Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/1/2003 - Agenda PacketAPRIL 1, 2003 PB &R COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA City of Newport Beach Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission Tuesday, April 1. 200.2 — 7pm — City Council Chambers AGENDA ORDER AND ROLL CALL PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATES TO BOYS & GIRLS BASKETBALL LEAGUE OVERVIEW OF ORANGE COAST RIVER PARK AND UPDATE DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS • Director Knight • Director Niederhaus 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 (1-3) are considered by the Commission to be routine and will all be enacted by one motion in the form listed below. The Commission Members have received detailed staff reports on each of the items recommending approval. There will be no separate discussion of these items prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion unless members of the Commission, staff, or the public request a specific item to be discussed and /or removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. Members of the public who wish to discuss a Consent Calendar items should come forward to the lectern upon invitation by the Chair, state their name and Consent Calendar item number, and place the completed sign -in card provided at the podium. Speakers are limited to three minutes on all agenda items. All matters listed under Consent Calendar i. Minutes of the March 4, 2003 regular meeting. waive reading of subject minutes, approve and order filed. 2. Park & Operations Division Activity Report. Receive file monthly Activity Report for activities upcoming projects.' 3. Recreation & Senior Services Activity Report. Receive file monthly Activity Report for activities upcoming projects OLD BUSINESS 4. Creation of a Park Patrol Program Action: 1) Conduct public discussion 2) Approve the creation of a Park Patrol Program nll�k at{aChe4 5. Field Allocation Procedure for Youth Sponsored Sports Groups Action: t) Conduct public discussion 2)Approve the Field Allocation & Use Procedures and Youth Sports Commission Member Organization Criteria & Responsibilities Policies. 6. Potential Revision to City Tree Policies & Ordinances Action: 1) Conduct public discussion 2) Approve the creation an Ad Hoc Tree Committee Committee Appointments & Reports • Finance - Garrett & Skoro • Park Development - Skoro, Allen & Beek • Recreation & Open Space Element - Beek & Garrett • Recreation Activities - Englebrecht, Ruzicka & Tobin • Seniors - Tobin & Skoro • Ad Hoc - Youth Sports Liaison - Beek & Ruzicka - Park Naming - Beek & Skoro FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Matters which Commissioners may wish to place on a future agenda or raise for discussion. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission Regular Meeting March 4, 2003- 7pm CONVENED AT 7:02pm ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Allen, Garrett, Ruzicka, Skoro, Tobin Absent: Beek, Englebrecht Staff: Marie Knight, Recreation ft Senior Services Director David Niederhaus, General Services Director Andrea McGuire, Recreation Superintendent Teri Craig, Administrative Assistant DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Director Knight stated that Superintendent McGuire had been selected for the Dorothy Palen Award. She announced that the regular meeting scheduled for Tuesday, June 3 would be changed to Wednesday, June 4, beginning with a study session with Costa Mesa's Commission at 6pm and adjourning to the regular meeting by 7:30pm. Director Knight stated that the JPA's with the School District would be the topic of conversation. Director Knight stated that the Park Patrol report would be scheduled for the Commission's April or May meeting. Director Niederhaus stated that the discussion on how to move forward with the Tree Policy would be discussed at City Council on March 11. Director Niederhaus stated that after a lengthy inspection at the Bonita Canyon Sports Park, the maintenance period would begin on March 1 and end for the Mid and East Park on June 1. The West Park will be hydroseeded around the middle of March if weather permits. PUBLIC COMMENTS Tom Hyans, Newport Beach Community Association, requested that the Commission take an official stand on MarinaPark. Mr. Hyans stated that the proponent states that recreation activities will continue as they are today, but Mr. Hyans stated that as years go by the Hotel will become more active and that the use will be diverted. Linda Grant, President, Balboa Nautical Association thanked Mr. Niederhaus for the care of the pharmacy ficus tree. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of the regular meeting of February 4, 2003. 2. Item Dulled by Director Niederhaus 3. Item pulled by Commissioner Skoro 4 Bench Donation Request. Accept donation of bench from Paul 8 Linda Donahue to be installed Corona del Mar State Beach Parks, Beaches Ft Recreation Commission Regular Meeting March 4, 2003 Page 2 2. Parks 8 Tree Division Activity Report - Director Niederhaus reported that the City of Newport Beach has been selected as Tree City USA for the 13`h consecutive year and for Tree Growth for the 12`h year. Jan Vandersloot' Balboa Arbor Association stated that he is still unclear as to how we receive this award as he does not believe that the City has tree ordinance or a tree committee and does not believe that the Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission serves to satisfy the condition required to be selected . Director Niederhaus stated that the City does have tree ordinances and that the Commission satisfys that condition requiring a Tree Committee. 3. Recreation 8 Senior Services Activity Report - Commission Skoro personally congratulated Superintendent McGuire as the recipient of the Dorothy Palen Award. He also urged the Commissioners to attend the Special Olympics. Motion by Commissioner Skoro to accept items 1 through 4 of the Consent calendar. Motion carried by acclamation. NEW BUSINESS 5. Field Allocation for Youth Sports Commission - Director Knight stated that the Field Allocation report is a draft proposal and that they are looking for input from the Commission before presenting it to the Youth Sports Commission later in March. The item will then come back to the Commission for final approval at the April meeting. She noted that currently there is no formal policy that arranges field use. However, many of the youth sports organizations have requested that a fair and equitable formula and process be created. Director Knight stated that staff has worked very hard to provide a equitable distribution of fields based on number of residents served by each organization. She also stated that the formula establishes priorities of use based on the time of year and that 65% will be allocated in the Fall to Football and Soccer and in the Spring to Baseball; 25% will be allocated to those organizations considered to be "off- season" and 10% is for City maintenance use and community use. Commissioner Skoro asked if non- residents were charged a fee. Director Knight replied not at this time, but a new fee schedule will be forward to the Commission at a later date. Commissioner Skoro asked if Costa Mesa and Irvine provide fields on a per resident basis as Newport Beach does? Director Knight stated that she would obtain that information for the April meeting. Director Knight highlighted some of the changes in the Field Allocation Policies and Procedures — Parks, Beaches £t Recreation Commission Regular Meeting March 4, 2003 Page 3 The reference to "Co- sponsored" organizations will be changed to "member organizations" Stronger language has been included regarding compliance with field maintenance requirements Designated primary and secondary priorities are to fulfill only game requests and later staff will work with members to support the need for practice fields on a space available basis. Membership is provided to only those organizations that are currently offering programs NOT offered by the City. She noted that this would affect NJB, and that they would need to rent the gym as a non - profit organization. Commissioner Tobin asked why the requirement is just 50% residents and not more. Superintendent McGuire stated that staff did not want to create a hardship as the territories of these groups are based on Costa Mesa and Newport Beach. She stated that the number of residents are calculated in the number of allocated fields so those organizations serving more residents are allocated more fields. Discussion ensued regarding compliance and a three strike policy that Costa Mesa now uses. Staff will be looking to implement a similar policy in the future. Chair Allen opened the public discussion Council Member Nichols questioned the reasoning behind not opening the Bonita Canyon Sports Park, and asked what staff can do to speed up the process as the grass is looking really green. Director Niederhaus stated that the grass has not rooted itself, that there are still irrigation problems and that green grass has been helped with the influx of rain. Chair Allen closed the public discussion Director Knight thanked Commissioners Allen and Ruzicka for meeting with staff earlier in the week; and reminded the Commission that staff will return at the April meeting for their approval and review of the policy. 6. Corona del Mar State Beach Revitalization Proiect - Dave Kiff, Assistant City Manager introduced George Berger, Senior Engineer. Mr. Berger stated that they are looking for input from the Commission and the public on the conceptual designs. He stated that a Public Meeting was scheduled for March 10. He also noted that they hoped to return in May for the Commission's approval of the conceptual plans before introduction to the Council. Robert Jorgensen and Jason Briscoe of Robbins, Jorgensen and Christopher AIA, presented a PowerPoint on the three conceptual designs for the Corona del Mar State Beach Revitalization Project. He stated that the concession facility operates on behalf of the City and that the lease from the State has been extended for 35 years. Parks, Beaches l3 Recreation Commission Regular Meeting March 4, 2003 Page 4 Mr. Briscoe stated that some of the design objectives were: • Safe beach going environment for the public Improve lifeguard presence Foster environmental awareness of tide pools Maintain the natural, aesthetic appeal of the beach, the bluffs and view. Minimize impact of new structures • Design roofscapes Buildings to be attractive yet vandal proof, easily maintainable for the harsh beach environment Mitigate conflicts between fire pit users, volleyball players and beach goers Size beach facilities for existing level of beach usage Mr. Briscoe stated that the proposed opening date is Easter 2005. George Berger noted that parking brings in the most revenue at the site. Commissioner Skoro asked why fire pits were included when the residents clearly do not like them. Mr. Berger stated that the Coastal Commission believes fire pits are a good amenity and that staff believes that the project would not be approved without them. Discussion ensued regarding the number of volleyball courts (10), and space for lifeguards. Mr. Berger stated that staff and the architects are just now beginning the outreach of the community for their input. He stated that surveys had been sent out and that there is a hot link on the City's web site. Chair Allen opened the public discussion Dennis Baker, resident, asked the architects to consider unisex bathrooms, possibly a parking structure and noted his concern about the encroachment on the sand. Jan Vandersloot, resident, asked the following: That the PowerPoint presentation be available online Staff names and phone numbers also be listed online • Increased parking - possibly a shuttle Awareness of environmental protection of the tide pools should be added to the design objective Council Member Dick Nichols commented on the following: No additional lifeguard tower is needed • A garage for a vehicle is not needed Buses should only be allowed in the parking lots and not parked on residential streets Tide Pool rangers should be available on weekends with the ability to arrest if needed Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission Regular Meeting March 4, 2003 Page 5 Questioned how the fire pit users and volleyball players interact. Concerned about the notification of residents - he stated 221 residents were not enough of a survey Tom Hyans, resident, stated that 30 years ago when McFadden Square was being designed, all sorts of promises were made - the garage door at the lifeguard station would remain closed; staff would not park in the parking lot, etc. He stated that everyone of those promises were broken and believes the same kind of things will happen in Corona del Mar. Chair Allen closed the public discussion. Commissioner Tobin stated that he had never see a more committed group than that of the City lifeguards. Commissioner Skoro stated that this was a good start and looked forward for more information in the future. 6. MarinaPark Walkway Fence Gates- Director Niederhaus stated that this item had been placed at the request of Commission Skoro. He stated that he had talked to Mr. Cooper who manages the property and that the gates have reduced the stray dogs, bicyclists and skateboarders; Mr. Bendetti stated that the gates are never locked and that he does not believe that the signs discourage people from coming in. Commissioner Skoro stated that he believes that the gates should not be there and that they are intimidating. Discussion ensured regarding signage. Commissioner Garrett stated that he was ambivalent, asked if there was some kind of compromise that could be made. He stated that he was curious of what kind of comments would come from the Police if asked. Chair Allen opened the Dublic discussion Ed Dillon, resident of MarinaPark and speaker for many of the residents, stated that many of the coaches are built on the last step and therefore when they step out of their house they are stepping directly onto the sidewalk, which concerns many of their elder residents if skateboarders and bicyclists are allowed. Dennis Baker, resident, stated that he can attest to the fact that the gates put people off. Jan Vandersloot, Balboa Arbor Society, stated that he agrees with Commission Skoro, that the gates should be removed as it is publicly owned land. Council Member Dick Nichols stated that this area of land is pristine and that it could be ruined with a lot of use. He concurred that the gates could be a deterrent but if you are a Newport Beach resident then you should be aware that it is open. Parks, Beaches it Recreation Commission Regular Meeting March 4, 2003 Page 6 Chair Allen closed the public discussion Motion by Commissioner Skoro to remove the gates at MarinaPark. Motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Allen, Ruzicka, Skoro, Tobin Nays: Garrett 8. Community Service Award - Director Knight stated that during the Department staff retreat one of the goals was to increase public awareness, one of the suggestions was to resurrect the Community Service Award. Discussion ensued regarding revisions of the policy. Director Knight asked the Chair to appoint an Ad Hoc Committee to meet with staff to discuss revisions. Chair Allen appointed Commissioners Garrett, Ruzicka and Tobin. 9. Naming of City Parks - Commissioner Skoro stated that he and Commissioner Beek had met as the appointed Park Naming Ad Hoc Committee last month because of the influx of letters this past year after the death of Rosalind Williams requesting that the Commission name a park in her honor. He stated that they both felt strongly that a public park should not be named after any one person and recommended that the Commission move to revise Council 1 -9, by striking out #B.4., and deleting the words Parks or from paragraph D. Chair Allen opened the public hearing Dennis Baker, resident of Newport Beach concurred with the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendation and urged the commission to support the recommendation. Chair Allen closed the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Garrett to accept the Park Naming Ad Hoc Committee's revision's of Council Policy 1 -9 and forward to the City Council for their review and approval. Motion carried by acclamation. 10. Upper Bavview Landing - Director Knight stated that the project should go to the Coastal Commission in April. Discussion ensued regarding the timeline for the park. Commissioner Allen opened the public discussion Jan Vandersloot, Balboa Arbor Society asked the Commission to gather more information on vegetation and agreed that the bluff could be cut down if a complete restoration was done as a native vegetation park. He stated that he had walked the park and that there was a profusion of wild flowers and that coastal sage scrub was Parks, Beaches 8 Recreation Commission Regular Meeting March 4, 2003 Page 7 popping up over the park. He also noted that there are three areas of emerging wet lands and that they should be protected. Chair Allen reminded Mr. Vandersloot that the park is looking as well as it does because of the influx of rain over the last couple of weeks. Council Member Dick Nichols stated he is very concerned that the pristine view would be wiped out by low income buildings and feels that it is not an appropriate Location for it. Dennis Baker, member of SPON and Earth Resources stated that he has been following the progress of the park and supports the status. Chair Allen closed the public discussion 11. Committee Appointments and Reports Liaison to Youth Sports Commission - Chair Allen stated that she and Commissioner Ruzicka had met with staff to discuss field allocations discussed earlier in the meeting. Finance - Director Knight stated that a meeting will be scheduled after staff meet with the City Manager. Park Development - Next meeting is February 18, 2003. Recreation It Open Space Element - nothing new to report. Recreation Activities - nothing new to report Seniors - Commissioner Tobin stated that he and Commissioner Skoro had attended a meeting with the Friends of OASIS, the City Manager, and staff to look at ways to open up the lines of communication. Director Knight stated that she will keep the Commission informed on any further developments in this area. Park Naming - Commission Allen disbanded the Ad Hoc Committee. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Bonita Canyon Turf Issues Irvine Terrace Park Encroachment Issues Field Allocation Community Service Award Park Patrol ADJOURNMENT - 9:35pm Submitted by: Teri Craig, Admin Assistant ? &L- (Item 4) April 1, 2003 . RECREATION & SENIOR SERVICES DEPARTMENT TO: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission FROM: Marie Knight, Director Recreation and Senior Services Department SUBJECT: Creation of a Park Patrol Program ISSUE: Should a Park Patrol program be created and implemented in order to more effectively monitor the use of City parks and facilities and increase the safety of the community. RECOMMENDATION: 1. The Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission approve the creation and implementation of a Park Patrol program and forward that recommendation to the City Council for final approval. 2. The Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission recommend a revision to the Council 1 -25 Policy to add a new fee classification for Youth Sports Commission Member Organizations charging $1 per hour for use of athletic facilities and forward that recommendation to the City Council for final approval. . 3. The Parks Beaches and Recreation Commission recommend a revision to the current park and Facility Fee Schedule increasing fees 30% per hour charge for use of facilities and forward that recommendation to the City Council for final approval. DISCUSSION: Background: The Recreation Division has a responsibility to provide athletic and open fields, picnic areas and park space for City residents, youth groups, citizen groups and local companies through a reservation system. There are several challenges to a "reservation" system: 1. Youth Sports organizations need specific time periods allotted to them for their organized activities. At the same time, there are organized groups, generally adult groups, and "travel' ball teams who look for empty fields to play baseball, soccer, football, lacrosse and rugby. Youth groups with priority often end up having to ask these players to leave the field, and/or in some cases end up forfeiting their fields to these groups. 2. During rainy periods, fields are closed for play to preserve the integrity of the fields for future use, however many groups continue to play during the rain thereby causing extensive damage to the fields. 3. During annual maintenance periods, fields must remain unused for a designated length of time in order for the turf to recover, however many groups and/or individuals ignore posted closures and play on fields damaging the work that has been done. 4. Park users often use bounce houses or other party equipment without permits, thus • increasing the risk to the City, and damaging turf. • Creation of a Park Patrol Program April 1, 2003 Page 2 5. Individuals who have paid a fee to have exclusive use of a designated picnic or park area are often deterred from use by others who have arrived first. Depending on the day, these types of calls to the Police Department cannot be given a high priority. 6. Permit holders sometimes abuse their reservation, claiming exclusive use of a park and chasing off others who want to use the park. 7. There is $10,000 to $15,000 worth of vandalism in City parks annually, and $15,000 to $20,000 in repairs and maintenance costs from unauthorized users that could be curtailed with proper supervision. Park Patrol Program The above - mentioned issues are not unique to our City. Many communities in Southern California have instituted some type of a Park Patrol program in recent years in order to address the growing challenges to providing safe parks. After numerous meetings and discussions with the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission, members of the Youth Sports Commission, Police Department staff and other cities in Orange County, staff proposes the creation of a Park Patrol program. The scope of responsibility for the uniformed Park Patrol staff will include, but not be limited to the following: Monitoring the use of the City's 38 active parks, fields and facilities. • Response to public inquiries and complaints regarding valid permits at picnic areas, • community centers, parks, and athletic facilities and resolving compliance issues. • Monitoring use of public tennis courts, ensuring compliant use, no skateboarding or persons utilizing them for commercial purposes. • Educating park users about park rules. • Enforcement of park rules and regulations such as: - No alcohol consumption in parks - No golf playing on athletic turf - No skateboarding on walls, benches or tables, parking and vehicle regulations - Leash laws compliance. • Enforcement of no public play on basketball on courts after sunset at 3e Street. • Monitor clean up and trash pick -up after youth and adult sports games, and permit holders. • Vandalism prevention, communicating with park users and identifying maintenance issues that may need to be passed on to General Services park maintenance staff, such as checking irrigation problems, signage for replacement, etc. • Monitoring of Special Event Permits • Monitoring use of Community Centers • If a Municipal Code problem arises or someone is not complying with conditions of a special event permit, they will write a DAC (Disturbance Advisement Card) for the code enforcement officer to issue a citation. • Contact the Police Department reporting any criminal and/or vandalism activity. I-1 U n U is L J Creation of a Park Patrol Program April 1, 2003 Page 3 Schedules and staffing City parks, facilities and athletic fields are utilized on a year round basis. And although summer is certainly the heaviest use period, all of the above mentioned challenges to safe parks and facilities occur year round. This then drives the need for the Park Patrol program to be in effect year round as well. In addition, once hired, the staff for this program will be required to participate in extensive and specialized training. If this program were only to be operated on a seasonal basis, it is anticipated that there would be a high turnover in staff from season to season, thus requiring an ongoing financial investment in training. Finally, with a high turnover in staff, we lose the consistency that is needed to establish strong partnerships and working relationships with the regular users of our parks and facilities. The proposed schedule will be: • Mondays – Friday 4pm to 9 or 10 pm • Saturday /Sundays 8am to Dusk This schedule establishes an average of hours. Depending on the time of year and the use patterns in the parks, the schedule will be modified accordingly. In order to cover the approximately 53 hours per week in this schedule and allow for days off, it is anticipated that two part-time people must be hired. One staff member will serve in a lead capacity supervising the other. (See Attachment A — Proposed Schedule) Proposed Salary and Costs Due to the level of responsibility these positions will carry, the salary level established will be comparable to that of a Community Services Officer in the Police Department for the lead position and a Senior Recreation Leader II for the other staff positions Comparable title Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Annual Cost Community Services $15.27 $16.01 $16.81 $17.63 $18.49 28 hrs /wk Officer - Lead x 51 wks at step 3 incl. benefits _ $27,353 Sr. Rec. Leader II $11.44 $12.02 $12.61 $13.24 $13.90 25 hrs/wk x 51 wks at Step 3 incl. benefits _ $19,013 Total Salaries $46,366 Program Supplies: $5,000 Gas, equipment, training TOTAL COST $51,366 Funding Availability: r 1 U Creation of a Park Patrol Program April 1, 2003 Page 4 Staff is proposing that the funding for this new program come from the three main areas this program will be servicing: Youth Sports Commission Member Organizations. As you are aware, Youth Sports Organization Members are currently not charged a fee for use of City fields. These organizations have however, expressed both a desire for this program and an interest in participating in the funding solution. A large portion of the responsibilities of our Park Patrol staff will be to interface with these organizations and work with them to provide a safe, supervised and clean environment for their use. The Park Patrol program will also assist these organizations with a constant problem they are currently faced with on a regular basis that is outside organizations encroaching on their field usage. Staff is proposing that the current facility reservation fee schedule be amended to include a new fee classification that would charge Youth Sports Organizations $1 per hour for use of the fields. These new fees would raise approximately $19,000. Staff met with the Youth Sports Commission Member Organizations on March 19, 2003 and they were in unanimous support of the increased fees to offset the cost of this program. 2. Facility Rental /Reservation Fees Last year a total of $67,498 was raised through the rental of City parks and facilities. Staff proposes that hourly rental fees be raised 30% across the board, which would raise an estimated $20,249 towards the Park Patrol program. Based on this increase the hourly use • for facilities for Residents would increase an additional $7 -12 dollars an hour depending on which facility was rented, and for non - residents an additional $10 -24 dollars an hour. (See Attachment B — Proposed Park & Facility Rental Fee Schedule Revision.) 3. Special Events Permit Fees Staff is currently working in conjunction with the Planning Department on fee revisions for Special Event Permits that would help the City recover a greater percentage of the true costs in both the processing of permits as well as the supervision of the events. The proposed fees could generate as much as an additional $74,000 per year, of which staff proposes $20,000 be earmarked for the Park Patrol program. This process will be going to the City Council for review in the coming months. SUMMARY Staff recommends that the Commission approve the above stated recommendations and forward to the City Council for approval the creation of a Park Patrol program servicing the City of Newport Beach and the funding sources for the program. Attachment: A. Proposed Schedule B. Proposed Park & Facility Rental Fee Schedule Revision C� 0 Recreation and Senior Services Department Park Patrol Program Proposed Staff Schedule Attachment A Staff Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun Total Hours Lead Patrol X 4 -9pm X 4 -9pm 4 -9pm 4 -9pm Noon -8pm X 28 Staff Patrol Staff 4 -9pm 4 -9pm 4 -9pm X X 8am -1 pm 9am -2pm 25 1J i� • Recreation & Senior Services Department 3300 Newport Blvd - PO Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA. 92658 -8915 Phone: (949) 644 -3151 - FAX: (949) 644 -3155 PARK & FACILITY RENTALS Attachment B DRAFT All rentals are governed by City Council Policies 1 -21 and 1.25. Security /Compliance deposits are required for all public rentals. Park and Facility Reservations must be made a minimum of 5 working days in advance of the event. RESTRICTIONS The City does not issue rentals on the holidays of Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, Easter, President's Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Memorial Day, News Years Eve, New Years Day, Thanksgiving or Veteran's Day. PICNIC RENTALS: Only 2 Picnic Tables are included with any reservation! Rentals DO NOT INCLUDE exclusive use of public park areas or playgrounds. Picnic Rentals are for groups of up to 35 persons, larger groups must reserve and pay for both Picnic and Park areas! FEE SCHEDULE (Rates are hourly with a 2 -hour minimum) YSCMO = Youth Sports Commission Members Organization RNPYSO= Resident Non-Profit Youth Serving Oraanlzations R = City of Newport Beach Resident NR = Non - Resident PARKS & PICNIC AREAS Commercial YSCMO RNPYSO Non - Profit Private R NR R NR R NR Picnic Area 221478 442 340 9 9 1844 3628 2247 4434 Park Area 221179 442 340 9 9 1814 3628 221-7 4434 th Park & Picnic Area 442 340 884 688 18 18 3628 72136 4434 8868 eninsula Park Gazebo 1 221178 442 340 1 9 1 9 1 1844 362-8 1 2247 4434 ELECTRICITY is available only at Peninsula Park Gazebo for a $13 $48 per day charge. RESERVABLE PICNIC AND /OR PARK AREAS are located at the following parks: Arroyo Begonia • Bonita Canyon -East Bonita Canyon -West . Bonita Creek • Cliff Drive . Eastbluff • Grant Howald Irvine Terrace -East . Irvine Terrace -West • Mariners . Peninsula . San Miguel Veterans Memorial BOUNCE - HOUSES and similar activities can only be accommodated at the following parks: Bonita Canyon -West Bonita Creek Buffalo Hills Channel Place Eastbluff • Grant Howald Mariners Peninsula * San Miguel Veteran's Memorial * During summer months of June, July and August— Bounce Houses are not allowed at Peninsula Park. WEDDING CEREMONIES can be accommodated at many of the City of Newport Beach Parks, please call for information. MEETING ROOMS Commercial YSCMO RNPYSO Non - Profit Private R NR R NR R NR Balboa Cmty Ctr (Small Room) 11185 22149 15 15 3023 60 46 5240 10480 Balboa Cmty Ctr (Dance Room) 11185 2211 7-0 15 15 3023 6046 5240 10480 Bonita Creek Cmty Ctr 11185 2214-70 15 15 3023 6046 5240 104 88 Carroll Beek Cmty Ctr 111 85 22147-0 15 15 3023 6046 5248 104 80 Cliff Drive Meeting Room 11186 2214-70 15 15 3023 6046 5248 10480 YC Meeting Room 11185 2211 70 15 15 302-3 6046 5240 10480 r!ners VJC Room 11185 22144 15 15 3023 6046 5240 10480 ASIS Classrooms 11185 221 440 15 15 3023 60 46 5240 10480 WNCC Classrooms 11185 22144 15 15 3023 6046 5240 10480 Ci Council Chambers 11186 221 4�8 15 15 3023 6046 5248 10480 Balboa Cmty Ctr (2 rooms) 185442- 371 285 26 26 5248 10480 98 75 195 450 0 ASIS Multi Purpose Rm 1 215 465 42332-5 26 26 52 40 10480 9876 1 1954-59 I Commercial I YSCMO I RNPYSO I Non - Profit I Private I MS I R 234 430 1 455 350 BALL FIELDS — Per Field Commercial YSCMO RNPYSO Non - Profit Private R NR R NR R NR Bonita Canyon Sports Pk 221 479 442 340 1 11 221-7 4434 3029 6046 Bonita Creek ** 221 479 442 340 1 11 2247 4434 3023 6046 Lincoln Athletic Field 221 470 442 340 1 11 2247 4434 3023 6046 Mariners Park 221 479 442 340 1 1 11 221.7 4434 302-3 6046 Peninsula Park 1 221479 1442340 1 1 1 11 1 221;? 4434 3023 6046 * Bonita Canyon Sports Park due to open late summer of 2003. ** For use of field lights add $30. Field prep adds $30 per field. SECURITY DEPOSITS Rooms, Parks & Picnic Area: $75 (Under 200 in attendance) Gymnasiums $175 OASIS Multi- Purpose Room $175 (No alcohol will be served) O � $150 (200+ in attendance) m,,r'*' $300 (Alcohol will be served) Note — Failure to properly clean up after a rental, damaging property, and other non - compliance with Facilrty User Regulations are grounds for forfeiture of deposit. OASIS SENIOR CENTER – Rentals at this site must be approved by the OASIS Senior Services Manager. Certain additional restrictions may apply to use of the facility, which will need to be discussed with Senior Services staff. For information about this facility please call 949 - 6443244. QPECIAL EVENT PERMITS AND INSURANCE – Some events and activities may require a Special Event Permit or Insurance. Please contact the Recreation & Senior Services Administration Office for more information at 949. 6443151. Use of Bounce Houses or other vendor supplied play equipment requires the providing company to have City of Newport Beach approved Insurance Certificates on file or provided prior to the event. MAXIMUM OCCUPANCY OF PARKS 20 Inspiration Point Lookout Point Ensign View Galaxy View 75 Begonia Cliff Drive Irvine Terrace East Irvine Terrace West Spyglass Hill Veteran's Memorial MAXIMUM OCCUPANCY OF ROOMS AND BUILDINGS 20 Balboa Cmty Ctr (small room) West Newport Cmty Ctr – Room 6 35 Cliff Drive Meeting Room 65 OASIS - Room 1 A/B 80 Vincent Jorgensen Room (at Mariners) 25 OASIS - Room 5 West Newport Cmty Ctr – Room 1 40 Balboa Cmty Ctr (dance room) 150 Bonita Creek Park Eastbluff Grant Howald Mariners Peninsula San Miguel 30 OASIS - Room 4 OASIS - Room 6 West Newport Cmty Ctr – Room 3 & 5 55 Carroll Beek 66 70 CYC Meeting Room Bonita Creek Meeting Room West Newport Cmty Ctr – Room 2 & 4 (dance room) 90 200 City Council Chambers OASIS Multi- Purpose Room (Item 5) Apri11,2003 RECREATION Et SENIOR SERVICES DEPARTMENT • TO: Parks, Beaches and Recr ation Commission FROM: Marie Knight, Dire t Recreation and Senior ervices Department SUBJECT: Field Allocation for Youth Sports Commission Member Organizations RECOMMENDATION: Approve and adopt Field Allocation ft Use Procedures and Youth Sports Commission Member Organization Criteria and Responsibilities Policies. BACKGROUND: The Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission provided input to the Recreation staff at the March 4, 2003 meeting regarding proposed changes to the Field Allocation & Use Procedures and Youth Sports Commission Member Organization Criteria and Responsibilities Policies. In addition, the Commission reviewed the proposed formula for field allocation. The Commission directed staff to meet with the Youth Sports Commission Member Organizations and obtain their input on the revisions prior to the Commissions final approval. YOUTH SPORTS COMMISSION MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS MEETING Staff met with the Youth Sports Commission Member Organizations ( YSCMO) on March 19, • 2003 to discuss the proposed revisions to the allocation and use policies and garner their input on the proposed allocation formula. Staff feels that there was general support from the majority of the organizations present for the recommended changes to the policies and procedures. There are several areas where changes were made to incorporate and address the issues raised by the organizations as outlined below: 1. Section I of the Youth Sports Commission Member Organizations Criteria and Responsibilities was modified to include input from the YSCMO that the language include tighter restrictions in order to assist in protecting the playing fields for those organizations that are truly non - profit and serving our community youth. 2. The field allocation formula, Section V of the Field Allocation and Use Procedures document was modified from the previous recommendation of percentages of 65 %- 25%-10% to: • 75% of the available fields for allocation given to priority season organizations (City and YSCMO). • 17% of the available fields for non - priority season activities of YCSMO. • 8% of the available fields are not allocated and used for maintenance rotation, community use and other items not anticipated on an as needed basis. These fields will be reallocated to qualifying organizations as they become available based on the allocation formula. There was a great amount of discussion at the meeting regarding Section I -D of the Youth Sports Commission Member Organizations Criteria and Responsibilities and how the • requirement for an organization to serve 50% Newport Beach residents relates to the field allocation process. Newport Beach Little League (NBLL) felt strongly that those organizations who serve 100% residents, as they do, should have priority use of the fields, followed by those organizations who, then only meet or exceed the minimum residency requirement. Field Allocation for Youth Sports Commission Member Organizations April 1, 2002 Page 2 As staff has discussed in the past, many of the YSCMO are chartered by their National Affiliate to serve membership that crosses City borders. Staff does not feel that it is appropriate to penalize these organizations, and thus our own residents, by lowering their status on field allocations. After discussion at the meeting, and seeing no other organization present in support of the position of NBLL, staff has not amended the recommendations to meet their requests. Subsequently, we have received a written response for consideration from NBLL outlining their concerns with our recommendations. I have attached this correspondence for your information. RECOMMENDED REVISIONS Attached you will find the final Field Allocation & Use Procedures, and Youth Sports Commission Member Organization Criteria and Responsibilities Policies, and sample allocation plan for the Commissions approval and adoption. Staff feels that the recommended revisions are the most equitable and objective way to address the growing need for our resources. Attachment: 1. Field Allocation and Use Procedure 2. Youth Sports Commission Member Organization Criteria and Responsibilities 3. Sample Field Allocation 4. Letter from Newport Beach Little League is City of Newport Beach Bupv Recreation 8t Senior Services Department • FIELD ALLOCATION AND USE PROCEDURE AiiaCh r nen�_- i REVISED - March 26, 2002 This document sets forth the procedure for the City of Newport Beach (City) to facilitate the allocation of all available fields or gymnasiums under its ownership and /or allocation control. It is necessary to formulate this procedure for the following reasons: A. User groups need a procedure to secure fields or gymnasiums for the planning of games, practices, and /or events. B. The demand for field or gymnasium usage exceeds the City's ability to permit unlimited and /or unscheduled use by all participants. C. Maintenance and renovation must be scheduled and implemented to maintain the community's high standards of aesthetics and sustain the playability of the City's facilities. D. Allocating field or gymnasium space to qualified organizations assists the City in the fulfillment of the Charter to plan, coordinate and direct community recreational activities. 1_ PROCEDURE It is the intent of the City of Newport Beach Recreation Et Senior Services Department to allocate field or gymnasium use to requesting and qualified organizations on the basis of fairness and impartiality in concurrence with the seasonal priorities mentioned in definitions section. The resulting surplus of field time shall be allocated at the discretion of the City of Newport Beach Recreation Services staff, based on the priorities. 11. DEFINITIONS This section defines the terms used throughout this procedure. 4� A. City: For the purpose of this document, the City of Newport Beach and /or Recreation Et Senior �} Services Department will be referred to as the "City." IF B. Participant: Participant(s) shall include only those players who are fully registered with the user organization. Non - players such as coaches, officials, and staff shall not be considered participants. For the purposes of field allocation, each organization must present actual enrollment data from their previous season indicating names, addresses, phone numbers, and birth dates of all participants. Upon receipt, City staff will count the number of the City residents within each organization for purposes of allocation. 34 C. Organization: Organization(s) shall include only those user groups listed in III.C. — User Groups - Classifications below that have completed required documentation with the City. An organizational representative consisting of the organization's Board or League President or Vice President of each of those in Group C is required to attend the Youth Sports Commission meetings usually held semi - annually for field allocation review. 44 D. Season: For the purposes of this procedure, the seasons are established as follows: Seasons Fall Spring Pre - season /Tryouts August 15- September 1 February 1 - 28 In- Season Opening Date September 1 March 1 • In- season Closing Date Post - season /All Stars December 15 As available June 30 As Available Sport "In Season" Football /Soccer Baseball /Softball &F E. Primary Priority User: An organization whose sport has been classified as "In Season" will be given first priority access to facilities during their designated season. FIELD ALLOCATION AND USE PROCEDURE [om Page 2 6* F. Secondary Priority User: An organization who's sport has been classified as not "In Season" will • be given second priority access to facilities during their non - season. respwp a field- afte all p i#y useF ests ha -e he processed. 7=F G. Priority: Field assignments are based on the following priorities: Primary Prior!ty 1F 1. Maintaining fields /facilities & 2. Providing fields /facilities for organized game use. SecondarVPriod GF 3. Providing Fields /facilities for the use of "practices" will be allocated only after all maintenance and game requests have been processed. III. USER GROUP - CLASSIFICATIONS Facility Use Permits will be approved on the basis of priority as follows: 4� A. All official Recreation ft Senior Services Department initiated and /or conducted activities, including those of the Friends of OASIS at the OASIS Senior Center. ZF B. All official City of Newport Beach activities. &F C. All official Youth Sports Commission Member Organizations (with Md current and up -to -date required documents). In Season groups will have first priority and sports not in season will be considered secondary users. +b D. Official public agency sponsored programs and activities not included in A., B., and C. above. & E. Recreational, social or civic activities of groups which are resident promoted and sponsored by local non - profit" organizations which are open to the public and have 50% or more of memberships consisting of Newport Beach residents. b: F. Recreational or social activities of private Newport Beach residents, which are not open to the public. 7. G. Recreational, social or civic activities and /or groups which are non - resident promoted and sponsored by non -profit organizations which are open to the public, but not qualifying under D above. 16 H. Schools, colleges, hospitals and other similar civic groups not qualifying under the definition of non - profit. i.;6 I. Commercial businesses and all others. In order to qualify for resident classifications, organizations must submit rosters of their most current membership, with resident verifications. IV. APPLICATION Each organization is required to submit field requests by November 1 016mombep 29 for the following spring field use, and May 1 for the following Fall field use. Any organizations missing these deadlines will have access to any remaining fields on an "as available" basis only. Each league must present official league enrollment data from their previous season indicating • names, addresses, phone numbers, and birth dates of all participants, with their application. The number of the City residents within each organization enrollment must be determined and confirmed by the City prior to the field allocation meeting. FIELD ALLOCATION AND USE PROCEDURE Page 3 V. ALLOCATION . A. City staff will review all the applications and allocate fields equitably based on the priorities listed in this Dolicy and encourage optimum cooperation between all user groups. Field allocations will be reviewed and discussed twice a near at theat -semi- annual Youth Sports Commission meetings (see section II. G. and III.) Any appeals to decisions or allocations can be made to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission within 10 days of the Youth Sports Commission meeting. B. Allocations are based on the number of City of Newport Beach residents within each • • as follows: • 17% of the available fields for secondary priority season activities of Youth Sports Commission Member Organizations allocation formula. VI. NOTICE OF NON -USE OF FIELDS Any user organization that has been allocated space and does not intend to use it on a regular basis must notify the City so that the field may be re- allocated or otherwise used. Failure to do so can result in forfeiture of all fields for the remainder of the season. Notice of non -use must be received VII. NOTICE OF EXCHANGE OF FIELDS An organization cannot forfeit or exchange its allocation or any part thereof, with another organization without written approval of the City. Any such modification desired must be filed with the City and verified in writing by all parties wishing to exchange allocation. This allows for accurate billing of use. VIII. ATHLETIC FIELD LINING /MARKING 1. Lining of City fields with chalk or paint is not permitted without written permission granted by the City. 2. Burning lines on any City of Newport Beach parks and /or fields is not permitted. 3. Any user failing to comply with these guidelines are subject to the following: A. Payment for all damages occurring to the facility B. Termination of any /all field use permit(s) for one year FIELD ALLOCATION AND USE PROCEDURE Page 4 IX. RULES AND REGULATIONS OF FIELD USE • 1. User groups must designate a representative, an adult 18 or older, to be present during any /all of their practice and /or game time(s) at each City field /facility used. 2. Games and practices can begin no earlier than 3pm on weekdays, and 8am on weekends. No games and /or practices may be scheduled on holidays without prior approval from the Community Services Director, or their designee. 3. Games and practices can end no later than 9:45pm weekdays, and dusk on weekends, except through special request to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission. 4. Weekend use, on a regular basis, may be subject to limited hours at the discretion of the City. 5. Organizations /groups utilizing lighted facilities are responsible for ensuring the proper use of lights. The City reserves the right to bill user groups for hourly energy costs incurred during hours that lights are left on and the fields are not being used. 6. Use of portable lights is prohibited unless permission is Granted by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission. 7. Use of metal cleats is prohibited. 8. Alcoholic beverages are prohibited at all City parks and facilities, except Oasis Senior Center. 9. No artificial noisemakers, i.e., horns, rattles, bells, whistles, etc. are permitted. Officials or coaches, as a necessary part of the activity, may employ such devices upon consultation with the City. 10. At the conclusion of games, practices, and activities, organizations must leave the park /facility quickly, quietly, clean, and clear of debris. Failure to do so will result in a maintenance - cleaning fee being assessed to the group. • 11. All user groups that are classified under Section III. C - E must have at least 50% of their City residents participate actively on a weekly basis. When a team is playing against a team from another jurisdiction, this rule shall apply to only the "host" team representing the qualified organization. Roster changes that affect compliance with residency requirements must be reported to the City within one week of occurrence. Failure to do so will result in forfeiture of all fields and /or facilities. 12. Organizations or teams must provide required insurance documents to City prior to allocation of fields/ gymnasiums. X. TRAFFIC AND PARKING 1. The user group must assure that participants and spectators utilize off - street public parking areas, when available. If parking conditions warrant, e.g., during pre -, post -, and regular season or tournament play, the user group will provide, at their cost, at least one safety officer to direct participants and spectators to designated parking areas. The City, at its sole discretion, may require additional parking mitigation on an event -by -event basis. 2. Driving, operating, or parking any motor vehicle within the City parks and /or facilities is prohibited, except in areas specifically designated as parking areas unless prior written permission is obtained from the City. In case of medical emergencies, only emergency vehicles will be allowed on the park for rescue purposes. 3. All vehicles shall be legally parked. XI. PUBLIC ADDRESS SYSTEM USE 1. Sound amplification equipment may be allowed in City parks only with a Special Event Permit. An approved City permit is required prior to use of any sound amplification equipment. Permits may be applied for in the Recreation Et Senior Services Department. A minimum of 15 working days is required for consideration of approval. 2. Only persons 18 years and older will be allowed to operate any public address system. All public address system use for athletic events must pertain to the game being played. Special announcements should be kept to a minimum. "Play -by- play" announcing is prohibited FIELD ALLOCATION AND USE PROCEDURE Page 5 XII. MAINTENANCE 1. The City will maintain parks, facilities, and fields for public use at City standard and will install permanent equipment such as pitching rubbers, base anchors. 2. The Youth Sports Commission Member Organizations ode- must financiallV support any desired or additional all maintenance such as field preparation, lining of the fields, setting of bases or a higher standard of maintenance than the City's standard.. 3. The Youth Sports Commission Member Organizations will provide an annual Facility Improvement Plan to repair, improve or renovate those fields or gymnasiums used during their seasons. No work can be initiated until plan is approved by City staff. 4. All Facility Improvement Plans will be incorporated into contract for Youth Sports Commission Member organizations. 5. Members are responsible for any damage or repairs needed due to implementation of Facility Improvement Plan. Failure to implement Facility Improvement Plan that results in costs to the City shall be reimbursed to the City by the member organization. 6. User groups /organizations maintenance responsibilities shall include: A. User groups /organizations are responsible for all maintenance such as lightweight field preparation, setting of temporary bases or goals. B. Motorized vehicles are not permitted in the City facilities for the preparation of athletic fields or other activities unless prior written permission is obtained from the City. 7. Each user group is responsible for the facility being free of trash or debris caused by their group's usage, including checking restrooms and parking areas. 8. User groups are required to report any and all damage or acts of vandalism to the City . immediately. 9. The removal of bases or use of base plugs requires prior departmental approval. XIII. MODIFICATIONS Any request to modify or improve any City facility shall be submitted for review by the City for consideration. No permanent structures or equipment shall be erected on City facilities unless approved by the City and dedicated for community use. XIV. STORAGE AND /OR CONCESSIONS 1. Storage units may be placed with written permission only and are the responsibility of the User group. Storage units must be in good condition at all times and any vandalism or breakage must be repaired immediately. Group must maintain the storage facility in a clean manner at all times. 2. The City assumes no liability or responsibility for any equipment or storage units kept in the storage areas. 3. User groups must provide keys to City staff for all storage units, locked closets and fenced areas. 4. No equipment may be left out on fields or outside bins unless approved by the City. 5. Organizations are required to provide an inventory of all items stored in said containers. Any /all flammable and /or toxic substances are strictly prohibited in storage containers. 6. Any user failing to comply with these guidelines are subject to the following: • A. Payment for all damages occurring to the facility B. Termination of any /all field use permit(s) for one year FIELD ALLOCATION AND USE PROCEDURE Page 6 XV. BANNERS • Separate regulations governing the display of temporary advertising banners in the City parks are available at the City (see City Council Policy 1 -26 — Temporary Signs with Sponsorship Recognition in City Parks and Beaches). Any group wishing to display banners on City facilities should request a copy of those regulations prior to arranging for any banners. XVI. OTHER Organizations/ Leagues anticipating a split to form a new organization/ league, or individuals planning to organize a new sports program must apply to the City six months prior to the estimated starting date. The application will provide the time necessary to study the impact of the new program on existing facilities and evaluate the request. Once approved for co- sponsorship status, the City makes no guarantee of space if all space has been previously reserved. XVII. POLICY This procedure is consistent with Council Policy 1 -25 — Public Use of City Facilities that takes precedence if there is any conflict discovered. • • City of Newport Beach BMFV creation it Senior Services Department REVISED - March 4, 2003 YOUTH SPORTS COMMISSION MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS,— �. CRITERIA AND RESPONSIBILITIES The following criteria was adopted by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission in Falipwaiii, and Aarel- al 2" . These criteria supercedes any previous documents. Initial Approval Criteria as follows This Community Services Policy sets forth the determined by the following criteria: for determination of eligibility and ty allocation acambin of City athletic fields and gymnasiums. Eligibility is 1. Organization must have a Charter. 2. Organization must have a Board of Directors. 3. Organization must be established as a non - profit group or certify affiliation with a national non - profit organization. •4. Organization roster of participants must include more than 50% Newport Beach residents. 5. Organization must be able to provide liability insurance naming the City of Newport Beach additionally insured to the policy for $1,000,000. 6. Organization must provide a service that is not currently being offered by City programs. Application Process 1. Fill out official application form completely. 2. Attach the following documents 4� a. Official participant roster outlining the total number of participants and teams with breakdown of residents and non - residents for last complete season. Roster must include participants name. 1F b. Amount of fields and times requested on an annual basis. a c. Process for selection of teams. 4: d. Process for training of coaches. &F. e. l Facility Improvement bare Plan (detailed). Responsibilities of Youth Sports Commission Member Organizations For continued membership in the Youth Sports Commission mss, the following criteria must be satisfied: • Youth Sports Commission Member Organizations Criteria And Responsibilities D D :age 2 1. Sign a contract annually with the City of Newport Beach 2. Provide City of Newport Beach with the following information prior to the beginning of each season: a. Practice schedules and game schedules b. Team rosters and /or total number of participants c. Roster of coaches and phone numbers d. Breakdown of residents and non - residents in program 3. Inform Recreation Services staff of changes in liaison or main contact person's name, address, or telephone number immediately. 4. Obtain permission of the City prior to any change in the published schedule of field allocations. Report as directed schedule changes, specifically decreases in use. 5. Youth Sports Commission Member Organizations will provide all its own publicity, registration and coach's training consistent with criteria provided for membership in the Youth Sports Commission. €a= City must agree to any deviation in writing. 6. Youth Sports Commission Member Organizations will be responsible for screening 6600" all personnel and volunteers for prior criminal records or infractions. 7. Youth Sports Commission Members Organizations must Too have a responsible adult at each and every activity scheduled within the City facilities. 8. Youth Sports Commission Members Organizations are responsible for: a. Participating on the Youth Sports Commission with a spirit of partnership and cooperation. b. Communicating with City staff in a timely and respectful manner. regarding all matters in their league or team regulations. d. Cleaning area following games or practices of all litter, debris etc. e. Knowing facility rules and regulations and providing pertinent information to participants and coaches. This includes proper use and care of lights, grounds, keys, facilities and amenities. 9. Applying to Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for approval to make any pewAa"M additions or changes to fields, amenities or membership riteria. 10. Completine all appropriate Newport-Mesa Unified School District documents for use of their fields. 11. Follow all council policies that pertain to field usage and pay the established hourly rate within 45- days of billing. The Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission ultimately determines continued membership va�p 81 Mal N allure to comply with the requirements and responsibilities listed will result in the Parks, Beaches and creation Commission revisiting membership status. Affae,kA,UL�3 � /- j §\k® CIL E, a) $ / /_\ )2))2)f\ /% _ta�2#2 _ _ 7) #, # = -k 00 /# §immc - _( }\f } { } / {�WCD(D m\ }k /\ CO cc; CD fka) -|)\ )?|efa m0f /0 - _? §e a) k) \ §\\.�;)2 \k\ /® E. c = - , cCO20E| 0&;{ §22§§0 ]ff2le®2§)/ §e| :.C= @2_£, w;t(K ®) $ /);) - - »��) (`C -g«= /Q \2ƒ& © §2{ %) ) 0 _ CO a) W CO) a) 0 �r�7- » -kE ;w(2/ )c0Ecui®®� -®- ��: ®w!, ©m cc , .E f23t� §§.22# | &cZ��2 - ka » =e §ee] %{ \k §\ }j \\) \ \Ow /k\ / eD2CD 0CL . -3 _,0C ,0 O ro c 1 2 W f) � O W W C O W IL tGL a a d c c o c v m m v 9 8 0 c Y! c W OC I L E w rl a `o a 0 $ R w o y N N 0 o W 11 E E m a WrnE E£5 cGLL m m 0 a W a 0 a W 4k M C O a s m r 0 ni R N O n N O OI o � 7p i K � a `o a 0 $ R w o y N N 0 o W 11 E E m a WrnE E£5 cGLL m m 0 a W a 0 a W 4k M C O a s m r 0 ni R N U Is n MAR -25 -2003 13:03 To: Marie Knight Taisei Construction Newport Little League Baseball 714 6136 1550 F'. We Li `4`1- (aLIL( -3155 A+-. -ar h m e-eA 4 The following is the summary of the 3122/03 meeting NBLL held to prepare any comments regarding the draft allocation policy. 1. NBLL has had great success working with PBR staff in the past and wishes to continue that relationship with a sincere effort to provide Newport Beach kids with the best available facilities, reflective of the community we live in. 2. Newport Beach is the best city in Orange County; its Park's use policies should continue to be based on serving Newport with the finest facilities and services to its residents. Policies from Costa Mesa, Irvine, Garden Grove and other cities should not be used as precedent to develop Newport Beach City Policy. 3. NBLL wishes to establish an allocation policy based on group needs, accomplished by the PBR and Youth Sports Commission working together. The policy should be based on resource leveling not on a percent allocation basis on a citizen requirement that deprives Newport Beach residents of facility use. Over time Newport Youth Groups will serve less residents who wish to play baseball and outside residents will displace Newport Beach residents. 4. Can the policy include provisions to address the specific needs of baseball youth groups? It would be very important to allocate baseball fields with priority given to baseball youth groups. 5. NBLL would request the staff to consider a two tiered residency approach to field allocation, Groups with 100% residency would be given priority of field use, followed by groups that meet the 51% residency requirement. 6. Due to the serious shortage of facilities, the policy should address specific time of field use, i.e. morning AYSO soccer and afternoon Baseball. Currently, different youth groups share fields and this should be a documented part of the policy. 7. NBLL supports the lights at Mariners Park to eliminate overcrowding of City facilities. NBLL and the City worked hard to get the lights at Lincoln. City of Newport Beach via the annexation process pushed the lights through at Arroyo Park in the best interests of the City prior to the occupancy of Bluffs and Bonita Canyon. According to PBR staff, the addition of lights at Mariners would significantly impact the shortage of field time in the City. It has been proven with today's lighting technology and reasonable hours of use light fields are possible. 8. National Little League mandates may force the redistricting and division of league boundaries within the City limits. They have recently proposed that NBLL be divided two leagues. The dividing line would be established at San Miguel or Newport Coast, the later incorporating Laguna Beach into its boundaries, creating another confusing allocation issue. NBLL would propose that all league boundaries be consistent with the City's. MAR -25 -2003 13:04 Taisei Construction 714 Ubb 177e r.es The Youth Sports Commission policy on its membership must be flexible to provide access for • new leagues composed of 100% city residents to qualify. NBLL proposes the AYSO and NHBA contact national boards to revise current boundaries to respect city boundaries to avoid confusing and potential unfair allocation of city resources. National organizations and local chapter boundaries crossing city boundaries only confuses allocation of precious park resources. 9. Regarding use of Bonita Canyon Park the following issues have been raised by Haborview and Bonita Canyon families of NBLL: • Is the park defined as a neighborhood park or citywide park? • Has the previously competed traffic study taken into account that a significant part of traffic will be coming from outside the immediate neighborhood? • Will my child not be able to play in NBLL due to field limitations, while non - residents play in the banana parks? • Will parking be sufficient or will the residents of Haborview and Bonita Canyon be forced to endure dangerous traffic and parking issues similar to at Arroyo, Irvine a Terrace & Bonita Creek? • Do Bonita Canyon Residents have special use provisions as the Mello Roos bonds paid by that community have funded the Bonita Canyon Sorts Park project, land purchase and construction? Those bonds require that such funds be used to benefit the neighborhood area paying those bonds via higher property tax bills. Finally, NBLL is committed to working with PBR staff and the other qualifying groups to effectively • manage and utilize the resources that exist. Once the policy is adapt, NBLL will work diligently with PBR and the other groups in support of the PBR mission statement "Your first choice for connecting People, Play and programs!' Emery Molnar Newport Little League • TOTAL P.03 n u • • = TO: FROM: SUBJECT PB &R Commission Agenda Item No. (0 April 1, 2003 Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission General Services Director Potential Revisions to City Tree Policies and Ordinances Recommendation None, background information only. Background In December 2002, the City Council approved a settlement agreement with the Balboa Arbor Society (BAS) that included the City's agreement to consider appointing a committee to conduct a systematic review of City Council Policy G -1 and the development of a tree ordinance with respect to the preservation and removal of City trees. We agreed to bring the item to the Council for discussion by the second meeting in February 2003. The agreement retains the City Council's full discretion over how they may or may not amend City policies and ordinances. The matter was placed on the agenda of the February 25 Council meeting. It was not heard due to the length of the agenda and the review was postponed to the March 11 Council meeting. A copy of the agenda item is attached. At the March 11 Council meeting, the Mayor and Councilmembers began their discussion by clarifying their understanding of the requirements of the BAS agreement. The City Attorney assisted in their review. The minutes of the Council discussion are attached. After much discussion regarding the issues, the Mayor conducted a straw vote on the matter of process. It was the consensus of the Council to direct the PB &R Commission Chairperson, Debra Allen, to appoint a committee of PB &R Commissioners to conduct a systematic review of the G -1 tree policy and the possible adoption of a City tree ordinance to provide protection for special trees. • Other items that were discussed were the importance of the roles that various sections of the G -1 Policy play in the retention or restoration of views (Reforestation, Supplemental Trimming, and Tree Trimming Standards). Council confirmed that all of the provisions of the G -1 Policy would remain in effect during the review process. A copy of the Council minutes is attached. The Council voted 7 — 0 to: 1) Direct the PB &R Commission to: a. Form a committee to review the G -1 Policy issues b. Review the tree issues in the staff report of March 11, but not be limited to those issues c. Consider the content of a City tree ordinance protecting special trees d. Report back to the Council with their findings Discussion Staff is prepared to assist a PB &R Commission ad hoc committee tasked to review City tree policies and ordinances. Following the appointment of no more than three Commissioners to a Tree Committee by the PB &R Chair, staff proposes the following roles and functions of the Committee: • Review of the 5 current tree related policies: G -1, G -3, G -6, L -2, L -6 • Review of the two tree related ordinances • Note Council direction that this Committee's role is not to change or address issues related to views and of the City commitment to protect views • Identification of policies and/or processes that need further evaluation • Analyses of the General Policy Issues contained in the March 11 staff report to Council. • Provide recommendations to the PB &R Commission for discussion and ultimately the City Council regarding any necessary revisions to the current policies or ordinances. The review process will consist of at least three Tree Committee meetings (April 10 and 24, and May 15 at 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers) to which the public will be invited. Once the Committee feels as though they have final recommendations to present, a preliminary presentation will be made to the PB &R Commission as early as the June Commission regular meeting. Following affirmation of those recommendations by the Commission, a presentation will be made to the City Council outlining the Committee's recommendation(s) • for Council consideration. . A public list has been compiled over the past two months to ensure any public members may participate in the review process. If additional members of the public wish to be notified, they must contact Teri Craig of the Recreations and Senior Services Department. Very respectfully, David E. Niederhaus Attachments: (A) City Council Agenda Item No. 22 of March 11, 2003 (B) Excerpts of City Council Minutes of March 11, 2003 L \Umn \Qa LW&mm\SO0.l\mvMtaR repo B&ATraPeHcIaOrdl as mdoc • • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 17 March 11, 2003 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: City Manageras Office Homer Bludau, City Manager 644 -3000, hbludau @city.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Potential Revisions to City Tree Ordinances and Policies ISSUES: 1. Should a committee be established to work on revisions and, if so, how should it be constituted? 2. Does the Council have any tree related issues it believes should be addressed in any potential revision to the City's ordinances and policies regarding City trees? RECOMMENDATION: Provide -direction to staff regarding the establishment of a committee and tree issues needing to be addressed. DISCUSSION: Background: Balboa Arbor Society Settlement Agreement I& In December, 2002 the City Council approved a settlement agreement with the Balboa Arbor Society (BAS) that included the City's agreement to consider appointing a committee to conduct a systematic review of City Council Policy G -1 and ordinances with respect to the preservation and removal of City trees. We agreed to bring the item to the Council for discussion by the second meeting in February 2003. The agreement retains the City Council's full discretion over how they may or may not amend City • policies and ordinances. However, we did agree that any committee that was appointed would include members of the public and could include an invitation to members of BAS residing in the City to apply for appointment to the committee. The City Attorney has Potential Revisions to City Tree Ordinances and Policies March 11, 2003 • Page 2 also offered the BAS attorney the opportunity to submit to the Council BAS' concerns about the existing trees policies and ordinances. Existing Ordinance and Policy Provisions The City's existing policies and regulations regarding City trees are found in a number of documents, as outlined below. Municipal Code Chapter 13.08 (Plantings) Official tree list, tampering, prohibited activities Chapter 13.09 (Parkway Trees) City tree planting requirements related to private improvements City Council Policies 1. G -1 (Retention and Removal of City Trees) Special trees, removal process, reforestation, trimming standards, supplemental • trimming 2. G -3 (Preservation of Views) Excessive plant growth obstructing views 3. G -6 (Maintenance and Planting of Parkway Trees) Designated Street Tree List, planting standards and specifications, root barrier requirements 4. L -2 (Driveway Approaches) Tree removals related to private driveway construction 5. L -6 (Private Encroachments in Public Right -of -Way) Tree removals and replanting Analysis: Staff has reviewed the ordinances and policies listed above, and identifies some issues which are the types that could be included in a review of the City's ordinances and policies regarding City trees. There is no need for Council to have a lengthy discussions on these issues as the Committee should be given some latitude in which issues it deems necessary to review and address. However, if Council has particular • issues it wants the Committee to review, this would be the time to raise those issues. Potential Revisions to City Tree Ordinances and Policies March 11, 2003 Page 3 The discussion of each issue listed below includes a description of the issue and how an existing ordinance or policy addresses or does not address it. General Policy Issues Should Newport Beach have an overriding policy regarding its City trees? No such policy is written anywhere now, and the development of one could guide efforts to revise the Municipal Code and City Council Policies. The absence of such a policy may contribute to some of the inconsistencies between existing regulations that staff has identified. Should there be a process and criteria to designate "special trees ?" City Council Policy G -1 states that, "It is the City's policy to retain City trees categorized as landmark, dedicated, or neighborhood trees, which contribute to and give character to an entire neighborhood." Specific trees in these categories are listed by location in an attachment to Policy G -1. However, there are no criteria or definitions of the "special tree" status or the three categories of special trees beyond this one sentence in the policy. Therefore, it is difficult to know why certain trees are on the list, and therefore what would be the consequences of losing these trees. To what extent should the City protect "special trees" and other trees? The statement in Policy G -1 quoted above indicates that the City should retain "special trees." However, the policy does not make provision for balancing the value of trees against City costs and liabilities, except to allow the City Manager to approve removal of a 'special tree" that is considered hazardous or other trees to resolve claims or safety issues. Is it the City's prplicy to retain some trees at any cost? Is it appropriate for the City Manager td have the authority to remove a hazardous "special tree" or any other trees? What process should the City follow in considering the removal of "special trees" and other trees? • Policy G -1 covers this issue to some extent, but the process is not clear. For example, . the General Services Director is required to prepare a report identifying and implementing specific treatment to retain "special trees' before they are considered for removal, and then to report to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission if the treatment is unsuccessful. However, the policy does not provide guidance on how to use these reports, such as finding that no treatment that would save the trees is available or financially feasible, or that other City goals may outweigh the value of • "special trees" in some situations. Potential Revisions to City Tree Ordinances and Policies March 11, 2003 • Page 4 This policy also gives the City Manager the authority to remove even a "special tree" if it is hazardous. While it may be necessary for the City Manager to be able to make decisions quickly to protect public safety, perhaps the policy should provide more guidance, such as defining "hazardous" or adding a claims threshold. It is interesting that Policy G -1 provides more guidance in determining what is hazardous for other trees than for "special trees." Because this policy lacks a hierarchical organization, it is not clear if the criteria given for other trees could also be used for "special trees." The organization of this policy also results in a lack of clarity regarding whether the notification and appeal procedures apply to both "special" and other trees. What should be the replacement standard when City trees are removed? One section of Policy G -1 provides that 'The City will endeavor to replace all trees removed...," and that replacement trees will be a minimum of 24" boxed size. It is unclear whether this applies to replacement for both "special" and other trees. In addition, this standard appears to be inconsistent with the reforestation section of Policy G -1, Policy G -6 and Chapter 13.09, all of which require 36" boxed size for parkway trees. The reforestation section is also clear on a one - for -one replacement standard. Finally, a standard that describes the size of the tree rather than its container may serve • the City better. What should be the City's policy on "reforestation ?" Policy G -1 defines reforestation and provides a process for it. However, the policy leaves a number of questions unanswered. • Does the City wish to encourage reforestation or to allow it only under certain circumstances? • Is there a diffellence between reforestation and a "beautification program" provided for in another section of Policy G -1? • Can reforestation be initiated by the City, or only by the private, sector? • Do the reforestation provisions apply to "special trees ?" Now should the City balance between the protection of City trees and views? 16 City Council Policies G -1 and G -3 provide that the City will consider supplemental trimming of City trees to enhance both public and private views (at private expense in the case of private views). Exceptions are "special trees" and trees that enhance the overall beauty of the area. There is no guidance in determining what trees "enhance the overall beauty of the area" or who has the authority to make such a determination. Policy G -1 also provides that reforestation shall be considered if supplemental trimming is has occurred more than twice in a year because of potential injury to the tree(s). Potential Revisions to City Tree Ordinances and Policies March 11, 2003 • Page 5 Can the City's tree ordinances and polices be consolidated to make them easier to find and follow, and to help ensure consistency? The ordinances and policies listed in the Background section of this report were adopted at various times between 1962 and 2001, and likely were drafted to address issues in different operational areas as they arose. Staff believes the City can do a better job of protecting and managing our urban forest if our policies and regulations are consistent, integrated and easy to locate. Private Development Issues What should be the process for removal of City trees to accommodate private development? City Council Polices G -1, L -2 and L -6 address tree removal in an inconsistent manner. While Policy G -1 requires a process that includes a tree inspection report, satisfying criteria for removal, public notice, notification to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission and a thirty -day waiting period, Policy L -2 allows the General Services Director to approve removal of a street tree if required by construction of a private driveway, and L -6 requires an encroachment permit or agreement. Because there is no • cross reference among the policies, staffs practice for many years has been to follow only the L -2 and L -6 process in a driveway construction situation. When this came to my attention recently, I directed staff to follow the G -1 procedures for the removal of all City street trees. If the City Council wishes to provide a more streamlined process for private construction (Staff believes this will encourage compliance and discourage illegal tree removals.), this'should be clear in our regulations. Regardless of the process, staff suggests that consideration be given tQ the following: • More rigorous review process for larger developments than for individual single - family houses. • Requirement for a licensed survey that shows the exact location of all trees (City and private) on a proposed development site. • Requirement to locate driveways to avoid City street trees when possible. • Requirements to protect City trees during construction. • Stronger enforcement of tree preservation requirements, including higher penalties for damaging or removing City trees without approval. Process • As noted earlier, staff suggests some consolidation of the City's ordinances and policies s regarding City trees. There may still be a need for some issues to be covered in 1 .. 1 Potential Revisions to City Tree Ordinances and Policies March 11, 2003 • Page 6 ordinance and some, perhaps more detailed issues, in policy. This decision will need to be made during the process of reviewing existing policies and regulations. The management of City trees is a sensitive community issue, and staff understands that reviewing the City's policies and regulations in this regard will require input from various constituencies, including those interested in protecting trees, those interested in protecting views, the development community, and the City commissions involved in reviewing and acting on tree questions (Parks, Beaches and Recreation and possibly Planning). If the City Council wishes to undertake a comprehensive review of tree policies and regulations, the City Manager suggests that an ad hoc committee be formed to assist with this review. In order to begin the development review process, the City Manager suggests that the Mayor appoint 3 Council Members who will serve on the Tree Policy Review Committee, and that these 3 members meet in order to formulate a recommendation to the City Council as to the make -up and number of members the Tree Policy Review Committee will have. Environmental Review: Undertaking a review of policies and regulations is not a project as defined by CEQA. • The future adoption of ordinances or policies may require environmental review. Submitted by: if 2--Cc H mer Blud City Manager a - HARBOR VIEW HILLS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION P.O. BOX 54 + CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 "RECEI AMRA END� FRIidIED. _ a E February 20, 2003 City Council of Newport Beach Mayor Steven Bromberg 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mayor Bromberg and Council members, We the residents of Harbor View Hills are very concerned about the City's plan to revise the tree policy. Of particular concern is the part of the policy that will inquire into the "balance" between the protection of City trees and the protection of resident's views. The issue is complicated because if the City's trees are not trimmed to roof heights in our view neighborhoods, they could impair our ability to enforce our governing documents. This issue was the subject of negotiations and legal opinions from all sides for almost two (2) years just a few years ago. We do not want to be forced to incur legal costs again to protect our CC &Rs. If you plan to establish an ad hoc committee to review the tree policy we respectfully request that you consider appointing a Board member of our Association. Sincerely, Iris Kimmel President cc: Board of Directors Architectural Committee members - o ",- =; CD r.� ^ 3- W City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes March 11, 2003 INDEX when he spent nearly five minutes discussing two sets of me g • minutes. He indicated that he made a lot of requests for chang since there were words missing. He requested that the changes be t in the minutes and have his words correctly stated. • On page 657, Mr. Hildreth indicated that he used Pub ' Works Director Badum's words who stated, in December 2001 and anuary 2002, that the City - installed ladder was unsafe. Furth , the City Manager indicated that it was not insured. He also in ' ated that he stated that the municipal services statement is for pot le water and sewage,, and that the bill has nothing to do with a re ' ential pier location, mooring location, or anything that has to do ith a boat in the rwater. He believed that the City putting t location into obscurity ;for J.M. Hildreth shows that it is tryin o hide something.' ' He added that Mr. Badum mentioned a "H or Resources Manager';, in December 2001 and January 2002, but s was the first time anyone had heard of a Manager for the Harbo esources Division.;r. Mr. Hildreth took issue that Tony Melum, as Harbor Resources Director, sent an unsigned letter on February 2 , 002 as the Harbor Resources Manager. Motion b C ncil Member Adams to waive reading of subject minutes, ap ove as amended by Council Member Webb, and order filed. Them on carried by the following roll call vote: /As. Heffernan, Proctor, Ridgeway, Adams, Webb, Nichols, Mayor Bromberg Noes: None Abstain: None , Absent: None` A 17. POTENTIAL REVISIONS TO CITY TREE ORDINANCES AND POLICIES.. City Attorney Burnham distributed applicable provisions of the settlement agreement and believed that the language in the staff report does not accurately state the scope and extent of the City's obligation. He referenced Section 6 and read, "Nonetheless, the City and BAS are in agreement that a Tree Ordinance would be a potentially salutary provision; and the City commits by this agreement to undertake a review of its existing G -1 policy and to consider in a timely manner the adoption of a City Tree Ordinance that would make removal of trees the City identifies as protected trees a violation of the City Municipal Code." He expressed the opinion that the City is obligated to conduct a review of the G -1 policy and consider the adoption of a tree ordinance that establishes clear penalties for the removal of City trees. In response to Mayor Bromberg's question, Mr. Burnham indicated that Council is not required to form a committee, but staff is required to bring a recommendation to Council to appoint a committee to commence Volume 55 - Page 17 . I . - City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes March 11, 2003 a public process for the systematic review of the G -1 policy. He stated . that it was his recollection that it was contemplated that the review of the G -1 policy would be conducted by a committee that also had public representation. He added that he believes this was also BAS' expectation. Mayor Bromberg asked if Council can review the G -1 policy now. City Attorney Burnham noted that Council could, but the City is committing to take a systematic review. He stated that it was envisioned that there would be a process for discussions about the best way to resolve a number of issues. Council Member Adams believed that the only proper 'topic° of consideration tonight is whether or not to form a committee and not the policy itself. Mr. Burnham pointed out that the action tonight should be to consider the appointment of the committee and to give direction to staff and committee members regarding the issues Council believes are appropriate for consideration in the G -1 policy,, , „revisions. Council Member Adams believed that Council can :undertake the required review without forming a committee, but this would need to be done at another meeting since it was not noticed on tonight's agenda. Yti. k Ss, n f �. •.:' i. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway believed that the committee does not have to be a Council committee, noting that there is a lot'of history with the Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission (PB &R). He recommended that this be deferred to PB &R. ' He emphasized that the City is under obligation to consider a tree ordinance, but not obligated, to approve it. a, �z :mot • Mayor Bromberg asked if Council,is receptive to forming a committee. Council Member Nichols indicated -that the City has a good tree policy but it needs to enforce it. He stated that, if a committee was necessary as part of the agreement; he would support it. Council Member Webb believed that a committee” should be formed, but is unsure if it should be a Council committee. He also suggested utilizing PB &R to flush out the major concerns' s; genezate a` package for approval, and possibly have a Council committee "review PB &R's recommendations. Council Member Adams, 4 Mayor Pro: Tem Ridgeway, and Council Member Proctor concurred. Council Member Heffernan had no opinion on the issue. I1 LA City Manager Bludau clarified that the G -1 policy does discuss issues that affect views:" Mayor. Bromberg reiterated that the consensus is to appoint a PB &R Committee to sort out the issues and bring back recommendations to Council: 'Mr. Burnham clarified that the agreement obligates the Council to establish the committee. Motion by Mayor Bromberg to direct that this issue be forwarded to the Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission to form a committee so they can review the G -1 Policy, review the issues in the staff report but not be limited to those issues, consider the content of a City tree ordinance, and report back to Council. Volume 55 - Page 18 � s► City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes March 11, 2003 • In response to Council Member Nichols' question, Mayor Bromberg stated that this does not require that a BAS member be appointed to the committee yet. However, after PB &R comes back to Council, Council can do this if it feels a greater committee needs to be formed. r1 LJ L_J Debra Allen, Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission Chair, encouraged everyone to provide opinions because this will be a huge project. She pointed out that the G -1 policy has a provision about tree trimming standards, supplemental tree trimming, and reforestation, and that these were the contentious issues that took 18 months to reach a compromise. She explained that these provisions are important because they permit the City arborist and tree trimmers to trim trees to protect views. She emphasized that the City has taken 'a position to protect views, as noted in the G -3 policy, and added _ that Dr. Vandersloot, herself, and a number of others sat on the"citizen committee that reached the compromise. Gary Allen requested that Council instruct. "kaff to follow the current policies until it is changed, modified, or amended 'since the current policy requires City assistance to get trees trimmed on'a supplemental basis in the view neighborhoods. He believed that the City'is "View City USA" because it is the views that make the City what it is, not trees. He added that the value of their homes is dependent on views.; He pointed out that they worked on this for two years and even got Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPON) to buy off on it. He added that he had a petition signed by 48 residents who could hot attend the last meeting requesting that the committee be heavily;; weighted m: favor of the view communities. Amended motion byMayor Brombere to add that the City will maintain the "existing policy until changes are made by Council. Linda Grant, Balboa 'Arbor Society; believed that this issue has been blown out of proportion by the Mayor since this has nothing to do with views.' She noted that BAS is not militant and would not make people keep trees that they do not want, especially if the tree is diseased, has problems, or is ripping up something. She indicated that BAS only wants the City to enforce the policy, care about the trees, and honor what was agreed to. She thanked the City for keeping the tree at the Balboa Inn. She indicated that they want a committee formed that is runby.an arborist. Further, the arborist should make the tree decisions and BAS would like to be part of the committee. y Mayor: Bromberg explained that the City won the lawsuit in court, proceeded to cut down the trees on Main Street, and BAS filed an appeal. He noted that all that was left of the cut trees were stumps, so the City asked BAS if it could remove them. He reported that the case was not going to be heard in the appellant court until May 2003, but the City had to start Phase II of the Balboa Village improvements the first week of January 2003 or it would lose $200,000, plus the project would be delayed one year. He stated that BAS would not let the City remove the stumps until the City paid BAS' $57,000 attorney fee and agreed to Volume 55 - Page 19 INDEX City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes March 11, 2003 INDEX • review the policy. He assured everyone that the City followed the law, signed the agreement, and will do it the right way. Yvonne Houssels stated that she is the former president of the Harbor View Hill South HOA, served on the previous review committee for two years, and represents 449 homeowners. She reviewed statements by Newport Beach realtors about the importance and added value of having a view. She added that, in Districts 2, 3, and 7, view preservation was one of the prime issues that residents have asked be addressed in the updated General Plan. She indicated that the present G -1 policy was established in 1998 with the participation of her HOA, arborists, tity staff, PB &R, and Council. She stated that it provided for reforestation and trimming to protect the views of all the residents, . while still preserving the urban forest. She indicated that her HOA" was not apprised of the G -3 policy until tonight, but noted that there are sections of the G -1 policy that are not addressed in the G-3 policy: � She requested, that, if a change is going to be made, the G -1, policy's view preservation'-` sections remain unchanged so the HOA boards can continue to enforce` the governing documents. George Parker stated that he was on the committee "when the G -1 policy was drafted. He relayed a tree incident he encountered and believed that a homeowner should not violate the rules of the HOA they belong to and mess up someone else's rights. He stated that he is not just talking about tree trimming, but reforestation of large trees -, He emphasized that views are important and expressed hia -hope that the committee • considers reforestation as an important part of this.'-.--3P" Council Member Heffernan noted that Ms. Houssels said to leave the tree policy to the HOAs and Mr. Parker said that the HOAs had rules but they did not enforce it until something happened. Ms. Houssels explained that the HOA rules were ultimately enforced, but it took a very long time She in dicated that part of the problem was that some of the associations `did "hot fully understand the G -1 policy; however, the policy ,has worked well_ She confirmed that there are rules within the ?'associaticn "� Tess Lier stated that she worked on the G -1 policy and requested to be put on the committee. She thanked Council for all the time they give to the City and for all they do. Mayor Bromberg announced that anyone or any HOA wanting to be on the committee, if formed, should contact the City Clerk's office. Bill Simons indicated that the impairment of views has been held in California to be inverse condemnation and referenced the condemnation practice in page 633 of California's Continuing Education of the Bar (CEB) Tieroont Inn vs the State). He reported that a public entity is liable to pay damages for inverse condemnation if. 1) a plaintiff has ownership interest in real property, 2) the defendant is engaged in some project for which it claims is a public benefit, 3) there is causation, and 4) there is real property of the plaintiff to suffer diminution in value. • Regarding the view homeowners, he believed that CC &Rs should be Volume 55 - Page 20 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes March 11, 2003 INDEX • stronger than at Pierpont Inn because they did not have a right to a view in its documents of title. He stated that, unlike homeowners in non -CC &R neighborhoods, those who purchased homes in neighborhoods with governing documents that restrict the height of trees have paid for a reasonable expectation of view preservation. He indicated that, if the City does not respect those restrictions and maintains its trees within HOAs so they interfere with views, the City trees affect the taking. Further, if the protected views are blocked by City trees, the HOA may not be able to enforce the CC &Rs against other homeowners. Bob Pastore reported that the City has 142 HOAs. He requested that the motion be restated prior to the vote being conducted.:, Jan Vandersloot, Vice President of the Balboa Arbor Society, stated that the BAS has never made statements about doing „anything with view protection in the G -1 policy and that the peopled Corona del Mar have' nothing to fear from BAS. He agreed that he was part of the committee that generated the G -1 revisions, developed a 'supplemental tree trimming schedule which has largely dissipated the concerns about views, and developed a reforestation policy thataddresses the trees that could not be trimmed for views. However, he believed that, in the last couple of years, the G -1 policy has been expanded so anyone can reforest a tree for any reason. He stated that they are objecting to'the uneven application of the G -1 policy, and staff not following the policy. Dr. Vandersloot indicated that they have asked the'City to consider • forming a tree care ordinance. He noted that this is also one of four qualifications to become a "Tree City `USA' and' distributed a How to Write a Municipal Tree Ordinance bulletin. ''He noted that another requirement is that the'city have a tree board or department, and recommended forming a more permanent tree committee that includes members of the public, SPON, BAS;; and the Earth Resource Foundation. He asked whi'the City was given, an award for being a tree city for twelve years when it does not have a committee or an ordinance. He noted that an ordinance gives them more assurances that the policies are going to be followed, believing that Council ignored the special tree policy when it voted to remove the Main Street trees. He explained that this is why BAS filed the lawsuit. He added that developing a tree care ordinance was one of the provisions of the settlement. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway asked Dr. Vandersloot if he agreed with the G -1 policy two years ago. Dr. Vandersloot indicated that he agreed with the reforestation and supplement tree trimming sections, but disagreed that the public cannot appeal a PB &R decision to Council. He asked that any revision give empowerment to the people. Further, they found that the application of the policy was uneven. He pointed out that special trees are only supposed to be removed if they are dead, diseased, or hazardous. Diane Meyer stated that it surprises her that well- educated people would waste money on frivolous lawsuits. She believed that it is a • shame that the City felt it had to pay the attorney fees and that a lot of Volume 55 - Page 21 n U r� U r1 U City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes March 11, 2003 time has to be spent on revisiting the issue when the same people who are now unhappy with the policy previously worked on it. Mayor Bromberg indicated that paying $57,000 was better than $200,000. Wesley Taylor stated that he loves his view and the palm trees, and asked what affects the proposed or current regulations will have on the height of palm trees. Mayor Bromberg directed staff to contact him. Guy Cazort stated that he attended the previous G -1 policy meetings and noted that a lot of effort was spent reviewing it. He indicated that he would hate to see more money spent on revisiting this and'believed that the City should cut its losses since the policy is working. Alan Oleson explained that, within an HOA, there are rules to keep someone from growing a tree in front of someone's view.' However,,from one HOA to another, that rule does not exist. He "hoped that Co" until will consider this problem. Mayor Bromberg encouraged him to attend the PB &R meeting. Mr. Burnham clarified that the jCity does not have jurisdiction over private trees on private property. He noted that this issue deals with rules and regulations related to City trees within the right -of -way or on City property. 1 Mayor Bromberg clarified that the PB &R form a committee to review the staff report, but not be limits bring recommendations to Council more formal committee should be i Members, PB &R members, BAS me the City will maintain the existing is made. ". substance of the motion is to have he G -1 policy and issues set forth in I to''those issues alone; PB &R will and Council will'decide whether a >tabhshed "which' consists of Council nbeis, and HOA members. Further, )olicy until a change or amendment Council Membei Webb'staied that Council is aware of people who have views and believed that the City needs to work hard to ensure that those views are protected` He noted that the G -1 policy also needs to protect the urban forest because, if you do not have a view, the trees are what makes a community a'wondeiful place to live. He emphasized that the trees that the City has need to be protected. Further, if the City is going -,to look at re£orestation,`it should not look at a wholesale cutting down of 15 to 20 trees, but should cut down in phases. He stated that significant maintenance should also be done to the trees that undergo more frequent trimmings if it looks like damage is occurring. He indicated that all ihis,should remain in the policy. Mayor ,Pro Tern Ridgeway reported that there has been a small number of trees that have been removed or reforested since the recent amendments to the G -1 policy. He noted that, since July 2002 and exclusive of the ficus trees on Main Street, 33 trees have been removed and some of those were due to emergencies. However, he pointed out that 470 trees have been planted by the City to replace the 33 trees removed. He indicated that he supports the G -1 policy as it exists, but believed that there are some inconsistencies. He stated that he supports PB &R cleaning up the inconsistencies. He added that it is unfair for a Volume 55 - Page 22 R�s► City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes March 11, 2003 INDEX person in West Newport to tell a Corona del Mar resident that he cannot • take his tree out. He emphasized that the City now has 33,000 trees and that this number will continue to increase. Council Member Adams stated that it is great that the City has received the "Tree City USA" award, but believed that the City should not let the requirements of an award dictate City policy. Mr. Burnham requested and received confirmation from Mayor Bromberg that the motion is to have the PB &R Chair select three of its members to systematically review the G -1 policy and evaluate and make recommendations regarding the development of a tree ordinance. Mayor Bromberg added that, if Council needs to take it further, it can do so. He stated that he received an update regarding the'tree count and reported that, from February 2002 to February ,2003, the City has removed 69 trees. He noted that 23 were the Main.Street trees and seven were emergency removals, but the City planted 596 trees. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Heffernan, Proctor, Ridgeway, Adams Webb, Nichols, Mayor Bromberg Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None • J. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR'(continued) ESTABLISHMENT -! OF THE CITY COUNCIL ECONOMIC Res 2003 -14 ADVISORY COMMITTEE. Economic Advisory a Committee or Bromberg stated that, if 'Council approves this, he will be (24) appoi . g Mayor', Pro Tem Ridgeway, Council Member Adams, and himself a the chair,.,,,,, City Manager_ udau stated that several of the cities he has worked with have redeye ment (agencies (RDA) in order to foster economic development, but t 'City currently does not have an RDA. He indicated that staff has cently been contacted by a number of potential developers who would like look at investing in the community. He believed that this places staf ' a difficult position and is incapable of dealing, effectively in terms of give them a feeling of security that they can move' forward and start plan their project, especially projects that may take a general plan amendm t or zoning amendment. He believed that the City needs a Council su ommittee that can identify issues early. He emphasized that the comm ee will not be granting any type of approval, but will meet with people in rested in investing in the community. He added that this would be a B n Act committee that would be open to the public. Mayor Bromberg indicated that he sits on the Economic De lopment Committee (EDC) with Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway and Council mber • Volume 55 - Page 23 • (S) • 0 City Tree Policies /Ordinances Review At their regular scheduled meeting on March 11, the City Council directed a review of the City G -1 Tree Policy (Retention or Removal of City Trees) and tree ordinances by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission. View issues in regards to tree trimming or removal will not be a part of this review. The existing G -1 Policy will remain in effect during the review process, which is expected to take three to six months. The Commission is expected to discuss how to undertake their assignment and involve the public at their April 1 meeting at 7PM at the Council Chambers. Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission recommendations will be forwarded to the Council for a determination. If you have any further questions about the process or wish to participate in the public review, please contact Kim Rieff at the City Tree Division office (949- 644 - 3062). m rk'lJ vLQ C Q YY� cL l l LlA-� 611' G� n V A • • N m N T m 0 �o3 ;a000 m N m O m j m tl, J O f0 N J j M O i3a- ° ^5nN c maa m O m fil a o C< y� y 3a m a o m a o m F m o a Q a a m ;E 5 �.3 n No 0 O a 0 m u 0 O m m m fn Q� 5 JtO a mN C_ J m m N O a ,i. N m' mm° — 300. 0 s� °u?y ZD Nom N O J , m 0 g m m O O V m Qv 0 O y�a�o °'iu5 a m N a m O'S'J m ^SJ RL G m m Vi m RP am m 5'n5 -'< o'xmy El m a C 3 d m� 5m N �m5- 0 G m m mmo nNio� m s 0 m o T m O J1.' paj 1. O (n CO N o� �3ao 033° —i5'a 5 i T Tm JG IV N LT ti j J O ID a J N O N J N N N N N O 4 N 46 = �aR mqng0 � N_ S^ W W J m° M -na f�0o' s 0 CD a N S 7 N m 0 o m 0 3 Cm1 a J m m C7 m m O C w0�� am o v m (mm m 6 N O > O Q m g F m n S m 0 0 W m 0 m Cl m O 7 y a 0 V 0 6 3 r n m N O 7 w w' w x O m 3 m N� A O O 3 o' m C!� N m /7 0 1 O m n O�n 2 0 M 0 >O Om m n '< _ W5 31 W N N a O-0 J J o m m m 0 ?'m m Ste. CO tin m o -+i o N m J N c O o 91 �tn03o'- -wo'n m m m m o Q 030 ?N- CO 3 TJm �D 0.5 o 3 J.CD 0O n ON 5 m m n m » m m 2 (70ff 0 m5 olom C 0 o ro o CD m CD m m m N N 3 U M R =MUM S m m - (O m a- a m Ort C.N N N-0 0 (O J m 00-20-000 O 5.0 m O. a..� N 3 T V O a m m m N> S a S �U�= JQ3 0 =m =m n . - 0= Z y 0 N m O ti J N�N0 'gm mm °- n m T m 0 w a 5 m 00 j m m M ^m o ao 5a m D0 �,F ?: ° 30 m' 0 ?o� ao °.> = 0 a m S m m N fOn m O <5N33 S N m S 0 0 am m 5'n5 -'< o'xmy El m a C 3 d m� 5m N �m5- 0 G m m mmo nNio� m s 0 m o T m O J1.' paj 1. O (n CO N o� �3ao 033° —i5'a 5 i T Tm JG IV N LT ti j J O ID a J N O N J N N N N N O 4 N 46 = �aR mqng0 � N_ S^ W W J m° M -na f�0o' s 0 CD a N S 7 N m 0 o m 0 3 Cm1 a J m m C7 m m O C w0�� am o v m (mm m 6 N O > O Q m g F m n S m 0 0 W m 0 m Cl m O 7 y a 0 V 0 6 3 r n m N O 7 w w' w x O m 3 m N� A O O 3 o' m C!� N m /7 0 1 O m n O�n 2 0 M 0 >O Om m n '< _ Page 1 of 1 Craig, Teri m: John Orr iJohn_Orr @stackcomputer.com] t: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 10:42 AM To: TCraig@city.newport- beach.ca.us Cc: iryce @cox.net Subject: HVHCA Views & G1 policy Importance: High Dear P, B & R representative: I would like to request that the City continue to respect the view protection in our terraced Harbor View Hills homeowner's Association. As you know, the value of our properties is directly impacted by the preservation of our views, consequently any negative impact on the views will result in a lowering of tax revenues to the City as properties fall in value. Please continue to uphold the portion of the G -1 Policy which allows our Association Boards to enforce our governing documents with regard to the trimming and reforestation of the City trees. We also request that you ascertain that any committee formed to review /revise the G -1 policy include representatives from the terraced View homeowner's associations. Very truly yours W. Orr 2801 Setting Sun Drive Corona del Mar, CA 92625 L 03/12/2003 Craig, Teri from: Camid92625@aol.com nt: Thursday, March 13, 2003 4:27 PM To: TCraig@city.newport-beach.ca.us Cc: iryce@cox.net Subject: Proposed New G -1 Policy 3/14/2003 To: Parks, Beaches, Recreation Committee Re: Revised G -1 Tree Policy Dear PB &R Committee Members, This Email letter is a request that any revisions to the City's G -1 Tree Policy take into account the views of homeowners living in view communities covered with CC &Rs such as our association, Harbor View Hills Community Association. City owned Parkway trees in these communities MUST be able to be trimmed and,. or, removed and replaced in any new G -1 Policy. To do otherwise will cause severe value penalties to homeownersd whose views are blocked by Parkway trees. It should be noted that it was the City of Newport Beach for the most part that chose these inappropriate Parkway tree species in the first place. Not only do these trees grow up into the view planes of homeowners, they develop destructive root systems that attack both city and homeowner owned sewer Wstems as well as other undergound utilities such as SCE power lines, gas ines, cable systems, and sidewalks /curbs. When any of these occur high expenses result to both city and homeowner. Such trees should be able to be removed and replaced with more acceptable tree species without unreasonable bureaucratic form filling, expense, and delay. Be assured, all view homeowners will be watching carefully all changes made to the G -1 Policy. Hopefully our concerns will be recognized and acted upon by the committee in the new policy. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, I. Douglas and Jean G. Campbell 2901 Ebbtide Rd Corona Del Mar, CA, 92625 -1405 Tel. 949 - 640 -4573 Copy: Iris Kimmel, President, HVHCA • 1 Message Craig, Teri Page 1 of 1 m: jelaydo Delaydo @cox.net] t: Thursday, March 13, 2003 8:52 AM To: TCraig @city.newport- beach.ca.us Cc: 'Campbell, Doug & Jean; 'Hochschild, Dick & Carol; 'Kimmel, Iryce; 'Linsley, Mike & Nancy; 'Sutherlin, Mike & Mary Lynn'; steve @rizzone.net; barryla @mail.com; jbl2 @cox.net; gene @solutions- BSC.com Subject: G -1 Policy Sir: We request that the City respect the view protection in our terraced View Homeowner's Association. Please continue to uphold that portion of the G -1 Policy which allows our Association Boards to enforce our governing documents with regard to the trimming and reforestation of City trees. We also request that you make certain that any committee formed to review /revise the G -1 Policy include representatives from terraced View Homeowner's Associations. Very truly yours, Jose C. Elaydo 2915 Ebbtide Road Corona del Mar, CA 92625 -1405 jWftox. net Confidentiality Warning: This e-mail contains information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, any dissemination, publication or copying of this e -mail is strictly prohibited. The sender does not accept any responsibility for any loss, disruption or damage to you, your business, your data or computer system that may occur while using data contained in, or transmitted with, this e-mail. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify us by return e-mail. • 03/t3/2003 Page 1 of 1 Craig, Teri 7m: John Onopchenko Onopchenko@mindspring.com] t: Thursday, March 13, 2003 6:53 PM To: TCraig @city.newport- beach.ca.us Cc: Iris Subject: G -1 Policy Dear Mr. Craig: We request that the City respect the view protection in our terraced view homeowner's Association. Please continue to uphold the portion of the G -1 Policy which allows our Association Board to enforce our governing documents with regard to the trimming and reforestation of the City trees. We also request that you make sure that any committee formed to review / revise the G -1 policy includes representatives from the terraced view homeowner's associations. Sincerly, John & Linda Onopchenko 0 • 03/17/2003 Page 1 of 1 Craig, Teri m: Tom Moulson [tjmoulson@cox.net] t: Friday, March 14, 2003 1:51 PM To: tcraig@city.newport- beach.ca.us Subject: Tree Trimming and G -1 Policy Parks Beaches & recreations Commission 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 SUBJECT: Tree Trimming and G -1 Policy I was present at the March 11, 2003 City Council meeting which assigned the G -1 Policy issue to your department for review. In my opinion it is most important that those provisions of the G -1 Policy which allow association Boards to enforce the trimming and reforestation of city trees be upheld. Here's why: Everybody loves trees. They delight the eye, generate oxygen, and provide shade. But if trees are both beautiful and functional so are tall buildings, bridges, and mountains. Each has its place. Who would want a window view of the Empire State Building obscured by trees? Or of the Newport Coast? What people admire and value about Newport Beach is not the trees but another natural wonder, the bay and Ocean. As somebody put it at the March 11 meeting, this isn't Tree City, it's View City. To prohibit residents' associations from controlling tree height would be dogmatic and extraordinarily unfair. It would diminish the aesthetic and market value of the affected communities and thus of the city at large. Fie do what you can to produce an outcome that will allow people to protect their views in the reasonable and measured way provided for in associations' articles by upholding the very modest provisions of the G -1 Policy which so permit. Yours truly, Tom Moulson 1100 Sea Lane Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Tel: 949-644-2659 Fax: 949 -644 -7550 E -Mail: tjmoulson @cox.net • 03/17/2003 Page 1 of 1 Craig, Teri m: JMorton540@aol.com t: Sunday, March 16, 2003 1:33 PM To: TCraig@city.newport- beach.ca.us Cc: iryce@cox.com Subject: G -1 Planning TCraig @city.newport- beach.ca.us We request that the City respect the view protection in our terraced View homeowner's Association. Please continue to uphold the portion of the G -1 Policy which allows our Association Boards to enforce our governing documents with regard to the trimming and reforestation of the City trees. We also request that you ascertain that any committee formed to review /revise the G -1 policy include representatives from the terraced View homeowner's associations. Dr. Joyce Morton Harbor View Hills Community Association L J • 03/17/2003 Craig, Teri om: Steve Lewelling [slewelling@lewelling.com] Itnt: Sunday, March 16, 2003 8:20 PM : TCraig@city.newport-beach.co.us Cc: Iris Kimmel Subject: G -1 Policy Parks Beaches & Recreation Commission, As a citizen of Corona del Mar, I am very concerned regarding action or policies that could degrade my view lines. It is imperative that the voice of the Haborview Homeowners Association ( HVHCA) be heard on this issue. The Commission needs to include the HVHCA on any activities to revise the G -1 Policy. Regards, F. Steven Lewelling Home Owner- 1107 Goldenrod Avenue • • 1 Page 1 of 1 Craig, Teri iom: Jane Lyons [genenjane @cox.net] nt: Thursday, March 20, 2003 12:28 PM To: TCraig@city.newport- beach.ca.us Cc: Iryce Kimmel Subject: G -1 With regard to the G -1 policy changes being considered, I am registering my protest to any alteration to the present policy that takes the power to enforce views away from the homeowners associations. Even as G -1 presently stands, it is too restrictive with regard to removing parkway trees and replacing them. I am not against trees of the right kind and in the right places ... in fact I am a tree lover... however, these rules in the G -1 policy need to be loosened up!!! Sincerely, Jane Lyons L 03/20/2003 Allan Beek 2007 Highland Drive Newport Beach CA 92660 March 22, 2003 Honorable Chair and Members of the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission Re: Trees It is said that the Council has dropped the G -1 policy in your lap. This letter is in part pro -tree and in part anti -tree, urging you to seek a balance. This writer has actually heard a tree enthusiast say that if a tree grows up and blocks your. view of the ocean and Catalina, you should enjoy the view of the tree instead. I reject this notion. On the other hand, decisions by City staff to remove or severely prune trees should be announced to all residents within 300 feet walking distance from the tree, and a system of appeals to higher sta$ to your commission, and ultimately to the city council, should be set up • so a removal to which someone objects is never executed hastily or without review by a group with a new perspective. I say, "300 feet walking distance" because the residents on the next street, although they are within 300 feet, have no interest in the tree. Standing to bring such an appeal should be carefully limited, to keep troublemakers with only theoretical interest in the tree from bogging down the system Anyone who does not live within 300 feet walking distance from the tree should not have standing unless he can show that he has an interest in the tree and would actually miss it if it were to be removed. In order to be sure that such people have notice, the tree should be marked with a prominent red ribbon for two weeks before the period for filing an objection expires. A homeowner who thinks the street tree in front of his home is offensive, should have the right to request its removal and replacement (at his expense) with a more acceptable variety. Maintaining and living with the tree are his responsibility, so his choice of variety should have top priority. If the replacement meets City standards of acceptability, the removal should be noticed and processed just like a removal decision by City staff. It is appropriate for the city to designate a particular variety for each street as the preferred variety for that street. Such designation should be announced periodically (say, every three years) to property owners on that street, and there should be a process for the property owners to request a change to a different variety, with the same right of appeal as for a removal. Conformance to a preferred variety should be entirely voluntary on the part of the property • owner; "preferred variety" is a recommendation, not a mandate. City standards for acceptable and not 'acceptable varieties should have the same right of appeal as a removal. But in this case, every citizen would have standing to initiate an appeal. Tree policy is inextricably linked with concern for preservation of views. It is interesting to note that "A New Vision for the Future," adopted by the General Plan Advisory Committee, is ambiguous on this point. It says "Public view areas are protected," but also says, "Trees and landscaping are enhanced and preserved." I submit that views of the ocean, the harbor, and of the San Gabriel mountains are a key element of what we call our "quality of life." City policy should require that trees (and any other plants), whether public or private, which cut off one of these views, whether from the public or from a private home, must be cut back or removed to preserve the view. A specific example will illustrate what I mean. As one leaves the vicinity of the Chamber of Commerce and the Police Station, and takes Jamboree Road toward the coast highway, there used to be a magnificent view of the ocean and of Catalina as one approaches the edge of the mesa, before starting downhill toward the Newporter. This view has gradually been obscured by the trees planted by the Irvine Company, to form a buffer between its homes and Jamboree Road. These trees should come down, and be replaced by ground cover that does not block the view. The homeowners association should be notified, and if it chooses not to clear the • trees, the City should do it and bill the association, as with weed abatement. Any citizen should have standing to initiate such action for protection of a public view. Only the injured party should have standing to initiate action to protect a private view. There should be a committee or hearing board to screen such complaints and rule on their validity, and the same notice and appeal process as with tree removal I realize there are other provisions in the G -1 policy that I have not addressed. I am not attempting to write the policy, merely to offer some ideas to incorporate. Thank you very much for your consideration of these ideas. Sincerely, 0 • City standards for acceptable and not acceptable varieties should have the same right of appeal as a removal. But in this case, every citizen would have standing to initiate an appeal. Tree policy is inextricably linked with concern for preservation of views. It is interesting to note that "A New Vision for the Future," adopted by the General Plan Advisory Committee, is ambiguous on this point. It says "Public view areas are protected," but also says, "Trees and landscaping are enhanced and preserved." I submit that views of the ocean, the harbor, and of the San Gabriel mountains are a key element of what we call our "quality of life." City policy should require that trees (and any other plants), whether public or private, which cut off one of these views, whether from the public or from a private home, must be cut back or removed to preserve the view. A specific example will illustrate what I mean. As one leaves the vicinity of the Chamber of Commerce and the Police Station, and takes Jamboree Road toward the coast highway, there used to be a magnificent view of the ocean and of Catalina as one approaches the edge of the mesa, before starting downhill toward the Newporter. This view has gradually been obscured by the trees planted by the Irvine Company, to form a buffer between its homes and Jamboree Road. These trees should come down, and be replaced by ground cover that does not block the view. The homeowners association should be notified, and if it chooses not to clear the trees, the City should do it and bill the association, as with weed abatement. Any citizen should have standing to initiate such action for protection of a public view. Only the injured party should have standing to initiate action to protect a private view. There should be a committee or hearing board to screen such complaints and rule on their validity, and the same notice and appeal process as with tree removal. I realize there are other provisions in the 0-1 policy that I have not addressed. I am not attempting to write the policy, merely to offer some ideas to incorporate. Thank you very much for your consideration of these ideas. Sincerely, Message Page 1 of 1 Craig, Teri wm: Harkless, LaVonne t. Tuesday, March 25, 2003 8:40 AM To: Niederhaus, Dave Cc: Brown, Leilani; Craig, Teri Subject: RE: G -1 Policy We will forward all info to Teri. - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Niederhaus, Dave Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 8:40 AM To: Harkless, LaVonne Cc: Brown, Leilani; Craig, Teri Subject: RE: G -1 Policy Those calls need to be directed to Teri Craig. - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Harkless, LaVonne Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 8:39 AM To: Niederhaus, Dave Cc: Brown, Leilani Subject: RE: G -1 Policy . We assumed you did if you heard her at the last meeting, but she called this morning to "officially" put her name in as requested by the Mayor. - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Niederhaus, Dave Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 8:38 AM To: Brown, Leilani; Knight, Marie Cc: Harkless, LaVonne; Rieff, Kim; Knight, Marie Subject: RE: G -1 Policy Thanks Leilani, we had her name, but it doesn't hurt to followup. - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Brown, Leilani Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 8:29 AM To: Niederhaus, Dave; Knight, Marie Cc: Harkless, LaVonne Subject: G -1 Policy As you recall, Council requested at the March 11 Council meeting that anyone wishing to be put on the committee to review the G -1 Policy contact the City Clerk's office. Theresa Lier, who lives at 4709 Dorchester Road, CdM, would like to be put on the committee. Her telephone number is 949 - 760 -0869. • Thank you. 03/25/2003