HomeMy WebLinkAboutSS02 - G-1 Tree Policy4 �Ew�Rr
O O�
U yp �S
C�4F00.N \P
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
CeneralWim
Mayor and City Council
General Services Director
Revision of Council G -1 Tree Policy
Recommendation
None. Informational report for discussion purposes.
Background
On April 12, 1999, the City Council directed staff to review the G -1
City Trees) as a result of citizens complaints about the difficulty in
obtaining approval for the removal and replacement of City trees.
City Council Agenda
Study Session Item No. 2
February 8, 2000
Policy (Retention and Removal of
administering the tree policy and
Staff prepared the attached report (Tree Policy Analysis) for the June 28, 1999 Council meeting.
Subsequent Council direction was to proceed with a public review of the Policy to improve the
workability of the Policy as well as provide solutions to tree problems.
Staff prepared draft additions /deletions to the Policy, which were reviewed by the City Manager.
Following this review, a series of three meetings were held with various individuals or interested
groups to assess the Policy changes and accept public input and comments.
The Tree Subcommittee of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission (PB &R) then reviewed the
changes and the decision was made to place the revised draft Policy on the agenda for the December
meeting of the Commission.
The draft policy was removed from the regular agenda of the December 7, 1999 PB &R Commission
meeting, but later reinstated as a special study session item.
After a lengthy discussion and public review during the study session on December 7, the Chairperson
of the Commission, Pat Beek, continued the matter to another study session. The policy was reviewed
by the Commission at their regularly scheduled meeting of January 4, 2000 and continued to a second
study session on January 13, 2000 when a number of minor revisions were made to the Policy.
FAUs \GSW]urc&G -1_ Feb8SmdySessnIWmdm
The Policy was reviewed by the PB &R Commission at their regularly scheduled meeting on February
8, 2000. After hearing more public testimony, the Commission approved the attached G -1 Policy in
concept and directed staff to forward it to the Council for consideration.
Discussion
The attached policy has been reviewed and discussed at numerous scheduled meetings involving either
staff, various interested parties, or the PB &R Commission over the past 6 months. Four of the
meetings (PB &R Commission) were for the purpose of public review and comments. Staff has noticed
over 100 interested parties by letter on three occasions of the various opportunities for public
comments on the revised policy.
Only two City parkway trees have been removed during the past 6 months. The two trees, which were
damaging private property, were removed at the direction of the City Manager.
Currently there are 68 pending tree removals that have accumulated since July 1999. The majority do
not meet the current tree removal criteria of the G -1 Policy. However, if the proposed policy were
approved, individual reforestation requests (removal and replacement of parkway trees at residents'
expense), which many of the removal requests are, could be considered by the PB &R Commission on
an individual basis.
The large number of pending tree removals does not infer that there would be substantial numbers of
mature trees removed using the reforestation criteria. Each request would be carefully considered by
staff and the PB &R Commission to ensure that good judgment prevails and mature trees are retained
whenever practical. The PB &R Commission is well aware of the significant responsibility of their
decisions on reforestation requests, and that appeals to their decisions may only be made by
Councilmembers or the City Manager.
It is true that the proposed policy is more liberal on ordinary tree removals. However, all special City
trees will still be retained using extraordinary measures, all replacement trees will be of the largest size
possible to be planted in City parkways (36" boxed specimens), and all trees will be replaced on at
least a one for one basis.
The population of the City urban forest continues to grow and now numbers more than 30,000. All
trees removed over the past 5 years have been replaced. A State tree grant five years ago resulted in the
planting of an additional 500 City parkway trees. In addition, tree donations for City parks have
become routine.
As the City tree inventory and age and height of the City trees have increased, so have view issues due
to tree height and liability issues due to tree age, disease, and small growth spaces. The proposed tree
policy, while not perfect, attempts to balance the various factors to ensure a healthy urban forest that
exists in harmony, whenever possible, with our residents and business owners.
Very respectfully,
David E. Niederhaus
F. \Usen\GSV1ShamdlG -1 FebSStudySe sdtend c
Attachments: (A) Proposed Council G -1 Policy (Retention or Removal of City Trees)
(B) Council Agenda Item — June 28, 1999 (Tree Policy Analysis)
(C) PB &R Commission Agenda Item #13 of February 1, 2000
(D) Draft minutes of February 1, 2000 PB &R Commission Meeting
F.Wseisa)GSV\SbamdlG -1 FebeStadySasnlwmdw
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 eanff uFAies the entire
Cam.
and Regular care, trimming, maintenance, and programmed replacement are
necessary to preserve this charm while at the same -time 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 administered by the Parks, Beaches &
Recreation Commission ('Commission').
Special Trees shall be retained, unless there are ptie '_ overriding problems, such
as death, disease, or the creation of a hazardous situation, 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, unless a tree is
considered hazardous that necessitates an emergency removal. Any such removal
requires the approval of the City Manager.
During normal sidewalk, curb, and street repair activity requiring root pruning, all
steps will shall be taken to retain Special Trees. If tree roots are to be pruned in
association with hardscape- sidewalk, curb, and gutter 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 roots are to be pruned, one side should be pruned a year 6
months to ayear in advance of the other side depending upon the species and other
related factors. If root pruning methods are not practical and /or critical to the health of
the tree, then alternate or special hardscave improvements shall be installed by the City
H
Attachment A
G -1
in order to retain the tree. All proposed root pruning shall be assessed by the Urban
Forester.
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:
A. The City tree has had a proven and repeated history (defined as two or more
occurrences within an 18 -month period) of damaging public or private sewers,
water mains, roadways, sidewalks, curbs, walls, fences, underground utilities, or
foundations based on City records or other competent and reliable authority
despite specific treatment by the City to alleviate repeated damage. Water or
sewer sto121age that results from tree roots and causes significant documented
private property damage (greater than $500) shall be sufficient criterion for tree
removal. Regular drain or pipe clearing shall not constitute such damage, nor
shall damage attributed to a failure by the property owner to perform such
preventive maintenance.
B. The City tree has had a repeated history (defined as two or more occurrences
within an 18 -month period) of significant interference interfering with street or
sidewalk drainage, despite specific treatment by the City to alleviate repeated
damage.
C. The City tree is dead, diseased, er -dying or hazardous, and presents a significant
liability to the City. Diseased trees are defined as those trees that cannot be
cured by current arboricultural methods, are in an advanced state of decline, and
have no prospect of recovery. Dying trees are those that have no prospect of
recovery. Hazardous trees are defined as those that are defective, have a
potential to fail, and would cause damage to persons and property upon failure.
The Urban Forester will perform a hazard assessment whenever a tree is
identified as hazardous. The assessment will identify: structural defects of the
tree, parts of the tree most likely to fail, targets where imminent personal injury
or property damage may result with tree failure, and procedures or actions
necessary to abate the hazard.
The tree(s) have been requested to be removed in conjunction with a City
Council- approved Qty, commercial, neighborhood, or community association
beautification program.
2
G -1
E. The City Manager, upon the advice of the Risk Manager, shall have the authority
to remove trees for whatever reason to resolve claims against the City.
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 to 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 in
the above All Other City Trees section for consideration for removal. Simultaneously,
the Urban Forester ;; nntice shall be- provide4 a notice of the proposed tree removal to
the affected property owner, and the owners immediately adjacent to the applicant's
property, and the appropriate community association if applicable, (not applicable to
the emergency removal of hazardous trees with trees under Item C above). 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 maw
posted at least 30 days prior to the removal with
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 recommended for removal using the Trees Division Activities Report, except for
those trees categorized in Paragraph -3--C. 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.7 and if the appeal
at the City Couneil level. The Commission-aad-Ge+H:ke4, 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). The
decision of the Commission will be considered final unless called up by at least one
Councilmember or the Citv Manager. An aveeal to the ` etuwil regafdiRe
L
3
G -1
The General Services Department will
delay any tree removal(s) for at least 14 calendar days following the date of the
Commission decision in order to allow time for a Councilmember or the Ci Manager
to call the item.
The City will endeavor to replace all trees removed in accordance with the All Other
City Trees removal criteria. Replacement trees will be a minimum of a 24" boxed size.
REFORESTATION OF CITY TREES
The concept of systematically replacing 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 have reached their full life and are declining in
health, is referred to as reforestation.
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 ignifieant
preblewirz cause damage to curb, gutter, sidewalk or underground utilities. In certain
neighborhoods, ^nee -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, or the age and height of the trees.
Today, Arborists have develeged continue to develoy lists of tree species which aee able
to will grow in restricted parkway areas without causing significant future Preblerra
damage to curb, gutter, sidewalk, utilities or views The eeneept of systematieally
whsek- are reae4mg t eir fuU uc and w deel h, al fi is ,.c, ,.a to as-
rpferesstmien
As a City which understands the importance of trees and the beauty W91ty- 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.
4
G -1
Individual private property owners, as well as community associations, may apply for
single or multiple tree reforestation Individuals or- parties desiring te f efer-est City trees
in their respective area by submitting 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 tree(s) proposed for removal and replacement, street addressejs , block
numbers or other geographical information. This section applies to individual
and group requests.
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 having their residential views affected, have been officially notified
and given an appropriate opportunity to respond before the Board voted on the
request. Individual private property owners living within a legally established yy
community association area empowered with CC &R's must petition for 9 ;
reforestation through their respective association.
C. Individual private property owners not residing within a CC & R based
community association area may submit individual requests for single or
multiple tree reforestation. The applicant must submit a petition signed by a
minimum of 60% of the residents within a one block distance in either direction
from the reforestation site as well as the endorsement of the appropriate
homeowners' association, if applicable.
D. A written agreement must be submitted by the petitioning sponsor (individual
private property owners or group) 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.
E. The replacement treeUs for reforestation rest shall be the designated street
tree(5) as prescribed by City Council Policy G -6, or the organization must request
and obtain approval from the Commission of the designation of a different tree
5
G -1
species prior to submitting any reforestation request. This section applies to
individual or group requests.
F. 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 " 36"
boxed trees, unless the parkway space will only accommodate a 24" boxed tree.
If there is not room for the replacement tree within a specific site as prescribed
City Council Policy G -6, then the replacement tree shall be planted in the same
neighborhood. This section applies to individual or group requests.
In the event that the Pis ,Beaehes and Recreation Cenurdssien does net the
..........,......... request-, the ..Yt..........has the option .v- appeal
Cetmeil. The appheanA shall have ten (10) Ealendff days te appeal the deeision of the
Commission, by letter, to the General ServleesDkeeter —The Gexer-ai Serv
G -1
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.
However, since these practices often require 'topping' or severe disfiguring of a tree
and are often aesthetically displeasing and injurious to a tree, reforestation shall be
considered once this practice has occurred more than twice within a one year period.
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
7
Amended - April 11, 1994
Amended - February 26,1996
Amended - July 14,1997
Amended (Administratively) -
November 24,1997
Amended - August 10, 1998
I
A
PRESERVATION OF SPECIAL TREES
1 .i7T/.M
G -1
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 benjainina
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)
Bob Henry Park Ficus Rubiginosa
(Bob Henry)
Attachment 1 1
G -1
DEDICATED Cliff Drive Park
Quercus agrifolia
TREES (contd.) (Dr. Vandersloot)
Phoenix canariensis
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
I
C
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
TREE INSPECTION REPORT
Name
Address
Phone Number
Request
Botanical Name
Common Name
Designated Street Tre
Estimated Tree Value
Damage
Parkway: Concrete_ Brick
Comments
Inspected by
Recommendation
Reviewed
'.ttachment 2
Turf
Other
Date
Date
1
G -1 . •
N
i
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.
Attachment B
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 -1 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 -1 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 -1 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 1, 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-fl 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 staff's 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
Commission or staff attempts to mitigate tree disputes. e
Tree Trimming
In 1993, the Tree Division was staffed by I I 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 .
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 & 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:
I
Attachment A
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 �*
4
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.
3
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.
t
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.
51
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, 19 97
Amended (Administratively) —
November 24,1997
Amended - August 10, 1998
5
PRESERVATION OF SPECIAL TREES
LANDMARK
G -1
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)
Attachment 1
\'
G -1
DEDICATED
TREES (contd.) Veterans Park
(Rosemary Rae Hill Hansen)
Mariners Park
(N. Beach Sunrise Rotary Club)
(Christopher & Marisha Thomposn)
(Meghan & Camielle Thompson)
NEIGHBORHOOD
Lagenstroemia
indica faueri
Stenocarpus
sinuatus
Pinus eldarica
Pinus eldarica
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
G -1
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
Parkway: Concrete Brick _Turf —Other
Comments
Inspected by
Recommendation
Date
Reviewed by Date
Attachment 2 1
C
City Council Agenda
Item No. 22
August 10, 1998
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: General Services Director
SUBJECT: Council Policy G -1 (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, andst,1eettts represent deletions to the current Policy.
Attachment B
C
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 /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.
Removal of City Trees. Page 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 City Trees. s Pale 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 copv 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.
l 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.
4)
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 -I
(B) Draft Supplemental Tree Trimming Procedures
(C) Supplemental Tree Trimming Form
A
A
l
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)
them 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:
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
temporan, paint) and posted with a sign noti ing the public that they have the
right of qppeal. The sign shall also note a staff contact. in order- to tieti
pxblie at large. 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
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
appeal to the Council regarding a Commission tree decision must be received
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:
a. The proposed area must have clearly defined contiguous
boundaries that include the trees proposed for removal and
3 n
G -1
I
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 appeal to the Citv Council for review within 30 days -of
receipt of the appeal.
TREE TRIMMING STANDARDS /SUPPLEMENTAL TRIMMIN
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
fullpavment eemmitment to fully reimberse the Gity for any costs of trimming.
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 req_uestor in areas with an active
homeowners' association.
Note: (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
Amended —April 11, 1994
Amended — February 26, 1996
Amended —July 14, 1997
Amended (Administratively) — Nov.
24, 1997
5
21
LANDMARK
TREES
DEDICATED
TREES
NEIGHBORHOOD
TREES
G -1
PRESERVATION OF SPECIAL 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.)
Harpephyllum caffrum
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
Eucalyptus globulus
(Calif. Bicentennial)
Pinus halepensis
Las Arenas Park (Ed Healy)
Melaleuca linarifolia
Mariners Park (Isy Pease)
Pinus halepensis
City Hall grounds
Eucalyptus globulus
(U.S. Bicentennial Freedom Tree)
Harpephyllum caffrum
Buffalo Hills Park (Bahia
Eucalyptus rudis
Community Earth Day Celebration)
Erythrina caffra
Peninsula Park
Eucalyptus rudis
(Gray Lunde Memorial Tree)
Chamaerops humilis
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
Attachment 1
i,
A
t�
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
r
L.
7
Eucalyptus citriodora
Eucalyptus citriodora
Eucalyptus citriodora
Eucalyptus citriodora
Eucalyptus citriodora
Eucalyptus citriodora
G -t
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
Parkway:
Comments
Inspected by
Recommendation
Reviewed by
Concrete Brick Turf Other
Date
Date
G -1
3
Attachment 2
1,
CITY COUNCIL POLICY G -1
Supplemental Tree Trimming Procedures
Applicants Preperty- ewners, 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 request letter and completed "Supplemental 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. Trimming be delayed until a stiffleient • rbe of requests are
reeeived.
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.
4. All supplemental trimming will be performed by the City tree trimming
contractor, West Coast Arborists, with the supervision of the Urban Forester.
Attachment B
SUPPLEMENTAL TREE TRIMMING FORM
APPLICANT
COMMUNITY A CC`OGI A TION NAME:
RrTT.:
(Community 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, anender-sement
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 Rroperty owner of the date of trimming, however, a
specific time of day cannot be set.
Attachment C
. .
Newport Beach City Council RE CE IV ' D August 5,1998
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach CA 92663 •98 AUG -5 P3 :41
Re: G -1 Policy
OFFICE OF -i N_ CITY CLERK
Dear Mayor Edwards and members o�the �i y C ounci
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 Commission 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
City Tree Removal Process
Request Initiated by
Staff or Other Party
Evaluation and Written
Report Completed by
Urban Forester
Evaluation by Park and
Tree Superintendent
Kemoval Approvea or
Disapproved by the General
Services Director
If removal is disapproved... (Note 1) If
Requesting Party is
Informed of Disapproval
of Removal and Right to
Appeal
Patty 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
I is approved... (Note 1)
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
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
� ?EW ART
a
GGCOa��'
PB& R Commission Agenda
Item No. 13
February 1, 2000
TO: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission
FROM: General Services Director
SUBJECT: Revision of Council G -1 Tree Policy
Recommendation:
Approve in concept the proposed additions and deletions to the Council G -1 Policy
(Retention and Removal of City Trees)
Background:
Agenda reports from the December 7, 1999, January 4, 2000 (special study session), and
January 13, (special study session) are attached to provide the background on the revision
process.
Discussion:
The current revised policy is attached for your review.
Very respectfully,
David E. Niederhaus
DEN/kr
Attachments: (A) Proposed G -1 Tree Policy dated January 14, 2000
(B) PB &R Commission Agenda Item 10 of December 7, 1999
(C) PB &R Commission Agenda Item SS -1 of January 4, 2000
(D) PB &R Commission Study Session Minutes of January 4, 2000
(E) PB &R Commission Study Session Minutes of January 13, 2000
Attachment C .
G -1
Revised Proposal -January 14, 2000
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 eenvlquidties the entire
Cam. and Regular care, trimming, maintenance, and programmed replacement are
necessary to preserve this charm while at the same time 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 ° ::w .-A administered by the Parks, Beaches &
Recreation Commission ( "Commission ").
Special Trees shall be retained, unless there are exceptional- overriding problems, such
as death, disease, or the creation of a hazardous situation, 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, unless a tree is
considered hazardous that necessitates an emergency removal. Any such removal
requires the approval of the City Manager.
During normal sidewalk, curb, and street repair activity requiring root pruning, all
steps will shall be taken to retain Special Trees. If tree roots are to be pruned in
association with hardseape- sidewallc, curb, and gutter 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 roots are to be pruned, one side should be pruned a yeae 6
months to a year in advance of the other side depending upon the species and other
related factors. If root pruning methods are not practical and /or critical to the health of
the tree, then alternate or special hardscape improvements shall be installed by the City
M
1
G -1
in order to retain the tree. All proposed root Pruning shall be assessed by the Urban
Forester.
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:
A. The City tree has had a proven and repeated history (defined as two or more
occurrences within an 18 -month period) of damaging public or private sewers,
water mains, roadways, sidewalks, curbs, walls, fences, underground utilities, or
foundations based on City records or other competent and reliable authority
despite specific treatment by the City to alleviate repeated damage. Water or
sewer stoppage that results from tree roots and causes significant documented
private proper damage (greater than $500) shall be sufficient criterion for tree
removal. Regular drain or pipe clearing shall not constitute such damage, nor
shall damage attributed to a failure by the property owner to perform such
preventive maintenance.
B. The City tree has had a repeated history (defined as two or more occurrences
within an 18 -month period) of significant interference inter€er with street or
sidewalk drainage, despite specific treatment by the City to alleviate repeated
damage.
C. The City tree is dead, diseased, or-dying, or hazardous, and presents a sigpfficant
liability to the-9i ty. Diseased trees are defined as those trees that cannot be
cured current arboricultural methods, are in an advanced state of decline, and
have no prospect of recovery. Dying trees are those that have no prospect of
recovery. Hazardous trees are defined as those that are defective, have a
potential to fail, and would cause damage to persons and property upon failure.
The Urban Forester will perform a hazard assessment whenever a tree is
identified as hazardous. The assessment will identify: structural defects of the
tree, parts of the tree most likely to fail, targets where imminent personal injury
or property damage may result with tree failure, and procedures or actions
necessary to abate the hazard.
D. The &ee(s) niust ee l "Via- nh 4P-- c ,�, 4 - �a ,w
°c- c�riscrnrzv�rcrorcocuriva i- ic°reaiicsQiie� -ssrmc
Referestatien F-1, T )R of this Pokey.
The tree(s) have been requested to be removed in conjunction with a City
Council- approved LLty, commercial, neighborhood, or community association
beautification program.
2
G -1
E. The City Manager, upon the advice of the Risk Manager, shall have the authoritX
to remove trees for whatever reason to resolve claims against the City.
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 to 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 in
the above All Other City Trees section for consideration for removal. Simultaneously,
the Urban Forester a ka iee shall be- provided a notice of the proposed tree removal to
the affected property owner, and the owners immediately adjacent to the applicant's
property, and the appropriate community association if applicable, (not applicable to
the emergency removal of hazardous trees with trees under Item C above). 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
posted at least 30 days prior to the removal with
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 recommended for removal using the Trees Division Activities Report, except for
those trees categorized in Paragraph 4-C. 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 Commissioner and .cppeal
be the level, then Effie final ' be a ,,..iknea
ea�a �selvea - aa -Ee: miiss:e:�i reVel!tien
at the City Getmc-R level. The Commission-and-Ce�, 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). The
decision of the Commission will be considered final unless called up by at least one
Councilmember or the City Manager. Aft appeal to the Ceunei4 r-egafdft
than 14 days following the date the Cenurdssien decisien. The Gener
Ealendar- ei
Servires Depar-tment delay tree the has
w4l any removals tu"ta appeal period expired er
3
G -1
..n l the Council has acted upen the - e The General Services Department will
delay any tree removal(s) for at least 14 calendar days following the date of the
Commission decision in order to allow time for a Councilmember or the City Manager
to call the item.
The City will endeavor to replace all trees removed in accordance with the All Other
City Trees removal criteria. Replacement trees will be a minimum of a 24" boxed size.
REFORESTATION OF CITY TREES
The concept of systematically replacing 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 have reached their full life and are declining in
health, is referred to as reforestation.
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 cr ^?o "i^ �•
problems ire cause damage to curb, gutter, sidewalk or underground utilities. In certain
neighborhoods, m=,ature -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, or the age and height of the trees.
Teday, Arborists have develeped continue to develop lists of tree species which are able
to will grow in restricted parkway areas without causing significant €uture- prebleffis
damage to curb, gutter, sidewalk, utilities or views. The eaneept of systematic-a
i4� are r-eael4ng their- ftfl! life and are deelining in health-, is __
reforestation.
As a City which understands the importance of trees and the beauty Ar-they 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.
4
G -1
Individual private property owners, as well as community associations, may apply for
single or multiple tree reforestation individuals or part..,..... siring to reforest City `feees
in their respective area by submitting 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. This section applies to individual
and group requests.
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 having their residential views affected, have been officially notified
and given an appropriate opportunity to respond before the Board voted on the
request. Individual private 1roperty owners living within a legally established
community association area empowered with CC &R's must petition for
reforestation through their respective association.
C. Individual private property owners not residing within a CC & R based
community association area may submit individual requests for single or
multiple tree reforestation. The applicant must submit a petition signed bra
minimum of 60% of the residents within a one block distance in either direction
from the reforestation site as well as the endorsement of the appropriate
homeowners' association, if applicable.
D. A written agreement must be submitted by the petitioning sponsor individual
private property owners or group) 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.
E. The replacement trees for reforestation must shall be the designated street
tree(j as prescribed by City Council Policy G-6, or the organization must request
and obtain approval from the Commission of the designation of a different tree
A
5
G -1
species prior to submitting any reforestation request. This section applies to
individual or group requests.
F. 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 2V 36"
boxed trees, unless the parkway space will only accommodate a 24" boxed tree.
If there is not room for the replacement tree within a specific site as prescribed
City Council Policy G -6, then the replacement tree shall be planted in the same
neighborhood. This section applies to individual or group requests.
in the event that the Parks, Beaekes and ReeFeafien Gan-a—assien .
r-eferestation request-, the applicant has the option to appeal the proposal te the 477744—
The decision of the Commission on reforestation requests will be considered final unless
called up by at least one Councilmember or the City Manager.
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.
All encroachment permits (permits for private Droverty development which has
encroached upon the City right of way) that involve the removal or replacement of CitX
trees must be specifically noticed by the property owner to City staff prior to the
building and /or demo permit process whenever possible. The proposed construction
plans must indicate preservation of existing City trees wherever possible (exempt: dead,
dying, or in an advanced state of decline). If the proposed development, as deemed by
the General Services Director, requires removal of City trees, the property owner may
submit a reforestation reauest and shall vav all related removal and replacement costs
as indicated in the previous para rg aphs.
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.
G -1
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.
However, since these practices often require 'topping' or severe disfiguring of a tree
and are often aesthetically displeasing and injurious to a tree, reforestation shall be
considered once this practice has occurred more than twice within a one year period.
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
7
Amended - April 11, 1994
Amended - February 26,1996
Amended - July 14,1997
Amended (Administratively) -
November 24,1997
Amended - August 10, 1998
Ii
PB& R Commission Agenda
Item No.
December 7, 1999
TO: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission
FROM: General Services Director
SUBJECT: Revision of Council G -1 Tree Policy
Recommendation:
Approve in concept the proposed additions and deletions to the Council G -1 Policy
(Retention and Removal of City Trees).
Background:
On April 12, 1999, the City Council directed staff to review the G -1 Policy (Retention
and Removal of City Trees) as a result of citizens complaints about the difficulty in
administering the tree policy and obtaining approval for the removal and replacement of
City trees.
Staff prepared the attached report (Tree Policy Analysis) for the June 28, 1999 Council
meeting. Subsequent Council direction was to proceed with a public review of the Policy
to improve the workability of the Policy as well as provide solutions to tree problems.
Staff prepared draft additions /deletions to the Policy which were reviewed by the City
Manager. Following this review, a series of three meetings were held with various
interested parties to assess the Policy changes and accept public input and comments.
A final policy review by the staff and the City Manager resulted in the attached draft
Policy.
The Tree Subcommittee of the Commission then reviewed the changes and the decision
was made to place the revised draft policy on the agenda for the December meeting of the
Commission.
Discussion:
The majority of the changes are self explanatory, clarify the language of the original
policy, or define procedures or time limits related to the retention or removal of City
trees.
The definition developed for hazardous, diseased, or dying trees is a good example of the
clarification of the wording (Page 3).
The proposed Policy places the major emphasis on the decision of the Parks, Beaches and
Recreation Commission for tree removal requests in that appeals to the Council of the
Commission decision may only be proposed by the Council or City Manager (Page 3).
The most significant change to the Policy is the application of the reforestation
procedures to the replacement and removal of single trees. The current Policy was
originally crafted to apply to community associations requests. The single tree
reforestation modification should ease some of the current frustration felt by individual
citizens who want only to address an individual tree problem, although in areas with
legally established or CR &R based community associations, an endorsement from the
association is required of the individual requesting tree removal (Page 4).
A second significant change to the reforestation policy is the upgrading of the size of
replacement trees from a 24" boxed specimen to a 36" boxed specimen. While this
change will result in a doubling, or in some cases tripling of the cost of the replacement
tree to the applicant, it does ensure the planting of the most mature trees available in the
City parkways (Page 5).
The clarification of the use of Encroachment Permits as related to tree removals,
addresses an ongoing problem for staff and relates this activity back to a reforestation
process with the associated requirements (Page 6).
The limitations of two Supplemental Trimmings of trees in one year prior to the
consideration of reforestation will ensure all adequate measures have been taken before
removal of mature trees are considered (Page 6).
A number of additions to the Dedicated Trees list are included in the proposed Policy.
These additions represent trees planted over the past year (Attachment 1, Page 1).
In summary, staff has attempted to draft changes to the Policy that would ensure the
continued quality and size of the urban forest while addressing and facilitating the
handling of individual or group tree removal or trimming requests.
Very respectfully,
JL�
David E. Niederhaus
DEN/kr
Attachments : (A) Council Agenda Item — June 28, 1999 (Tree Policy Analysis)
(B) Proposed Council G -1 Policy (Retention and Removal of City Trees)
� eifW POR
T
coq �OP�'�r
PB& R Commission Agenda
Item No.
January 4, 2000
TO:
FROM:
Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission
General Services Director
SUBJECT: Revision of Council G -1 Tree Policy
Recommendation:
Approve in concept the proposed additions and deletions to the Council G -1 Policy
(Retention and Removal of City Trees).
Background:
The agenda item of the Commission of December 7, 1999 agenda provides the extensive
history and revisions to the Policy (Attachment A).
After a lengthy discussion and public review session on December 7, the Commission
continued the matter to a future study session or regular meeting. This decision was
partially based on the erroneous public testimony that the City Manager had no objections
to a delay by the Commission of the consideration of the proposed changes to the tree
policy. The City goal was and continues to be to forward the proposed policy to the City
Council at the earliest date in order to resolve at least 41 pending tree removal requests
that have accumulated since July 1999.
Discussion:
Staff has revised the proposed policy (Attachment B) as a result of Commission and
public comments on December 7 as follows:
Page One, Fourth Paragraph
nh _
"and/or injurious to the tree" has been changed to "and/or critical to the health of the
tree."
Page Two Paragraph A
Add individual word:
"Water or sewer stoppage that results from tree roots and causes significant documented
private propegy damage 11
Pape Two Para rag nh D
Delete the following sentence:
Any trees removed must comply with the criteria for reforestation as contained in the
Reforestation of City Trees section of this policy.
Page Three First Para rash
Add to Paragraph E:
The City Manager, upon the advice of the Risk Manager, shall have the authority to
remove trees for whatever reason to resolve claims against the City.
Page Three, Third Paragraph, Third Line
Add underlined phrase:
"- outlined above in the All Other Trees section for consideration for removal."
Page Four, First Paragraph
"The General Services Department will delay any tree removals for at least 14 calendar
days following the date of the Commission decision in order —"
Pape Five, First Paragraph
Add two words: T
"Individual private property owners, as well as community associations, may -"
Pape Five. Para arg ph A
Add the sentence:
(Applies to individual and group requests).
Page Five, Paragraph B
Add the sentence:
(This paragraph applies only to group requests and not those of an individual private
property owner).
Pape Five. Paragraph D
Add the underlined words:
"A written agreement by the petitioning sponsor (individual private property owner or
rg oup) to pay -"
Page Six, Para rVh E
Add the sentence:
(This section applies to individual and group requests)
Page Six, Paragraph G
Add the sentence:
(This paragraph applies to individual and group requests)
3
Page Six, Fourth Paragraph
Delete entire paragraph
"in the . "
Page Six. Fifth Paragraph
Add the sentence:
The decision of the Commission on reforestation requests will be considered final unless
called up by at least one Councilmember or the City Manager.
The above changes have been reviewed by the City Manager.
Staff has noticed the intent to conduct another Commission public review of the policy
changes to all interested parties.
Very respectfully,
David E. Niederhaus
DEN/kr
Attachments: A) PB &R Commission Agenda Item 10 of December 7, 1999
B) Proposed G -1 Tree Policy
City of Newport Beach
P_ arks, Beaches. and Recreation Commission
Special Study Session Minutes
January 4, 2000
Meeting_ Convened at 8:OOPM By Chairman Beek
Present: Beek, Franklin, Skoro, Pfaff, McFarland, Sinclair
Absent: Tobin (Excused himself at 8:05PM)
Staff. David E. Niederhaus, General Services Director
Chair Beek opened the meeting by explaining her knowledge of the history of the
Council G -1 tree policy. Further she provided the Commission her revised version
of the policy and explained why she felt changes were needed.
Public Comments
Elaine Linhoff, Balboa Peninsula, noted four concerns about the current proposed
policy: one, that Special Trees should be root pruned at one year intervals, two,
objected to the phrase "having their residential views affected ", tree reforestation
proposal should be two for one on tree replacement, and finally, tree appeals
should be allowed by any interested party.
r
Dr. Alden Kelly, Certified Arborist, volunteered to help rewrite the policy and
"value" trees for the City. He opined that reforestation was actually the planting of
trees and should not be related to tree removal.
Dr. Vandersloot, Newport Heights, questioned why certain interested parties
needed to be included further in the policy revisions. He felt that the proposed
policy was too liberal toward tree removal.
The General Services Director noted that he had prepared an agenda item for
Commission review at the regular meeting that addressed the comments of the
public and the Commission made at the last regular scheduled Commission
meeting of December 7, 1999. That agenda item had subsequently been deleted
from the regular agenda by the Chairman. It had been subsequently reinstated to a
Special Study Session by the Chairman, however, only 3 pages of the extensive
report had been forwarded to the Commission. Director Niederhaus felt it was
impossible to discuss the proposed policy because the Commission did not have
copies of the proposed policy.
The General Services Director noted he had only received the Chairman's
proposed policy version (attached) at the start of the meeting and objected to
making significant format changes at this stage of review of the policy, particularly
since the majority of the interested parties were not present.
It was decided that Chairman Beek and the General Services Director would meet
on January 10 to discuss any changes to the proposed policy. Further, copies of
the original agenda item would be forwarded to all Commissioners by January 7.
A second study session was then scheduled for January 13, at 7PM in the Council
Chambers to discuss the proposed policy.
The Special Study session adjourned at 9:30PM.
Submitted by:
David E. Niederhaus
General Services Director
Attachment: (A) PB &R Commission Chairman Pat Beek G -1 Policy
Recommendations (updated)
..lam'. .
i
Y
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 trees are an
important part of the character and charm of the entire City. Regular care, trimming,
maintenance and prudent replacement of city trees are necessary to preserve this charm
and to protect public and private property.
A. 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 administered by the Parks, Beaches & Recreation
Commission ( "Commission ").
Special Trees shall be retained, unless they have been identified as:
1. Dead
2. Diseased
3. Dying
4. Hazardous
requiring their removal. See Definitions page 2.
Prior to consideration for removal of Special Trees, the General Services Director, or
designee, shall prepare a report identifying specific treatment to retain the tree(s) along
with a schedule of implementation.
If a specific treatment is unsuccessful in retaining a tree(s) then a full report shall be
made to the Commission before any further action for removal is considered.
Consideration for removal of Special Trees shall be met under the following conditions:
1.
01
3.
During normal sidewalk, curb, and street repair activity requiring root pruning, all steps
shall be taken to retain Special Trees. If tree roots are to be pruned in association with
sidewalk, curb, and gutter improvements, sufficient timing must be planned to ensure that
pruning will not destabilize or kill the tree. If both sides of a tree's roots are to be
pruned, one side shall be pruned 6 months to a year in advance of the other side. Timing
will depend on the tree(s) species and related factors. If root pruning methods are not
practical and /or critical to the health of the tree(s), then alternate or special hardscape
improvements shall be installed by the City in order to retain the tree(s). Note: the
Urban Forester shall assess All proposed root pruning.
B. ALL OTHER CITY TREES
It is the City's policy to retain all other City trees unless removal is necessary for one or
more of the following reasons:
1. The City tree has had a proven and repeated history (defined as two or more
occurrances within an 18 -month period) of damaging public or private sewers, water
mains, roadways, sidewalks, curbs, walls, fences, underground utilities, or
foundations. Proven and repeated history will be based on City records or other
competent and reliable authority despite specific attempts by the City to alleviate
repeated damage. Water or sewer stoppage that results from tree roots causing
documented damage to private property shall be sufficient criteria for tree removal.
2. The City tree has had a repeated history (defined as two or more occurrences within
an 18 -month period) of interference with street or sidewalk drainage, despite specific
attempts by the City to alleviate repeated damage.
3. The City tree is dead, diseased, dying or hazardous, and presents a liability to the
City.
Definitions
Diseased trees — those trees that cannot be cured by current arboricultural methods, are
in an advanced state of decline, and have no prospect of recovery.
Dying trees — those trees that have no prospect of recovery.
Hazardous trees- those trees that are defective, have a full potential to fail, and would
cause damage to persons and property upon failure. The Urban Forester will perform a
hazard assessment whenever a tree is identified as hazardous. The assessment will
identify structural defects within the tree, parts of the tree most likely to fail, target where
imminent personal injury or property damage may result with tree failure, and action
necessary to abate the hazard.
4. Upon the advice of the Risk Manager, the City Manager shall have the authority to
remove tree(s) to resolve claims against the City.
5. The removal of the tree(s) has been requested by the City Council in conjunction with
a City beautification program.
Procedure for Removal of City Trees
The action to remove any City tree may be initiated by:
1. General Services Department
2. Public Works Department
3. A legally established community association
4. A private property owner
This action will be in the form of an application (written request) made to the General
Services Department.
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 for
removal. At this time the Urban Forester shall also determine whether in his/her
judgment specific treatment can be initiated to retain the tree.
If the results from the inspection meet the criteria for removal, the Urban Forester shall
provide a notice to the affected property owner and the owners immediately adjacent to
the applicant's property or the appropriate community association if applicable.
Exception: This action does not apply to the emergency removal of hazardous tress
as set forth in Item 3 under All Other Trees.
Once a decision has been made by the General Services Director to remove a tree(s) then
the applicant, the adjoining property owners, and the community association (if
applicable) shall be notified within 30 days of the proposed removal.
Note: If a decision is made to retain a tree(s) then the General Services Director will
notify in writing the applicant, the adjoining property owner, and the community
association (if applicable) within 30 days.
When a tree(s) is to be removed, the tree(s) shall be posted at least 30 days prior to the
removal with a sign notifying the public that they have the right of appeal. The sign shall
also note a staff contact.
The General Services Director, or his designee, shall report all trees recommended for
removal in the Trees Division Activities Report during the regularly scheduled Parks,
Beaches and Recreation Commission meeting. .
Exception: This does not apply to those trees categorized in Item 3 under All Other
Trees.
Right to Appeal
An applicant, an adjoining property owner, or any interested party may appeal the
recommendation of the General Services Director to the Commission. The Commission,
in considering any,appeal, shall determine whether the removal meets Policy criteria, as
well as any unique factors that may be relevant to the removal or retention of the tree(s).
The decision of the Commission will be considered final unless "called up" by at least
one Councilmember or the City Manager. The General Services Department will delay
appealed tree removals for at least 14 calendar days from the Commission's decision in
order to allow time for a Councilmember or the City Manager to call the item.
REFORESTATION OF CITY TREES
Reforestation is the concept of systematically replacing trees which
1. are creating hardscape and/or view problems and cannot be properly trimmed, pruned
or modified to alleviate the problems they create.
2. Have reached their full life and are declining in health.
City trees were planted many years ago and in some cases were planted with specific
species that when fully mature created significant damage in curbs, gutters, sidewalks or
underground utilities. In certain neighborhoods, City street trees may encroach into blue
water views from public and private property as a result of tree trimming intervals or the
age and height of the trees.
Aborists have developed lists of tree species that will grow in restricted parkway areas
without causing damage to curbs, gutters, sidewalks, utilities or views.
As a City that understands the importance of trees and the beauty they bring 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 shall expeditiously replace them with the appropriate designated City tree.
City residents as individual property owners, as well as community associations may
apply for single or multiple tree reforestation.
Individuals or groups desiring to reforest City trees in their respective area, may submit a
written request to the General Services Director for consideration by the Commission that
meets the following requirements:
1. The proposed area must have clearly defined contiguous boundaries that include the
tree(s) proposed for removal and replacement, street address (es), block number(s), or
identifying geographical information.
2. Residential communities, neighborhoods or business organization must submit a
petition signed by a minimum of 60% of the property owners within the area defined
for reforestation. Note: a neighborhood is defined for the purpose 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. Included
shall be a statement that all members of the community association having their
residential views affected, have been officially notified and given an appropriate
opportunity to respond prior to Board approval.
t
Individuals not residing within a CC &R based community association may submit
individual requests for single or multiple tree reforestation by presenting a petition
with a minimum of 60% of the residents within a one block distance in both
directions from the reforestation site. Included shall be an endorsement of the
appropriate homeowners' association, if applicable.
4, A written agreement shall be provided by the petitioning sponsor to pay 100% of the
costs to remove and replace the public trees. This must be received in advance of any
removal activity. Actual removal and replanting will be coordinated by the General
Services Department. Total costs shall include the contractor's removal and
replacement costs and shall be paid in advance of any removal actions.
5. The replacement tree(s) shall be the designated street tree as prescribed by City
Council Policy G -6. Any change to the designated street tree shall be heard by the
Commission as a formal request to change the designated street tree species.
6. There shall be a minimum of a one - for -one replacement of all trees removed in
reforestation projects. Replacement trees shall be a minimum of 36" boxed trees,
unless the parkway space will only accommodate a 24" boxed tree. If there is not
room for the replacement tree within a specific removal site as prescribed by City
Council Policy G -6, then the replacement tree shall be planted in the same
neighborhood.
7. If within a legally established community association, an individual must obtain
unanimous approval of those who will have their residential views affected.
The decision of the Commission on reforestation requests will be considered final unless
called up by at least one Councilmember or the City Manager.
Note: 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 G6.
Furthermore, no person shall tamper with replacement trees in violation of Section
13.08.040 of the Municipal Code.
All Encroachment Permits (private property development which have encroached upon
City right of way) involving the removal or replacement of City trees must be identified
by the property owner prior to the building and/or demo permit process. The proposed
construction plans ;must indicate preservation of existing City trees wherever possible
(exempt: dead, dying, or in an advance state of decline). If the proposed developpment,
as deemed by the General Services Director, requires removal of City trees, the property
owner may submit a reforestation request and shall pay all related costs as indicated in
the reforestation requirements. r
I
City of Newport Beach
Parks. Beaches. and Recreation Commission
Special Study Session Minutes
January 13, 2000
Meeting Convened at 7.15PM By Chairperson Beek at Council Chambers
Present: Beek, Skoro, Pfaff, McFarland
Absent: Tobin, Franklin
Staff: David E. Niederhaus, General Services Director
Public Comments
Dr. Vandersloot questioned two street tree removals on East Bluff Drive. Staff
explained the removal proposal. Dr. Vandersloot noted his interest in appealing
the removal request. He also requested an update on an earlier tree removal
request for Santa Ana Avenue. Dr. Alden Kelly also questioned the proposed tree
removals on East Bluff Drive
G -1 Tree Policy
The Commission discussed the various changes to the current proposed tree policy.
The attached letter of Commission Franklin was also reviewed. A number of
changes were made to the proposed policy as a result of Commissioners'
comments or those of the public. A copy of the amended policy is attached.
Meeting adjourned as of 9:50PM.
Respectfully submitted by:
David E. Niederhaus
General Services Director
Attachment: (A) Commissioner Franklin's letter dated January 11, 2000
(B) Amended G -1 Tree Policy
. . JAN 11 2000 15:10 FR PACIFIC LIFE 949 721 5130 TO 96500747 P.02/03
To:
Chair Pat Beek
From:
Commissioner Marc Franklin
RE:
Revised GI Policy
Date:
1 /11 /00
On a philosophical note, I feel the major change to the revised Ol is the addition of
"single tree teforestation ". I agree with Mr. Niederhaus that this in practice really just
adds an "aesthetic" critcrioa to the GI. You can already remove a single tree for the non-
aesthetic reasons enumerated in the existing policy.: As a result, I am inclined to oppose
the revision when we actually vote on the matter.
Nevertheless, since the revision might be adopted, I would like to comment on its details
as well. I do admit that the wording represents an improvement in many respects over
the existing policy. Here are my comments, based on the underlined draft dated 12/13:
Page 2, Item A. Should we note at the end of the paragraph "Regular drain/pipe clearing
shall not constitute such damage, nor shall damage attributed to a failure by the owner to
perform such maintenance."
/Page 2, Item B. I would modify "interfering' to "significant interference'; otherwise a
t/ photo of a small puddle will suffice for removal.
/Page 3, REMOVAL.... In the two areas where Paragraph C is exempted I wonder if
Paragraph E should be exempted as well. I am not for exemptions, but I think adding E is
✓ in the spirit of having C exempted (both City actions without a requirement for PB &R
review).
Page 5, Item B. The underlined phrase adds the concept of residential view, but every
house has a view of something. Do we mean ocean view? Sweeping view? As was
pointed out at our last meeting, any house that can view the tree would need notice, as
their vie\v would be affected by removing the tree. I am OK with it, if that is what we
mean.
Page 5, Item C. Two issues. In the petition sentence, I think we should note 60%
"approvar', otherwise someone could submit enough signatures on a petition, even if
they Were all opposed, and we would have to approve it! I don't understand the last
line... "...endorsement of appropriate Homeowner's Association if applicable ". The
paragraph says it is for individuals NOT residing in a CC &R based community
/association. What am I misging, is there a subtle difference?
/ Page 5, Item E. change "...the designated street tree..." to "...a designated street tree ",
CS) ✓ ✓✓ since we are going to a system where there will be more than one tree in many cases.
/{'age 6, Item G. I do not understand this paragraph. It conflicts with B on the previous
�rc�' ✓ page, and I am confused. What is it supposed to do?
q l
v
JAN 11 2000 15:11 FR PACIFIC LIFE 949 721 5130 TO 96500747 P.e3/e3
t
age 6. After the sentence "The Decision of the Commission on reforestation requests
Will be considered final unless..." I think we should add the verbiage found on page 4
that there will be a 14 day delay before removal.
Page 6. The paragraph that starts "All encroachment..." has the phrases "whenever
possible" and "wherever possible ". I don't like these phrases, they add nothing, and I
think they should be removed. You are either supposed to do something or not. These
two phrases create a loophole someone could drive a truck through! Also, this section
should include remedics/fines/penalties for failure to comply.
Page 7: The underlined sentence says "However, since these practices often require
"topping" or severe disfiguring of a tree and are often aesthetically displeasing and
injurious to a tree, reforestation shall be considered once ' ra • occurred
more than twice within a one year period." e t e'bolded phrase me ?Who
will consider A? Do we mean to add it to the orc a on avmg% this
sentence here so prominently makes it seem like an automatic removal right. It seems out
of place.
These are my comments. I have a conflict and can't make the study session, but please
introduce them into the public record.
Sincerely,
Marc Franklin
Commissioner, PB &R
Cc: Dave Niederhaus
)0
•w TOTAL PAGE.03 w+
C �'L�I Y► I� t i t I t Z i 7: i i T �Si P■
Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission D r a f t t
Regular Meeting /Study Session
February 1, 2000 – 7pm
13. Revision of City Council G -1 Policy — Retention & Removal of City Trees – Chair Beek
reminded audience that they would have three minutes to speak one time.
Director Niederhaus stated that this is the 10" meeting to discuss proposed changes to the
Policy. During the past 7 months there have been only two removals, both due to
extensive damage to private property. There are 68 pending tree removals that are awaiting
approval of this Policy. He stated that there is no way to have a perfect G -1 Policy, but
feels that this Policy trys to balance the concerns of the property owners as well as those
who would retain trees at any cost.
He stated that the current Policy has been reviewed and amended numerous times, and
appreciates the time and effort of all those who have contributed and believes that this is a
much stronger, more flexible policy. He stated that this is the 12" hour for this proposed
policy as it will be reviewed by Council at a next study session on February 8. Director
Niederhaus suggested that members of the Tree Subcommittee be available at the Council
study session.
Director Niederhaus stated that he does not recommend going through the policy page by
page, but rather address specific issues as they surface during discussion. r
Commissioner McFarland asked why staff is foregoing tree removal requests that were
made 5 months ago, and why are they not being reviewed under. the approved G -1 policy
rather than waiting for the new policy.
Director Niederhaus stated that Council directed that all routine removals be held in
abeyance until the new policy is approved. The only reason that the two tree appeals were
on the agenda tonight is because the appeals dealt with safety issues. He noted that the
majority of the 68 requests do not meet the removal criteria of the old policy, but may
under the new policy.
Commissioner Franklin asked if the two trees appeals under discussion tonight would have
just been removed without Commission approval under the new policy.
Director Niederhaus opined that the trees would probably have been removed as they were
deemed to be significant safety issues by the City Traffic Engineer.
Director Niederhaus stated that residents are becoming more frustrated at the continued
delay of the approval of the new policy and that is why the General Services Department is
receiving an increased influx of requests for reforestations.
Chair Beek opened the public hearing
Alden Kelly, SPON Arborist, suggested that there is a fundamental flaw with this policy and C
that the flaw is that this is a removal of trees policy and that the title should be changed to
Operation Clear Cut. He stated that this policy will not retain trees. He stated that it is his
belief that this policy is not functional and is only for people to remove trees. It is totally
skewed for easy removal, and to solve our conscience, is called reforestation. This policy
should be scrapped.
Bob Wynn, former City Manager, stated this is a very serious issue and appreciates all the
hard work going into putting this new policy together and asked the Commission to support
the amendments. He stated that after some time has passed and if the new policy is not
working then it can be reviewed again. Obviously, if the Council wanted the Commission
to review it : it was because it is not working.
Elaine Linhoff, Peninsula Point, thought that it should be mandatory to notify all association
members in an association where a reforestation is going to occur. Objected to two
supplemental trimmings provision before tree removals. She felt it was time that this City
has a comprehensive tree policy and suggested that there is not an overall policy to create
and maintain a urban forest in the City of NB. Suggested that Commission start working on
incorporating these policies. Believes that that there should never have been a
consolidation of the General Services and Parks Departments because of a lack of checks
and balances on tree removals.
Kent Moore, Corona del Mar, supports the policy changes as a member of the Corona del
Mar Chamber of Commerce and a resident. He noted there are diseased trees that are
buckling the sidewalks. Also he is looking to underground utilities, but the City will never
look at that when there is extensive tree root growth. Urged support of the policy.
Barry Eaton, a Director of the Community Associations Alliance, composed of 20
associations and over 5000 homes on the east side of the bay, noted parkway trees have
become a major view issue. Thanked staff for resolving their concerns and urges support
of the policy. There are times when individual trees do become concerns for homeowners
and there should be remedies.
Jan Vandersloot, 2221 E. 16" Street, believes that the Commission will be deluged with
requests for removals. With the current policy the Commission is only hearing 2 requests a
month and so the policy was working. Only two appeals went to Council. All reforestation
requests will have to go to Commission. Abide by the basic premise, and that is this City
loves trees, and that this is a weakness in this proposed policy and will allow for a more
liberal removal of trees by residents. Urged that the Commission not remove trees just
because of some hardscape damage. Recommended that the posted tree notice show the
original date of the 30 days notice. He believes that this City lacks a bonafide tree policy
and it should be recommended to the Council. City should avail themselves of the use of
arborist Kelly. The further noted that the Tree Division and Parks Divisions should not be
part of one department.
Linda Radzner, Corona del Mar, supports the policy - loves living in CDM, but does see the
damage that some of the tree roots do to the sidewalks. Her sidewalk is buckling again,
and the street tree is causing a lot of damage. The Edison company is much more
responsive to tree trimming then the City. She advocates that individual property owners
should have more control over their property.
Phil Arst, Pres. CAA, comprised primarily of view oriented communities, associations
spends a lot of money on trimming, believes that the General Services Director is a
professional who will look at requests in a responsible manner. Believes that a lot of the
l problems lie with the decision to plant Ficus trees many years ago. He urged support of the
new tree policy and believes that staff has taken a reasonable approach by giving
homeowners some rights.
Tim Stephens, Corona del Mar, also echoed the previous comments and urges support of
the revised policy. He looks at the G -1 policy as the great compromise so that both sides
can come to some agreement.
Jeanne Wanlass, Baycrest, asked that PVC water pipe be installed with all new tree
plantings to encourage deep watering and rooting.
Mr.Niederhaus, stated that this is occasionally done, but noted that all trees are planted
with root barriers to ensure deep rooting.
Chair Beek closed the public hearing
Motion by Commissioner Skoro for staff to forward G -1 Policy as revised to City Council
for their review and approval.
Commissioner Franklin stated that he is not in favor of the motion because the amended
policy will allow removal based on aesthetic reasons. He believes that the Council should
know of the problems with the policy. Also noted that the Commission should not support
this new policy. The current policy works fine.
Motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Pfaff, Skoro, Tobin
Nay: Franklin, McFarland
Abstain: Beek
I
From : EATON RESIDENCE /OCESR 714 -760 -1691 Feb.08.2000 01:47 PM P01
Eastbluff Homeowners Community Association
17300 Redhill Avenue, Suite 210, Irvine, CA 92614
February R, 20oo
City Council "RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA
City of Nrtapnrt Heaeh PRINTED:"
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Roach. CA 92658
Re G -1 Policy, (February 8, 2000 agenda)
Honorable Mayer and Council members
11 is the understanding of the Gastbluff Homeowners Community Association that you
wit) be reviewing proposed changes to the city 0 -1 policy at your study session today.
Our board has had the opportunity to review those changes and appreciates Cite work and
effort that has gone into it to make it a policy that will work within the varied tree issues
that confront our community
While we would concur in concept, with the idea (if preserving trees in the community,
we strongly believe that there arc issues that arc more important than the preservation of
every single existing street tree in the city. Safety is certainly one of them. View
preservation and extensive city and homeowner repair costs caused by overgrown tree
roots arc two others
The EastblulTHomeowners Community Association urges the City Council to seriously
consider the currently pending amendments to the 0 -) policy which will allow greater
flexibility in dealing with city trees that are creating safety problems, blocking views or
causing extensive damage to city and /or property owner improvements and include those
amendments into the document you adopt.
Thank you for vour consideration of this matter
Cordially
ON Hh:HAI.h' 017 '1 HE HOARD OF DIRECTORS
EASTB W FF I MIF.OWNMRS COMMUN1Tv nSSOCI ATION
( t 0,4i�L
Barry D. I;.aton, President
7Le I(un0011s colupm%'
P U na\ 19570 1, vitte, Cabrotllld 916" - (449) 752. .1225 • Pu. (449) 7)%.11767
FEB -08 -2000 13:06 95i P.01
- -ar10 ': arOCS:ao:,c- 3a+ p,1;ca:'eet,'.ev.:c - oeac., _. aucJ... ......:e rase +e a+w a ... _.r -e:. -age ,.,4 +0a, Q <.,1,�'z,a_Y_ -. ;,
JAN D. VANDERSLOOT, M.D.
2221 East 16th Street
R ^ r' n Newport Beach, CA 92663
(949) 548 -6326 FAX (714) 848 -6643
'00 FES —4 ?12 :14 February 4, 2000
Nh�'yrdr:Jd15 "h::NoJ]es; aAC4�,;
Nevyport' Beaci;' lty,tWn cil Members
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Re: City Council Study Session, February 8, 2000
G -1 Tree Policy Revision
Dear Mayor Noyes and City Council members,
COUNCIL AGENDA
NO. a
siu l s icrr
a\ -b �ao
I will be out of town at a medical meeting on Tuesday, February 8, so I will not be
able to attend the study session on the proposed G -1 Tree Policy revision. I have
attended nearly all the meetings concerning the proposed changes to the policy and
have the following comments:
1. The proposed new policy is not adequate and requires further work. The PBR
Commission voted on a split vote ( 3 for, 2 against, 1 abstention) to pass the new policy
on to you. Rather than being an improvement in terms of simplicity, easy to understand,
and common sense policy, the new policy muddies the waters, and threatens to open
the flood gates on tree removals. This was made clear by Dave Niederhaus in his
announcements at the Feb. 1 PBR Commission meeting. He said that from August,
1999 to January 14, 2000, there were 41 requests by citizens to remove trees. Since
January 14th, an additional 27 requests were received, as word of the new policy is
getting out. A total of 68 pending tree removals are now on the docket. On the other
hand, my analysis of the period before the new policy, for the 16 month period from
March, 1998 to June, 1999, there were only 17 appeals to the PBR Commission;
involving 25 trees (see attached June 28, 1999 analysis). Since the Council made the
decision to change the policy, there are now 68 requests in a 6 month period. Where
the PBR Commission heard fewer than two appeals per month under the old policy,
they will now hear 5 to 10 a month, estimated by Mr. Niederhaus, a doubling or
quintupling of tree removal requests will occur. Where the City Council heard two
appeals (Flowers and Parker) under the old policy in 16 months, chances of appeals to
Council may increase, depending on how egregious the tree reforestation requests are.
The old policy was working, as mentioned by Marc Franklin, PBR Commissioner.
Suggestion: Keep the old policy. If it's not broke, don't fix it (Mr. Franklin). This new
policy has been engineered by Dave Niederhaus, not the PBR Commission, with a bias
towards tree removals.
.a "ar's cv: ♦u - al- o:'re: .t<O Y. vea:' .- ":11-a, e:a<a. +.aa .: -a.r;
JAN D. VANDERSLOOT, M.D.
2221 East 16th Street
Newport Beach, CA 92663
(949) 548 -6326 FAX (714) 848 -6643
2. The new policy, because of the new concept of "individual tree reforestation ", allows
residents who simply dislike their City tree for any reason, to apply for reforestation.
This is made possible because the criteria for reforestation are too loose. and need to
be tightened up.
Suggestion: Require the same criteria for Reforestation as required under the "All
Other City Trees" section. Language such as "Individual City tree reforestation may be
considered only if removal of the City tree is necessary for one of the reasons
enumerated under the "All Other City Trees" section (see items A through E of that
section).
3. The new language added on page 7, allows a homeowner to deliberately go through
the perfunctory motions of trimming the tree twice in a year to set up the reforestation,
when they really want to get rid of the tree in the first place. This is happening right now
on 2800 Cliff Drive.
Suggestion The new underlined language ( "reforestation shall be considered once
this practice has occurred more than twice within a one year period ") should be deleted
and not be added to the new policy, as it means that homeowners will simply pay an
extra 880 to get the trees trimmed. then claim they still have the problem, then the tree
will be lost to reforestation.
4. Noticing of proposed tree removals and hazard trees is defective. All trees should be
noticed and the date of the notice should be included in each months report by the Park
and Tree Division. The new policy will have allowed the General Services Department
to remove the trees on 4th Ave. in Corona del Mar last June, without public input.
Suggestion: On page 3, strike out the newly added phrase , "not applicable to the
emergency removal of hazardous trees with trees under Item C above ". Remember,
Dave Niederhaus said the trees on 4th Ave. required emergency removal in June,
1999. These trees were not diseased, let alone an emergency.
4. 1 approve of the requirement to replace removed trees with a 36 inch box tree.
However, this new tree will not replace the value of the old trees which are often valued
in the thousands of dollars, for many years to come, if ever.
5. The citizen's group SPON has applied for, and received, a grant for one year from
ReLeaf California to hire a certified arborist to help the City develop a good tree policy.
What is lacking is an overall "Tree Policy ", that encompass the separate policies (G -1,
G -3, G -6, etc). SPON offers to provide the services of this arborist
(Dr. Alden Kelley), to the City in developing an overall tree policy for Newport Beach, at
no cost to the City. He has helped other cities develop tree policies.
_anJ'an0am, Oz. .A; a2k, ambtrut bawp0^ruc�,_•el..J Ia. aaroaJ -0Jro . CCe age a O'a- aa,. agora' N, <w'.
JAN D. VANDERSLOOT, M.D.
2221 East 16th Street
Newport Beach, CA 92663
(949) 548 -6326 FAX (714) 848 -6643
6. A problem is that General Services is in charge of the Parks Department, so that
sidewalks,etc. conflict with tree policies. The Director of General Services lacks
empathy for trees. There is an inherent conflict that is ongoing.
Solution: Separate the Parks Department from the General Services Department, as
used to be the case before the departments were consolidated in a cost saving mode a
few years ago during the Recession. This City is prosperous enough now to have a
separate Parks Department under its own head, like Ron Whitley used to be.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Jan D. Vandersloot, M.D.
Enclosure
oat 'r_ rar.: e:•e e.'.e:�:co aea:^ . -ac.� -as
JAN D. VANDERSLOOT, M.D.
2221 East 16th Street
Newport Beach, CA 92663
(949) 548 -6326 FAX (714) 848 -6643
June 28. 1999
"TREE REMOVAL APPEALS" TO PBR COMMISSION
PBR Meetings of March 3, 1998 to June 1, 1999
Compiled from internet postings
Review of Agendas and Minutes
Total of last 16 months reviewed
"Approved" means the appeal and the tree removal was approved by the PBR Commission
"Denied" means the appeal was denied, the staff recommendation was upheld, and the tree
was retained
DATE
ADDRESS
TREES
RESULTS
6 -1 -99
400 Santa Ana Ave.
1 Eucalyptus
Approved'
5 -4 -99
2800 Cliff Drive
2 Brazilian Pepper
Tabled 60 days
4 -6 -99
1516 Cumberland Lane
1 Brazilian Pepper
Denied
1742 Port Manleigh Circle
1 Carrotwood
Continued 90 days
2821 Setting Sun Drive
1 Indian Laurel
Approved
321 Pionsettia Ave.
1 Red Ironbark
Denied
3 -2 -99
2327 Arbutus
1 Brazilian Pepper
Denied
2118 Serrano
3 Norfolk Pine
Delayed"
2 -2 -99
1301 Antigua Way
1 Lemon Gum
Deferred
2 Evergreen Pear
1 -5 -99
620 Orchid
1 Blue Gum
Approved
12-1-98
None
11 -3 -98
708 Fernleaf Ave.
1 Red Flowering Gum
Denied
427 Marigold Ave.
Denied
2025 W. Balboa Blvd.
5 Indian Laurel Fig
Denied
10 -6 -98
1212 Devon Lane
1 Sweet Gum
Denied
9 -1 -98
None
8 -4 -98
None
7 -7 -98
1942 Port Albans Place
1 Evergreen Pear
Item removed
6 -3 -98
None
5 -5 -98
ECH & Cameo Shores Rd
2 Lemon Gum
Denied
4 -7 -98
2233 Aralia
Denied
3 -3 -98
None
16 Months
17 Appeals
25 Trees
4 Approved (see' ")
9 Denied
5 Tabled, deferred,
delayed, continued,
item removed
'Approval based on resistograph reading, tree was OK otherwise
"Tree Removal and Planting Appeal"
"' Removal of 4 Ficus Retusa trees was later approved on 2 -2 -99 as a reforestation