWS\Deskmp \99 2000 \RRPuks\PBR\PBRJune\Miller.doc r3� r,E.wPOR� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH General Services Department Tree Removal or Reforestation Request CqJ FO VLT4 March 3, 2000 Per City Council G -1 Policy (Retention or Removal of City Trees), I am requesting the removal of: Indicate the nuntber and specie(s),(if known) of tree(s). ��� Located at: 5-'o(e �J(i /ly�( CQ oidt �(�iu/2 •' =,, Please be specific as possible Requestor Private Property owner Community Association General Services Department is Public Works Department Other Signature: 1� Section A. For Tree Removal Requests Only Name /Address/Phone A41G Date: ffi` P: WIL'Ati 4., =Proven and repeated history (two or more occurrences within an 18 month period) of damaging public or *private sewers, water mains, roadwa s sid ks curbs walls, fences, underground utilities or foundations. ( *exceeding $500) i =Repeated history of significant interference with treet or sidewalk drainage. despite specific treatment by the City to alleviate repeated damage. Dead Dying Has no prospect of recovery. Diseased Cannot be cured by current arboricultural methods. (- lQWflt/6/ 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. If this is a Reforestation (Removal and Replacement Request of a City tree at homeowner's expense), please proceed to second page. )35 r -y Section B. For Reforestation Requests Only Reforestation is the systematic removal and replacement of problematic trees at requestor's expense • that have been unresponsive to modifying treatments. As initiated ite property owner munity Association Department Check items applicable: Tree(s) causing curb, gutter, sidewalk or underground utilities damage. View encroachment Area has clearly defined contiguous boundaries that include the tree(s) proposed. Group application must include a signed petition of at least 60% of the property owners within the defined area. *Groups are defined as at least 10 properties in any given City area. =Application by a legally established Community Associations governed by CC &R's. Requires notification prior to voting by Board, of affected property owners. (Individuals within an Association must petition through their respective associations.) =Individual proper owner's requests accompanied by a signed petition of at least 60% of the neighboring property owners within a one block distance in either direction from the reforestation site, as well as the written endorsement of the appropriate homeowners' association if applicable. Areque�t ,%xrpfoxestatzonreguzres�[ enatrgree enY���'Ti�,petz"�'iornn �p tq OQ %oft e >� ofr�,e • �i•t ! + t t F I •xy I � � E�f� I• °% [ � i � *fit t� t I„ � 3 , removatattd repdac'dmerrt of rhepulxlra ages "kf the rgmova(�`aciztvz�gr�� I r';eritovaY arzd replan8rzg ; will E�e�aar "dznated by the Geel Serv,i}c, ep rhngn 1a t zp ety its¢ red; A Onl re Iacement trees esz ed ftt II X p � � � gn �' �eszgnatetd SYr�er"C' d zr m � f re�lac t � z'equzr2�' and � �Yi` t{t� �zze 0f�3 °acco mtodahon repYzzc�Iir� fwz116 ittt, r! same; ' a. varyr in `$6Qo: D40p@r re the 1 r , S� 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 to ensure compliance with all City requirements. Please refer to individual Council Policy G-1 for additional information. • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT TREE INSPECTION REPORT Name: Mr. and Mrs. David Miller Address: 536 Santa Ana Avenue, Newport Beach Phone Number: 949 - 722 -1807 Request: Remove parkway tree due to curb, gutter, sidewalk, and roadway damage. Botanical Name: Eucalyptus leucoxylon Common Name: White Ironbark Designated Street Tree: Calodendrum capense (Cape Chestnut) • Estimated Tree Value: $1759.10 Damage: Curb, gutter, private walkway Parkway: Concrete Brick ur Other Comments: Tree has high asethic and shade value, therefore, alternate solutions should be considered before tree removal. Hardscape repair, both private and public, should be considered along with root pruning, root barrier installation and tree trimming. City will be performing street rehabilitation work in the future and this will reduce major concerns. Inspected by: \ 2tL �C' Date: 5/24/00 Recommendation: Although property damage, both private and public are evident, property owners did not provide records or documents to verify repeated history of property damage. Therefore, the request did not meet the criteria for removal per G -1 policy. Forward request to Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission fo considefation and public comment. i • Reviewed by: Date: 5/24/00 1V6 0 U a w m F- • a 3 w z LL 0 U r H z w a a w 0 U) w U w U) J W z w a C N Q m C Q m y C m m m N v ao J a a a a w w I 0 0 W r 7 J m rn In Q 1� r, Z O to C O o L aU) U J W OV 64 Z 00 p N o C6 p Q O W Z U O (\i U Z � O W N F LLI d n 0 WW CL In Q J U 0 U) J co m j �o z z W F W u) ¢O U J IL W H W Z d o y 0 N Z C U d�v Y W Z H O � � Q C of s fn p 4 a O L) W m x a N U L W I Cl 0 (5) PB &R Commission Agenda Item No. -M June 6, 2000 TO: FROM: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission General Services Director SUBJECT: Tree Removal Request Recommendation To have the Commission consider a tree removal request. History Ms. Bellany Joan Beaumont, property owner of 715 Larkspur Avenue, has submitted the attached Tree Removal Request form pursuant to City Council Policy G -1. Staff has attached a Tree Inspection Report, Tree Appraisal Report and photographs for the request. Discussion Property owner has cited proven and repeated history of property damage as a result of two City trees. The applicant did not provide additional documents or information to substantiate proven and repeated history of private property damage, but there exists damage to public property that is in need of repair. City staff recommends some alternate solutions to eliminate problems relative to tree roots. This request does not meet the minimum requirements of the City Council Policy G -1. Ms. Beaumont has received a copy of this report and notice of the June 6 Commission meeting. Very respectfully, David E. Niederhaus Attachments: (1) Tree Removal Request Form and letter (2) Tree Inspection Report and photo I , r C:AWINDOWSVDesktopA 992000 AKRParksVPBR \PBRJ.VBea=ontdoo J `j MAR -24 -00 02:10 PM BINNIE BEAUMONT 7147590190 P.01 PO CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH o� m General Services Department U Tree Removal or Reforestation Request r C14 i r O March 3, 2000 Per City Council G -1 Poliol (Retention lire rwnrber and.rpecle(.r Af Located at: of City Trccs), I am requesting the removal of: of Iree(s), please be specific as possible Request or j Name /Address/Phone private Property owner u0s a l Jo," t A K le Community Association 7 f S w C. D • General Services Department Public Works Department Ot Other. Vat Signature: i �0+p W {oval Criteria (Check th period) of k ne or tnttrgl vcn and repeated history (two or more occurrences within an IS mon damaging public or "private sewers, water mains, roadways, sidewalks, curbs, walls, fences, underground utilities or foundations. ( "exceeding $500) =Repeated history of significant interference with street or sidewalk drainage, despite specific treatment by the City to alleviate repeated damage. NDead 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/properly 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 aa.1N;Ialw9l yrvyru.•.. If this is a Reforestation (Removal and Replacement Request of 8 City tree at homeowner's expense), please proceed to second page. d- • I v I'Ma y Gppoan.sw/umont 715 -ZWEl I( uT OJVenue �fowna c%�cl(/(az, �a.�lfoTnla 92625 3 -23 -2000 John Conway, Urban Forester City of Newport Beach, General Services Dept 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, Ca 92658 -8915 Dear John, Thank you for the information concerning my tree removal request. I am requesting that the city remove the two Brazilian Peppers in front of my property at 715 Larkspur Avenue. I have lived here since January 1991 and am enjoying my tenth year in this community. I think that it is in everyone's best interest to remove these two trees. They are currently damaging our property at 715 Larkspur, and have severely damaged the sidewalks. Last summer the sidewalk in front of the house was replaced without root pruning the trees. Several years ago, the sidewalk was ground down with a Bartels (sp ?) grinder. I do not think that replacing the sidewalks periodically is a responsible resonse to the real problem- the inappropriate choice of trees for the area. For almost 9 years, I have attempted to grow a miniature ivy groundcover on the parkway. The only effect of that expensive effort was to grow Brazilian Pepper roots -see enclosed photo. Last summer the roots had invaded my front yard and tried to grow another tree on my patio. Currently there is a 7 inches circumference root easily visible in the low planter to the far left on the front, which borders on 713 Larkspur. It has broken the low wall next to the sidewalk. Clearly, it is time for action! My first preference is for the city to remove the Brazilian Peppers and replace them with Pittosporum, as you and I discussed last Spring. Should that not be a possibility, I am requesting the most severe root pruning possible of the parkway, and the area between the sidewalk and my newly planted landscaping. I have recently spent in excess of $7000.00 to re- landscape my front yard. I would greatly appreciate your help in the beautification of the area surrounding my new landscaping. Thank you very much for your help with this matter. Most sincerely, 3e ida- 1 - +. y .t 1/ I t li ' • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT TREE INSPECTION REPORT Name: Ms. Bellany Joan Beaumont Address: 715 Larkspur Avenue Phone Number: 949 - 759 -0190 Request: Remove 2 parkway trees due to repeated history of damage to public property. Botanical Name: Schinus terebinthifolius Common Name: Brazilian Pepper Designated Street Tree: Stenocarpus sinuatus (Firewheel tree) Estimated Tree Value: 2 trees, $3126.98 Damage: Curb and gutter Parkway: Concrete Brick ur Other Comments: Although the trees have high shade value, they are in a limited growth, 3' with the likely hood of continued hardscape damage and root intrusion. However, due to the high shade value, a root pruning program which would involve curb and gutter repair, root pruning, root barrier installation and landscape improvements should be considered before removal. Inspected by: Date: 5/24/00 Recommendation: The property owner cited repeated history of property damage, both public and private, in her request. However, the applicant did not provide additional documents or information to substantiate proven and repeated history of private property damage but there exists damage to public property that is in need of repair. City staff recommends some alternate solutions to eliminate problems relative to roots. Therefore, the request does not meet the criteria for . tree removal pe -1 policy. Reviewed by: Date: 5/24/00 I L' r U U Q w m O • a W z LL O wi U 0 z w Q a w 0 w U w U) J w z w 0 N 7 C N Q i 7 41 N Y J to H n N to v a, J Q a a w w W Itt m J L l4 m N N � m 6p, X z O y 70 O y Q J ° O M W ~ U U � UT z O y m � ° LO z J O W Z V O U z Obi O (Ni H W � U t-) ° N d y O W y y a J U 0 n w U = y LO 0 J m> 0 z w W F W W y U O J U IL w m V) O (Y) V y m Z U y Y W z F 7 � � Q .r N 7 i N (1 W 0 _ a N d W a r �a m U) to N N i N � t m lq- f A P. a • � a y S.Ts 0 0 • 1 y . w 4 h So/ 010,01 u 1 h r 1 -f i • •�wf. ♦: i .. 0 0 0 .sue •.y , f'• . �.r' f .ice' :.t'j h.., •_'; .ti Ur kh 1 '.• � ' ' 7• 1, r f I i .(( 1 °, l 1 I k i t 1 � 1 • �` 1r r ♦ i i l titer • ; Lyy x up .ME .11 :� 1 r IL kk 0 fit. y .,�, � �. ��, '�♦ . ` E rev * Ir .AI ur. 0 0 • a L L J f, f i. 4� Y �� a ;, , • . All 1.. •. 0 0 0 /3 23 41_51d(,, i Ln r, i I � 1 i , ice. 't" , "�•• , _!-'w. r 444, till a OR 1 L N Utz. a 11 t -.r 1 1 �. %� t y ., • . r- I/ lT •t i I Z a .t l -A l v r J 1,jo� ; • 'YID' TT'' • • 0 rage i or i xy� 63 C4mbr;4 Dr. file: / /A:\W C- 250S.7PG 4/24/00