HomeMy WebLinkAbout29 - Tree Policy Analysis0
City Council Agenda
Item No. 29
June 28, 1999
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: General Services Director
SUBJECT: Tree Policy Analysis
Recommendation
None. Report is for informational purposes and discussion only.
Background
The City has a large urban forest of over 28,000 trees. The forest is managed
through the use of Council Policies G -1 (Retention and Removal of City Trees)
and G -6 (Maintenance and Planting of Parkway Trees).
Overall management of the urban forest has been assigned to the General Services
Department with specific staffing and budgeting assigned to the Tree Maintenance
Division. Currently, the Division is staffed by the Urban Forester, John Conway,
who is a highly qualified and certified arborist. He is assisted by a Park/Tree
Laborer.
The current budget for the Tree Division is $595,494, which is primarily dedicated
to funding tree care through the use of a private contractor. With the current
funding level, the tree trimming cycle is three years, however, as the urban forest
continues to grow, additional funding will be required to maintain this cycle.
Numerous trees such as palm, coral, and ficus trees must be trimmed on an annual
basis due to liability concerns.
The City has been nationally recognized for the past eight years as Tree City USA
and has received a Special Growth Award for the past four years.
While Policies G -1 and G -6 are the main guidelines regarding the management of
the urban forest, the former is the most controversial and the focus of this report.
The City Council approved four minor changes to the G -1 Policy on August 10,
1998. A copy of the Council agenda item and Council Policy G -1 are attached.
As a result of a number of tree issues, primarily related to the retention and
removal of City trees, Council has directed an analysis of problem areas that have
surfaced since the last major revision of the G -1 Policy in July 1997.
Some of the Council interests that were identified are: (a) Can the Policy be
improved? (b) What are some of the implementation problems encountered by
staff with the revised policy? (c) Can "common sense" solutions still be made by
staff with the current policy or is strict application of the Policy guidelines the
only option? (d) Review the mechanism related to the G -I Policy to resolve tree
requests and identify problem areas. (e) What are some alternatives that could be
initiated to improve overall tree service response?
The Council requested only an informational report from the staff's viewpoint on
tree matters and not any specific recommendations, policy revisions, nor non -staff
input.
Discussion
Staff has identified the following implementation problems since the last maior
revision of the G -I Policy in July 1997:
(a) The current policy leans heavily toward tree preservation even though a
tree is in the latter stages of its life, is stunted or has overgrown its tree
well, is damaging public or private property, and can be replaced with a
large boxed tree, in some cases, at no expense to the City. An example
of this type of tree request was studied by the Council in April with the
homeowner appeal being returned for Council consideration at the June
28 meeting (Parker tree removal /replacement request, 2327 Arbutus).
(b) A very small fraction of the community insists on the strict
interpretation of the G -I Policy as a means of tree preservation at any
cost, forcing additional City expenses, liability, and consuming an
inordinate amount of staff and Parks, Beaches, and Recreation
Commissioners' time.
(c) Some groups of trees have been placed on the Special Tree list of the
Policy for the sole purpose of preservation even though the trees are of
no special interest to the City. Such a designation creates an awkward
tree management situation, unnecessary additional expense to the City,
and a high frustration level by adjacent property owners who expect
equal treatment of their tree requests (Attachment I, Council Policy G-
1, Neighborhood Trees).
(d) Reforestation procedures for the City trees have been interpreted by
staff to apply to neighborhood association areas versus individual
resident's requests. This results in all individual tree removal requests
automatically being judged by the more stringent Tree Removal
procedures of the Policy.
(e) Some wording of the Policy leaves staff without clear direction. An
example would be whether "repeated damage" to public or private
property by City trees equates to two, or more than two, incidents of
hardscape damage before a tree may be removed.
(f) Special Trees can't be removed even when endangering public /private
property according to the current policy. The interval for root pruning
• of Special Trees could be lowered to six months from 12 months
depending upon tree species. This would lessen the amount of public
or private damage caused by tree roots.
Tree Policy Analysis
The G -1 Policy was written to provide specific tree maintenance procedures for
staff, residents, and business owners. The Policy is divided into four distinct
categories: Special City Trees, Removal of City Trees, Reforestation of City
Trees, and Tree Trimming Standards/Supplemental Trimming. A number of
provisions were added to the Policy in the final hour to appease specific interests
and have resulted in creating, in staff's opinion, a lengthy process for tree removal
requests that often frustrates residents and business owners.
As the problem areas (a -f) noted earlier specify: the majority of the difficulties in
managing the tree policy is related to tree removal requests by citizens or staff.
The Reforestation and Tree Trimming Standard/Supplemental Trimming portions
of the Policy have been adequate in resolving tree problems. An expansion of the
authority of the Reforestation section to include single tree locations would
significantly improve the staffs ability to solve tree requests.
• As noted earlier, the Tree Division is comprised of only two staff members.
Collectively, they handle an average of 200 requests per month. Each request
takes from 30 minutes to several days to resolve. A common complaint to my
office is that tree requests are not handled in an expeditious manner.
Modifications to the Policy or at least a less stringent interpretation of the Policy
could resolve many of the delays.
Tree Removal Process
Council also indicated interest in the mechanism or manner that tree removal
requests were handled. Staff has provided a City Tree Removal Process Flow
Chart (Attachment C) to illustrate the steps involved in the process. A typical
street tree removal request consumes a minimum of six staff hours through the
level of an appeal to the Parks, Beaches, & Recreation Commission. Over 90% of
all tree removals that are denied by staff are appealed to the Parks, Beaches, &
Recreation Commission. The Commission attempts to resolve the removal
disputes in an equitable, common sense manner, but is bound by tree advocates'
insistence on the strict interpretation of the G -1 Policy. Almost all tree removals
are opposed by tree advocates, who are particularly adamant when the PB &R
40 Commission or staff attempts to mitigate tree disputes.
Tree Trimmm2
In 1993, the Tree Division was staffed by 11 employees and had a budget of
$727,665. The cost to trim each City tree was calculated to be $89. The budgeted
amount did not include the costs of purchasing and maintaining the tree trimmer
truck fleet, which if the costs were included, would result in an estimated $900K
annual tree budget.
A staff study prepared at Council direction in October 1993, identified savings of
$199K by privatizing the tree trimming function. Council then directed
privatization of tree trimming, which occurred on January 1, 1994. The annual
tree maintenance budget was subsequently decreased to $499,620.
With the decreased level of funding, the tree trimming cycle was consequently
lengthened from three years to 4.3 years and the public complaints on the service
level (specifically the extension of the trim cycle) significantly increased. Staff
requested an additional $100K in the FY 98 -99 budget in tree trimming funds to
alleviate this problem. The Council subsequently approved this request and tree
trimming interval complaints have decreased.
As a separate step in alleviating tree trimming service levels, staff developed the
Supplemental Tree Trimming Procedures in the G -1 Policy wherein a resident
may pay $39 per tree to have a City parkway tree trimmed by the City tree
contractor on a shorter interval than three years. While both additional funding
and Supplemental Tree Trimming Procedures alleviated a significant amount of
citizens' complaints, funding for the larger number of trees (22,000 in 1992,
28,000 in 1999) was never restored in a proportional amount from earlier years.
The proposed FY 99 -00 Budget provides for $592K for tree maintenance as
compared with $727K (estimated with equipment costs to be $900K) budgeted in
1992 when the urban forest consisted of 6,000 fewer trees. The end result has
been a growing frustration level with the tree trimming service level and has led to
an increased number of tree trimming and removal requests, or worse, illegal tree
removals. Time that the Urban Forester would normally devote to tree removal
requests has been consumed by tree trimming inquiries, requests, and major
reforestation projects.
Summary
Staff opines that the current City G -1 Tree Policy, while not perfect, is an
excellent framework to manage the urban forest. With some new minor changes
in the Policy related to removal and reforestation of City trees and a common
sense approach to the interpretation of the requirements; residents and business
owners would be better served, controversies over individual tree problems
resolved at staff level, response to requests improved, and overall City costs would
be lowered. Staff could present those minor policy changes to the PB &R
Commission at their next monthly meeting as the first step in a public review
process before returning the matter to the Council.
• Of a more immediate nature would be the consideration of a FY 99 -00 Budget
Check list item for $50K to 100K to address the tree maintenance service level
problem.
Very respectfully,
David E. Niederhaus
DEN /mhl
Attachments: A. Council Policy G -1
B. City Council Agenda Item No. 22, dated August 10, 1998
C. City Tree Removal Process Flow Chart
0
0
G -1 0
RETENTION OR REMOVAL OF CITY TREES
The purpose of this policy is to establish definitive standards for the retention, removal,
maintenance, reforestation, and supplemental trimming of City trees. City street trees
are an important part of the character and charm of certain communities and regular
care, trimming, maintenance and programmed replacement are necessary to preserve
this charm while protecting public and private property.
SPECIAL CITY TREES
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.
Landmark, dedicated, and neighborhood trees are identified on Attachment 1, and shall
hereinafter be referred to as Special Trees. Trees within these categories shall be
established, mapped, recorded and maintained by the Parks, Beaches & Recreation
Commission ( "Commission ").
Special Trees shall be retained, unless there are exceptional problems which require
their removal. Prior to consideration for removal of Special Trees, the General Services
Director, or designee, shall prepare a report identifying and implementing specific
treatment to retain the tree(s). If specific treatment is unsuccessful in retaining a tree(s)
then a full report shall be made to the Commission before any further action
considering removal is taken. Prior to any removal of Special Trees, the City must
comply with the noticing provisions of the Removal of City Trees section set forth in
this policy.
During normal sidewalk, curb, and street repair activity requiring root pruning, all
steps will be taken to retain Special Trees. If tree roots are to be pruned in association
with hardscape improvements, sufficient timing in advance must be planned to ensure
that pruning will not destabilize or kill the tree. If both .sides of a tree's root are to be
pruned, one side should be pruned a year in advance of the other side.
ALL OTHER CITY TREES
It is the City's policy to retain all other City trees unless removal is necessary for one of
the following reasons:
1 0
Attachment A
G -1
A. The City tree has had a history of damaging public or private sewers, water
mains, roadways, sidewalks, curbs, walls, fences, or foundations based on City
records or other competent and reliable authority despite specific treatment by
the City to alleviate repeated damage.
B. The City tree has had a repeated history of interfering with street or sidewalk
drainage, despite specific treatment by the City to alleviate repeated damage.
C. The City tree is dead, diseased, or dying.
D. The tree(s) must comply with the criteria for reforestation as contained in the
Reforestation of City Trees section of this policy.
E. The tree(s) have been requested to be removed in conjunction with a City
Council- approved neighborhood or community association beautification
program.
REMOVAL OF CITY TREES
The initiation to remove any City tree may be made by the General Services
Department, Public Works Department, a legally established community association, or
a private property owner by making application with the General Services Director.
After receipt of the application a tree inspection report shall be prepared by the City's
Urban Forester (Attachment 2) to determine if the tree(s) meets the criteria outlined
above for consideration for removal. Simultaneously, a notice shall be provided to the
affected property owner and the owners immediately adjacent to the applicant's
property and the appropriate community association if applicable. The Urban Forester
shall determine whether in his /her judgment additional specific treatment can be
initiated to retain the tree. If a tree(s) is to be removed, the tree(s) will be marked at
least 30 days prior to the removal with a white X (using temporary paint) and posted
with a sign notifying the public that they have the right of appeal. The sign shall also
note a staff contact. Once a recommendation is made by the Urban Forester and the
Park and Tree Superintendent to the General Services Director and the General Services
Director or designee concurs, then the applicant, the adjoining owners, and the
community association if applicable shall be notified of the decision to remove or retain
the tree within 30 days of the proposed removal. The General Services Director, or his
designee, shall report at a regularly scheduled PB &R Commission meeting of all trees
2
G -1
recommended for removal using the Trees Division Activities Report, except for those
trees categorized in paragraph 3 in the preceding section on All Other City Trees. An
applicant, an adjoining property owner, or any interested party may appeal the decision
of the General Services Director to the Commission, and if the appeal cannot be
resolved at the Commission level, then the final resolution will be determined at the
City Council level. The Commission and Council, in considering any appeal, shall
determine whether the removal meets the criteria outlined in this policy, as well as any
unique factors which may be pertinent to the removal or retention of tree(s). An appeal
to the Council regarding a Commission tree decision must be received by the General
Services Department no later than 14 calendar days following the date of the
Commission decision. The General Services Department will delay any tree removals
until the appeal period has expired or until the Council has acted upon the appeal.
REFORESTATION OF CITY TREES
It is recognized and acknowledged that City trees were planted many years ago and in
some cases were planted with specific species that when fully mature create significant
problems in curb, gutter, sidewalk or underground utilities. In certain neighborhoods,
mature City street trees may encroach into blue water views from public and private
property depending on the length of time since the trees were last trimmed.
Today, arborists have developed lists of tree species which are able to grow in restricted
parkway areas without causing significant future problems to curb, gutter, sidewalk,
utilities or views. The concept of systematically replacing mature trees which are
creating hardscape and /or view problems and cannot be properly trimmed, pruned or
modified to alleviate the problems they create, or those which are reaching their full life
and are declining in health, is referred to as reforestation.
As a City which understands the importance of trees and the beauty it brings to a
community, the City desires to continually improve the urban forest through
reforestation. In areas where City trees have been removed through City initiation, the
City should expeditiously replace them with the appropriate designated City tree.
Reforestation may also be initiated by residents utilizing the process outlined below.
The City shall require the proper care and watering of replacement trees to ensure their
proper growth and development as outlined in City Council Policy G -6. Furthermore,
no person shall tamper with replacement trees in violation of Section 13.08.040 of the
Municipal Code.
E
G -1
Individuals or parties desiring to reforest City trees in their respective area, may submit
a request to the General Services Director for consideration by the Commission that
meets the following requirements:
A. The proposed area must have clearly defined contiguous boundaries that include
the trees proposed for removal and replacement, street addresses, block
numbers, or other geographical information.
B. Residential communities, neighborhoods or business organizations must submit
a petition signed by a minimum of 60% of the property owners within the area
defined for reforestation. A neighborhood is defined for the purposes of this
policy as ten or more homes in any given area of the City. As an alternative,
areas represented by a legally established community association empowered
with CC & R's, may submit a resolution of the Board of Directors formally
requesting a reforestation with a statement that all members of the community
association have been officially notified and given an appropriate opportunity to
respond before the Board voted on the request.
C. A written agreement by the petitioning sponsor to pay 100% of the costs of the
removal and replacement of the public trees in advance of any removal activity.
The actual removal and replanting will be coordinated by the General Services
Department. The total costs shall include only the contractor's removal and
replacement costs and be paid in advance of any removal actions.
D. The replacement tree must be the designated street tree as prescribed by City
Council Policy G-6, or the organization must request and have approval from the
Commission of the designation of a different tree species.
E. There shall be a minimum of a one - for -one replacement of all trees removed in
reforestation projects. Replacement trees shall be a minimum size of 24" box
trees.
In the event that the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission does not approve the
reforestation request, the applicant has the option to appeal the proposal to the City
Council. The applicant shall have ten (10) calendar days to appeal the decision of the
Commission, by letter, to the General Services Director. The General Services Director
shall submit the appeal to the City Council for review within thirty (30) days of receipt
of the appeal.
4
G -1
TREE TRIMMING STANDARDS /SUPPLEMENTAL TRIMMING
The City Council has adopted tree trimming cycles for trees of different ages and
species. The current tree trimming cycles and trimming standards represent the
maximum feasible frequency and extent of trimming given current fiscal conditions.
Except as provided in this Section, trimming shall be in accordance with the standards
of the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA).
The City will consider, and as a general rule approve, requests to trim certain trees
more frequently or to trim trees consistent with practices applied prior to the adoption
of ISA standards (to enhance public and private views, preserve required
sight /distance standards, or other public purposes) which are submitted by affected
residents or the board of a legally established community association and the request is
accompanied by a completed "Supplemental Tree Trimming Form" and full payment.
The General Services Director shall establish procedures to implement the supplemental
trimming provisions of this Policy. An approval must be obtained from a legally
established association by the requestor in areas with an active homeowners'
association.
[Attachment 1- Preservation of Special Trees]
[Attachment 2- Tree Inspection Report]
Adopted - May 9,1966
Amended - August 14,1967
Amended - November 9,1976
Amended - November 12, 1985
Amended -November 28,1988
Amended - March 14,1994
Formerly I -9
Amended — April 11, 1994
Amended — February 26,1996
Amended — July 14,1997
Amended (Administratively) —
November 24,1997
Amended - August 10, 1998
5
E
0
PRESERVATION OF SPECIAL TREES
G -1
LANDMARK
TREES Balboa Library
Eucalyptus globulus
Balboa Library
Phoenix canariensis
West Jetty (near Historical Marker)
Phoenix canariensis
Dover Drive at Westcliff
Liquidambar styraciflua
400 block Poinsettia
Eucalyptus corynocalyx
Ocean Blvd. Corona del Mar
Phoneix canariensis
Westcliff & Dover (Groves)
Eucalyptus globulus
Main Street (between East Bay
Ficus nitida
Ave. and Balboa Blvd.)
DEDICATED
TREES No. Mariners Park (Marcie Schrouder)
Pinus radiata
Mariners Park (Frank Tallman)
Pinus radiata
No. City Hall grounds (Billy Covert)
Ficus benjamina
City Hall grounds (Walter Knott)
Pinus halepensis
City Hall grounds
(Calif. Bicentennial)
Pinus halepensis
Las Arenas Park (Ed Healy)
Melaleuca linarifolia
Mariners Park (Isy Pease)
Pinus halepensis
City Hall grounds
(U.S. Bicentennial Freedom Tree)
Harpephyllum caffrum
Buffalo Hills Park (Bahia
Community Earth Day Celebration)
Erythrina caffra
Peninsula Park
(Gray Lunde Memorial Tree)
Chamaerops humilis
Cliff Drive Park
Quercus agrifolia
(Gary Lovell)
Begonia Park
Prunus cerasifera
(Cheryl Bailey Ringwald)
Castaways Park
Quercus agrifolia
(Jan Vandersloot)
Peninsula Park
Ravenea rivularis
(Don Perdue)
Grant Howald Park
Metrosideros excelsus
1 (Pete Munro)
2 (Mark Munro)
0 Attachment 1
Adopted — May 9,1966
Amended — November 9,1976
Amended — November 28,1988
Amended — October, 1993
Amended —July 14,1997
Amended —January 25,1999
Attachment 1 2 0
G -1 .
DEDICATED
TREES (contd.) Veterans Park
Lagenstroemia
(Rosemary Rae Hill Hansen)
indica faueri
Mariners Park
Stenocarpus
(N. Beach Sunrise Rotary Club)
sinuatus
(Christopher & Marisha Thomposn)
Pinus eldarica
(Meghan & Camielle Thompson)
Pinus eldarica
NEIGHBORHOOD
TREES Parkway in Shorecliffs
Erythrina caffra
Marguerite Avenue
Phoenix canariensis
Goldenrod Avenue
Washington robusta
Dover Drive (Mariners to Irvine)
Eucalyptus globulus
15th Street (Newport Heights)
Eucalyptus cladocalyx
Irvine Avenue Median
Eucalyptus globulus
Holiday between Irvine & Tustin
Eucalyptus globulus
Along Avon Avenue
Eucalyptus globulus
Via Lido Bridge
Eucalyptus globulus
Marine Avenue (Balboa Island)
Eucalyptus rudis
Seaview Avenue (Corona del Mar)
Pinus radiata .
Poppy Avenue (Corona del Mar)
Eucalyptus rudis
Heliotrope Avenue (Corona del Mar)
Pinus radiata
Candlestick Lane, etc. (Baycrest)
Eucalyptus citriodora
Commodore
Eucalyptus citriodora
Starlight
Eucalyptus citriodora
Glenwood
Eucalyptus citriodora
Candlestick
Eucalyptus citriodora
Sandalwood
Eucalyptus citriodora
Adopted — May 9,1966
Amended — November 9,1976
Amended — November 28,1988
Amended — October, 1993
Amended —July 14,1997
Amended —January 25,1999
Attachment 1 2 0
•
Oachment 2
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
TREE INSPECTION REPORT
I0hTMW
Address
Phone Number
Request
Botanical Name
Common Name
Designated Street Tree
Estimated Tree Value
Damage
Parkway: Concrete Brick _Turf _Other
Comments
Inspected by
Recommendation
Reviewed
Date
Date
G -1
1
City Council Agenda .
Item No. 22
August 10, 1998
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: General Services Director
SUBJECT: Council Policy G -I (Retention or Removal of City Trees)
Recommendation
Adopt the amendments to the attached G -1 Policy as recommended by the Parks,
Beaches, and Recreation Commission.
History
The G -1 Policy was originally adopted in 1966 as a means of providing procedures
related to the retention or removal of City trees. After a lengthy study during 1996 -97,
that included extensive input from citizens, community associations, and environmental
groups, the Policy was rewritten by staff, reviewed by the Commission, and approved by
Council in July 1997.
During the past several months, staff, including the City Manager, have met with various
concerned parties regarding the tree policy issues that have developed over the past year.
Minor issues have been analyzed and resulted in the recommendation of minor changes to
the Policy. Each issue that surfaced has been thoroughly researched by staff and resolved
as appropriate.
As required by City policy, changes were initially referred to the Parks, Beaches, and
Recreation Commission. The Commission appointed a Tree Committee comprised of
Chairman Pat Beek and Commissioners Val Skoro and Tom Tobin who reviewed the
attached Policy with staff on July 16 before directing staff to place it on the Commission
agenda.
On August 4, 1998 the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission, at their normal
monthly meeting, reviewed the attached amendments, accepted public comments, and
forwarded the attached amended Policy to Council for review and approval.
The proposed Policy is annotated in the standard form: i.e. underlined items represent •
additions, and strikeauts represent deletions to the current Policy.
Attachment B
. Discussion
Two citizens' groups have provided their recommendations regarding this matter: one, a
tree advocacy group led by Dr. Jan Vandersloot, and two, the Community Associations
Alliance, a group of associations primarily interested in the reforestation policy and
supplemental tree trimming procedures. Although not all of the citizens' groups
recommendations were included in the final recommendation, each will be addressed in
this report.
Recommended Policy Changes
The following policy changes were accepted by the Parks Beaches and Recreation
Commission. Public comments concerning these changes were favorable at the
Commission public hearing of August 4. Each. of the following recommendations are
included in the attached amended Policy.
Page 2: Removal of City Trees
The changes recommended by Dr. Vandersloot would improve the public notice process.
Staff concurs.
.Page 3: Removal of City Trees
Dr. Vandersloot recommends a fourteen -day appeal period before any tree removal
approved by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission occurs. This could result in
a minimum of forty-four to sixty days before a routine tree removal could be scheduled.
Staff has no objections to lengthening the appeal process.
Page 4: Reforestation of City Trees
The reforestation applicant would have an appeal option to the Council if the Commission
did not approve a reforestation request. Approval of this amendment would allow the
applicant a second opportunity for approval. Staff concurs.
Page S: Tree Trimming Standards I Supplemental Trimming
The requirement for a completed trimming request and full payment in advance will
ensure a more orderly process for staff. Additionally, an individual member of a
community association must obtain an association endorsement for supplemental tree
trimming when an association is active in community matters. The latter ensures that
active associations are kept informed of individual member requests. Staff concurs.
Further Public Comments
Several recommendations of the general public were not approved by the Parks, Beaches
and Recreation Commission. These are explained in detail by reference to the page
number of the attached Policy to ensure the Council is knowledgeable of all related Policy
issues.
Fos
Removal of City Trees. Paze 2. second paragraph •
Dr. Vandersloot has proposed that the notice of a proposed tree removal be revised to
commence thirty days prior to a Commission meeting rather than as the current Policy
language which allows the period to start from the date that the tree removal report is
completed and a removal warning sign is placed on the tree.
The Commissioners' reasoning in retaining the current policy language is that all
proposed tree removals (except dead or diseased trees) are included in the regular
Commission agenda report. Dr. Vandersloot may object to any staff tree removal
recommendation at a Commission meeting. Further, a proposed amendment to the
current policy would allow an additional fourteen days to appeal any Parks, Beaches, and
Recreation Commission removal approval. Staff opines that the available time periods
provide ample opportunity for Dr. Vandersloot to evaluate any proposed tree removals or
appeal a removal request if he needs additional time for consideration.
Reforestation: of Cih, Trees. Page 4. paragraph b.
Elaine Linhoff has proposed additional language to the last sentence of paragraph b as
follows:
b. Residential communities, neighborhoods or business organizations must
submit a petition signed by a minimum of 60% of the property owners within the
area defined for reforestation. A neighborhood is defined, for the purposes of this
policy, as ten or more homes in any given area of the City. As an alternative, areas
represented by a legally established community association empowered with
CC &R's may submit a resolution of the Board of Directors formally requesting
reforestation with a dated cry of the notification sent to members and a list of
members who received notification. Members must have been given an
appropriate opportunity: to respond before the board voted on the request.
Staff does not concur with the underlined recommendation in that sufficient evidence
would be provided by an association board of directors under the guidelines of the
proposed tree Policy.
Appeal of Reforestation Approval. Page 4.
Currently the Policy provides for an appeal by the applicant to the City Council if an
applicant's request for reforestation is denied by the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation
Commission. The proposed amendment included in the recommendation provides for
time limits for the appeal and the appeal process.
Dr. Vandersloot proposes that any reforestation approved by the Parks, Beaches, and
Recreation Commission may be appealed by "any interested party" within fourteen
calendar days of the Commission action.
Reforestation applicants generally will be community associations that agree in their
application to sponsor a reforestation project. Since reforestation requests are associated
with a small community, wherein the parkway trees primarily affect the residents as
applicants, and the applicants are funding the removal and replacement of each tree, the
Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission declined to expand appeal rights to "any
interested party ". Their reasoning was that although City trees, which are owned by all
residents, were being reforested, the matter was a community decision that directly
affected only the applicants.
Supplemental Tree Trimming Procedures
The current Policy permits the development of supplementary tree trimming procedures
by staff. Several changes have also been proposed for the current Procedures as a result
of meetings with the Community Association Alliance. A draft of these Procedures,
which are separate from the Policy and were prepared by the General Services
Department Staff, is attached for your review. Council does not have to act on these
changes. Approval of the various items by staff would improve the supplemental tree
trimming service and facilitate staff work. Attachment C is a revised Supplemental Tree
Trimming form that will facilitate better coordination of supplemental tree trimming.
Neither Attachment B nor C are part of the G -1 Policy, but are authorized by the Policy
for development by myself for management purposes. Staff has provided Attachments B
and C to illustrate the steps being taken to improve supplemental tree trimming
procedures.
Summary
Staff has carefully reviewed and consolidated appropriate tree policy changes with the
various groups and individuals with the objective of improving the current Policy.
Very respectfully,
David E. Niederhaus
DEN /me
Attachments: (A) Proposed Council Policy G -1
(B) Draft Supplemental Tree Trimming Procedures
(C) Supplemental Tree Trimming Form
k
G -1
RETENTION OR REMOVAL OF CITY TREES •
The purpose of this policy is to establish definitive standards for the retention, removal,
maintenance, reforestation, and supplemental trimming of City trees. City street trees are
an important part of the character and charm of certain communities and regular care,
trimming, maintenance and programmed replacement are necessary to preserve this
charm while protecting public and private property.
SPECIAL CITY TREES
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.
Landmark, dedicated, and neighborhood trees are identified on Attachment 1, and shall
hereinafter be referred to as Special Trees. Trees within these categories shall be
established, mapped, recorded and maintained by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation
Commission ( "Commission ").
Special Trees shall be retained, unless there are exceptional problems which require their
removal. Prior to consideration for removal of Special Trees, the General Services
Director, or designee, shall prepare a report identifying and implementing specific
treatment to retain the tree(s). If specific treatment is unsuccessful in retaining a tree(s)
then a full report shall be made to the Commission before any further action considering
removal is taken. Prior to any removal of Special Trees, the City must comply with the
noticing provisions of the Removal of City Trees section set forth in this policy.
During normal sidewalk, curb, and street repair activity requiring root pruning, all steps
will be taken to retain Special Trees. If tree roots are to be pruned in association with
hardscape improvements, sufficient timing in advance must be planned to ensure that
pruning will not destabilize or kill the tree. If both sides of a tree's root are to be pruned,
one side should be pruned a year in advance of the other side.
ALL OTHER CITY TREES
It is the City's policy to retain all other City trees unless removal is necessary for one of
the following reasons:
0
Attachment A
G -1
1. The City tree has had a history of damaging public or private sewers,
water mains, roadways, sidewalks, curbs, walls, fences, or foundations
based on City records or other competent and reliable authority despite
specific treatment by the City to alleviate repeated damage.
2. The City tree has had a repeated history of interfering with street or
sidewalk drainage, despite specific treatment by the City to alleviate
repeated damage.
3. The City tree is dead, diseased, or dying.
4. The tree(s) must comply with the criteria for reforestation as
contained in the Reforestation of City Trees section of this policy.
5. The tree(s) have been requested to be removed in conjunction with a
City Council- approved neighborhood or community association
beautification program.
REMOVAL OF CITY TREES
The initiation to remove any City tree may be made by the General Services
Department, Public Works Department, a legally established community
association, or a private property owner by making application with the General
Services Director.
After receipt of the application a tree inspection report shall be prepared by the
City's Urban Forester (Attachment 2) to determine if the tree(s) meets the criteria
outlined above for consideration for removal. Simultaneously, a notice shall be
provided to the affected property owner and the owners immediately adjacent to
the applicant's property, and the appropriate community association if applicable.
The Urban Forester shall determine whether in his/her judgment additional specific
treatment can be initiated to retain the tree. If a tree(s) is to be removed, the tree(s)
will be marked at least 30 days prior to the removal with a white X (using
ten:porarti paint ) and posted with a sin Yrolifying the public that they have the
right of appeal. The sign shall also note a staff contact. in ordef te notify-the
Elie - Merge. Once a recommendation is made by the Urban Forester and the
Park and Tree Superintendent to the General Services Director, and the General
Services Director or designee concurs, then the applicant, the adjoining owners,
and the community association, if applicable, shall be notified of the decision to
remove or retain the tree within 30 days of the proposed removal. The General
Services Director, or his designee, shall report at a regularly scheduled PB &R
Commission meeting of all trees recommended for removal using the Trees
Division Activities Report, except for those trees categorized in paragraph 3 in the
preceding section on All Other City Trees. An applicant, an adjoining property
2 0
G -1
owner, or any interested party may appeal the decision of the General Services
Director to the Commission, and if the appeal cannot be resolved at the
Commission level, then the final resolution will be determined at the City Council
level. The Commission and Council, in considering any appeal, shall determine
whether the removal meets the criteria outlined in this policy, as well as any
unique factors which may be pertinent to the removal or retention of tree(s). An
anneal to the Council regarding a Commission tree decision must be received by
the General Services Department no later than 14 calendar days following the date
of the Commission decision. The General Services Department will delay any tree
removals until the appeal period has expired or until the Council has acted upon
the appeal.
REFORESTATION OF CITY TREES
It is recognized and acknowledged that City trees were planted many years ago
and in some cases were planted with specific species that when fully mature create
significant problems in curb, gutter, sidewalk or underground utilities. In certain
neighborhoods, mature City street trees may encroach into blue water views from
public and private property depending on the length of time since the trees were
last trimmed.
Today, arborists have developed lists of tree species which are able to grow in
restricted parkway areas without causing significant future problems to curb,
gutter, sidewalk, utilities or views. The concept of systematically replacing mature
trees which are creating hardscape and/or view problems and cannot be properly
trimmed, pruned or modified to alleviate the problems they create, or those which
are reaching their full life and are declining in health, is referred to as reforestation.
As a City which understands the importance of trees and the beauty it brings to a
community, the City desires to continually improve the urban forest through
reforestation. In areas where City trees have been removed through City initiation,
the City should expeditiously replace them with the appropriate designated City
tree. Reforestation may also be initiated by residents utilizing the process outlined
below. The City shall require the proper care and watering of replacement trees to
ensure their proper growth and development as outlined in City Council Policy G-
6. Furthermore, no person shall tamper with replacement trees in violation of
Section 13.08.040 of the Municipal Code.
Individuals or parties desiring to reforest City trees in their respective area, may
submit a request to the General Services Director for consideration by the
Commission that meets the following requirements: 9
a. The proposed area must have clearly defined contiguous
boundaries that include the trees proposed, for removal and
3 0
G -1
replacement, street addresses, block numbers, or other geographical
information.
b. Residential communities, neighborhoods or business
organizations must submit a petition signed by a minimum of 60% of
the property owners within the area defined for reforestation. A
neighborhood is defined for the purposes of this policy as ten or more
homes in any given area of the City. As an alternative, areas
represented by a legally established community association
empowered with CC & R's, may submit resolution of the Board of
Directors formally requesting reforestation with a statement that all
members of the community association have been officially notified
and given an appropriate opportunity to respond before the Board
voted on the request.
C. A written agreement by the petitioning sponsor to pay 100% of
the costs of the removal and replacement of the public trees in
advance of any removal activity. The actual removal and replanting
will be coordinated by the General Services Department. The total
costs shall include only the contractor's removal and replacement
costs and be paid in advance of any removal actions.
d. The replacement tree must be the designated street tree as
prescribed by City Council Policy G -6 or the organization must
request and have approval from the Commission of the designation of
a different tree species.
e. There shall be a minimum of a one - for -one replacement of all
trees removed in reforestation projects. Replacement trees shall be a
minimum size of 24" box trees.
In the event that the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission does not approve
the reforestation request, the applicant has the option to appeal the proposal to the
City Council. The applicant shall have ten calendar days to appeal the decision of
the Commission. by letter, to the General Services Director. The General Services
Director shall submit the anal to the City Council for review within 30 days of
receipt of the appeal.
TREE TRIMMING STANDARDS /SUPPLEMENTAL TRIMMING
The City Council has adopted tree trimming cycles for trees of different ages and
species. The current tree trimming cycles and trimming standards represent the
maximum feasible frequency and extent of trimming given current fiscal
4 %
G -1
The City Council has adopted tree trimming cycles for trees of different ages and .
species. The current tree trimming cycles and trimming standards represent the
maximum feasible frequency and extent of trimming given current fiscal
conditions. Except as provided in this Section, trimming shall be in accordance
with the standards of the International Society of Aboriculture (ISA).
The City will consider, and as a general rule approve, requests to trim certain trees
more frequently or to trim trees consistent with practices applied prior to the
adoption of ISA standards (to enhance public and private views, preserve required
sight/distance standards, or other public purposes) which are submitted by affected
residents or the board of a legally established community association and the
request is accompanied by a completed "Supplemental Tree Trimming Form" and
full pavment eemmitment to fully 'e" burse the City for any costs of trimming.
The General Services Director shall establish procedures to implement the
supplemental trimming provisions of this Policy. An agproval must be obtained
from a legally established association by the requestor in areas with an active
homeowners' association.
Note: (Attachment 1— Preservation of Special Trees)
(Attachment 2 — Tree Inspection Report)
Adopted —May 9, 1966 Amended —March 14, 1994
Amended —August 14, 1967 Amended — April 11, 1994
Amended — November 9,1976 Amended — February 26, 1996
Amended — November 12, 1985 Amended — July 14,1997
Amended — November 28, 1988 Amended (Administratively) — Nov.
24, 1997
0
5
0
0
G -1
PRESERVATION OF SPECIAL TREES
LANDMARK
TREES Balboa Library Eucalyptus globulus
Balboa Library Phoenix canariensis
West Jetty (near Historical Marker) Phoenix canariensis
Dover Drive at Westcliff
400 block Poinsettia
Ocean Blvd. Corona del Mar
Westcliff & Dover (Groves)
Main Street (between East Bay
Ave. and Balboa Blvd.)
DEDICATED
TREES No. Mariners Park (Marcie Schrouder)
Mariners Park (Frank Tallman)
No. City Hall grounds (Billy Covert)
City Hall grounds (Walter Knott)
City Hall grounds
(Calif. Bicentennial)
Las Arenas Park (Ed Healy)
Mariners Park (Isy Pease)
Liquidambar styraciflua
Eucalyptus corynocalyx
Phoneix canariensis
Eucalyptus globulus
Ficus nitida
Pinus radiata
Pinus radiata
Ficus benjamina
Pinus halepensis
Pinus halepensis
Melaleuca linarifolia
Pinus halepensis
City Hall grounds
(U.S. Bicentennial Freedom Tree) Harpephyllum caffrum
Buffalo Hills Park (Bahia
Community Earth Day Celebration) Erythrina caffra
Peninsula Park
(Gray Lunde Memorial Tree) Chamaerops humilis
NEIGHBORHOOD
TREES Parkway in Shorecliffs
Marguerite Avenue
Goldenrod Avenue
Dover Drive (Mariners to Irvine)
15th Street (Newport Heights)
Irvine Avenue Median
Holiday between Irvine & Tustin
Along Avon Avenue
Via Lido Bridge
Marine Avenue (Balboa Island)
Seaview Avenue (Corona del Mar)
Poppy Avenue (Corona del Mar)
Heliotrope Avenue (Corona del Mar)
Erythrina caffra
Phoenix canariensis
Washington robusta
Eucalyptus globulus
Eucalyptus cladocalyx
Eucalyptus globulus
Eucalyptus globulus
Eucalyptus globulus
Eucalyptus globulus
Eucalyptus rudis
Pinus radiata
Eucalyptus rudis
Pinus radiata
Attachment 1
Candlestick Lane, etc. (Baycrest)
Commodore
Starlight
Glenwood
Candlestick
Sandalwood
Adopted - May 9, 1966
Amended - November 9, 1976
Amended - November 28, 1988
Amended - October /1993
Amended — July 14, 1997
Eucalyptus citriodora
Eucalyptus citriodora
Eucalyptus citriodora
Eucalyptus citriodora
Eucalyptus citriodora
Eucalyptus citriodora
G -1
0
0
0
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
TREE INSPECTION REPORT
Name
Address
Phone Number
Request
Botanical Name _
Common Name _
Designated Street Tree
Estimated Tree Value
Damage
0
Parkway: Concrete _Brick _Turf _Other
Comments
Inspected by
Recommendation
Reviewed by
Date
Date
G -1
Attachment 2
l�
CITY COUNCIL POLICY G -1
Supplemental Tree Trimming Procedures
Applicants Pfepef4y-ewner$, per the policy, have the option to have City trees, in their
parkway, trimmed by incurring the costs of such services per the following procedures:
A re uest letter and completed 'Wu
pplemental Tree Trimming Form" must
be submitted to the Urban Forester by the property owner or the board of a legally
established community association specifying the number of City trees to be
trimmed and the location of each tree by address. The cost of supplemental tree
trimming will be $39 for each tree. Additionally, a check made payable to the
City of Newport Beach must be included in the letter.
After the tree trimming request has been verified by a site visit, the trimming
will be scheduled by the Urban Forester, normally within 60 days. The Urban
Forester will group multiple requests in a geographic area prior to scheduling
supplemental tree trimming. A pre -trim meeting will be scheduled on site by staff
and the City tree trimming contractor with an association board representative to
ensure detailed directions are given to the City contractor. Pre -trim meetings will
not be scheduled for individual tree trimming requests not related to an
association request. However, tree trimming instructions may be sumbitted on the
attached form.
mod-
3. Supplemental tree trimming shall be in accordance with the standards of the
International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) or with standards applied to
particular area prior to the adoption of the ISA standards in the City. These
standards may include practices to enhance public and private views as necessary.
All supplemental trimming will be performed by the City tree trimming
contractor, West Coast Arborists, with the supervision of the Urban Forester.
- Attachment B
0
SUPPLEMENTAL TREE TRIMMING FORM
APPLICANT
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION NAME:
(Conununity Association or Individual)
Date:
Please fill in the information requested below and return this form to the attention
of John Conway, Urban Forester, City of Newport Beach, General Services
Department, 3300 Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915, with a check(s) payable
to the City of Newport Beach in the amount of $39.00 per tree. If the applicant
resides in a community with an active homeowners' association, an efidefseffient
approval from the association must be received as well.
Property Owners Name, Address, Phone:
Address where tree(s) is /are located:
If the tree(s) requested for trimming is not located in front of property owner's
address, acknowledge notice given to the property owner closest to the tree by
initialing: Yes No
Trimming Instructions:
Community Association Approval:
Number of trees to be trimmed:
Amount enclosed:
Date received by the City:
Note: The City will notify the property owner of the date of trimming, og wever_a
specific time of day cannot be set.
Attachment C
Newport Beach City Council R E C E IV E D August 5, 1998
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach CA 92663 •98 AUG —5 P 3 :41
Re: G -1 Policy
OFFICE Of THE CITY CLERK
CITY FF r.' ;POT n H
Dear Mayor Edwards and members o�the my ounc
The G -1 Policy that was adopted about a year ago after much debate and compromises is
coming before you again for minor changes. During the year, some deficiences have
appeared that need to be corrected.
General Services staff met with two groups who are interested in trees and Dave
Niederhaus incorporated some suggestions (but not all) in his presentation to the PBR
Commission. The Commission approved his draft without discussing changes that were
presented at the PBR meeting.
One change I propose is as follows:
REFORESTATION b . .......... CC&R's, may submit resolution of the Board of
Directors formally requesting reforestation with a dated copy of the notification sent to
members and a list of to whom the notification was sent. Members must have been given
an appropriate opportunity to respond before the Board voted on the request.
According to Yvonne Housels of Harbor View Homes, that kind of information was given
to the General Services Dept. for the first reforestation project. I think if those directions
were included in the policy it would make it easier for a group wanting to reforest, and
also prevent any accusations after the fact wherein people might say they were not
informed.
Also, since (according to the City Attorney's office) any decision of the Conunission can
be appealed to the City Council, the last paragraph in section REFORESTATION should
be deleted because it is redundant. If it is left in, then the right of any interested person to
appeal should be included.
Sincerely,
Elaine Linhoff
1760 E. Ocean Blvd.
Balboa CA 92661
Phone: 949-673-8037
0
City Tree Removal Process
Request Initiated by
Staff or Other Party
Evaluation and Written
Report Completed by
Urban Forester
IEvaluation by Park and I
Tree Superintendent
Removal Approved or
Disapproved by the General
Services Director
If removal is disapproved... (Note 1) If removal is approved... (Note 1)
Requesting Party is
Informed of Disapproval
of Removal and Right to
Appeal
IParty May Appeal to the I
P. B. & R Commission
If removal is disapproved by
the P, B, & R Commission
Party May Appeal to the
City Council
Tree is Removed
Following
30 day Posting Period
Removal May be
Appealed by Any
Interested Party to the
P,B, & R Commission
If removal is approved by
the P, B, & R Commission
Party May Appeal to the
City Council
Notes:
1. Notice sent to affected property owner, adjacent property owners, and community association (if applicable)
2. Above procedures in accordance with Council Policy G -1
0 3. Removal request may take 30 -90 days for approval under normal circumstances
4. The majority of removal approvals or disapprovals are appealed to the PB &R Commission
Prepared by General Services Department
June 16,1999
Attachment C
JUN 26 '99 09:2s RCN YEO• =P! PRCHiT. P.1
"RECEIVED AHER AGENDA
PRINTED." #12q b-W91
RON YEO, FAIA ARCHITECT, INC.
500 JASMINE AVENUE CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 PHONE: (949) 6446111 FAX: (949) 644.0449
FAX MEMO
TO:
Honorable Mayor Dennis (YNeil
City Council
Fax Number. 949) 844 -3039
FROM:
Ron Yeo
DATE:
June 28, 1999
RE:
Corona del Mar Tree Removal Policy
Topic for Tonight's Council Meeting
CC:
Royal, CdM Chamber of Commerce
NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS ONE: ]
Honorable Mayor Dennis ONeil and City Council,
1 understand that the City Staff is going to give a report on changing the tree
policy within the City. Please do not modify the tree ordinance without careful
thought and community input . The City is slowly, but surely, removing the
fabric of our community with tree genocide. Please direct your staff to be
consistent with our community's desires. We seem to have entirely different
goals.
Thank you.
Ron Yeo