Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout23 - Main Street Ficus Tree Removalsr ,, i7i i�lt City Council Agenda Item No. May 28, 2002 TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: General Services Director SUBJECT: Main Street Ficus Tree Removals Recommendations: Uphold the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission recommendation to remove 10 Ficus nitida trees on Main Street that are designated Special/Landmark trees. Uphold the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission recommendation to remove 15 Ficus nitida trees on Main Street that are designated as "All Other Trees." Uphold the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission recommendation to plant 32 Coral Gum replacement trees on Main Street. Background: At the Council meeting of May 14, Councilmember Heffernan requested that a Council review of the PB &R Commission decision to approve the removal of the 25 Ficus trees on Main Street be prepared for May 28 Council agenda. This appeal is provided for in the Council Policy G -1 (Retention or Removal of City Trees). The attached staff report regarding the tree removals was Agenda Item No. 5 for the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission (PB &R) meeting of May 7, 2002. "After a lengthy discussion of the issues, the PB &R Commission voted 4 — 3 in favor of staffs recommendations to remove and replace the Ficus trees. The minutes of the meeting are attached. Very respectfully, David E. Niederhaus Attachments (A) PB &R Commission Agenda Item No. 5 of May 7, 2002 (B) PB &R Commission Minutes of May 7, 2002 meeting [:1llSERSGSV1MLindemsn�l W3MayNq]VNailStrtefficwCCABdac I a 941eral IQ Matte PB &R Commission Agenda Item No. S May 7, 2002 TO: FROM: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission General Services Director SUBJECT: Main Street Ficus Tree Removals Recommendations: Approve the General Services Director's recommendation to remove 15 Ficus nitida trees on Main Street that are designated Special/Landmark trees. Approve the General Services Director's recommendation to remove 10 Ficus nitida trees on Main Street that are designated as "All Other Trees ". Approve the planting of 32 Coral Gum replacement trees on Main Street. Background: There are 25 Ficus trees on Main Street. The ten Ficus trees located north of Balboa Boulevard are designated Special/Landmark trees by City Council Policy G -1. Policy G -1 provides that the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation (PB &R) Commission shall administer Special City Trees, and that the General Services Director shall provide recommendations on the removal of "All Other" City trees. The Policy also establishes requirements prior to the removal of City trees. Tree removal recommendations of the General Services Director may be appealed to the Commission. An appeal of any Commission tree removal decision may be made by a Councilmember or the City Manager. The Main Street Ficus trees were planted over 40 years ago. Root barriers were not installed when the trees were planted. The trees have fared well in the sometimes harsh oceanfront environment, but tree roots have caused hardscape and underground utility damage. The trees have grown tall with a corresponding aggressive growth of roots. Recent construction activities in the Balboa Village area have discovered roots over 100 feet long and 8 inches thick. In the past 10 years, the trees have been trimmed on an annual basis to prevent tree heights from increasing and to curtail root growth. The result has been the exposure of over 75% of the tree limbs. Private property and business owners along Main Street have requested the removal and replacement of the Main Street Ficus trees for many years. The primary reasons advocated for tree removal have been reoccurring public and private property damage caused by Ficus tree roots. Damage within the public right -of -way has included cracked, raised, and broken sidewalks, curbs, gutters, and street pavements, as well as damage to underground utilities. Damage to private property has been primarily associated with the sewer lines blocked by Ficus tree roots. In December 1999, a concept to revitalize the Balboa Village area was approved by the City Council. This proposal included various pedestrian friendly improvements, including new street trees and landscaping, as well as street furniture and streetlights. In late 2000, Psomas Engineering was hired to prepare construction drawings for the Balboa Village Improvement Project. The landscape subconsultant for the project, Nuvis Landscape Architects, prepared a series of preliminary drawings showing a comprehensive layout for new trees, street lights, street furniture, and landscaped areas. Special attention was paid to Main Street, where exact tree and streetlight locations and dimensions were selected to work with shop windows and entrances. Beginning in late 2000, City staff held community meetings to acquaint Balboa residents and business owners with alternative tree species for Main Street. Over 75 species of street trees were eventually studied. As the planning process for Balboa Village continued in 2000, the Main Street tree removal and replacement issue was revived as part of that project and included participation by various homeowners groups such as the Balboa Peninsula Point and the Central Newport Homeowner's Associations as well as the Balboa Merchants' and Owners' Association. Each group concurred in the necessity to replace the Ficus trees and participated in the selection process of an alternative tree. The selection process continued into 2001 with consultation with the Balboa Peninsula Point Association (BPPA), the Central Newport Community Association, and the Balboa Merchants' and Owners' Association (BMOA). These groups concurred on the necessity to replace the Ficus trees and participated in the selection of six candidate replacement trees. In addition, the BPPA met on April 23, 2002 and voted to remove the Ficus trees and approve the Coral Gum as a replacement tree. The BMOA did likewise on April 25, 2002. As required by Policy G -1, the City commissioned an independent analysis by Integrated Urban Foresters (IUF) in March 2001 of the Main Street Ficus trees, in addition to the attached individual tree reports by the City Urban Forester. The attached IUF study assessed the value of the Ficus trees, analyzed the effectiveness of root pruning and root barriers, the costs for implementing these measures, and estimated the remaining life of the trees. The study suggested three replacement trees if the Ficus trees are removed. 2 In April 2001, the Public Works Department staff prepared the attached analysis of projected costs for street maintenance, property damage and bodily injury claims as well as Ficus tree damage. Following preparation of these the analyses of the IUF and Public Works Department reports, six species of candidate street trees for Main Street were presented to the City Council Committee to "Promote Revitalization of our Peninsula" (PROP), during three public sessions. The Committee is comprised of Mayor Ridgeway, Mayor Pro -Tem Bromberg, and Councilperson Proctor. After reviewing the Ficus tree reports and listening to public comments, the PROP Committee voted to recommend removal of the Ficus trees and designate the Coral Gum tree as the new street tree for Main Street. The PB &R Commission subsequently approved the Coral Gum tree as the designated street tree for Main Street on July 3, 2001 (Minutes and report attached). Discussion: Staff has adhered to the tree removal procedures of the G -1 Policy by posting each of the 25 trees for 30 days beginning on April 5, notifying adjacent property owners and interested parties, and by completing the detailed attached reports on each tree, as well as the IUF and Public Works Department reports mentioned above. IUF estimated the value of the 25 Main Street Ficus trees at $192,910. Value is based on species, age, condition, and size according to international standards. Staff believes this value needs to be balanced against City and private party maintenance and repair costs to retain the Ficus trees. Extensive damage to sidewalks, curbs, and gutters due to Ficus tree roots is visible on the southern portion of Main Street. Major repairs to this section have been on hold for several years due to the possibility of tree replacement. The northern section of Main Street was completely renovated in the mid 1990's, including the replacement of the sidewalks, curbs, and gutters that were mainly damaged by Ficus tree roots. The northern portion of the Main Street hardscape shows no significant hardscape damage due to root incursions at this time. Sewer blockages caused by Ficus tree roots continue to be a problem for Balboa Village area property and business owners. The City has settled two tree related claims in the past eight years totaling less than $8,000, one of which was for sewer blockage. Staff has been told by at least four business owners about malfunctioning sewer lines caused or exacerbated by tree roots. The attached letter from the former owner of Britta's Restaurant illustrates the problems that businesses in the Village encounter. The report prepared by Public Works Department staff considered costs for three damage levels: low severity, medium severity, and high severity. The cost to retain the 25 Ficus trees on Main Street range from $310,000 for the low severity damage scenario to $1,200,000 for the high severity damage scenario over a 30 -year period. The report does not include the large Ficus tree I claims made against the City in the past year. The report may overstate the costs for Main Street because it used Citywide data for projecting potential costs for property damage and bodily injury claims, rather than Main Street tree claims. However, staff believes that Main Street claims have been limited by the City's extraordinary tree and hardscape maintenance efforts in this location, as well as by private businesses paying for the sewer damage without filing claims against the City. The IUF study notes that the Ficus tree was not an appropriate tree selection for a restricted growing area like Main Street. As a result, the trees have required high maintenance and have caused hardscape and sewer line damage, as discussed above. However, they have done well and developed good canopies, even with frequent pruning and the harsh conditions of a windy, salty environment. The consultant emphasized the stark difference between the mature Ficus trees and their full canopies relative to the small size of the proposed replacements as well as the harsh environment the replacement trees would be expected to grow in. Replacement Coral Gum trees should be 12 to 15 feet in height when planted in February 2002. It may take 5 to 10 years for the replacement trees to achieve full maturity and a maximum height of 20 feet. In order to construct the streetscape improvements planned for Main Street, and to prevent damage to these improvements, IUF notes that severe root pruning of the Ficus trees would have to be done. The pruning would risk the health of the trees and possibly cause them to fall over. Some trees could be lost during construction, which in itself would change the aesthetics of Main Street. IUF also analyzed the use of root barriers, and concluded that they have not been proven to be 100% effective; roots can lift barriers or grow over or under them. The report notes that if the City were to do root pruning and install barriers to try and retain the Ficus trees as part of the Main Street project, it is likely that property damage could be controlled for up to ten years, and that there probably would be long -term root intrusions. The study also recommended modifying the proposed hardscape improvements to include pavers around the trees to help mitigate hardscape damage while retaining the Ficus trees. Staff believes that this option could make hardscape repairs less expensive. However, this work would still need to be done regularly, and the use of pavers would do nothing to mitigate private property damage. A decision has been made to use tree grates for the tree wells. Grates are more compatible with the design quality of the proposed hardscape improvements and more compliant with ADA. The Coral Gum tree was selected as the most appropriate tree after a thorough research of alternative street tree species. The Coral Gum is a quick growing tree to a maximum height of 20 feet, is not susceptible to the lerp insect, is drought and heat tolerant, has attractive flowers, is suitable for planting in small parkways such as along Main Street, and would not cause hardscape nor underground utility damage with its roots. Excerpts and a photo of the Coral Gum tree from the publication, Street Trees for Southern California, are attached. With regard to the survivability of the Coral Gum, the General Services Department staff planted a 24 -inch box specimen in the Balboa Village area as a test case in August 2001. After six months, the tree had grown over three feet and had adapted well to the climate. The tree was recently boxed and 0 moved from the parkway on the north side of Balboa Blvd. to make way for sidewalk replacement. Staff has purchased 32 Coral Gum trees to be replanted in 36 -inch boxes for the purpose of accelerating the growth of the trees at the Corporation Yard. This advance action was due to the fact that 24 -inch boxed Coral Gums are not readily available in either California or Arizona. Should the PB &R Commission and the Council deny the staff proposal to replace the Ficus trees, the new Coral Gum trees will be planted elsewhere in the City. An example replacement tree will be on display at the Council Chambers on May 7. Conclusion: The main factor in staffs decision to recommend the removal and replacement of the Main Street Ficus trees with Coral Gum trees is the goal of the revitalization of Balboa Village. The plan for the Village includes Main Street tree replacement because the existing Ficus trees are past their prime. They have grown so tall as to be out of scale with the area and to block commercial signage. They will require ongoing root pruning, which will be expensive and damaging to the new hardscape in which the City is making a huge investment. Some trees could be lost during construction, and surviving trees could be weakened by ongoing aggressive root pruning. Even with root pruning and root barriers, damage from Ficus tree roots is likely to be controlled for only ten years. If the Ficus trees are to be replaced within that approximate timeframe, staff believes it is prudent for the City to do so now, when we have an opportunity wherein funding is available to completely revamp the entire area. Very respectfully, r4-w�L David E. Niederhaus Attachments (A) Urban Forester's Individual Tree Reports — Main Street (B) Integrated Urban Forestry Report (City Ficus Landmark Trees) dated April 23, 2001 (C) Public Works Department Report (Analysis of Costs to Retain the Main Street Ficus Trees) dated May 8, 2001 (D) PB &R Commission Item No. 10 and minutes of July 3, 2001 meeting (E) Ms. Britta Pulliam's letter dated March 26, 2002 (F) Street Trees for Southern California: Coral Gum tree I:\U.\Gsv mLi,,&i.\ZM%APROPM.i SV ,Fi=PBRC..m S,doe 5 MWM 1�1 a 0 3 z w F z a a w A w H a w z W V H w z d a O a F U 5 P4 a d a d W h�� P P n n o0 P R O n N YJ •� P YJ n O as N1 a0 n �- V' of GO a0 P N n h W P YJ n •� P C R O a0 f'f N P h< M O b f.9 Vl Vi �N Vl K 69 69 A 6R9 69 4f 69 4f i9 Vi 69 69 fA 69 4f GO a f.9 � � � a [.. P �< P O — b O t'f b aO P n o0 b •� 0 F P M O� Q � N q O O n Q N n Y.1 Vf 1'1 V' O GO h R? •� V' C w;,, ww E 0 V w w u9 w wwy�ww 49ww w 49 vi 49 viw i.9ww z O VI N N CO N Y..1 N LO V' Vf Yl N n O n n ,^J P O —� P N n z U {A W —� {9 fFl Vl Vl Vl i9 fFl W fFl i9 W i9 69 fFl 19 W fA 19 iA U z 0 F ky'. Q N h of R R r�1 ref R N O N .-• N N R a0 N N P h tf N n N tf U U = p1 V.V NI P P N N1 P n N P < h P n W N m n 'f V1 P Vf P P n ri � N •� P n ii] O -,F f n � N om ' P O P � N1 N � W � n � O V' yH M! i9 69 69 Vf Vf i9 fA :A fA 69 fA 69 4f 4f fA fA fA 69 J U U y j pOppp N V N �^J N W o0 Y.1 OV Vl l+1 — 11 P N O O I'1 N n N Ql 4 R GO N V' R R 'R W N N O I h N V1 P„ GO N Vf O Nq N^ ONN W C O ti ZC4F °v v v ro�cn. �vRipm� no v��vpnna p_ °va U N rl r1 •- r1 O R N N N N N N •'1 N N1 N rl h r1 N1 N &UW h Xw ZF �n _ _ vi vi vi v�m'^•P_ o� � vi v. vi v. vi vi nvi O„v: .n j j q h V1 m m m VJ VJ VJ N h h h N V h V1 N y f%J s h VJ G a G 'W C •A g 'w C •W � p L p L C •W C •W G .%E �N� C •.f C .%5 �w C •W G .%E �w C •W •m •N W W D •m W •N w /-. W OW o00 � rl W (� TREE INSPECTION REPORT Name: Balboa Village Improvement Project Address: 306 Main St. Phone Number: N/A Request: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street Botanical Name: tree site #1 Ficus microcarpa `Nitida' Common Name: Indian Laurel Fig Designated Street Tree: Eucalyptus torquata (Coral Gum) Estimated Total Tree Value: $5,685 Damage: See attached history of repairs Parkway: Concrete Brick Turf Other Comments: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street which includes removal of tree and installation of a 36" box size Coral Gum during construction phase of project Inspected by: Date: April 10, 2002 John Conway Recommendation: Forward to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for review and public comment on May 7, 2002 Reviewed by: Date: April 10, 2002 Marcelino G. Lomeli a HISTORY OF REPAIRS MAIN STREET 1997 — Sidewalk inspections, no ramps or grinds needed 1998 — 6/10/98 The sidewalk was ramped at: 105, 202, 301 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at Davey's Locker 6/9/98 The sidewalk was ground at: 801 E. Balboa Blvd. on Main St. 1999 — 1/15/99 The sidewalk was replaced at: 204 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at Davey's Locker 2000 — 4/3/00 The sidewalk was ramped at: 100, 106, 105, 107, 200, 301 Main St. 4/6/00 The sidewalk was ground at: 202, 205, 300 Main St. TREE INSPECTION REPORT Name: Balboa Village Improvement Project Address: 300 Main St. Phone Number: N/A Request: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street Botanical Name: tree site #2 Ficus microcarpa `Nitida' Common Name: Indian Laurel Fig Designated Street Tree: Eucalyptus torquata (Coral Gum) Estimated Total Tree Value: $8,196 Damage: See attached history of repairs Parkway: Concrete Brick Turf Other Comments: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street which includes removal of tree and installation of a 36" box size Coral Gum during construction phase of project Inspected by: John Conway Date: April 10, 2002 Recommendation: Forward to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for review and public comment on May 7, 2002 Reviewed by: Marcelino G. Lomeli April 10, 2002 I HISTORY OF REPAIRS MAIN STREET 1997 — Sidewalk inspections, no ramps or grinds needed 1998 — 6/10/98 The sidewalk was ramped at: 105, 202, 301 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at Davey's Locker 6/9/98 The sidewalk was ground at: 801 E. Balboa Blvd. on Main St. 1999 — 1/15/99 The sidewalk was replaced at: 204 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at Davey's Locker 2000 — 4/3/00 The sidewalk was ramped at: 100, 106, 105, 107, 200, 301 Main St. 4/6/00 The sidewalk was ground at: 202, 205, 300 Main St. TREE INSPECTION REPORT Name: Balboa Village Improvement Project Address: 204 Main St. Phone Number: N/A Request: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street Botanical Name: tree site #3 Ficus microcarpa `Nitida' Common Name: Indian Laurel Fig Designated Street Tree: Eucalyptus torquata (Coral Gum) Estimated Total Tree Value: $8,196 Damage: See attached history of repairs Parkway: Concrete Brick Turf Other Comments: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street which includes removal of tree and installation of a 36" box size Coral Gum during construction phase of project Inspected by: John Conway Date: April 10, 2002 Recommendation: Forward to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for review and public comment on May 7, 2002 Reviewed by: Marcelino G. Lomeli April 10, 2002 0 HISTORY OF REPAIRS MAIN STREET 1997 — Sidewalk inspections, no ramps or grinds needed 1998 — 6/10/98 The sidewalk was ramped at: 105, 202, 301 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at Davey's Locker 6/9/98 The sidewalk was ground at: 801 E. Balboa Blvd. on Main St. 1999 — 1/15/99 The sidewalk was replaced at: 204 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at Davey's Locker 2000 — 4/3/00 The sidewalk was ramped at: 100, 106, 105, 107, 200, 301 Main St. 4/6/00 The sidewalk was ground at: 202, 205, 300 Main St. TREE INSPECTION REPORT Name: Balboa Village Improvement Project Address: 202 Main St. Phone Number: N/A Request: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street Botanical Name: tree site #4 Ficus microcarpa `Nitida' Common Name: Indian Laurel Fig Designated Street Tree: Eucalyptus torquata (Coral Gum) Estimated Total Tree Value: $4,477 Damage: See attached history of repairs Parkway: Concrete Brick Turf Other Comments: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street which includes removal of tree and installation of a 36" box size Coral Gum during construction phase of project Inspected by: Date: April 10, 2002 John Conway Recommendation: Forward to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for review and public comment on May 7, 2002 Reviewed by: Marcelino G. Lomeli April 10, 2002 a HISTORY OF REPAIRS MAIN STREET 1997 — Sidewalk inspections, no ramps or grinds needed 1998 — 6/10/98 The sidewalk was ramped at: 105, 202, 301 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at Davey's Locker 6/9/98 The sidewalk was ground at: 801 E. Balboa Blvd. on Main St. 1999 — 1/15/99 The sidewalk was replaced at: 204 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at Davey's Locker 2000 — 4/3/00 The sidewalk was ramped at: 100, 106, 105, 107, 200, 301 Main St. 4/6/00 The sidewalk was ground at: 202, 205, 300 Main St. TREE INSPECTION REPORT Name: Balboa Village Improvement Project Address: 801 E. Balboa Blvd. Phone Number: N/A Request: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street Botanical Name: tree site #5 Ficus microcarpa `Nitida' Common Name: Indian Laurel Fig Designated Street Tree: Eucalyptus torquata (Coral Gum) Estimated Total Tree Value: $8,598 Damage: See attached history of repairs Parkway: Concrete Brick Turf Other Comments: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street which includes removal of tree and installation of a 36" box size Coral Gum during construction phase of project Inspected by: Date: April 10, 2002 John Conway Recommendation: Forward to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for review and public comment on May 7, 2002 Reviewed by: Date: April 10, 2002 Marcelino G. Lomeli HISTORY OF REPAIRS MAIN STREET 1997 — Sidewalk inspections, no ramps or grinds needed 1998 — 6/10/98 The sidewalk was ramped at: 105, 202, 301 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at Davey's Locker 6/9/98 The sidewalk was ground at: 801 E. Balboa Blvd. on Main St. 1999 — 1/15/99 The sidewalk was replaced at: 204 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at Davey's Locker 2000 — 4/3/00 The sidewalk was ramped at: 100, 106, 105, 107, 200, 301 Main St. 4/6/00 The sidewalk was ground at: 202, 205, 300 Main St. TREE INSPECTION REPORT Name: Balboa Village Improvement Project Address: 801 E. Balboa Blvd. Phone Number: N/A Request: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street Botanical Name: tree site #6 Ficus microcarpa `Nitida' Common Name: Indian Laurel Fig Designated Street Tree: Eucalyptus torquata (Coral Gum) Estimated Total Tree Value: $9,404 Damage: See attached history of repairs Parkway: Concrete Brick Turf Other Comments: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street which includes removal of tree and installation of a 36" box size Coral Gum during construction phase of project Inspected by: John Conway Date: April 10, 2002 Recommendation: Forward to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for review and public comment on May 7, 2002 Reviewed by: Marcelino G. Lomeli Date: April 10, 2002 HISTORY OF REPAIRS MAIN STREET 1997 — Sidewalk inspections, no ramps or grinds needed 1998 — 6/10/98 The sidewalk was ramped at: 105, 202, 301 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at Davey's Locker 6/9/98 The sidewalk was ground at: 801 E. Balboa Blvd. on Main St. 1999 — 1/15/99 The sidewalk was replaced at: 204 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at Davey's Locker 2000 — 4/3/00 The sidewalk was ramped at: 100, 106, 105, 107, 200, 301 Main St. 4/6/00 The sidewalk was ground at: 202, 205, 300 Main St. TREE INSPECTION REPORT Name: Balboa Village Improvement Project Address: 801 E. Balboa Blvd. Phone Number: N/A Request: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street Botanical Name: tree site #7 Ficus microcarpa `Nitida' Common Name: Indian Laurel Fig Designated Street Tree: Eucalyptus torquata (Coral Gum) Estimated Total Tree Value: $11,157 Damage: See attached history of repairs Parkway: Concrete Brick Turf Other Comments: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street which includes removal of tree and installation of a 36" box size Coral Gum during construction phase of project Inspected by: John Conway Date: April 10, 2002 Recommendation: Forward to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for review and public comment on May 7, 2002 Reviewed by: Marcelino G. Lomeli Date: April 10, 2002 HISTORY OF REPAIRS MAIN STREET 1997 — Sidewalk inspections, no ramps or grinds needed 1998 — 6/10/98 The sidewalk was ramped at: 105, 202, 301 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at Davey's Locker 6/9/98 The sidewalk was ground at: 801 E. Balboa Blvd. on Main St. 1999 — 1/15/99 The sidewalk was replaced at: 204 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at Davey's Locker 2000 — 4/3/00 The sidewalk was ramped at: 100, 106, 105, 107, 200, 301 Main St. 4/6/00 The sidewalk was ground at: 202, 205, 300 Main St: TREE INSPECTION REPORT Name: Balboa Village Improvement Project Address: 106 Main St. Phone Number: N/A Request: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street Botanical Name: tree site #8 Ficus microcarpa `Nitida' Common Name: Indian Laurel Fig Designated Street Tree: Eucalyptus torquata (Coral Gum) Estimated Total Tree Value: $6,016 Damage: See attached history of repairs Parkway: Concrete Brick Turf Other Comments: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street . which includes removal of tree and installation of a 36" box size Coral Gum during construction phase of project Inspected by: Date: April 10, 2002 John Conway Recommendation: Forward to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for review and public comment on May 7, 2002 Reviewed by: Date: April 10, 2002 Marcelino G. Lomeli HISTORY OF REPAIRS MAIN STREET 1997 — Sidewalk inspections, no ramps or grinds needed 1998 — 6/10/98 The sidewalk was ramped at: 105, 202, 301 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at Davey's Locker 6/9/98 The sidewalk was ground at: 801 E. Balboa Blvd. on Main St. 1999 — 1/15/99 The sidewalk was replaced at: 204 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at Davey's Locker 2000 — 4 /3 /00 The sidewalk was ramped at: 100, 106, 105, 107, 200, 301 Main St. 4/6/00 The sidewalk was ground at: 202, 205, 300 Main St. TREE INSPECTION REPORT Name: Balboa Village Improvement Project Address: 104 Main St. Phone Number: N/A Request: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street Botanical Name: tree site #9 Ficus microcarpa `Nitida' Common Name: Indian Laurel Fig Designated Street Tree: Eucalyptus torquata (Coral Gum) Estimated Total Tree Value: $5,069 Damage: See attached history of repairs Parkway: Concrete Brick Turf Other Comments: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street which includes removal of tree and installation of a 36" box size Coral Gum during construction phase of project Inspected by: Date: April 10, 2002 John Conway Recommendation: Forward to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for review and public comment on May 7, 2002 Reviewed by: Date: April 10, 2002 Marcelino G. Lomeli HISTORY OF REPAIRS MAIN STREET 1997 — Sidewalk inspections, no ramps or grinds needed 1998 — 6/10/98 The sidewalk was ramped at: 105, 202, 301 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at Davey's Locker 6/9/98 The sidewalk was ground at: 801 E. Balboa Blvd. on Main St. 1999 — 1/15/99 The sidewalk was replaced at: 204 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at Davey's Locker 2000 — 4/3/00 The sidewalk was ramped at: 100, 106, 105, 107, 200, 301 Main St. 4/6/00 The sidewalk was ground at: 202, 205, 300 Main St. TREE INSPECTION REPORT Name: Balboa Village Improvement Project Address: 104 Main St. Phone Number: N/A Request: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street Botanical Name: tree site #10 Ficus microcarpa `Nitida' Common Name: Indian Laurel Fig Designated Street Tree: Eucalyptus torquata (Coral Gum) Estimated Total Tree Value: $6,703 Damage: See attached history of repairs Parkway: Concrete Brick Turf Other Comments: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street which includes removal of tree and installation of a 36" box size Coral Gum during construction phase of project Inspected by: Date: April 10, 2002 John Conway Recommendation: Forward to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for review and public comment on May 7, 2002 Reviewed by: Date: April 10, 2002 Marcelino G. Lomeli , a HISTORY OF REPAIRS MAIN STREET 1997 — Sidewalk inspections, no ramps or grinds needed 1998 — 6/10/98 The sidewalk was ramped at: 105, 202, 301 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at Davey's Locker 6/9/98 The sidewalk was ground at: 801 E. Balboa Blvd. on Main St. 1999 — 1/15/99 The sidewalk was replaced at: 204 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at Davey's Locker 2000 — 4/3/00 The sidewalk was ramped at: 100, 106, 105, 107, 200, 301 Main St. 4/6/00 The sidewalk was ground at: 202, 205, 300 Main St. TREE INSPECTION REPORT Name: Balboa Village Improvement Project Address: 100 Main St. Phone Number: N/A Request: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street Botanical Name: tree site #11 Ficus microcarpa `Nitida' Common Name: Indian Laurel Fig Designated Street Tree: Eucalyptus torquata (Coral Gum) Estimated Total Tree Value: $7,438 Damage: See attached history of repairs Parkway: Concrete Brick Turf Other Comments: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street which includes removal of tree and installation of a 36" box size Coral Gum during construction phase of project Inspected by: Date: April 10, 2002 John Conway Recommendation: Forward to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for review and public comment on May 7, 2002 Reviewed by: Date: April 10, 2002 Marcelino G. Lomeli l A HISTORY OF REPAIRS MAIN STREET 1997 — Sidewalk inspections, no ramps or grinds needed 1998 — 6/10/98 The sidewalk was ramped at: 105, 202, 301 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at Davey's Locker 6/9/98 The sidewalk was ground at: 801 E. Balboa Blvd. on Main St. 1999 — 1/15/99 The sidewalk was replaced at: 204 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at Davey's Locker 2000 — 4/3/00 The sidewalk was ramped at: 100, 106, 105, 107, 200, 301 Main St. 4/6/00 The sidewalk was ground at: 202, 205,300 Main St. TREE INSPECTION REPORT Name: Balboa Village Improvement Project Address: 105 Main St. Phone Number: N/A Request: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street Botanical Name: tree site #12 Ficus microcarpa `Nitida' Common Name: Indian Laurel Fig Designated Street Tree: Eucalyptus torquata (Coral Gum) Estimated Total Tree Value: $12,578 Damage: See attached history of repairs Parkway: Concrete Brick Turf Other Comments: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street which includes removal of tree and installation of a 36" box size Coral Gum during construction phase of project Inspected by: Date: April 10, 2002 John Conway Recommendation: Forward to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for review and public comment on May 7, 2002 Reviewed by: Date: April 10, 2002 Marcelino G. Lomeli HISTORY OF REPAIRS MAIN STREET 1997 — Sidewalk inspections, no ramps or grinds needed 1998 — 6/10/98 The sidewalk was ramped at: 105, 202, 301 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at Davey's Locker 6/9/98 The sidewalk was ground at: 801 E. Balboa Blvd. on Main St. 1999 — 1/15/99 The sidewalk was replaced at: 204 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at Davey's Locker 2000 — 4/3/00 The sidewalk was ramped at: 100, 106, 105, 107, 200, 301 Main St. 4/6/00 The sidewalk was ground at: 202, 205, 300 Main St. TREE INSPECTION REPORT Name: Balboa Village Improvement Project Address: 105 Main St. Phone Number: N/A Request: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street Botanical Name: tree site #13 Ficus microcarpa `Nitida' Common Name: Indian Laurel Fig Designated Street Tree: Eucalyptus torquata (Coral Gum) Estimated Total Tree Value: $4,761 Damage: See attached history of repairs Parkway: Concrete Brick Turf Other Comments: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street which includes removal of tree and installation of a 36" box size Coral Gum during construction phase of project Inspected by: Date: April 10, 2002 John Conway Recommendation: Forward to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for review and public comment on May 7, 2002 Reviewed by: Date: April 10, 2002 Marcelino G. Lomeli HISTORY OF REPAIRS MAIN STREET 1997 — Sidewalk inspections, no ramps or grinds needed 1998 — 6/10/98 The sidewalk was ramped at: 105, 202, 301 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at Davey's Locker 6/9/98 The sidewalk was ground at: 801 E. Balboa Blvd. on Main St. 1999 — 1/15/99 The sidewalk was replaced at: 204 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at Davey's Locker 2000 — 4/3/00 The sidewalk was ramped at: 100, 106, 105, 107, 200, 301 Main St. 4/6/00 The sidewalk was ground at: 202, 205, 300 Main St. Q SEW PORT O @m Gene- 4sort*&WOMEN C,q </ FO RN�P TREE INSPECTION REPORT Name: Balboa Village Improvement Project Address: 105 Main St. Phone Number: N/A Request: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street Botanical Name: tree site #14 Ficus microcarpa `Nitida' Common Name: Indian Laurel Fig Designated Street Tree: Eucalyptus torquata (Coral Gum) Estimated Total Tree Value: $5,685 Damage: See attached history of repairs Parkway: Concrete Brick Turf Other Comments: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street which includes removal of tree and installation of a 36" box size Coral Gum during construction phase of project Inspected by: Date: April 10, 2002 John Conway Recommendation: Forward to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for review and public comment on May 7, 2002 Reviewed by: Date: April 10, 2002 Marcelino G. Lomeli HISTORY OF REPAIRS MAIN STREET 1997 — Sidewalk inspections, no ramps or grinds needed 1998 — 6/10/98 The sidewalk was ramped at: 105, 202, 301 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at Davey's Locker 6/9/98 The sidewalk was ground at: 801 E. Balboa Blvd. on Main St. 1999 — 1/15/99 The sidewalk was replaced at: 204 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at Davey's Locker 2000 — 4/3/00 The sidewalk was ramped at: 100, 106, 105, 107, 200, 301 Main St. 4/6/00 The sidewalk was ground at: 202, 205, 300 Main St. TREE INSPECTION REPORT Name: Balboa Village Improvement Project Address: 105 Main St. Phone Number: N/A Request: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street Botanical Name: tree site #15 Ficus microcarpa `Nitida' Common Name: Indian Laurel Fig Designated Street Tree: Eucalyptus torquata (Coral Gum) Estimated Total Tree Value: $8,598 Damage: See attached history of repairs Parkway: Concrete Brick Turf Other Comments: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street which includes removal of tree and installation of a 36" box size Coral Gum during construction phase of project Inspected by: Date: April 10, 2002 John Conway Recommendation: Forward to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for review and public comment on May 7, 2002 Reviewed by: Date: April 10, 2002 Marcelino G. Lomeli HISTORY OF REPAIRS MAIN STREET 1997 — Sidewalk inspections, no ramps or grinds needed 1998 — 6/10/98 The sidewalk was ramped at: 105, 202, 301 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at Davey's Locker 6/9/98 The sidewalk was ground at: 801 E. Balboa Blvd. on Main St. 1999 — 1/15/99 The sidewalk was replaced at: 204 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at Davey's Locker 2000 — 4 /3 /00 The sidewalk was ramped at: 100, 106, 105, 107, 200, 301 Main St. 4/6/00 The sidewalk was ground at: 202, 205, 300 Main St. TREE INSPECTION REPORT Name: Balboa Village Improvement Project Address: 107 Main St. Phone Number: N/A Request: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street Botanical Name: tree site #16 Ficus microcarpa `Nitida' Common Name: Indian Laurel Fig Designated Street Tree: Eucalyptus torquata (Coral Gum) Estimated Total Tree Value: $6,372 Damage: See attached history of repairs Parkway: Concrete Brick Turf Other Comments: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street which includes removal of tree and installation of a 36" box size Coral Gum during construction phase of project Inspected by: Date: April 10, 2002 John Conway Recommendation: Forward to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for review and public comment on May 7, 2002 Reviewed by: Date: April 10, 2002 Marcelino G. Lomeli HISTORY OF REPAIRS MAIN STREET 1997 — Sidewalk inspections, no ramps or grinds needed 1998 — 6/10/98 The sidewalk was ramped at: 105, 202, 301 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at Davey's Locker 6/9/98 The sidewalk was ground at: 801 E. Balboa Blvd. on Main St. 1999 — 1/15/99 The sidewalk was replaced at: 204 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at Davey's Locker 2000 — 4/3/00 The sidewalk was ramped at: 100, 106, 105, 107, 200, 301 Main St. 4/6/00 The sidewalk was ground at: 202, 205, 300 Main St. TREE INSPECTION REPORT Name: Balboa Village Improvement Project Address: 107 Main St. Phone Number: N/A Request: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street Botanical Name: tree site #17 Ficus microcarpa `Nitida' Common Name: Indian Laurel Fig Designated Street Tree: Eucalyptus torquata (Coral Gum) Estimated Total Tree Value: $5,685 Damage: See attached history of repairs Parkway: Concrete Brick Turf Other Comments: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street which includes removal of tree and installation of a 36" box size Coral Gum during construction phase of project Inspected by: Date: April 10, 2002 John Conway Recommendation: Forward to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for review and public comment on May 7, 2002 Reviewed by: Date: April 10, 2002 Marcelino G. Lomeli HISTORY OF REPAIRS MAIN STREET 1997 — Sidewalk inspections, no ramps or grinds needed 1998 — 6/10/98 The sidewalk was ramped at: 105, 202, 301 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at Davey's Locker 6/9/98 The sidewalk was ground at: 801 E. Balboa Blvd. on Main St. 1999 — 1/15/99 The sidewalk was replaced at: 204 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at Davey's Locker 2000 — 4/3/00 The sidewalk was ramped at: 100, 106, 105, 107, 200, 301 Main St. 4/6/00 The sidewalk was ground at: 202, 205, 300 Main St. TREE INSPECTION REPORT Name: Balboa Village Improvement Project Address: 111 Main St. Phone Number: N/A Request: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street Botanical Name: tree site #18 Ficus microcarpa `Nitida' Common Name: Indian Laurel Fig Designated Street Tree: Eucalyptus torquata (Coral Gum) Estimated Total Tree Value: $5,069 Damage: See attached history of repairs Parkway: Concrete Brick Turf Other Comments: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street which includes removal of tree and installation of a 36" box size Coral Gum during construction phase of project Inspected by: Date: April 10, 2002 John Conway Recommendation: Forward to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for review and public comment on May 7, 2002 Reviewed by: Date: April 10, 2002 Marcelino G. Lomeli HISTORY OF REPAIRS MAIN STREET 1997 — Sidewalk inspections, no ramps or grinds needed 1998 — 6/10/98 The sidewalk was ramped at: 105, 202, 301 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at Davey's Locker 6/9/98 The sidewalk was ground at: 801 E. Balboa Blvd. on Main St. 1999 — 1/15/99 The sidewalk was replaced at: 204 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at Davey's Locker 2000 — 4/3/00 The sidewalk was ramped at: 100, 106, 105, 107, 200, 301 Main St. 4/6/00 The sidewalk was ground at: 202, 205, 300 Main St. TREE INSPECTION REPORT Name: Balboa Village Improvement Project Address: 111 Main St. Phone Number: N/A Request: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street Botanical Name: tree site #19 Ficus microcarpa `Nitida' Common Name: Indian Laurel Fig Designated Street Tree: Eucalyptus torquata (Coral Gum) Estimated Total Tree Value: $7,817 Damage: See attached history of repairs Parkway: Concrete Brick Turf Other Comments: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street which includes removal of tree and installation of a 36" box size Coral Gum during construction phase of project Inspected by: Date: April 10, 2002 John Conway Recommendation: Forward to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for review and public comment on May 7, 2002 Reviewed by: Marcelino G. Lomeli April 10, 2002 0 HISTORY OF REPAIRS MAIN STREET 1997 — Sidewalk inspections, no ramps or grinds needed 1998 — 6/10/98 The sidewalk was ramped at: 105, 202, 301 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at Davey's Locker 6/9/98 The sidewalk was ground at: 801 E. Balboa Blvd. on Main St. 1999 — 1/15/99 The sidewalk was replaced at: 204 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at Davey's Locker 2000 — 4/3/00 The sidewalk was ramped at: 100, 106, 105, 107, 200, 301 Main St. 4/6/00 The sidewalk was ground at: 202, 205, 300 Main St. TREE INSPECTION REPORT Name: Balboa Village Improvement Project Address: 716 E. Balboa Blvd. Phone Number: N/A Request: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street Botanical Name: tree site #20 Ficus microcarpa `Nitida' Common Name: Indian Laurel Fig Designated Street Tree: Eucalyptus torquata (Coral Gum) Estimated Total Tree Value: $13,549 Damage: See attached history of repairs Parkway: Concrete Brick Turf Other Comments: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street which includes removal of tree and installation of a 36" box size Coral Gum during construction phase of project Inspected by: John Conway April 10, 2002 Recommendation: Forward to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for review and public comment on May 7, 2002 Reviewed by: Marcelino G. Lomeli Date: April 10, 2002 HISTORY OF REPAIRS MAIN STREET 1997 — Sidewalk inspections, no ramps or grinds needed 1998 — 6/10/98 The sidewalk was ramped at: 105, 202, 301 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at Davey's Locker 6/9/98 The sidewalk was ground at: 801 E. Balboa Blvd. on Main St. 1999 — 1/15/99 The sidewalk was replaced at: 204 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at Davey's Locker 2000 — 4/3/00 The sidewalk was ramped at: 100, 106, 105, 107, 200, 301 Main St. 4/6/00 The sidewalk was ground at: 202, 205, 300 Main St. TREE INSPECTION REPORT Name: Balboa Village Improvement Project Address: 205 Main St. Phone Number: N/A Request: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street Botanical Name: tree site #21 Ficus microcarpa `Nitida' Common Name: Indian Laurel Fig Designated Street Tree: Eucalyptus torquata (Coral Gum) Estimated Total Tree Value: $9,404 Damage: See attached history of repairs Parkway: Concrete Brick Turf Other Comments: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street which includes removal of tree and installation of a 36" box size Coral Gum during construction phase of project Inspected by: John Conway Date: April 10, 2002 Recommendation: Forward to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for review and public comment on May 7, 2002 Reviewed by: Marcelino G. Lomeli Date: April 10, 2002 U HISTORY OF REPAIRS MAIN STREET 1997 — Sidewalk inspections, no ramps or grinds needed 1998 — 6/10/98 The sidewalk was ramped at: 105, 202, 301 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at Davey's Locker 6/9/98 The sidewalk was ground at: 801 E. Balboa Blvd. on Main St. 1999 — 1/15/99 The sidewalk was replaced at: 204 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at Davey's Locker 2000 — 4/3/00 The sidewalk was ramped at: 100, 106, 105, 107, 200, 301 Main St. 4/6/00 The sidewalk was ground at: 202, 205, 300 Main St. TREE INSPECTION REPORT Name: Balboa Village Improvement Project Address: 301 '/2 Main St. Phone Number: N/A Request: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street Botanical Name: tree site #22 Ficus microcarpa `Nitida' Common Name: Indian Laurel Fig Designated Street Tree: Eucalyptus torquata (Coral Gum) Estimated Total Tree Value: $7,438 Damage: See attached history of repairs Parkway: Concrete Brick Turf Other Comments: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street which includes removal of tree and installation of a 36" box size Coral Gum during construction phase of project Inspected by: John Conway Date: April 10, 2002 Recommendation: Forward to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for review and public comment on May 7, 2002 Reviewed by: Marcelino G. Lomeli Date: April 10, 2002 HISTORY OF REPAIRS MAIN STREET 1997 — Sidewalk inspections, no ramps or grinds needed 1998 — 6/10/98 The sidewalk was ramped at: 105, 202, 301 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at Davey's Locker 6/9/98 The sidewalk was ground at: 801 E. Balboa Blvd. on Main St. 1999 — 1/15/99 The sidewalk was replaced at: 204 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at Davey's Locker 2000 — 4/3/00 The sidewalk was ramped at: 100, 106, 105, 107, 200, 301 Main St. 4/6/00 The sidewalk was ground at: 202, 205, 300 Main St. TREE INSPECTION REPORT Name: Balboa Village Improvement Project Address: 303 Main St. Phone Number: N/A Request: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street Botanical Name: tree site #23 Ficus microcarpa `Nitida' Common Name: Indian Laurel Fig Designated Street Tree: Eucalyptus torquata (Coral Gum) Estimated Total Tree Value: $4,192 Damage: See attached history of repairs Parkway: . Concrete Brick Turf Other Comments: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street which includes removal of tree and installation of a 36" box size Coral Gum during construction phase of project Inspected by: John Conway April 10, 2002 Recommendation: Forward to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for review and public comment on May 7, 2002 Reviewed by: Date: April 10, 2002 Marcelino G. Lomeli HISTORY OF REPAIRS MAIN STREET 1997 — Sidewalk inspections, no ramps or grinds needed 1998 — 6/10/98 The sidewalk was ramped at: 105, 202, 301 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at Davey's Locker 6/9/98 The sidewalk was ground at: 801 E. Balboa Blvd. on Main St. 1999 — 1/15/99 The sidewalk was replaced at: 204 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at Davey's Locker 2000 — 4/3/00 The sidewalk was ramped at: 100, 106, 105, ,107, 200, 301 Main St. 4/6/00 The sidewalk was ground at: 202, 205, 300 Main St. TREE INSPECTION REPORT Name: Balboa Village Improvement Project Address: 305 Main St. Phone Number: N/A Request: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street Botanical Name: tree site #24 Ficus microcarpa `Nitida' Common Name: Indian Laurel Fig Designated Street Tree: Eucalyptus torquata (Coral Gum) Estimated Total Tree Value: $5,685 Damage: See attached history of repairs Parkway: Concrete Brick Turf Other Comments: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street which includes removal of tree and installation of a 36" box size Coral Gum during construction phase of project Inspected by: Date: April 10, 2002 John Conway Recommendation: Forward to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for review and public comment on May 7, 2002 Reviewed by: Date: April 10, 2002 Marcelino G. Lomeli HISTORY OF REPAIRS MAIN STREET 1997 — Sidewalk inspections, no ramps or grinds needed 1998 — 6/10/98 The sidewalk was ramped at: 105, 202, 301 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at Davey's Locker 6/9/98 The sidewalk was ground at: 801 E. Balboa Blvd. on Main St. 1999 — 1/15/99 The sidewalk was replaced at: 204 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at Davey's Locker 2000 — 4/3/00 The sidewalk was ramped at: 100, 106, 105, 107, 200, 301 Main St. 4/6/00 The sidewalk was ground at: 202, 205, 300 Main St. TREE INSPECTION REPORT Name: Balboa Village Improvement Project Address: 305 Main St. Phone Number: N/A Request: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street Botanical Name: tree site #24 Ficus microcarpa `Nitida' Common Name: Indian Laurel Fig Designated Street Tree: Eucalyptus torquata (Coral Gum) Estimated Total Tree Value: $5,685 Damage: See attached history of repairs Parkway: Concrete Brick Turf Other Comments: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street which includes removal of tree and installation of a 36" box size Coral Gum during construction phase of project Inspected by: John Conway April 10, 2002 Recommendation: Forward to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for review and public comment on May 7, 2002 Reviewed by: Marcelino G. Lomeli Date: April 10, 2002 HISTORY OF REPAIRS MAIN STREET 1997 — Sidewalk inspections, no ramps or grinds needed 1998 — 6/10/98 The sidewalk was ramped at: 105, 202, 301 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at Davey's Locker 6/9/98 The sidewalk was ground at: 801 E. Balboa Blvd. on Main St. 1999 — 1/15/99 The sidewalk was replaced at: 204 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at Davey's Locker 2000 — 4/3/00 The sidewalk was ramped at: 100, 106, 105, 107, 200, 301 Main St. 4/6/00 The sidewalk was ground at: 202, 205, 300 Main St. TREE INSPECTION REPORT Name: Balboa Village Improvement Project Address: 814 E. Bay Ave. Phone Number: N/A Request: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street Botanical Name: tree site #25 Ficus microcarpa `Nitida' Common Name: Indian Laurel Fig Designated Street Tree: Eucalyptus torquata (Coral Gum) Estimated Total Tree Value: $9,404 Damage: See attached history of repairs Parkway: Concrete Brick Turf Other Comments: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street which includes removal of tree and installation of a 36" box size Coral Gum during construction phase of project Inspected by: John Conway Date: April 10, 2002 Recommendation: Forward to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for review and public comment on May 7, 2002 Reviewed by: Date: April 10, 2002 Marcelino G. Lomeli HISTORY OF REPAIRS MAIN STREET 1997 — Sidewalk inspections, no ramps or grinds needed 1998 — 6/10/98 The sidewalk was ramped at: 105, 202, 301 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at Davey's Locker 6/9/98 The sidewalk was ground at: 801 E. Balboa Blvd. on Main St. 1999 — 1/15/99 The sidewalk was replaced at: 204 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at Davey's Locker 2000 — 4/3/00 The sidewalk was ramped at: 100, 106, 105, 107, 200, 301 Main St. 4/6/00 The sidewalk was ground at: 202, 205, 300 Main St. ooz In LL. i E o o ccl 137 410 CV) 7v IS 0OVS Op 41 VIVIOW AV AV W ti C Q-4 v Q 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS ASSIGNMENT 1 ANALYSIS AND INVESTIGATION PROCESS 2 OBSERVATIONS 2 General Site Conditions' 2 . General Tree and Field Conditions 3 Tree Appraisal and Evaluation 3 DISCUSSION 6 Existing Ficus Trees and Alternate Street Tree Discussion 6 Root Pruning Assessment 7 Costs of Root Pruning, Roof Barriers, Excavation, and Concrete Work 7 Root Barrier Assessment 8 Impact of Retention Measures on Health and Longevity of Trees 8 Proposed'Hardscape and Street Improvement Design Alternatives 10 Three Proposed Alternative Street Trees 11 CONCLUSIONS APPENDIX Existing Ficus Tree Assessment Exhibit Tree Appraisal Photo - simulations of Proposed Alternatiye Street Trees Root Barrier Placement Diagram Soil Analysis Report t2 City of Newport Beach Ficus Landmark Trees ASSIGNMENT Integrated Urban Forestry (IUF), a division of David Evans and Associates (DEA), has been retained by the City of Newport Beach to provide consulting arboricultural services for the twenty-five Indian Laurel Fig, Ficus microcarpa nitida, trees located on Main Street on the Balboa Peninsula The City is currently considering the best alterhatives available, such as removal of the trees or performing remedial work to include the trees in a major streetscape plan, known as Balboa Village Rehabilitation Project. The City's Main Street has long been an historic and popular community and tourist gathering area. For many years, the City Ficus trees have been part of the character of the area. To many people the trees are considered an integral part of the area's culture and charm, while others have less affinity for the trees. As a result retention of the. Ficus; which are designated City Landmark trees per City Council Policy G -1, has become controversial. In preparation for redevelopment plans for this area, the City of Newport Beach is now considering alternatives of either removing the trees or performing remedial work to include the trees in a new streetscape improvement plan. In this plan, existing sidewalks . will be removed and replaced with colored, textured concrete. To help resolve the tree issue, IUF has provided an independent assessment of the trees and conducted an evaluation of options and costs associated with the proposed scenarios available: In our assessment, we have made recommendations on three new street trees that are appropriate for the coastal and specific site conditions. In this process, photo - simulations have been created for the purpose of visually presenting the proposed alternative tree species. The purpose of this report with recommendations and photo- simulations is to assist the City in.this important decision making process.. In order to complete the project goals of the City, the following tasks have been identified for presentation in this report: Task I- Assess the value of the existing trees based on Intem�tional Society of Arboriculture (ISA) standards Task 2- Assess if trees.can be root pruned on all sides and root barriers installed Task 3- Estimate cost of root pruning: root barriers, excavation, and concrete work Task 4- Assess the probability of root barriers to contain roots over 20 years Task 5- Assess the impact, if any, of the retention measures on health and longevity of the trees Task 6- Attend two public meetings, separate item Task 7- Three recommendations for. an appropriate replacement street tree - City Landmark Ficus Trees - Page I Arboricultural Services - 01PROJECT\N%Nbch00oWjcus revisions 3.doc ANALYSIS AND INVESTIGATION PROCESS Our first step was to meet with key City personnel to receive input on community and merchant needs and concerns and to. secure all pertinent information, data, and background that may be available. Specific community and merchant concerns regarding; aesthetics; canopy size, root damage, and tree heritage were all communicated to us by City staff. It was expressed that part of the community fayorS retaining the trees, while part favors removal. We also obtained for review tree lists, City standards, pruning and maintenance information, and relevant public works data that included salt water intrusion depths in the soil as well as an aerial map with utility locations. We also received plans for the proposed Balboa Village Rehabilitation Project. All materials received were reviewed and considered, with particular attention to lists of trees rejected by the community and City staff. On site field investigation and observation by IUF arborists consisted of an evaluation and appraisal of all twenty -five Indian.Laurel Fig, Ficus microcarpa nitida, trees utilizing International Society of Arboriculture Standards. Documentation obtained for the appraisals consisted of. (l) measurement of plant size (trunk diameter, tree height, canopy width); (2) species rating; (3) current condition (overall health, injuries, overt hazard status; etc.); and (4) location factors, as described in the Guide for Plant Appraisal, Eighth Edition. Soil samples were taken from the existing tree cutouts to a laboratory for analysis. Of particular concern are the potential salt, sulfur, and high ph levels that might exist in the soil. While on site, general observations were made regarding vehicular and pedestrian traffic flow and patterns, and notes about related signage and site lighting. Attention was given to people using the space and the overall aesthetics created by the presence of the trees. Y General Site Conditions: The trees are located in an historic and popular commercial district on Main Street on the Balboa Peninsula. Vehicular traffic on the adjacent major arterial Balboa Boulevard is regular to heavy at times, with 2 lanes of traffic running in each direction.. Stop lights are installed at the intersection of Balboa Boulevard and Main Street. Main Street, however, is a less congested side street beginning beachside and ruining inland with 2 lanes of traffic in one direction. Since this area is a popular destination point for the local community as well as tourists, there is'a moderate to heavy flow of pedestrian traffic: and activity in the area. With the adjacent beach, pedestrian traffic fluctuates depending on . the season. Lighting for the community is emitted from existing street lights present at approximately 25, feet on center and from lighting installed on building facades. Signage for the local businesses is limited to small, non - obtrusive signs that are contained within the building facades. Size and height restrictions on business signage contribute to the overall character of the community. Ciry Landmark Ficus Trees Arboricultural Services 0:\PR0JECT\N\Nbch0008\Ficus revisions 3.4oc Page 2 ..General Tree and Field Conditions: The Ficus trees are located within the coastal zone, all within less than %2 mile of the ocean. This meads that these trees have to withstand conditions of coastal winds and salt spray. The City of Newport Beach Public Works Department has informed us that the salt water intrusion level is at a 5 to 6 foot depth. The trees were planted during the 1960's within approximately 3' x 3' cutouts in the sidewalk, making them approximately 35 -40 years old. Evidence of root encroachment into hardscape is present. There are signs of roots cracking concrete sidewalks and of past repairs with asphalt patches. Root encroachment into the local businesses and the resulting damage was indicated at our first meeting. ' Considering the restricted planter size, coastal conditions, and saltwater intrusion level limiting root growth, the Ficus are thriving quite well. The City has pruned the trees annually to confine the canopy in the allotted space and prevent interference with building facades. Trees are shaped to allow for tall delivery trucks for local businesses to pass through. Purrent pruning practices. are succeeding at creating good branch structure and opening up the canopy. The crown is shaped nicely to fit. within the restricted space. Typically if the trees were located in an open area, similar to the Ficus trees in front of City Hall, the crown would be allowed to grow to a larger and fuller size. Even with the crown size reduced slightly to fit within this space,.the crown appears to be shaped nicely to present a full overhead canopy. With root pruning occurring as needed; the practice of restricting the volume of roots is also helping to limit canopy growth of the trees. It is out opinion that further reshaping of the crown would not contribute to the trees' appeal, nor is it feasible considering the age and development of the trees. With the age and maturity of the trees, a full canopy that frames and encloses.the space has been created. This dense, full canopy covers the community creating a protected space for pedestrians desiring shade. Within this overhead canopy, a comfortable microclimate is maintained. In addition, the trees act to soften the buildings and frame -the view down Main Street of the Pacific Ocean. Task 1- Tree Appraisal and Evaluation: A. tree evaluation and appraisal by IUF arborists was made on twenty-five Ficus trees; see the attached Exhibit. This consisted of an assessment of the overall health and condition related to crown development, trunk condition, major branch structure, growth rate,. foliage, hatmf it insects and diseases, injuries, overt hazard status, and exposed root flarestroots. Documentation was obtained for the appraisals and consisted of. (1) measurementof the tree size (trunk diameter, tree height, canopy width); (2) species . rating; (3) current condition (overall health, injuries, overt hazard status, etc.); and (4) location factors, as described in the Guide for Plant Appraisal, Eighth Edition. The Trunk Formula Method of appraisal was used. Data to determine replacement cost was obtained from local nursery sources, and is based. on what they consider to be the largest City Landmark Ficus Trees Page 3 Arboricultural Services 0:\PR0JEMNMNbch00081Ficus revisions 3.doc commonly available size for that particular species. The following data and rationale is the basis for the appraisal. Species Rating: A value of 90% was assigned to these trees, per our Table' 1 Exhibit. This data was obtained from a publication from the Western Chapter of the ISA entitled, Species Classification and Group Assignment. 'According to this, a Ficus microcarpa nitida planted in a seacoast area of Southern California is given a classification of 1 (90 %). Factors considered in this rating include•, climate and soil adaptability, growth characteri§tics, and resistance or tolerance to diseases and insects. The Ficus in this area have proven to be solid performers, tolerant of seacoast conditions, salt water intrusion, and restricted planter space. Despite these conditions, the trees have thrived within this environment and proven extremely adaptable. Many other species would be hard pressed to survive under these conditions. Condition: A rating of 70% was assigned to these trees. Trees were scored on' structure and health on the following factors: roots, trunk, scaffold branches; small branches and twigs, and foliage and/or buds. The condition rating is determined by the sum of the rating scores for each of the five factors. Roots -were given the lowest score, receiving a score of 2 out of a possible 8, for structure and health. Root pruning puts the tree at risk in several ways. First, it creates a potential overturn hazard by severely. reducing its anchorage and support system.'Second, crown growth is reduced since the source for nutrient uptake is now restricted. Lastly, when the root area is covered by sidewalks or streets, the health and longevity of trees can be substantially reduced. The above rating is based upon known plant and root responses to certain circumstances, but until the pavement is removed and the roots are actually observed, it is difficult to accurately assess root condition. The health and condition of each tree may be different. Furthermore, it is difficult to assess the ability of these roots to withstand additional pruning, especially during times of major reconstruction of hardscape and utilities, as dictated by -the plans provided by the City Public Works Department. Severe root pruning will be necessary for the installation of linear root barriers adjacent to the street and for the surrounding utilities and hardscape. Based on our experience with Ficus trees and data . obtained from several cities, there is a high probability of survival for the trees due to their known resiliency and high tolerance of root pruning. If some of the trees do die during this process, this will jeopardize the uniform appearance of the community.: With the trees that do survive the,pruning, there are stability issues that can't be predicted. Public safety becomes the larger issue. Trunks were rated fairly high, receiving 6 out of 8 possible. Some evidence of mechanical damage (past pruning) was present on several trees. Most appeared sound, with no cracks or presence of insects-or disease. Scaffold branches were given a 7 out of 8. The following was observed: -strong branch attachments, well City Landmark Ficus Trees - Page 4 Arboricultural Services - 0: \PRO]EC'RN\Nbch0008\Ficus revisions 3.doc pruned, wound closure, well - proportioned. with proper taper; and free of dead wood. Small branches and twigs were rated 3 out of 4 possible. Vigor of current shoots,. well distributed through the canopy, and no presence of weak or dead twigs were all observed. The foliage was rated a 4 out of 4 possible. All the trees have good coloratioh of the foliage, no nutrient deficiencies, no wilted or dead leaves, and are free of insects and disease. Out of a total possible of 32, the trees received 22, giving them a conservative 70% rating. Location: A location rating of 80% was assigned to the trees. The location rating includes three components:_ site, contribution, and placement. Each of these , components is assigned a percentage rating. The average of the three component ratings determines the overall location rating. The site component is expressed by its relative market value within the area in which the site is located. A site is rated in relation to the value of other areas in the same city, county, or region, including the area's economic, functional, and aesthetic aspects. A 90% rating was given for site, considering the popularity and exclusiveness of the Balboa Peninsula area. The, contribution component is determined by its functional and aesthetic contributions that influence its value. These benefits may be affected by plant size, shape, branch structure, foliage density, and distribution. In this case, the trees contribute heavily to the aesthetics of the area through their mature size, significant canopy, and heritage in the community. A rating of 90% was -. assigned. The placement of a tree may determine how effective it is in providing its functional and aesthetic attributes. In this case, placement of these trees in small cut -outs within. sidewalks is not desirable, for plant health and future root . encroachment problems. High levels of maintenance are required to maintain these trees in the restricted planter areas. With growth habits known for these trees now, different decisions on tree selection would probably be made than were forty years ago. Again, despite poor placement decisions and the high maintenance costs that have resulted, from a health standpoint they have performed well. Placement in the site is also important from an aesthetic viewpoint. Here, the trees frame the view of the ocean, create a lush overhead canopy, and softenbuilding facades. A (0% rating was given to placement, resulting in an overall rating of 80% for the three categories. J City LaMrnarkFicus Trees Page 5 Arboricultural Services - OAPROJEC nN\Nbch000&\Ficus revisions Moc DISCUSSION Existing Ficus Trees and Alternative Street Tree Discussion: Challenging growth conditions exist on the site. Within the coastal zone, trees -are exposed to winds, salt spray, and a salt water intrusion level at a 5 -6 foot depth. Over their approximately 40 year life span, the trees have proven to be very well suited to this site. Despite the harsh conditions that exist, the trees have adapted well and even flourished, developing a lush overhead canopy. The trees have been designated as City Landmark trees. Enduring many conditions over a 40 year period, they have "earned" their place in the heritage of the area; , The desire for the City to have a tree with a canopy that is to scale with the Main Street architecture is important. A broad, overhead canopy has developed on the existing trees. Any new tree proposed will take 15 -20 years to develop a canopy as large as provided by the existing Ficus trees. Very few species of trees exist that will grow well within the site conditions. Listed in this report, we have selected 3 trees that are well adapted to coastal conditions. The salt water intrusion level further complicates the decision. We believe that the roots on the . proposed trees will stay above this level, as in the case of the Ficus trees, but we do not know for certain how the roots will respond. The.performance and growth of a new street tree is somewhat unpredictable due to unforeseen factors and may not meet the expectations of the community and City. Since the community has been living with these trees for many years, the management issues, costs, and problems that are associated with Ficus trees are more known, along with its performance. The Landmark Ficus trees have performed well, in terms of appearance, canopy size, and health, for approximately 40 years thus far. With proper management and sound cultural. practices; some of which are discussed below, we would expect these trees to live at least. another 30 years and possibly longer. Within Southern California, known specimens exist that are over 100 years old. Of course with respect to destruction ofhardscape and sewer lines, they have not performed well. Trees are located within proximity of existing sewer and water lines. A: indicated on plans obtained from the Public Works`Deparztment, existing sewer and water lines that run along Main Street are as follows: an 8" sewer line runs under the west side of Main Street 5' out from the front of curb and 13' away from Ficus trees on the west side; a 6" sewer and 2" water line run under the sidewalk 7' in from the back of curb on the east side and only about 5' from trees on the east side; and a 4" water line runs on the west side of Main just in back of the curb under the sidewalk and less than 2' from the Ficus trees. Any trees, whether existing or new, will eventually have to. contend with existing sewer lines in proximity. City Landmark Ficus Trees page 6 Arboricultural Services 01PR0JECTWtNbch0008\Ficus revisions 3.doc Task 2 - Root Pruning Assessment: The roots of the Ficus.trees have adapted well to the limited space in which they have to grow. Most root growth of trees is found in the upper 12 -36 inches ofsoil. In this case in particular, the roots have stayed above the 5 -6 foot salt water intrusion depth and have probably followed surrounding wet and dry lines for water and space respectively. Except for minimal root pruning that occurred five years ago to the trees on the north side of Main Street, to accommodate hardscape repairs, the City has not root pruned these . trees. It is our opinion that root pruning puts the trees' health and stability at risk and should only be continued in a judicious manner, only where appropriate. There are two considerations in evaluating root pruning: removal of support or anchoring roots and removal of absorbing roots. Research contained within the ISA publication, The Landscape Below Ground II, contains a table for estimated minimum rooting area by tree - diameter. A Ficus tree with a trunk diameter of 17 inches has a critical rooting distance . of a 21 foot radius, and a tree with a 21 inch diameter trunk has a critical rooting distance of a 26 foot radius. The book, Arboriculture by Richard Harris, suggests a root -shoot ratio of 115 to 1 /6, meaning the top is five to six times heavier than the roots., Eliminating large root sections as often as every six months reduces the tree anchorage system, putting the tree at risk for falling over in a public space. If roots are pruned too much and too close, potential damage to surrounding buildings as well as possible harm to the health and safety of the public may result. Removing the shallow, absorbing roots can also cause immediate water stress to, the .tree. The ability of the tree to survive that impact is linked to its tolerance of water stress and ability to form new roots rapidly. Also, by removing uptake roots, the potential for crown growth is reduced. The long term effect is chronic stress on the tree from a reduced root system. Task 3 - Costs of Root pruning, Root Barriers, Excavation, and Concrete Work: The cost for root pruning as obtained from local sources is $10.00 per linear foot,. depending on soil conditions. The cost to both root prune and install 12" linear root barriers would be $18.00 per linear foot for both labor and material. This price does not include the removal and repair of hardscape. Refer to the Cost Analysis for Maintaining the Main Street Ficus Trees prepared by the Public Works Department for projected concrete repair costs. Based on a total estimated linear footage of 1350', assuming that a panel is sunning at the back of the curb the entire length of the street and on all four sides of the trees, as obtained from Public Works site. plans, the total cost would be $24,300. Refer to the diagtam in the Appendix section. These costs reflect installation with existing trees and digging in compacted soils that typically exist at the edge of streets. Prices include hand digging and no sawcutting or curb removal. Linear barriers should be installed the entire length of the street. Installation of root barriers and-root cutting would happen concurrently with excavation for street improvements. As is discussed in other sections, there is a risk of tree failure if roots are pruned too closely and/or on all sides at the same time. At the'time'of excavation and pruning, all trees should be City Landmark Ficus Trees - Page 7 Arboricuhural Services 0.%PROJECTNWbch0008\Ficus revisions 3.doc inspected and tested for root health, anchorage, and tree stability. If root pruning occurs at this time, they should be inspected again for stability. Task 4 - Root Barrier Assessment: Research indicates that root barriers can substantially reduce root biomass in the top foot of soil within a 3 foot radius from the trunk: Whether such results translate into less conflict between root and sidewalks over time is still in question. From our experience' and observation, we have seen root barriers to be only a temporary solution. They are merely an attempt to delay the inevitable. If properly installed, we would expect the roots to probably be contained for a 10 year period, but would expect less favorable results over a 20 year period. Some encroachments will'probably still occur. Studies to evaluate the long term success of root barriers are still in process. We have also observed that trees in root control barriers do not grow quite as fast as those not confined. In compacted soils, roots may be confined to the barrier and the trees become unstable as they increase in size. As roots enlarge, they occasionally lift the barrier in the ground. If the barriers are set too low, roots often grow over the top. If root barriers are to be used with the existing trees or with new street trees, we recommend using the linear type panels, as opposed to preformed boxes. Interlocking, semirigid panels can be placed parallel to the curb and out surrounding the trees on all sides. They should be sloped to direct loots downward with the upper edge above the soil line. These come in 2 foot widths and in 18, 24, 36, and 48 inch depths. Usually the 24 inch is. deep enough to impede roots, but would only install a 12" with the existing Ficus trees. If roots are cut close to the trunk, a shallower cut is preferred and safer for health and stability. Barriers would be installed at the same time excavation for street improvements takes place. Task 5 — .Impact of Retention Measures on Health and Longevity of Trees: We recommend pnly root pruning when conflicts arise and after evaluation that these measures need to be taken. However, if the City decides to root prune on a regular basis, .we would incorporate more stringent practices. Most'of the large roots will be in the upper 1 foot of soil; cutting roots deeper may snake the trees more subject to windthrow . with only little additional protection for the pavement: Regrowth is extremely rapid from most cut Ficus roots. On trees without barriers, sidewalks have been lifted within two to three years after they were repaired and the trees root pruned. Roots should only be cut �. on one, side and then allowed to grow at least three to four years before pruning the other . side to allow for sufficient regrowth and establishment. However, inspections of roots for encroachment should take place at more frequent intervals than this. Most cities we are aware of root prune only as needed and not on a regular maintenance schedule. Roots are going to grow where the conditions are best: 'aeration, soil, and water. Towards the street, soils are compacted for the roadbed. Roots will probably continue to grow out and seek water, from cracks in the sewer lines. If roots are not redirected with barriers, shallow roots will eventually lift any new public hardscape. Deeper roots, if not City Landmark Ficus Trees Page 8 Arboricultutal Services - 0APR0lEC7\N\Nbch0008\Ficus revisions 3.doc successfplly contained, could still enter into public or private merchant sewer systems causing damage. It is also difficult to predict future damage, other than more of what is already happening. As long as crowns are maintained in a reduced size, the City is probably experiencing close to the. full extent of damage that these mature trees will cause. Lift of sidewalks, curb. and gutter cracking; and damage to sewer lines in both -public -and private areas will probably continue. Without root barrier containment, it is difficult to predict what area of pavement would need to be removed to effectively prune the roots within a schedule that alternates root pruning of one tree side and then the other every 3 1/2 years. There are no established ISA standards for root pruning. Instead, we have found practices common to many cities with Ficus trees. Accordingly, we could estimate that they probably will need 8 -10 feet from the root crown for best tree health and stability. Most cities indicated the farther out pruning occurs the better, about 8'. In our experience and what we have learned from other cities, Ficus trees take severe root pruning very well. Their survivability is high, and they are rarely subject to toppling if pruned on only one side at a time. We have seen trees cut as close as 2 %2 to 3 feet. - - In-order for the Main Street Ficus trees to survive they have probably sent roots out for some distance to find the water they need. Without regular water, if these roots are cut too close, both the health and stability of the tree will be jeopardized. Regular water that will be provided by a new irrigation, system should allow for. closer root pruning.. . Given the current root control barrier technology and regular pruning schedule, City staff' will, probably be able to control the extent of property damage for quite some time, probably up to 10 years. Out to 20 years is hard to predict. If barrier installation is done upon construction, we suggest installing 12" linear type root barriers. Deeper than this is not recommended since it will involve cutting more roots and'putting stabilization at risk. These panel barriers should run the entire length of the street, backing the curb. The others ideally should be located as far out as possible from trunks to allow for sufficient root growth and stability. In many cities, they are creating longer tree wells to allow for this, such as a minimum 6' width by 8' length. If root pruning is to take place during project construction, crown reduction pruning should take place 6 months prior to root pruning. Root pruning and crown reduction should not take place at the same time; An air spade should be used for the installation of any utility or irrigation lines in proximity to the trees; this will prevent roots from being cut unnecessarily. If roots are pruned dong construction, the City should inspect each tree for tree stability. Ficus trees are tough, resilient trees when it.comes to urban abuse.. There are cities that we are aware of that root prune as close as 2 %Z to 3 feet, but this is only done on one side at a time when conflicts arise. They all might be resilient enough to survive the process, while a few might be lost, affecting the uniform appearance of Main Street. City Landmark Ficus Trees Page 9 Arboricultural Services O: \PR0JECT\N\Nbch0008\Ficus revisions 3.doc - One city we are aware of has been consistently root pruning their Ficus trees for many years. They have been observing decay on pruned roots.. It was explained to us that after many years of root pruning, the mature trees began to decline and eventually defoliate. The weakened trees became more susceptible to pests and were eventually infested with Red Spider Mite. After this slow decline, some of the trees eventually died and some fell over. Decay was observed inside the roots all the way up to the root crown in the fallen trees. Task 5 - Proposed Hardscape and Street Improvement Design-Alternatives: , While we recognize the costs to rdpair infrastructure damaged by root encroachment is substantial to both the City and private merchants, we would like to present alternatives that. would reduce or eliminate root pruning. Our goal is to work with the existing tree growth habits, instead of trying to intensely manage them, and thus reduce maintenance costs: Even with root pruning and root barriers, long teen conflicts with surrounding hardscape will probably still exist. A costly paving treatment will certainly have to be repaired or even removed and replaced over time. As stated earlier, the regular practice of root pruning will have detrimental effects on tree stability and health. With.this in mind, an alternative hardscape option is the use of a more flexible hardscape material that is easier and less costly to repair or replace. Interlocking pavers are now available from a variety of manufacturers in a variety. of patterns, shapes, and colors. We do not have special knowledge as to their use and success under high oscillating groundwater, but understand from a previous city consultant that they can be installed on an asphaltic subbase to protect pavers from sinking, as a sand base may wash away. If root conflicts arise, pavers can still be more easily removed, root problems removed, and the asphaltic base and pavers put back into place. It should be noted that even with the use of pavers, roots may continue to cause public property damage. They are commonly used in many public spaces, adding to the . aesthetics of the community. - With the.many design options available, we see the opportunity to use a material that works with the conditions on site and enhances the value of the area. We recognize that the success of the new proposed hardscape plan-is predicated on having wide sidewalks for pedestrians,and thus the 3' by 3' tree wells. Tree trunk diameters for the existing Ficus range from 15 inches to 27inches; the average diameter is 20 inches. In order for a 20 inch diameter Ficus to fit within a 3 foot wide planter, roots would have to be cut 8 inches from the root flare. We interviewed 5 cities with respect to their experiences with root pruning Ficus, and they all concur that Ficus are extremely resilient and tolerate excessive root pruning better than most other species. While cities have cut Ficus as close as 2 %z feet from the trunk, they have only. cut one.' side at a time, waiting 3 to 4 years before pruning the other side. Cutting as far out from the trunk as possible was preferred; 8 feet and farther if possible, but 5 to 6 feet may be acceptable: These afe general guidelines and each tree should be individually assessed. If more sides were cut at the same pruning, stability became an issue. Most cities only cut roots as encroachment problem arise, and not on a regular maintenance schedule. City Landmark Ficus Trees Page 10" Arboricultural services 0APR0JEMNWbch0008\Ficus revisions3.doc Also, the closer roots were pruned to the trunk, the shallower the trench was made for the cuts. With these comments inmind, other design alternatives may be implemented. Trees planted in pavement should ideally have an opening of at least 6.5 feet x 6.5 feet (Harris, 1992).. Curb problems can also be reduced if the trunk is at least 3 feet from the curb when the tree is mature. Maintaining the existing trees in a 3 foot by 3 foot tree well as not feasible. In order to create more root space, the tree well could be longer and . narrower, preferably a.minimum of 6 feet by 8 feet. With'a longer tree well, roots would not have to be cut so much on all sides. Customized tree grates could then be installed over the larger planter so pedestrian space is not sacrificed. Other design and management practices can also be implemented during the street renovation. The irrigation system can be designed with bubblers located in ABS pipe below grade. A pipe with holes on the underside could be connected at a 45 degree angle to allow water to percolate down, promoting deeper root growth. Also, sewer lines could be wrapped with Biobarrier. To prevent or at least delay the invasion of sewer lines, a sewer pipe would be wrapped wherever roots might come in contact with it. This would protect the joints and any cracks from invasion and greatly reduce the possibility of nearby expanding roots cracking or collapsing the pipe: Wrapping sewer lines with root resistant geotextiles.will not prevent joint or pipe cracking by roots, but it should keep invading roots from entering cracks. If a sewer line is not fractured or cracked, roots will not enter. Moisture from it sewer crack could result in excessive root growth adjacent to the crack causing further displacement. Task? - Three Proposed Alternative Street Trees: The following are three proposed alternative street trees that are well adapted to coastal conditions and should perform well on site. The pros and cons of each species are listed . along with nursery availability. The trees are not listed in order of priority. 1. Metrosideros excelsa- New Zealand.Christmas Tree 36" Box Planted Specifications: height 10 -12 feet, canopy spread 5-6 feet, trunk caliper 2 -3 inches, braQch clearance 5' /z feet Pros: Well suited to coastal conditions (wind, salt spray), clusters of scarlet flowers, compact, dense head, tolerant of moderate to high salinity and alkaline soils, drought tolerant Cons: Slow. growth rate to 30 feet and 20 foot spread, roots will crack sidewalks in tight planters, ideally needs 5 -6 foot cut -outs Nursery Availability: Lots of 24" box available now, can get 36" box sizes if nursery has time to contract grow, no 48" box available City Landmark Ficus Trees 1 _ - Page I 1 Arboricultural Services. - - 0:\PROJEC'TMNbch0008\F1cus revisions 3.doc 2. Podocarpus gracilior- Fern Pine 48" Box Planted Specifications: height 14 -16 feet, canopy spread 7 -8 feet, trunk caliper 4 inches, branch clearance 6 feet Pros: Suited to coastal conditions, large,.dense head, good.choice forclean and pest free street tree, tolerant of many soil conditions from moderate to high salinity, moderate growth rate, drought tolerant • , ' Cons: Up to 60 feet in height, should be planted in larger 8 foot cut -outs, roots will lift sidewalks in tight planters Nursery Availability: Best availability out of the three, 36" and 487 box readily available ; Swan Hill ", Fruitless Swan Hill Olivi 48" Box Planted Specifications: height 14 feet, canopy spread 10 -11 feet, trunk caliper 4 inches, branch clearance 2 V2-3 feet on a short standard Pros: No fruit, tolerant of coastal and drought conditions, disease resistance, graceful trunk, nice accent tree, moderate growth rate, 25 -30 feet height, 25 -30 feet spread Cons: Low branching, unknown as to how toots will respond to salt intrusion level, roots should stay above, should have 6 foot planter for roots Nursery Availability: All 36" box out of stock for 2 years, have plenty of 42" and 48" box in stock I I . - All of these trees have roots that are capable of lifting sidewalks as they mature and should be planted in tree wells larger than a 3 foot by 3 foot. In order for a sizeable canopy to develop on the new trees, sufficient space for root growth will be needed, preferably a minimum 4' by 6' planter space. As the crowns grow, they will need pruning to open up the trees, so as not to block merchant signage, and this will reduce crown size. CONCLUSIONS Replacement Trees: Many cultural and aesthetic requirements are placed on possible replacement trees. Newly planted street trees will take up to 20 years twattain the size and canopy as large as provided by the existing Ficus trees. It will take reef efforts to establish anything of, size.. Young trees will require thinning to eliminate blocked views of building signage, and thinning will reduce the crown size. We observed recent plantings of Metrosideros in the center medians on Balboa Avenue that did not appear to be performing well. The eventual performance of new trees under the site. conditions that exist can be unpredictable. Even though species have been carefully selected with regards to their City Landmark Ficus Trees Page 12 Arboricultural Services 0:\PROJECTNWbch0008\Ficus revisions 3.doc adaptation to seacoast exposure, unforeseen environmental conditions may exist that result in the trees not performing to the expectations of the community. As mentioned above, ,4 planter larger than a 3' by 3' is needed to allow for sufficient root growth to support development of the desired canopy. Retain Ficus Trees with No Root Pruning: The decision to retain the Ficus trees is complicated and weighted on many factors, some of which are presented in this report. There is a price to pay for this type of landscape element. The cost to retain the trees is not fully known but may be substantial, as presented in a Cost Analysis prepared by the Public Works Department. Maintenance to both the trees and infrastructure and claims that may arise are costly in terms of time, expense, and aggrevation. While we are aware of the resulting disturbances, we view them as known factors. The community and City already hag been working with the issues and costs involved with retaining the .trees for many years. With this in mind, we see that managing a known set of conditions may be easier than managing the-unknown alternatives. Retain the Ficus'Frees with Root Pruning and Crown Modification: If the trees are retained and contained within their space, then we recommend modifications_ to the proposed hardscape design. Excessive root pruning that would be necessary to confine roots in a 3 foot by 3 foot tree well may create a public risk with regards to tree stability. Pruning roots on all sides that close to-the trunk is not recommended. Second, Ficus trees are resilient when it comes to root pruning and urban abuse, but it is questionable as to whether these trees will survive this severe pruning. In other cities, only one side at a time is done so. closely every 3 to 4 years. Design alternatives that were discussed earlier such as, lengthening tree wells to accommodate root growth and lessen the amount of pruning required, installing tree grates, installing interlocking pavers on an asphalt base, and directing irrigation down to encourage deeper root growth are all management options that should be considered. Management activities and design solutions that work to accommodate the trees can be implemented. The existing Ficus trees provide a broad canopy for the community. They have been successful performers on site with coastal winds, salt spray, and salt water intrusion. They have endured many harsh conditions over their approximately 40 year life so far and still have managed to develop the overhead canopy that frames the community. If the new tfees perform well, a nice canopy will still take many years to achieve. With proper management and hardscape that works with the growth habits of the trees to create easier maintenance, the Landmark Ficus trees can benefit the community for many more years to come. Please note that the findings of this report• are tentative pending the results of the cost analysis. City Landmark Ficus Trees Page 13 Arboricultural Services O: \PROJECTW Wbch0008\Ficus revisions 3.doc • - c O m 'mom c c � O LL b 0 = 6 m Q � O Z 0 O a F U S ygc 8 S 12115 foil$ m!4 n 4 TTTZ� wR SR5 a pp Y Y yy xx Yy p}j xx yy 4 - RCf1a` d �I 33 9 1 R .11:8 R R R R R R R R R :11:11:1121:1121:11:11:1 R Ix R $ €$$$$5fl§ §s$8$8$e889 §flfle8$$ Q RRRQQAAAa IRRAS Q i��, O�gqtA$S�AAAARARAASAARA R$$RF ^qA R y�qA yR yA yyR yA yR yR yyS yy^ qqR gR yS gR $$I yA yA gC yyR gA ggR gAR�ARAgA ��� RRSRRIA S ygc 8 S K t Yai�*.; t nau' ��F s i — =0"-- " FMS YS fS �`� 11 f f+JJ h py f 'g ,may y 5} 0 L a F' sr 1 1 S n. I = - F- C: I .1 � -�'& F 3 j I 1 S \Y, 1 _. ; L, _ In e z s� r 9 " _. ; L, _ = v - _ I i 7 i =_ "; � ` **. if = v F C r i f r r r r 71. �.. =C =,. x ,tom' I" 1. �*Le `J f e a ,la^ � I. EXI5TING FICUS TREE OR NEW STREET TREE. 2. CONTINUOUS ROOT BARRIER PANEL AT BACK OF CURB AND TO SURROUND TREE ON ALL SIDES. 12° DEEP OR AS SPECIFIED. S. ROOT BALL 4. NATIVE SUBGRADE 5. ADJACENT SIDEWALK b. CURB AND GUTTER SIDEWALK CURB -1V BUILDING ` ROOT N.T.S. BARRIER . NOTE52 INSTALL ALL 5ARRIER5 PER MANUFACTURER'S 5PECIFICATIONS. IF THE CITY DECIDES TO INSTALL ROOT BARRIERS, THIS DIAGRAM REPRESENTS A SU06E5TED PLACEMENT AND DOE5 NOT GUARANTEE THE STABILITY, HEALTH, OR SURVIVABILITY OF THE TREES. ROOT �®NTROL BARRIER FLACEMENi SOIL AND PLANT LABORATORY, INC. Orange Office Lab No. 30768 January 25, 2001 Integrated Urban Forestry 23382 Mill Creek Dr., Suite 225 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Attn: Carrie Pryor CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Attached is a data sheet for analyses conducted on two samples received for the above project on January 16. Both samples are from Ficus nitida trees. Sample 1 is labeled Tree #3 and sample 2 is labeled Tree #14. Tree #3 The soil pH is slightly acidic in reaction and is favorable. The lime content, which has a tendency to buffer the pH, is low. Salinity (ECe), sodium and boron are safely low and pose no threat to normal plant growth. Sodium is well balanced by calcium and magnesium resulting in a low sodium adsorption ratio (SAR). Available nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium are well supplied at this time. Calcium and magnesium are adequate. The micronutrients copper, manganese, and zinc are well supplied with iron moderately low. Data indicate no chemistry problems and this soil should be suitable for the current plant material provided that proper horticultural practices are being followed. Tree #14 The soil pH is slightly alkaline in reaction with a medium lime content, which will buffer the pH in the alkaline range. Salinity (ECe), sodium and boron are again safely low and pose no hazard. The SAR indicates that the sodium that is present is well balanced by calcium and magnesium. Available nitrogen is low with phosphorus and potassium in good supply. Calcium and magnesium are adequate. Copper is elevated and higher than ideal, but likely not a potential hazard. Zinc is also higher than required for proper nutrition. Manganese is low with iron near optimum Overall the data for this location is acceptable. Copper and zinc are higher that necessary, but probably not a threat to normal plant growth. P.O. Box 6566. Orange, Cal6ornia 92063.6566 / V14) 28241777 FAX (714) 202.6575 P.O- Box 153, Santa pare, California 95952 -0153 / (408) 727.0330 FAX (408) 727 -5125 P.O. Box 1046. Sella", Washington 98069.1646 I (425) 746-6665 FAX (425) 582 -9531 6655 Patorrdno MCI% west unn. Oregon 070662505 1 (5o3) 657-4959 FAX (593) 557-0713 4 SOIL AND PLANT LABORATORY, INC. Page 2 Integrated Urban Forestry January 25, 2001 If desired an application of a nitrogen only fertilizer can be made for this tree. One option for supplying nitrogen would be to uniformly broadcast ammonium sulfate (21 -0 -0) below the drip line at a rate of 5 lbs. per 1000 sq. ft. followed by a thorough irrigation to move the fertilizer into the root zone. If this tree is installed in turf; the routine fertilization of the turf should be adequate and no additional fertilizer is necessary. If trees are to be replanted at these locations the following installation guidelines can be followed Tree Planting Guidelines Excavate the planting hole at least two to three times the diameter of the root ball and wider in areas of heavy clay or compacted soil. The planting hole should be excavated no deeper than root ball itself. The root ball should be situated slightly higher than final grade, a practice known as planting "high" or `proud ". Organic matter is not required in the backfill; however if desired, a soil blend consisting of no more than 20% organic matter by vohuve can be placed in the upper 12 inches of backfill only. Soil below this depth and below the root ball should not contain any additional organic matter. Slow release fertilizer tablets can be placed in the upper 12 inches of backfill soil at the manufacturer's recommended rate. An alternate option for improving the fertility of the backfill soil would be to uniformly incorporate 2 lbs. 6 -20-20 per cubic yard of backfill soil. Do not cover the top surface of the root ball with other soil. A temporary soil berm is often constructed around the outer edge of the root ball to help channel water through the root ball then into the surrounding soil. Ideally a weed and turf flee zone should be maintained just beyond the diameter of the planting hole. A 2-4 inch deep layer of coarse mulch can be placed around the tree; mulch should be kept a minimum 4-6 inches from the trunk. During the establishment period the soil moisture of the root ball and surrounding soil should be routinely monitored Please call if we can of additional assistance. JACK DAMONTE Balboa Village Rehabilitation Project Analysis of Costs to Retain the Main Street Ficus Trees May 8, 2001 Prepared by: City of Newport Beach Public Works Department C- XWNDOVVMTe WWY Mlemal F- 11"%OLKA7901to W Fi s Trees W Man Strae105 l.a Introduction The City of Newport Beach has initiated a program to rehabilitate the Balboa Village area. This project includes the widening of sidewalks and reconstruction of roadways including Main Street from Oceanfront to the Pavilion. Main Street is lined with twenty-four ficus trees. These trees have a root system that has damaged the road, curb and gutter, sidewalks, sewers, adjacent building foundations, and public and private sewer systems. The pavement broken by the ficus tree roots has created trip- and -fall hazards and claims have been made against the city. The material to be used for the streets and walkways for the Balboa Village project is a structural -grade colored concrete called lithocrete. This concrete paving is costly to install and the City wishes to maintain this pavement in good condition for safety and aesthetic reasons. It is important to determine if the ficus trees should be removed and replaced with a new tree species that does not have the same root problems. The city commissioned Integrated Urban Forestry (IUF) to evaluate the ficus tree. The IUF study discusses specific root mitigation methods: root pruning and installation of root barriers. The report recommends cautious use of root pruning in order to not jeopardize the health of the trees. The report notes that root barriers can be expected to provide a temporary solution with "roots probably ... contained for a 10 year period" and "less favorable results over a 20 year period ". To compliment the IUF analysis, the Public Works Department has prepared this evaluation of the range annual maintenance costs that could be expected in order to retain the twenty-four ficus trees on Main Street. Costs for Repair, Maintenance and Claims This analysis considered the following costs for retaining the twenty-four ficus trees: 1. Removing and replacing lithocrete sidewalks and roadway pavement. 2. Removing and replacing curb and gutter. 3. Enhanced maintenance for tree pruning, root trimming and root barrier installation. 4. Cleaning and repairing sewer laterals and mains. 5. Property damage claims due to root incursions. 6. Bodily injury claims due to trip- and -fall hazards created by the ficus tree roots lifting the pavement. CIWIND0WS%Temp0ary 1r st FIIes10LK 191ACOStl for F'tvs Trees an Main Sum 050901Aae Lithocrete Sidewalks and Roadway Pavement The proposed material for Main Street is a reinforced concrete pavement called Lithocrete. This lithocrete will include a granite material broadcast on top of the wet concrete and coated with a special sealant. Subsequently, a diamond pattern will be sawcut in and alternate diamonds stained. The cost for this material is $15.50 per square foot for the sidewalk and $16.40 per square foot for the roadway. Curb and Gutter North of Balboa Boulevard, standard curb and gutter will be used. South of Balboa Boulevard, the curb face will be 'zero- inches'. The cost to remove and replace the curb and gutter is approximately $30 per lineal foot. Tree Maintenance 7 3 I>d 2_ = T% The cost for providing twice a year pruning of the crown i $158 r year per tree. Per IUF estimates, root trimming and the installation of root barriers will cost $1,012 per tree. For this cost analysis, it was assumed that these mitigation measures will only be implemented at the time of construction of the hardscape improvement on Main Street. For this analysis, the total cost of $1,012 is 'annualized' as $34 per year per tree. Sewer Mains and Laterals On Main Street, there are two 6 -inch PVC sewer mains and one 8 -inch VCP sewer with a total length of about 470 feet. There are also five sewer laterals with a total length of approximately 100 feet. Sewer cleaning costs are approximately $1.00 per lineal foot. Replacement costs are approximately $100 per lineal foot. Property Damage In the past three years, there have bee(T�itywide claims made against the city for property damage caused by ficus tree roots. These claims range from $109 to $97,186. The average claim is $9,000. On Main Street, there have been two claims in the past three years totaling $1000. Bodily Injury Annually, there are six to twelve bodily injury claims made against the city for trip - and -fall incidents. The percentage of these claims that are due to root damage of the pavement is not available. CAVANoowS rT apM" IN~ Fll s%GLKN190 C"13 fv Fiaa bees m Main west osoeui.m Successful judgments against the city run between $1,000 and $175,000 with many awards ranging between $20,000 and $50,000. There has been one trip - and -fall claim for $5,000 on Main Street in the past seven years. For this analysis, it is assumed that City staff and Village business owners will be proactive in identifying pavement damage and that frequent repairs of the pavement will be successful in continuing to minimize trip- and -fall claims on Main Street. Roof Damage Scenarios As the trees become larger, it can be expected that the ficus tree roots will become more aggressive and there will be a corresponding acceleration in damage to the sidewalk and street pavement. Root pruning and the installation of root barriers have been proposed to help mitigate this expected future damage. This analysis assumed three possible levels of damage that will be caused by the ficus tree roots depending upon the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation measure. These three damage levels are denoted as 'High Severity', 'Medium Severity', and 'Low Severity'. For the Medium Severity damage scenario, it was assumed that root trimming and root barriers would reduce root biomass in the top foot of soil near the tree, but over time would not be particularly effective in protecting the adjacent sidewalk and street pavement. The cost for property damage claims is assumed to be equal to a single claim of $9,000. Bodily injury claim costs were assumed to be one -third that of the property damage claim costs ($3,000). It was assumed that 64 square feet of roadway, 100 square feet of sidewalk and ten feet of curb and gutter would be replaced annually. Sewer cleaning and repair costs are based on interviews with the City utility maintenance section. For this scenario, it was assumed that twenty feet of sewer main or lateral would be replaced annually. For the Low Severity damage scenario, it was assumed that root trimming and barriers will restrain the expected acceleration of pavement damage due to a more aggressive root system. It was assumed that property damage and bodily injury claims will be one half that of the Medium Severity scenario. It was assumed that the reinforced lithocrete will perform very well with respect to the ficus tree roots and that the pavement repairs will be one -half of that projected under the Medium Severity damage scenario. It was assumed that ten feet of sewer main or lateral would be removed and replaced annually. For the High Severity damage scenario, it was assumed root trimming and root barriers will be ineffective and that pavement damage will become progressively worse as roots become more intrusive with tree age. Three property damage claims per year were assumed. Bodily injury claim costs were assumed to be twice that of the Medium Severity damage scenario. Hardscape repair costs and QWNDOWSSTsmwvy tntemet FilesIOLKAINACesb rw Figs Trees a Main Seeet 050 I.Im sewer maintenance costs are assumed to be about 40 percent more costly that the Medium Severity damage scenario. It was assumed that thirty feet of sewer main or lateral would be removed and replaced annually. Annual Costs To determine costs, the following was assumed: Because lithocrete is a reinforced concrete material, a life span of fifty years would not be unrealistic. For this study, a life span of thirty years was used. 2. A three - percent annual rate of growth for the economy was assumed. The tables in Appendix A list each of the repair, maintenance and claim items with unit costs and shows the calculated annual costs for the three damage scenarios. These annual costs were then used to calculate total costs over thirty years usinc standard tables for calculating compound interest. These calculations are shown in the following section. Table 1 summarizes the annual costs and total expenditures over 30 years. Table 1: Annual and Total Costs Damage Scenario Annual cost Total Expenditure over 30 years Total Expenditure over 30 years in today's dollars Low Severity $16,000 $ 960,000 $310,000 Medium Severity $25,000 $1,200,000 $490,000 High Severity $49,000 $2,300,000 $1,200,000 From Table 1, the annual costs for the Low, Medium and High Severity damage scenarios are $13,000, $25,000 and $49,000 respectively. The third column in Table 1 shows the total amount that would be expended over a thirty -year period. For example, the total expenditure over thirty years for the Medium Severity damage scenario is projected to be 1.2 million dollars. The last column in Table 1 shows that the value of that amount in today's dollars is $490,000. Note that all costs are rounded to two significant figures. CIWWNOOWSITampaary IMa FibSOLKA1901CwtsfW Fiaa Trees w Main SV 1050801.dw Calculations Total maintenance costs over thirty years were determined using standard tables for calculating compound interest. Sections A, B and C present the calculations for determining future value (actual dollars spent) and present worth (cost in terms of today's dollars). A. Low Severity Damage Annual Maintenance Cost: $16,000.00 Present Worth (P.W.) of associated costs P.W.= $16,000 (P /A, 3%.30)= $16,000 (19.600) = $314,000 Future Value (F.V.) of funds expended on maintenance /replacement. F.V.= $16,000 (F /A, 3 %, 30)= $16,000 (47.575) = $761,000 B. Medium Severity Damage Annual Maintenance Cost: $25,000 Present Worth of associated costs P.W.= $25,000 (P /A, 3 %,30)= $25,000 (19.600)= $490,000 Future Value of funds expended on maintenance /replacement. F.V.= $25,000 (F /A, 3 %, 30)= $25,000 (47.575) = $1,189,000 C. High Severity Damage Annual Maintenance Cost: $49,000 Present Worth of associated costs. P.W.= $49,000 (P /A, 3%,30)= $49,000 (19.600) = $960,000 F.V.= $49,000 (F /A, 3 %, 30)= $49,000 (47.575) = $2,331,000 CAWINDOMTempaary IMe FRRSXOLKAIMCOS1 bFia Treesan Man Str 050B0t. APPENDIX A C.W1N00WS1Tampmary Ime FRWOLW1190tCom for Fw Troaa. Man Straw 050801. d= 0 0 N a. a on F xg U E. na 0 y �O z3 O; Ftl Ua e e o L0 0 Lb e Q Q , O 0 00 000 000 o?uio O O N i O O X000 a� 0000 _ tOn N O o ^ ^ON y yr to yr to a. � r 0 ?` >. C 's Ln ao E o C X � O O E c a c 0 W vi t_ E`om > — 3omm H `o E o � o d a d CL y' E U a7 U d O d O C « d coo, C d tl 2 � m E AE�o y 0 0 C a) O (7 U E 3 an a) CL M O y N W a7 d m c v m ar .`.. G y apt T Ol C C E c a d E W E a7 e- 2 E -6 M' a2 O 00000a0000000 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O C 7 0 h 7 7 N h C 0 0 O IA _ M1 [� 1A r N O VI VI QUri n _.e OC 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 V1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FLiOOV°� CG /V C e7__env� V1 �G '700 � GCC o�°n � E E E q � tntn N *'� E — a N fa 3 � p 01 � y F ° y ; O x c d F m ra J LL y N t] V y o 0-4 y a y G a o 0 y "tog C J 0 _0 Q 0 ()tiUCO3� Eayic o La�aayayd m_o r O V C N >> C� 0 0 C 0 j L. EEccEC Eo�710 `wU�mri,o 21 ��UU e e o L0 0 Lb e Q Q , O 0 00 000 000 o?uio O O N i O O X000 a� 0000 _ tOn N O o ^ ^ON y yr to yr to a. � r 0 ?` >. C 's Ln ao E o C X � O O E c a c 0 W vi t_ E`om > — 3omm H `o E o � o d a d CL y' E U a7 U d O d O C « d coo, C d tl 2 � m E AE�o y 0 0 C a) O (7 U E 3 an a) CL M O y N W a7 d m c v m ar .`.. G y apt T Ol C C E c a d E W E a7 e- 2 E -6 M' a2 0 O N W T R ij F Z 2� V E�. QC mQ d C D aY z3 O �? F � U a 0 0 0 CDbU o vv,Un 0 o °o °o 000 o °vio CD O N CS O �000 0000 O O O L6 6 H3 to fA VY d c_ r cz 8 d) rn E m 9 tm �cm 0 atm c m 3 3 b Q O 0000000000000 00000�oo000000 O O N O VI 7 t�J T l� 0 0 0 0 h N VI t�1 NI VI O t � h O N O O N Qh7 U t7 MI Cl. F OC �- F 000000000000 oo0o v�7ooR000 G O N O r'••ren V I O C v� r O oo C 0 °o F von to V1 ) VJ Lr.L(n ukW Lr.cn� cii Ems;; E E N °o^ N h O L II d U c p SU r d F Z a{S a N 3 O s c 0 -L° F ° E R � A � J ou ;_a Or- O C ous2 a a w a y cl d 'r- m U m m 7 7 O 0 M V 7 p d— c E E c c E r E a CL 7 O Fr NNI O1n 000�0� N 0 0 0 CDbU o vv,Un 0 o °o °o 000 o °vio CD O N CS O �000 0000 O O O L6 6 H3 to fA VY d c_ r cz 8 d) rn E m 9 tm �cm 0 atm c m 3 3 b Q O 0 O N W T C. u F L- u u L Mi I e o e o O O LO LO V M s, 0 °0 ° 0 0 O O O 0 O O N O O O Q O O O a(=toL6 di en e» en G t_ 3 �o 0 v d U d .a n d W N O U cm N M d E M rn o ° a`° R 0 0 U 0 0 G 0 0 0 0 0 0 — 0 0 0 0 0 0 'Jl U Q C e na a C p a tV Q� Y w p O GO Z 3 u N.. I e o e o O O LO LO V M s, 0 °0 ° 0 0 O O O 0 O O N O O O Q O O O a(=toL6 di en e» en G t_ 3 �o 0 v d U d .a n d W N O U cm N M d E M rn o ° a`° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G 0000OM GGq GCICO 00 tV Q� CC OO G OOO GO N.. Mb QCi: M1 MI N C) �- F O O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 V1 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �a a E _ �� j e c;; �i vi 1 3 3 G (.. — N070 —N � � �• f7 a" � L L U L 0 O F- z m AA Fc`' L O J cn Gs7 () U N 3 10 w 0 ° �Y c V10U �3 ° O ° V c m R E W o L U U a d C 0 Cc aU O 0 O U i ! aU C o E E c t o ^ 0 ��z�v °°i= i wv�°d m a ° z -- 21 F I e o e o O O LO LO V M s, 0 °0 ° 0 0 O O O 0 O O N O O O Q O O O a(=toL6 di en e» en G t_ 3 �o 0 v d U d .a n d W N O U cm N M d E M rn o ° a`° Parks, Beaches ii Recreation Commission Regular Meeting July 3, 2001 Page 5 9. Balboa Island Bench Report - Director Niederhaus stated that this was the third time that this report had come before the Commission. He noted that document on had been added with a map with locations of benches. Director Niederhaus also stated that he had just received /insh pposition of the bench at South Bay Front and Topaz Avenue tonight. Commissioner Beek stated that Topaz is actually 1 foot 3 than the other streets that have two benches. Commissioner Skoro opened the public hearing Peggy Marotta and Pat Butterwitz repres ting the Balboa Island Improvement Association, stated that the public enjoy t benches and that there are always people that wish to donate a bencZe- Ms. ywe Marotta stated that thely unaware of the petition. Commissioner Skoro close rin Motion by Commissio r Beek to deny the request for a bench to be installed at Topaz and South Bay Fro agreed that there comes a time when there are too many benches. carried by acclamation. Motion by Commissioner Beek to approve the request for a bench to be installed at Gatnet at South Bayfront with the stipulation that two pots be removed from the location. Motion carried by acclamation. 10. Change of Street Tree Redesignation - Director Niederhaus stated that the Balboa Village Project, is a beautification project for the Balboa area. During the Promote Revitalization of Our Peninsula (PROP) meetings it became apparent that the street trees designated for Main Street and Balboa Boulevard needed to be changed. The PROP Committee on May 10 and 29 voted unanimously to change the street trees from: Cryptocarya rubra to the Coral Gum on Main Street; and the New Zealand Christmas tree to the Willow- Leafed Peppermint on Balboa Boulevard. Discussion ensued regarding the GI policy as related to beautification projects. Chair Skoro opened the public hearine Jan Vandersloot, 2221 E. 16th Street, stated that Ficus trees are special City trees and that in accordance with the G -1 policy that should be retained. He questioned the Parks, Beaches 8 Recreation Commission Regular Meeting July 3, 2001 Page 6 wisdom of replacing trees just for aesthetic reasons. He urged the Commission to deny the request. Kay Mortensen, Balboa Island Point Association stated that the future of the Ficus tree and their problems have been a discussion item for a long time and that the feeling of the Association is that the Ficus has enough problems associated with them to substantiate the need to get the appropriate tree planted during the project. Director Niederhaus noted that Dr. Vandersloot's letter stating that the Coral Gum usually flowers and drop onto the sidewalk was correct, but in a beach area it will flower. He noted that 42 other tree species were discussed before the decision was made on these two proposed species. Commissioner Beek stated that the only decision that the Commission has before them tonight is whether to approve the street tree redesignation on the list and not the actual removal. Commissioner Tobin stated that an outside Urban Forester was retained by the City and recommended that the Ficus be removed. Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager stated that the Ficus trees have done well but are causing problems now. She noted that with all the work that will be done, that some of these trees will be lost, and that the Coral Gum was approved by the Association as well as the PROP Committee. Chair Skoro closed the public hearine Commissioner Macfarland stated that he has a problem with the redesignation since these trees are designated as special trees. Motion by Commission Tobin to approve the change of the street tree desination on: • Main Street from the Cryptocarya rubra to the Coral Gum; and • Balboa Boulevard from the New Zealand Christmas Tree to the Willow- Leafed Peppermint. Motion carried by the following vote: Aye: Beek, Pfaff, Skoro Tobin Nay: Franklin, Macfrarland Absent: Allen 11. Committee Reports • Budget - Nothing new to report. • Castaways Park - Nothing new to report. • Park Development - Nothing new to report • Recreation li Open Space Element - Nothing new to report • Recreation Services - Meeting will be set up by the end of July Parks, Beaches It Recreation Commission Regular Meeting July 3, 2001 Page 7 • Seniors - Nothing new to report FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS • Results of root pruning on Clay Street • 38`" Street update • Volleyball - Coastal Commission Update • Review of G -5 Policy ADJOURNMENT - 10:35pm a Submitted by: j�(J1 Teri Craig, Admin As tant � PAW �Rr O . . O� a C�NCOPN�' TO: FROM: General Services Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission General Services Director SUBJECT: Change of Street Tree Designation Recommendation PB &R Commission Item No. 0 July 3, 2001 Approve change of the current street tree designation on Main Street from the Cryptocarya rubra (no common name) to the Eucalyptus torquata (Coral Gum) and on Balboa Boulevard from the Metrosideros excelsus (New Zealand Christmas Tree) to the Eucalyptus nicholii (Willow- Leafed Peppermint). Background The City Street Tree Designation List is maintained and reviewed on an annual basis by City staff (Attachment A). The Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission reviews any proposed changes to parkway street tree designation per City Council Policy G -6 (Attachment B). The current designated street tree for Main Street is the Cryptocarya rubra and for Balboa Boulevard the Metrosideros excelsus (New Zealand Christmas Tree). Renovation of the subject streets is part of the current Balboa Village Project which is a seven million - dollar multi - phased beautification project for the Balboa Village area. The area targeted for renovation is bound by the Balboa Pier on the south, the Newport Bay on the north, Adams on the west and A Street on the east. The project encompasses the reconstruction of streets, sidewalks, curbs, utilities, and new landscaping, irrigation, and street trees as part of the beautification efforts. The current street trees will be removed as part of a City beautification project. Discussion The Public Works Department has been coordinating the design work and on -going public meetings regarding the proposed improvements. The groups that the City staff has met with include the Promote Revitalization of Our Peninsula (PROP), which has three appointed City Council members on the Committee, Central Newport Beach Community 07 Association (CNBCA), Balboa Peninsula Point Association (BPPA), and the Balboa Merchants and Owners Association (BMOA). At the PROP meeting held May 10, 2001, attendees included representatives from CNBCA, BPPA, and BMOA who unanimously approved the proposed street tree designation for Main Street as the Coral Gum. Additionally, at a second PROP meeting held May 29, 2001, attendees included CNBCA, BPPA and BMOA unanimously approved the street tree for Balboa Blvd. as the Willow- Leafed Peppermint Eucalyptus tree. Additionally, attached are letters of support from both the BMOA and BPPA (Attachment Q. Informationally, the projected schedule specifically regarding the trees includes the following phases; ♦ Phase I A: Beginning September, 2001 the removal of 11 Lemon Gum Eucalyptus trees on Balboa Boulevard and the planting of 23, 36" box Willow- Leafed Peppermint Eucalyptus trees by Spring, 2002. B: 24 Ficus parkway street trees on Main Street would be removed September, 2002 and 32, 36" box Coral Gum Eucalyptus trees would be planted by Spring, 2003. ♦ Phase II Includes the removal of 3 Lemon Gum Eucalyptus trees and the planting of an additional 10, 36" box Willow- Leafed Peppermint Eucalyptus trees by Spring, 2003. The current street tree designations for Washington and Palm Streets and Bay Avenue are not being considered for a change. The Presidents of the three associations, Central Newport Beach Community Association, Balboa Peninsula Point Association, and the Balboa Merchants and Owners Association have been sent a copy of this report and a notice of the Commission meeting. Very respectfully, David E. Niederhaus DEN/MGL /pw Attachments: (A) City of Newport Beach Street Tree Designation List (B) City Council Policy G -6 (C) Balboa Merchant Owners and BPPA letters dated June 18, 2001 24 By the Sea 6/18/01 Balboa Merchants [Owners Association David Niederhaus City of Newport Beach General Services Department PO Bo)(1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 The Balboa Merchants Owners Association represented at the PROP committee meeting, May 29, 2001 is in complete agreement with the choice of tree selection for Balboa Blvd., (Coral Gum - Eucalyptus) and Main Street (Willow Leafed Peppermint (Eucalyptus Nicholii) in Balboa Village, on the Balboa Peninsula. After many months of study with consideration of height, flowers, parkway size, vector problems, drought resistance, root growth and availability again we state we are in complete acceptance of the above mentioned trees to be planted during the revitalization of our Balboa Peninsula. We will post a complete set of plans of the phases of revitalization in the outside foyer (glass windows) of the Balboa Pavilion including color photos of the trees accepted thus far for Main Street and Balboa Blvd. Sincerely, 2 Gay Wassall -Kell BMOA President 949/673 -9575 home /office- tel/fax E-mail-balboabeacon@home.com cc Tod Ridgeway Steven Bromberg Gary Proctor Dan Trimble i' c: Rox 840 i'ii icm. C1.. 92601 u 5/7/02 Parks, Beaches & Recreation `y Gay Wassail -Kelly representing the Balboa Merchants Owners Assoc. In the past month, since the issue of the removal of the Ficus trees is being addresses, the BMOA went to work getting the voices heard from as many merchants, building /land owners, homeowners, adjacent to or on Main Street. We found out that many more of the merchants /owners, Included in you reports, were impacted by the Ficus trees, than had been noted before. (I must tell you that contacting everyone just didn't happen.) We knew that when every other tree on Main St. was removed some years ago, that it was just a band -aid for an ongoing problem. The decision at that time as I recall was when revitalization began where that the other Ficus trees would come out and new ones would replace them since they had out grown the spaces they occupied. Most merchants /owners had paid for the services listed: broken sewer lines, clean roots invading plumbing, roots coming up through toilets, destroying cement slabs & breaking tiles. Since the Ficus root structure is immense you can see the uplifting effect on our streets & sidewalks. Some one posed an argument to me that the sewer pipes are old in the downtown area and needed replacing anyway! My personal answer "We live in an area where homes were built over 40 -80 years ago." There are no trees near our homes and the majority of the sewer lines (unless remodels occurred) are the originals. This root traveled over 125 feet from Main St. down Bay Ave. past Washington Street. It was buried 4 feet down with ones double the size In girth above it under the sidewalks. The BMOA after collecting information voted 7 to 2 (1- neutral, 1 -leave 4 on comers Main /Balboa) to take all the Ficus trees out and replace them with the designated tree especially at this time of revitalization of our village!! Thank you. � o 3/25/02 �� h' Mayor Tod Ridgeway and NB Council Members Gay Wassail- Kelly, BMOA PRESIDENT We appreciate the passion of others who cannot stand to see a beautiful tree removed. But for over the years, we have studied this one element of the revitalization of Balboa Village many times. Every study came to the same conclusion: The trees are out of scale with the streets and are in the wrong glace in relation to Balboa's' revitalization. 5 years ago the City removed Ya of the Ficus trees (7) on Main Street. Spearheading that movement was Britta Pulliam, then president of the BMOA, owner of Britta's Cafe, Main St. The remainder of the trees were to be removed and replaced with trees appropriate to the area. During her time as president we studied all sorts of ways of saving the trees .... again the same conclusion: Remove the trees. The mature and overgrown trees have uplifted sidewalks. Dlumbina and concrete flooring in many buildings causing extensive damaae. The owners of the businesses or buildings carried the financial burden not asking the City for compensation. (See letter from Britta, Britta's Cafe and Steve Welton, Studio Cafe) I carry with me tonight a root It lay beneath the street on East Bay and dug up while the Gas Co. was excavating a trench (8'long. 18'wide. WdeeD) in the sidewalk in front of the Balboa Saloon Q block from where the trees stand). A workman was In the trench & supervisor standing by. This root was cut out to clear the trench. The supervisor pointed out an even larger root growing against the sidewalk and under the foundation of a neighboring building. The supervisor stated it is common for Ficus roots to grow a great distance even as far as Mina St. In January a resident of Balboa Peninsula had written that after she had spoken with City officials and Dayna Pettit that she had decided personally that it is too late to save the trees without sacrificing the entire revitalization plan. She regretted that she didn't get in on the actual start of the plan. She will now shift her focus to signage - providing some consistency with the facades of the businesses. In closing the BMOA feels it is essential to remove the Ficus trees. If we don't we would have to sacrifice the entire Main Street revitalization plan. Balboa was, part of, if not, the `first light' of Newport Beach. We are in the midst of bringing back the sparkle to Balboa. Let's do It right! Thank you. Maybe groups who want to save the mature Ficus trees could set up a non -profit committee to raise money to fund the major problems that will be incur : paying for Rotor Rooter, plumbing, replacement of flooring, sidewalks, yearly root trimming, & liability insurance if tree falls over because of root trimming. It is only fair that the merchants aren't held responsible for this any more. 3/25/02 IDOO&) Mayor Tod Ridgeway and Newport Beach Council Members 1 ✓> Re: Removal of Ficus trees, Main Street, Balboa VVV It has been brought to the Balboa Merchants Owner Associations attention that a group of people are revisiting the removal of the mature Ficus trees on Main St., at your Council meeting March 26 during Public Comment. Over the past 10 years we have studied this one element of the revitalization of Balboa Village many times. The trees are out of scale with the streets and in the wrong place in relation to Balboa's' revitalization. Over 5 years ago, one -half of the Ficus trees on Main Street were removed as part of the future plan for the remainder of the trees to be removed and replaced with a new choice of tree. Our Board that represents the Balboa Village majority agrees that without sacrificing the entire Main Street revitalizion plan the trees must be removed. We appreciate the passion of others who can't stand to see a beautiful tree removed. But for the above mentioned reasons as stated above and other well - informed reasons why they should be removed, to revisit this is redundant at this time. The City is investing a much appreciated meaningful amount of money into Balboa Village. The Village beautification and revitalization will have a very important effect on our community that was a part of, if not, the 'first light' of Newport Beach. The `trees' must come out. Sincerely, The Balboa Merchaats/Owners Association Gay Wassall-Kelly, President, Balboa Beacon News Penny Rodheim, V -P, Balboa Boat Rentals Bob Black. Sec/Treas., Catalina Flyer Patrick Moore, Balboa Fun Zone Rides Dayna Pettit, Cannery Village Realty Dave Walker, Habour House Coffee (out of town at time of polling) Butch Wilson, Balboa Saloon Scott St. John, Balboa Market Ben Swenson, Newport Landing Restaurant VAL SKORO Page I of I PARKS, BEACH & RECREATION Dear City Council, Copy of letter collected by the BMOA Gay Kelly has informed me that the trees on Main Street will be discussed this evening. I am shocked since I have been on different committees over eight years to study the trees. After several meetings we came to the conclusion that the ficus trees are the wrong tree for that location. Many times over we came to the conclusion that the only answer was to replace them with a tree that will not invade the plumbing but still maintains a canopy effect. My personal experience with the Ficus on Main was a costly one. I would spend on a plumber about $95.00 - $150.00 a month to maintain the roots. /� This process would keep the roo ~from invading the pipes. When we first�1 O� opened this aintenan not been done, consequently we had to jack hammer the floor two times to replace bro en pipes. My husband and I would do most of the work because it was too costly for us to hire a plu Pr to do the work after hours. It seems to me most our bids from other plumbers were around $3000.0 Sometimes the roots would invade the pipes quicker than my plumber would guess. So this would cause all the lines in the restaurant to completely back up. Of course it seemed as if it always happened on busy days. The effect of this would cause the restaurant to stop. We could not was dishes or use the bathroom. The floor drains would over flow with "dark stinky water." Twice the toilet had to be pulled to remove the roots. To this day, I have customers joke about the day the toilet walked out the door while they were dining. Luckily for me they found some humor, but that same day 1 had customers that did not get the antics of Balboa and they were applaud. My business time in Balboa has some great memories. It is a great place to begin your first business. However, it can be very stressful. To be successful you have to be involved in the politics, deal with the weather, hope that people will make the long drive, and depend on tourism. I feel the city should be focused on making The Village a desirable place for quality businesses. The Village must compete with all the shopping centers in the area. I guarantee that a successful shopping center would not force the tenants to put up with tree roots in their plumbing. The trees would be gone and replaced with the correct tree. Tenants would not have to spend several hours on committees and then have to defend themselves to the loud minority of residents. The tenant's focus should always be on making his business successful. And in turn that will make The Village a success. I am a resident of Newport Beach - I would like to see the trees replaced. If you would like more information my work number is 949 -509 -1211. Thank you! Britta Pulliam mime:0 00120FB0/ 3/26/2002 April 16, 2002 VALSKORO PARKS, BEACH & RECREATION Gay Wassall-Kelly Copy of letter collected by the BMOA Balboa Beacon News Balboa Merchants- Owners Association President P.O. Box 4336 Balboa, CA 92661 Dear Gay, Bi6i .Anna's Cafe COOpl� I am writing you in regards to the planned removal of Fichus trees from Main Street in Balboa Village. I am in full support of their removal, for the following reasons. 1. Plumbing costs associated with root removal in waste lines have exceeded $350.00 since acquiring the business in July 2001. As a restaurant that serves the community from 7 AM every day, plumbing issues are not only a direct out -of- pocket expense, but also pose a significant loss of opportunity should business be interrupted due to unsatisfactory conditions. 2. Removal of the large tree in front of the restaurant is critical to our plans to provide outdoor dining. Current zoning restrictions prohibit such expansion of our services, as the tree constricts pedestrian flow. 3. Waste from the tree, and the wildlife that occupies it, constantly soils our awnings and sidewalk. Restaurant staff must be utilized to maintain the property in good condition for both our customers and visitors to Balboa Village. 4. Any further delays in the Balboa Village Revitalization Plan will have a profound negative impact on all the businesses in the Village. Please let me know if you I can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Paul Mesmer Owner 446 City of Newport Beach VAL SKORO ON THE SANE) AT NEWPOU City Council PARKS, BEACH & RECREATION PBR Committee Copy of letter collected by the BMOA %, 04/20/2002 � Re: Fichus Trees, Main Street, Balboa Dear Council Members, This letter is to inform the PBR Committee of the inconveniences and problems that are caused by the Fichus trees located on Main Street in Balboa. To start with, the roots of these trees travel hundreds of feet underground, over a short period of time. This causes the roots of such trees to penetrate into the underground sewer pipes, causing overflows and other such problems. We have been experiencing such problems for over the past 10 years. We also went through considerable expense to see if we could put a stop to this costly and aggravating problem. We hired numerous plumbing companies that checked all the pipes with special cameras and had no solution to offer us, rather than maintaining the pipes and cleaning them professionally once or twice a month depending on the rate of growth of such roots. This process was costing the Balboa Inn a few hundred dollars per month. In turn, we had to purchase numerous plumbing and maintenance equipment plus a commercial snake costing over $3,000 to do the job in house. We still have to spend two to three hours every week cleaning all the sewer pipes in order to prevent any further problems. Further more, we think these trees have exhausted their useful life and could be replaced by other cleaner, more convenient and even more beautiful types of trees. We appreciate all the work and effort of the city to beautify the Balboa Peninsula and recommend the replacement of the Fichus Trees. Sincerely, ��t&~ Michel Pourmussa 105 MAIN STREET • BALBOA, CALIFORNIA 92661 • (949) 675 -3412 • Fax (949) 673-4587 VALSKORO PARKS, BEACH & RECREATION Copy of letter collected by the BMOA To: Gay Kelly <balboabeacon(&home.com> Date: Friday, October 05, 20017:43AM Subject: roots Gay: For several years there has been controversy regarding the removal of the FicusTrees on Main. St. It is a fact that many people like the look & many do not. It is also a fact that the trees have caused a great deal of root damage to underground utilities, sidewalks, streets & possibly foundations. Two weeks ago the Gas Co. were replacing gas lines beneath the streets & sidewalks on East Bay Ave. They excavated a trench in the sidewalk along Bay Ave, next to the Bakery, other shops. The trench was approximately eight feet long, eighteen inches wide & four feet deep. There was a workman in the trench & a supervisor standing by. Laying on the sidewalk was a root, two feet long and two &'/2 inched in diameter. (Photo attached). This root was cut out by the workman to clean the trench. The supervisor pointed out an even larger root growing against the sidewalk & the foundation of neighboring buildings and under a phone booth. In the opinion of the supervisor the roots are those of the Ficus trees on Main St. He said it is common for Ficus roots to grow a great distance. � , /07 �� VALSKORO PARKS, BEACH & RECREATION Copy of letter collected by the BMOA city council City of Newport Bead, My iinne is Darrell W-Sluder owner of aicsWio— o at 807-M Bay Xvi .-Y a`ve � kou6k iYW the roots of the Ficus hoes on Main Street clogging my aewu lice for many years and the aDPPages are t'etd8 more fiequent. My sewer rums under a building at the rear of my property to the city sewer in the alley. 1 have rut a vkko camera through my line and the roots an entering my line at or near the alley property line. This year I had my sewer cleaned on January 28° and again on Mardi 2". Mr. Black bas copies of the invoices fiom the plumber and also the roots which were removed on the 29a. 1 ban thaw=ed my problems with Mr. Robert Stein of the City Public works Deparuncut and Mr. John Conway with the City urban Forester who has determined that the mots we definitely from a Fieus tree. AWwugb the tees maybe attractive, it is not sighs that a cttim should be deprived of der use of his residence, so I endorse the removal of these terra Darrell H. Studer (760)321 -5391 r / /le't 4'11g02 M6K, r Page 1 of 1 ..Jgetmsg? curr nbox= F000000001 &a= 976889c0c5d6cOfb04549a45ee4b 1983 &msg=MSG 1019234/19/02 C. J. WILLIAMS April 12, 2002 Val Skoro, Chair, and Commissioners Parks, Beaches & Recreation City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 RE: Ficus Tree Removals on Main Street, Balboa Ladies and Gentlemen of the Commission: I recently wrote a letter acknowledging the Ficus Trees on Main Street and that they. should be kept in place for their canopy and beauty effect; however, after extended conversations with fellow merchants, owners of businesses and homeowners, I am more informed as to the consistent problems to plumbing, flooring, sewers, torn up sidewalks, streets and curbs that are caused by the mature Ficus Trees, and I am no longer in favor of saving the trees. Although, my properties do not seem to be affected by the roots, I do know that the roots have grown and continue to grow over 200 feet from and around my fellow merchants on all sides. I also realize that every time you trim the roots (only %4 of the root system a year), the new sidewalks will have to be torn up at great expense to the City, plus the tree root damage will persist as mentioned above and the trees will continue to grow larger, ultimately reaching a size that will simply have to be removed, at even greater expense. The Revitalization Project is long overdue and the transformation of our downtown will be further enhanced with new trees that will "fit the landscape" appropriately, eventually growing into the new look needed by Balboa By The Sea, a Wonderful Place to Be. Most sincerely, far. C. J. Williams CC: City Council Members ✓rL ✓Homer Bludau Q �'bave Niederhaus Q- P'Salboa Merchants Owners Association +,Balboa Peninsula Point Association e1 City of Newport Beach c/o Gay Kelly PO Box 4336 Balboa, CA 92661 April 24, 2002 To Whom It May Concern: Please be informed that BJ's Pizza and Grill at 106 Main Street, Balboa, does experience sewage and plumbing problems from the Ficus trees lining Main Street. We have had problems specifically with our drains in the kitchen from the roots of the trees. We are in favor of removing the trees during the remodeling of the downtown area. Sincerely ".` Stephan Loutrel General Manager CHICAGO PIZZA & BREWERY, INC. 16162 BEACH BOULEVARD, SUITE 100 • HUNTINGTON BEACH. CA 92647 TELEPHONE 714.048.3747 PAX 714.648.5387 VALSKOR0 PARKS, BEACH & RECREATION Copy of letter collected by the BMOA Labe[S We-se�Q(2 0 M fll IV ST= & SA 5 e 7. Dr 0fFj,yj'j s rc2o-I pro b).ew s are. ✓ion- Zvi ki r e c e YJ Ly r e- p 1qr-e- j tour - C az e- C.LkS -�O Vy) t r 5 S -�e� f 0>t. 44te j r off! pl j S cwLd 4.r L'k C, k 4'e, VR I- rL all cl a, (005, jq+ +ee f ,) we-e-k�, ot4r cellrre-t SL)to-5 rL- L' �eep LY-.. w14-kAe- re Lki (e d deaa' b6A.f 00a-1 UJ&5 a_ C,0�-f1'rUkOtt5; ftobl'el'n we fore- -eofryikinj ou-f 4 re- Placed o-11 + - - t s a�4et re-wovctic, e- t- *cA-1 �oLAcl Aet'r wo- roo5 ceuoe-iif Poor fo 4A P-.. ��Arocttt o - e- -� 4 o 1-n 44L e. re- vi liAl-c-k- i's 54�—�'- 4'r"'4-t 0- our SkO We- wo L(, I cl b e Ue ir y rp y i e- 5 e 4t (f e--5 We re r4a a6 e you, /-�6( � Ld�els) k L L' H GQ Q N Old W UUN N U v �o O 0. > A. U J r L (Y4 C;J/h Ficus Trees L — o w c OTO 10 L O pl S i CL a O rz 47,5 .� o y 3 0 r > —i L S C L y O "o S 6 N t -p i0. O y0 p C\ T�1TT = N V), Cn U �I �• o o° - O O t t H 2 d fn L C C 61 O� N _C C} H = N .� d 0. 4S C y 3 U} O O7 U } N d N L C N ° O ° .i ra o a s n a p o (n c j F o ,°� o _ C d S M 7 vVi y o 4- 0 0 3 0 -r d .=1 N .� 4j Lt CL at y of C � N p } � y d > p � d h � } y � � t•• .h +- S N O 1O C k 41 U V) ._ } E N M1 T } C 7 U d C1 p L 0 4- a. 7 0 L a> C Y L O 3 L O Zr d W S W L O 4_ c 7 C C Cj L O .O w o E E 3 Loe L ~ o 0 s & V o CL y h a Ill 2 Q Z a-'ted t t- �n i O L H � d o 1 � 7 � N Cx M b O E pp A �0 y a ° O i l i . LL'Q �P L 1 W < d u C F. g' C y .O b v C � y N $ 4 a W S H .a a: i dnoao $uc3110M}aodacy e z� h V V � 6 e� N � H QV 8 .S S v In MemorY Of v L O W O o 'o T 4 d Cr- s c o t H 0 ¢ v E o o y y 7 >` d } E O C W N o s t O C ° N 4� W S V N C > O O } O O v o f O y O +S- V N °- a V d H 7 0 Ol L E uJ J +° o + O C o * o 0 o O t Q } N O o L1 N} } L 7 d V O p V O d s 3 d d o C = CL o H Q• Cl d o to � a vLi .0 7 O Lt) L O N E 'n J p O C V N = ° H� pi0t 3 In MemorY Of M C v 0 o o p CL O o Co to J Y p N L = t O h� 0 30 � 3 0 0 to rz L L = rn N H w V X O C 7 O V) O S O V O G Co J u - e 0 U O L S L V o � autetg uao I ajzS a�B zeO v L o nw o � _ s C •v- ¢ rn v O i CL 0 L 2 o O N m S S V N C to O N d c v o f O y O = V N °- V d H 7 Ol 0 o O t Q } O to CL O N} L L 7 d s 3 d d o C d o to � a vLi .0 Q .� 0 � h h o ° a ,h Vi N d o O U N N a 2 M C v 0 o o p CL O o Co to J Y p N L = t O h� 0 30 � 3 0 0 to rz L L = rn N H w V X O C 7 O V) O S O V O G Co J u - e 0 U O L S L V o � autetg uao I ajzS a�B zeO Rpr 17 02 12:11p VALSKORO 84s- spa -seos PARKS, BEACH & RECREATION Copy of letter collected by the BMOA 4 -15 -02 To: Dayna Pettit Re: The ficus trees on Main Si. Dayna, the roots lntm the fieus trees have cost us hundreds upon hundrebs Ot'dollars over the years. 1 average a visit from Rotor- Rooter every six to eight weeks. Fach time they tell me it is the roots Born these trees that are utusing my plumbing problems. They tell me the ficuc roots arc notorious for this. Thank-You, Steve Welton Manager, Studio Cafe p.l G-6 MAINNTENANCE AND PLANTING OF PARKWAY TREES The City Council is vitally interested in beautification of City parkways. Public cooperation in helping to develop and maintain healthy and attractive trees is encouraged. MAINTENANCE OF PARKWAY TREES The General Services Department will trim the parkway trees on a rotation schedule. An effort will be made to trim the parkway trees on less than a three -year cycle. If the rotation trimming is completed in less than three years, more frequent trimming will be done performed on certain trees and in view areas. Public safety such as low branches and heavy foliage will be given priority over view trimming. An effort will be made to trim parkway trees located in heavy' summer traffic areas during the fall and winter months. The trimming schedule will be altered to avoid trimming streets with flowering street trees during their blooming time. This will apply to streets having a large number of flowering trees, not to one or two trees on a street. TREE LIST The Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission has adopted an official tree list which will be used by the General Services Department to determine species for planning purposes in all new subdivisions and replacement in established parkways. The list will be reviewed on an annual basis by the General Services Department staff with any recommendations forwarded to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission. STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR PLANTING PARKWAY TREES A. General Requirements 1. 72 -hour notification shall be given the General Services Department prior to the initial installation of parkway trees for approval of species, material quality and planting supervision. 24 -hour notice shall be given prior to all subsequent inspections as required. 2. Relative position of parkway trees is subject to approval by the General Services Department, and any tree not properly placed will be relocated at no cost to the City. In the interest of public safety, trees shall be kept not less than: 1 M 25 feet back of beginning of curb returns at intersections. b. 10 feet from lamp standards. C. 10 feet from fire hydrants. d. 10 feet from service walks or driveways.` e. 10 feet from meters and sewers. f. 25 feet from stop signs. 3. Trees shall be a minimum container size of 15 gallons. a. Condition: Plants shall be symmetrical, typical for variety and species, healthy, vigorous, free from plant disease, insect pests and shall have healthy, normal root system free from being root bound. Trees shall not be pruned or topped prior to delivery. b. Inspection: All plant material shall be subject to inspection and approval by the General Services Department prior to planting. The City has the right to reject any item offered. §. Soil Analysis Requirement for Land Developers Developer may be required to have a composite soil analysis made by a bona fide soil testing laboratory of soil to receive parkway trees at no cost to the City. The location and number of soil samples shall be determined by the City. Analysis shall include fertility level and organic content of the samples take. A copy of the test results shall be forwarded directly to the General Services Department a minimum of 60 days prior to scheduled planting of parkway trees. PARKWAY TREE PLANTING A. All pits shall be dug with the bottom level, .width equal to two times the diameter of the ball, and the depth 1 1/2 times the height of the container from which the tree is planted. 2 L �i 16�_. B. Where land developers are required to provide soil analysis, the prepared soil backfill shall be based on test results. C. When soil analysis is not a requirement, native soil with a commercial fertilizer approved by the General Services Department shall be used for backfill. D. Set plants in center of pit, in vertical position, so that crown of ball will be level with finish grade after allowing for watering and settling and shall bear the same relationship to finish grade after allowing for watering and settling and shall bear the same relationship to finish grade that it did to soil surface in its container. E. Prepare a depressed water basin capable of holding 10 gallons of water. Water shall be applied in that quantity at time of planting in a fashion that insures wetting the entire root ball and that all air pockets are removed. F. If houses are not occupied, trees shall be watered one week later. Thereafter, watering shall be done at week intervals by the developer for a period of one year or until homes are occupied. G. Each tree must be properly supported by two Lodgepole pine stakes or other material approved by the General Services Department. Stakes shall be a minimum of eight feet in length. Stake all trees at time of planting by placing stake in prepared hole and driving stake a minimum of 30 inches to soil. H. All trees shall be secured to stakes with a cinch tie. 1. Eight -penny duplex nails shall be used to secure the brace to the stakes — two per side. I. A root barrier approved by the General Services Department shall be installed. GUARANTEES A. 15- gallon tree shall be guaranteed as to growth and health for a period of ninety (90) days after final acceptance by the General Services Department. B. Trees that fail to grow or are injured or damaged during planting operations shall be replaced within 15 days after notification. Replacement material shall be guaranteed as specified as original guaranteed material. 3 Lit G -6 ESTABLISHED PARKWAYS Applicant must: A. Applicant must accept responsibility for watering and fertilizing new trees. B. If an applicant has questions regarding the street tree program they should contact the Park & Street Tree Superintendent at (714) 644 -3162 or send a written request for one or more parkway trees to: Attn: Park & Street Tree Superintendent, P. O. Box 1768, Newport Beach, California 92659 -1768. City of Newport Beach will: A. Approve type, location and spacing of tree planting proposed. B. Furnish, install, stake and initially fertilize new trees. C. Prune and spray tree as required. Adopted - November 22,1982 Amended - November 14,1983 Amended - October 22,1992 Amended -January 24,1994 Formerly I -19 4 FA ' 6 -19 -2031 3.12pM MOM : 3aLBOA BEACON 1y ri� 611"1 =RGt1 GENERAL SERVICES 949 6S9 2747 PHONE 'yU : W9 6_�rQs�r� Balboa Merchantstowners Association David Niederbaus City of Newport Beath General Services Departwtut PO BoX 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658.8915 F. 1 Jlt 1. 19 2M1 02:aF71 P1 The Balboa ercbants Owners Association represented at the PROP committee meeting, May 29, :001 is in complete agreement with the cboiee of tree selection for Balboa Blvd., (Coral Gum - Eucalyptus) and Main Street (Willow Leafed Peppermint (Eucalyptus Niebolii) in Balboa Village, on the Balboa Peninsula. After many mouths of study with consideration of height, powers, parkway size, vector problems, drought resistance, root growth and availability again we state we art in complete acceptance of the above tooatiooed trees.to be planted daring the revitalization of our Balboa Peninsula. We will post a complete set of plans of the phases of revitalization in the outside foyer (glass windows) of the Balboa Pavilion including color photos of the trees accepted thus far for Blain Street and Balboa Blvd. Sincerely, Gay Wassall- Kelly( I B.'KOA President \� 9491673 -9575 homefoffice -teWax E- mail -balb oa beaco o @b om e.co m cc Tod Ridgeway ✓ Steven Bromberg✓ Gary Proctor(/ Dan Trimble ✓ N.() IM4840 8a -lboa, CA . 92601 BRLOO:k SU Zile Sea A iroorderful Plare w Be ,l • - -- +-------------- - - - - -: MetroScan / Orange (CA) Owner :Wright Benjamin B Tr Site :707 W Bay Ave Newport Beach 92661 Mail :804 W Oceanfront Newport Beach Ca 92661 Use :38 Res,Duplex Bedrm: Bath: TotRm: YBt1970 Pool:No : - ----------- ---- • Parcel :048 021 14 Xfered :12/18/1986 Price Phone :949- 673 -0287 B1dgSF:2,030 Ac:.05 115 In /onnntion to,epiled from various sources. Real Estate Solutions makes no representations .. 1 -1- __..._.__, :- 4- w..,.r, Page 1 of 1 Dear City Council, Gay Kelly has informed me that the trees on Main Street will be discussed this evening. I am shocked since I have been on different committees over eight years to study the trees. After several meetings we came to the conclusion that the ficus trees are the wrong tree for that location. Many times over we came to the conclusion that the only answer was to replace them with a tree that will not invade the plumbing but still maintains a canopy effect. My personal experience with the Ficus on Main was a costly one. I would spend on a plumber about $95.00 - $150.00 a month to maintain the roots. This process would keep the roots fro vnimading the pipes. When we first opened this maintenanc of been done, consequently we had to jack hammer the floor two times to replace bro cen pipes. -my husband and I would do most of the work because it was too costly for us to hire a plurribmto do the work after hours. It seems to me most our bids from other plumbers were around $3000.00 perjob Sometimes the roots would invade the pipes quicker than my plumber would guess. So this would cause all the lines in the restaurant to completely back up. Of course it seemed as if it always happened on busy days. The effect of this would cause the restaurant to stop. We could not was dishes or use the bathroom. The floor drains would over flow with "dark stinky��,� water." Twice the toilet had to be pulled to remove the roots. To this day, I have customers joke about the day the toilet walked out the door while they were dining. Luckily for me they found some humor, but that same day I had customers that did not get the antics of Balboa and they were applaud. My business time in Balboa has some great memories. It is a great place to l begin your first business. However, it can be very stressful. To be successful you have to be involved in the politics, deal with the weather, hope that people will make the long drive, and depend on tourism. I feel the city should be focused on making The Village a desirable place for quality businesses. The Village must compete with all the shopping centers in the area. I guarantee that a successful shopping center would not force the tenants to put up with tree roots in their plumbing. The trees would be gone and replaced with the correct tree. Tenants would not have to spend several hours on committees and then have to defend themselves to the loud minority of residents. The tenant's focus should always be on making his business successful. And in turn that will make The Village a success. I am a resident of Newport Beach - I would like to see the trees replaced. If you would like more information my work number is 949 -509 -1211. Thank you! Britta Pulliam X05 �nar,��v mime: //0x00120FB0/ 3/26/2002 � \\ § k ; J - \) _ :t4 rA k ; J RALPH BERNARD 1801 EAST BAY AVENUE BALBOA. CALIFORNIA 92661 May 6, 2002 Mr. Tom Tobin Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 9266' Main Street Ficus trees Dear Tom: I spent some time sighting north and south views of Main Street and concluded that the thick, multiple branch system, swelling roots and Woody Woodpecker - styled foliage at the tops are not attractive enough to warrant keeping the Ficuses. The trees are overgrown and out of proportion and scale to the building fronts, lampposts and sidewalks in the new Balboa Village plan. Although the street will look a bit naked for a while, I believe now is the time to make way for a fresh, open look that will spur efforts to enhance the store fronts. In my opinion, the drawbacks outweigh the benefits of keeping these Monsters of Main Street. The time has come for their removal. Sincerely, Ralph Bernard 47 -year resident Former President of the Balboa Peninsula Point Association Copies: Mayor Tod Ridgeway President Gus Chabre Parks, Beaches ft Recreation Commission Regular Meeting May 7, 2002 Page 1 DISCUSSION ITEMS 6. Main Street Ficus Tree Removals — Director Niederhaus introduced the following staff and their role in the revitalization of Balboa: • Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager — Development and Balboa revitalization • Bob Stein, Public Works Engineer — Engineer in charge of the revitalization project • John Conway, Urban Forester - Advisor on street tree matters. Director Niederhaus added the following communications to the staff report: • Secondo and Dona Colombero, 1003 E. Balboa Boulevard, May 7, 2002 - Urging support of the removal of the trees on Main Street • Ralph Bernard, 1801 East Bay Avenue, May 6, 2002 — Urging removal of the Ficus trees. • Petition with 127 names from Virginia Herberts urging that the Ficus trees not be removed. Director Niederhaus stated that the G -1 Policy provides that the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission administers Special City Trees, and that the Director shall provide recommendations on the removal of All Other trees. He stated in accordance with the G -1 Policy, an independent analysis of the Balboa Main Street trees was done by Integrated Urban Foresters in March 2001, suggesting three species of replacement trees if the Ficus trees were to be removed. He also noted that the City Urban Forester had completed an individual tree report on each tree proposed for removal. Director Niederhaus stated that a removal notice had been posted on each of the 25 trees since April 4 and that adjacent property owners and interested parties were notified of the Commission meeting in writing on two occasions in the past 30 days. He noted that staff had received only 10 calls concerning the removals. Director Niederhaus provided a PowerPoint presentation that included some of the following information: • Fact Sheet — 68% of the tree claims paid by the City are caused by damage from Ficus Trees. • Concerns: • Other municipalities have similar concerns with Ficus Trees • Ficus Trees should not be grown in limited spaces, but should be planted in parks • That the Main Street Ficus Trees are 35 -40 years of age • Examples of invasive Ficus roots were shown • Picture showing the Main Street tree scape obscuring the Balboa Pavilion. • The trees obscure businesses with their large canopies. • Pictures portraying hardscape damage on Main Street; asphalt repair or cement grinding every 6 -9 months. • Damage to underground utilities, particularly private sewers. • Picture of the Coral Gum tree that staff recommends as the replacement tree which would be planted next spring. Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission Regular Meeting May 7, 2002 Page 2 Chair Skoro adjourned meeting for 5 minutes for audience to go outside and look at the two Coral Gum Trees. Chair Skoro reconvened meeting at 7:45pm. Commissioner Beek questioned Director Niederhaus on criteria from the G -1 Policy used to effect removal of the trees. Director Niederhaus stated that Paragraph 2, Section D stated that "All Other Trees" can be requested to be removed as part of a City Council approved City beautification program. That same criteria has been applied to "Special Trees." Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager, stated that the City's consulting arborist analyzed controlling the damage caused by these trees through continued root pruning and root barriers. Even with these methods, the damage is likely to be controlled for only 10 -15 years. In addition, the roots will have to be pruned for construction of the new public improvements in Main Street, which may cause the loss of some of the Ficus trees. The Council has approved a $7.5 M revitalization program for Balboa and it makes sense to replace the trees as part of that project. Commissioner Englebrecht asked about the timeline for the removal of the trees. Director Niederhaus stated that the removal process would begin in September with Phase 2 of the improvements, along with the replacement of the hardscape. In March, 32 Coral Gum Trees would be planted and placed so as to not obscure the business buildings. He noted that staff had already purchased 32 Coral Gum trees, which are 7 -8 feet in height, with the approval of the City Manager, and that the trees would be delivered in the next couple of weeks and that they expect at least a 3 -4 foot growth before installation. He stated that should the Commission or the Council vote to retain the trees that the Coral Gums would be placed in parks throughout the City. Discussion ensued regarding the size of the street tree well (30 versus 6x6). Mr. Stein stated that by enlarging the tree well it would counter one of the major goals of the revitalization project to increase sidewalk space. Commissioner Beek asked what the appeal process would be if the Commission voted to remove the trees. Director Niederhaus stated that one of the Council Members or the City Manager could direct that the issue be included on a future Council agenda as per Council Policy G -1. Parks, Beaches Et Recreation Commission Regular Meeting May 7, 2002 Page 3 Chair Skoro opened the public discussion Gus Chabre, 1130 E. Balboa Boulevard, Peninsula Point Association President stated that the membership had voted to remove the Ficus Trees in 1999. The Association convened a special meeting in late April and again voted to remove the trees. Kay Mortenson, 1520 Miramar, Peninsula Point Association Board Member, stated that the Association supports the removal of the trees and that they are very excited about the revitalization to the Balboa area. The new sidewalks are designed with circular patterns in the lithocrete for the trees and the addition of pots for flowering plants. She urged the Commission to remove the trees and give the Balboa area a new beginning. Commissioner Beek asked if the Peninsula Point Association was contributing money to the revitalization project. Ms. Mortenson stated that she could not speak to that but possibly someone from the Balboa Merchants Association could. Chuck Hutton stated that he had Ficus Trees in his yard that had been planted in 1932 and has not caused any damage. He noted that the revitalization project was very expensive and noted that he was not prepared to support the removal of the trees. Alden Kelly, arborist, stated that he does not recommend the removal of the trees because the City has not taken the opportunity to try and fix the problems by installing root barriers. He noted that the Coral Gum would make the residents just as unhappy as the Ficus. He recommended that the City retain the trees and provide 6x6 cutouts. He stated that people do not come to Balboa because it looks nice but rather to visit because of its location to the ocean. Debbie Robson, 926 W. Balboa Boulevard, stated that she would be very sad to see the trees removed, noting the beautiful archway and shade they provide. She suggested that something be built to cover the roots; and voiced concern about the flower droppings from the Coral Gum. She urged the Commission to retain the trees. Jan Vandersloot, 2221 E. 16a' Street, stated that there should not even be a vote to remove these trees. He stated that nothing has been done to retain these trees, and that in fact the City has not even taken a first step as required by Policy G -1. Mr. Vandersloot stated that at the very least root barriers should be used on the trees on the North side. He also noted that these trees should not be evaluated en masse but rather as separate trees. He stated where is the repeated damage that must be shown to remove such trees as stated in the City Policy. He urged the Commission to retain the trees. He also noted that he was not notified and that he should have been given more time to speak. Parks, Beaches $ Recreation Commission Regular Meeting May 7, 2002 Page 4 Curtis Herberts, 2290 Channel Road, stated that it is not the Ficus trees that cause the sewer damage but rather a hole in the sewer and the root seeks out the water. He stated that the sewer lines will need to be replaced anyway. He urged to retain the trees. Cheryl McDowell, 1537 E. Ocean Boulevard, stated that the beautification is needed in the area but not at the expense of the trees. She stated that she had talked to business owners who will not do their share of keeping the front of their business clean by sweeping up leaves. She stated that a lot of residents do not know that the City is even considering removal of the trees and that once it begins all "hell" will be raised. She urged the Commission to retain the trees. Ryan Gee, 1355 E. Balboa Boulevard, stated that the revitalization project never even took into account for the Ficus trees, but rather began work on the assumption that they would be removed. He stated that the City has not even tried to fix any of the problems associated with the trees. He urged that the Commission retain the trees. Virginia Herberts, 2290 Channel Road, stated that the revitalization project is beautiful but that it should include retaining the Ficus Trees. She stated that staff should make these trees viable. Gay Wassail- Kelly, 409 E. Edgewater, President, Balboa Merchants and Owners Association, stated that the Association had always believed that the south side trees would be removed long before now and most of the merchants and owners have paid for sewer problems. She stated that the Association voted to remove these trees, but especially now in light of the revitalization project. Commissioner Beek asked if the Balboa Merchants Association has committed any funds to the revitalization. Ms. Kelly stated that no money has been committed but assures the Commission that once details are final that they will. Commissioner Beek stated that she was baffled that the Merchants Association has not committed money for the project and that the City has not even asked them to. Commissioner Allen stated that she was worried that the Coral Gum tree might eventually obscure the signs just as the Ficus trees now have. Ms. Kelly stated that they believe that the Coral Gum is the best choice of the area and that Director Niederhaus has promised that the City staff that the trees will be trimmed on a frequent basis. Cindy Doran stated that she and some friends had planted flowers in the pots around the area and had asked the merchants to water them. They stated that they did not have the time and that it should be the City's responsibility. She noted that she has concerns that 4 Parks, Beaches Ft Recreation Commission Regular Meeting May 7, 2002 Page 5 of the Peppermint Gums that have been planted on Balboa Boulevard are already dead and that 15 of them are having problems. She also noted that she did a merchant study and that only 3 of the 21 merchants had had problems with their sewers. On that assumption, only three of the trees should be removed. She stated that she has a petition that she will present to Council that includes 250 names against the removal of the trees. She urged the Commission to retain the trees. Christy Wood, 2046 Seville Avenue, business owner, stated that the trees are probably not going to cause any more damage and that the Commission should vote to retain the trees. Dona Colombero, 1003 E. Balboa Boulevard, stated that she has sued the City for damages due to these trees in the past. She stated that the Peninsula needs an attraction that will serve the City and retain tourists in that area and that by removing the trees they will be able to see the businesses and then can visit them. She urged the Commission to remove the trees. Richard Fogel, 351 Old Newport, #363, owns Balboa Hardware, states people are drawn to shade and that business owner windows are what should attract business. He stated that removing the trees will make the area more formal and less inviting. Brooke Landers, stated that these trees are beautiful and should not be replaced. Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager, stated that the City hopes that the private businesses will elect to upgrade the outside of their businesses as the revitalization project moves along. She stated that the Balboa Inn is already working on a rehab and addition project and that the Balboa Liquor Store is also considering doing the same. The Balboa Theater, even though non - profit, is also investing both public and private money in the area. Chair Skoro closed the public discussion Commissioner Franklin stated that he appreciates the comments made and agrees that the revitalization project is beautiful, but is troubled that staff has not taken all the steps to save the trees. Commissioner Tobin asked what was causing the trees on Balboa Boulevard to appear brown. Bob Stein stated that the construction and masonry debris has caused some of the problems for the Peppermint Gum trees and that when the Coral Gum trees are planted that more precautions will be taken to keep the trees clean. Commissioner Tobin asked if the Ficus trees are causing safety issues with the gas main. Director Niederhaus stated that all public underground utilities will be inspected for any damage and appropriate repairs made during the construction cycle. r I , I Parks, Beaches ft Recreation Commission Regular Meeting May 7, 2002 Page 6 Commissioner Macfarland stated that although he agrees with the revitalization that the City forgets that these trees are "Special Trees" and that precautions should be done first to retain them. Commissioner Beek stated that staff should look at the possibility of removing 3 trees, but certainly not all 25. She stated that these trees are beautiful at night and that she cannot support the removal of the trees as she does not believe that it follows the G -1 Policy. Chair Skoro stated that he had asked if the Commission was the appropriate body to consider removal of these trees according to the G -1 Policy, and that he had been assured through the City Attorney it was. Chair Skoro also stated that we need to listen to the merchants and the homeowners directly affected by the trees and that he hears that they should be removed. Commissioner Beek asked if removing the trees will increase business? Parks, Beaches It Recreation Commission Regular Meeting May 7, 2002 Page 7 Motion by Commissioner Tobin to support staff's recommendation to: • Remove 15 Ficus nitida trees on Main Street that are designated "Special/ Landmark trees." • Remove 10 Ficus nitida trees on Main Street that are designated "All Other Trees." • Plant 32 Coral Gum as replacement trees on Main Street. Motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Allen, Englebrecht, Skoro, Tobin Nay: Beek, Franklin, Macfarland Balboa Merchant Survey on Ficus Trees Plumbing Issues Question to Merchants: Have you had any plumbing problems directly resulting from the ficus trees? If so, do you have plumbing receipts that indicate ficus tree root intrusion? Merchant Spoke with Yes/No Comments 1) Studio Cafe Paul ? Spoke with the manager, Steve Welton. Steve said they have regular plumbing roto rooter service but will check back with me to review the receipts to see if the trees are the issue. 2) Castaways Dick Yes Owner. Yes, Fredricksen 3) BJ Pizzana Mike Decker he has receipts and said he would copy them and get them to us if we want to see them. He showed me one and said he rotos every 6 months for about 107.00 each time. No Mike is the manager and said no problems with the trees 4) Ultraviolet ? Not open both times I stopped by 5) Balboa Inn Michel Yes Michel is the manager. He will look for his receipts. He now has his Pourmussa own snake machine to roto the roots on a regular basis. 6) Main St.Surf Brian No Spoke with the owner, Brian. No problems, they do not have plumbing 7) Bibiannas Paul ? Paul said no problem but the city 8) Balboa Pharmacy 9) Post Office 10) Balboa Bakery renovation plumbing but check with Britta. Britta said yes, every month roto rooter for $150.00 Mike Yes & no Spoke with the owner, Mike. He said CJ Willams at 650 -3234 is the landlord and CJ has multiple buildings. CJ had root problems here but has purchased his own snake and some plumbing due to roots and some not. He will deal with it as he wants to keep the ficus trees. Suly Keo No No problem Yes Spoke with owner, Suly Keo. She said nothing this year but 3 times in the past 3 years. Will look for receipts. Nada Hannaford is the landlord. 11) Art Gallery Bonnie No Spoke with 12) OM Kenny 13) Fun & Sun Shalini 14) Balboa Pavilion Mike 15) Blue Sails Mac Ranjit 16) Young/ Restless Mary 17) Beach Island Kim Young 18) JJ Haircutting Mike Kikawa 19) Orange Julius George 20) Mitrush Tracy 21) Shorehouse Dave Bonnie. No problems No Spoke with manager, Kenny. No problems No Spoke with manager, no problems No Spoke with office personal, Mike in charge of maintenanc e at CDS office next door and Kurt. No problems. No Spoke with ownerand CJ. No problems No Spoke with CJ and he said no problems with this property. No Spoke with owner, no problems No Spoke with owner, no problems No Spoke with manager, no problems No No problems 7 Spoke with Dave, bartender for over 10 years, no problems but left message for owner, Dave Bonadonna at (562) 4300116 Left message with Mike at shorehouse to have Dave call Elaine. CD a� �� a % a s — \ o> ® m(1) $ ) E % R §k §2wy° _ c «\ \ \\ \ \ /f2E� f 0 �£ $E = ca R \o a .- "CL E � 9 § $ 2 a)>% cu x �� E e \ � E >q�aa)a)t § — k \ \)a) is o �\^ fn cn 2 /G Emm27f\ E Fa c �o e� �t24i =�cRf g c §V oo >�m —a) \ 0 e 8(D R � 3 >. / % cu ki$ � rn c §/f 22 \f�Rf t2 /\t$k \ k §@# =c Ecu 2.0 0coa) cu 9 CU a) a)m0 G� °00 0 /k �%# �t'��m a f$ \o ° C �t��� ® © f d f \ E § £ % CO aka) fof a) a) #c _ �S\ �7f -- $/ $ �r��E a) Lo §aaoto �c�C�� m ° k gN a) k�kMk 0) CL �# 02 "x f cLE k§�2f�% ?d cn .Pf =f /2 f§ �0 �c�o @ / � \�/ \\m 3: a) eat QccCU 0-0 2:2 2t@��W k� ^ (§2 \?x:000 �o ®c a \ £ch f/ §§42�CL 4c, § k\� %\ aR® 04 ° \& / \�\ °� ° //\ . 2/2 kK § "2\\ // c c (D ° > °' W N U) a m a) _C G cu zz o ca ) 0 ch =3 O U) O d w O p) () .: � y O dC L +-'�O h CD U a) E O -0 QO a) O Q „ � p ` U f6 (n N 0 '� 'cr' a) O a) k O a co d + (a a1 O C C) N om, QO u) O� rA O O a) a) C w a) O c 0 a3 c a) O c" C O p a O -C " ^ O N r Q G c 0 C a) 0 0 0 U N C �+ a) w CO C O C O N V L N °- N (D a) C 3 O_ a) +� C O O N c (0 a) O y0 a) En N w a) .n W O O a) O > U _ C N L a) c 'C -0 � ?j O ,c t '� a) E .r -0 !n N N a) a C a) 4J -0 U D Co >% w a) co O _C CF 0 Q LO O .� (D Q C w m 1N . w a C C 0 0 N L L U: (0 to .r U i a) p .r +' C E O O a) O i w 4- U O N O [2 >, E N N (D (a m om ° — cam ° (D (D 3 �, a)Ewc c 3aa)i>;c�arn�E (D o co -p O Z. O I �O 52 l (D -O a) Q�p p U a) N 7 > U 0.— m t+ N O r �, 'a .L.., T w Y 7' O U) fn 'a T.Em� O H (a �aci$E(°)oui co�UC —a)Q �� a) c E C a) C O" C (0 O N N�E�E a �c (Daa)i�F o TYc c> C N •� C a1 O (0 U _ m C) (0 d a) .. c m aX)�co °ca c �E�°(Eac0 >33 a�i CL CO a) p 7 U N C N O ��. N (D 0 m j d O a) N O2 O N, V CO C (D L a) (D o c CL o- N�(n E��1 —� UW ZQ Z O a) m • • • • • • • • • • • " r ,�•' tRt •i t' f T on St ! h eat• � pky �✓ x 1 V. - .nr 0 -Ad 11 7 -L D ox ITA I f �iG Iii% d�c�• C. ats /I4�v. Mo �4 l f - VS�i �:��► ,� 1 i J t`y }�, � .. 9 �� � r� - - 1�� >`�}�� .;,, ��\ • - -� t �._.. _ _•�t d'.� t �M _ - �..:4'�4ie •�� °fie K " . A h ` � r s �/ µ A - . ow � j �iiQ.• a�,r � �� � 4 ►�/ tL CtL ! 1 Y V C �S %i i� *, ': i t�'r ;. ,. ( � -- '� ,. _ . ,��; .F .. at'___. J � � � .� a �.� - i ,� -4r � r � �'- a 1�' a r � �. �,;� �,.� ,. ,fi��, \ 4 "" \i it Y �' �; � ,R r; � �� t ' _ / ,~ �� _ I �, . �� �+ a � . .�; " (' i _�� p�. Tr ' c 1 , _ s LEli., . I A 4 4. nc S , o � 'Y ir j" !M j�J,lt Ll : i i t F' 1 _ laat Vic'' Ak ;- r T z1 Ia op VL I f-oor'.11 t;f i.t it kn, 4!! D v AP ado- yy r M ryY h f� N 1i y.i � t 7 1 nui.iun I 7 r n y fool t j!, , " OP . Alf JALl J r- 1 1 t t n E' MA5 PSI fro Now 0 tit OR Av 1 r ; �. 'fit 1 i ✓ �� . � { � 5\,i�,\ ` ; a . 7 a i AN C r t" FC. } Y t- ! *:�am y- •,fji 14. r r *' v r � njilSJ / _