Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout23 - G-1 Policy Review - City TreesCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 23 April 27, 2004 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: General Services Department David E. Niederhaus, Director, 949 - 644 -3055 dniederhaus @city.newport - beach.ca.us SUBJECT: G -1 Policy Review ISSUE: Does the City Council want to approve the proposed revisions to the existing G -1 Policy (Retention and Removal of City Trees) as recommended by the Ad Hoc Tree Committee, retain the existing policy, or make change to the proposed revisions? RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Consider the Negative Declaration, comments received and responses provided, and if supported by the record as a whole, adopt a resolution approving the Negative Declaration. 2. Approve revisions to the G -1 Policy or make alternative revisions as deemed necessary. DISCUSSION: Background; At the Council Study Session of September 9, 2003, the City Manager provided an extensive staff report (Attachment A) and portions of a PowerPoint presentation (Attachment B) on the overall picture of the urban forest including the value of the forest, costs of tree maintenance, damage claims, and tree damage to City and private infrastructure. He explained the history of tree damage claims and the high ratio of tree plantings to removals. Finally, he emphasized that the draft policy "should provide for more balance in terms of the community's needs and the needs of the urban forest." The presentation was followed by questions and input from the Council, the public, and members of the Ad Hoc Tree Committee. G -1 Policy Review April 27, 2004 Page 2 At the conclusion of the study discussion, Council raised several issues for the Ad Hoc Tree Committee to study further before returning the matter to a future evening Council session. A copy of the minutes of the Council meeting is attached (Attachment C). The Ad Hoc Tree Committee met on October 7, 2003 to consider Council policy issues and hear further public comments. A copy of the agenda and the minutes, which include the issues and proposed Council changes to the G -1 Policy, are attached (Attachments D & E). A discussion of the issues follows in this report. Due to the number and content of the proposed revisions, the firm of Dudek and Associates Inc. was contracted by the City to prepare an environment assessment of the amended . G -1 Policy. The assessment was completed on March 10 and distributed for a 20 -day review period which ended April 6, 2004. A total of six public comments were submitted regarding the assessment. The environmental assessment will be discussed in detail in a later section of this report. ISSUES: Ad Hoc Tree Committee Review The issues raised by Council at the Council meeting of September 9, 2003, with the associated recommendations of the Ad Hoc Tree Committee and staff, are as follows: a) Should the City Manager be the final decision authority in the removal of Problem Trees and what should the overall appeal process be for any and all tree removal decisions? 1) Ad Hoc Tree Committee — Recommends that the City Manager should be granted final authority to approve Problem Tree Removals and that his decision can only be appealed by a Councilperson. The tree removal appeal process would remain the same for all other categories of tree removals, i.e. a tree removal decision by the PB &R Commission could be called up by one Councilmember or the City Manager. 2) Staff concurs. Additionally, the Councilperson will be notified as per the proposed policy amendment whenever a Problem Tree is proposed to be removed in their district. b) Should the City have a separate "View Policy'? If so, how would it relate to the G -3 Policy (Preservation of Views) and how would you define a "View Community "? 1) Ad Hoc Tree Committee — Recommends a single tree removal and retention policy (G -1) due to the complexity of crafting and applying two policies or defining a "View Community'. G -1 Policy Review April 27, 2004 Page 3 • 2) Staff concurs. In addition, it should be noted that the draft G -1 Policy contains language linking the G -1 and G -3 Policies. c) Should all tree removals require replacement with a 36" box tree? Is this realistic given space constraints and availability? 1) Ad Hoc Tree Committee — A 36" box tree should be used whenever space constraints, funding, and tree type are available; unless a tree is being reforested for view reasons, then it should be replaced with a 24" box tree. 2) Staff recommends that 24" box trees be used in all replacements of City trees (Problem Tree and Reforestation actions), except for the replacement of All Other and Special Trees. In those two cases, the Ad Hoc Committee recommendation of a 36" box replacement should apply. Staffs recommendation is based on extensive past experience, technical reports, cost, space constraints, and tree survivability. As a matter of information, the cost difference between a 24" and 36" box tree is $505. Cost is not the major factor in staff's recommendation; survivability and growth potential of a new tree is. • d) Should there be any changes as to how removals and additions to the Special Tree list take place, and if so, what is the process now? 1) Ad Hoc Tree Committee — Recommends that the PB &R Commission review the Special Tree list as necessary and submit any additions or deletions to the Council for approval on an as needed basis as permitted in the proposed G -1 Policy. The current G -1 Policy permits the PB &R Commission to designate and remove trees from the Special Tree listing without Council approval. 2) Staff concurs. e) Should the proposed G -1 Policy include a goal as follows: To establish and maintain appropriate diversity in tree species and age classes to provide a stable and sustainable urban forest with an inventory that the City can reasonably maintain in a healthy and non - hazardous condition, To require that in approving any tree removal or reforestation request the PB &R Commission shall find that the tree removal request will not adversely impact the overall inventory, diversity and age of the City's Urban Forest? 1) The Ad Hoc Tree Committee recommends the use of the above stated comprehensive goal for the draft policy. The City does not have a clearly stated tree goal now, although the current G -1 Policy, the Master Street Tree Plan, and other tree documents have references to objectives related to urban forest management. G -1 Policy Review April 27, 2004 Page 4 2) Staff concurs and currently uses the proposed goal informally in all tree removal and replacement decisions. The proposed goal has been incorporated into the draft G -1 Policy. Staff has revised the draft G -1 Policy to reflect the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Tree Committee with the exception of the size of replacement trees. A copy of the revised policy is attached (Attachment F). Management of Urban Forest The City Urban Forest is comprised of an estimated 40,000 trees. Of the 40,000 trees, 31,500 trees were valued by a May 2003 audit/inventory at over $70,000,000. The remaining 8,500 City trees are not yet inventoried in the Newport Coast area. The forest is healthy and growing at an average rate of 342 trees planted per year over the past four and half years. The urban forest is managed by two professional tree experts, the Parks and Trees Superintendent and the Urban Forester, who have a combined total of over 58 years experience managing urban forests. The Urban Forester, John Conway, was one of the earliest arborists certified in California by the International Society of Arboriculture some 18 years ago. . The City staff is governed by a number of City policies and ordinances. These include City policies: G -1 (Retention or Removal of City Trees), G -3 (Preservation of Views), G -6 (Maintenance and Planting of Parkway Trees), L -2 (Sidewalks, Curbs, and Gutters), and L -6 (Private Encroachments in the Right of Way), and City ordinances: 13.08 (Planting, Official Tree List, Removal, Tampering, Prohibitions, and Trimming), and 13.09 (Parkway Tree Requirements). In addition, City staff is guided by the Master Street Tree Plan, the Designated Street Tree List, and a non - City publication (Street Trees of Southern California) in the selection and planting of City trees. The Urban Forester did participate in the publication of the Street Trees of Southern California booklet. The Urban Forest is accurately managed by a GPS -based inventory system that is incorporated in a separate software program, which utilizes its own server. All City trees were located in the field during the May 2003 inventory and placed on a master inventory list including data such as species, size, condition, and value. Each tree or vacant tree location is mapped on a GIS map as well. The City aerial map system is also used by staff to manage the urban forest. Each of the tree related Council policies and ordinances, references, etc. are noted above and are public documents available on the City website and at the City Clerk's office. Council policies, ordinances, plans, inventory, and other associated tree management documents will be available for reference at the Council Meeting. G -1 Policy Review April 27, 2004 Page 5 . Tree City USA The City has again been selected for recognition as Tree City USA for the 14th year. In addition, the City will receive a special growth award for the 9th year. Award requirements include: an Arbor Day celebration (we have two events scheduled during April), a tree ordinance (the City has two tree ordinances), a tree committee or board (the PB &R Commission serves this purpose), and $2 tree care expenditures per capita (the City spends $9.22 per capita on tree maintenance). The proposed revisions to the G -1 Policy will have no effect on the City qualifying for the Tree City USA award. Problem Trees The proposed G -1 Policy contains a new section titled Problem Trees. The Ad Hoc Tree Committee requested staff to research means of addressing the major damage and costs caused by a small percentage of City trees. After a review of the City tree inventory and past and outstanding tree claims, staff identified eight species of City trees that are causing the majority of the repeated and significant damage to public and private infrastructure. Staff also reviewed the City of Costa Mesa's problem tree policy, wherein similar problem tree species are identified. • There are 7,142 trees in the City inventory that are of the eight Problem Tree species noted in the proposed policy for Problem Trees. Of that number, 6,545 are located in parkways where the major damage to hardscape occurs. Only 600 of the 7,142 Problem Trees have a trunk diameter of 19 inches or more and are located in 5 -foot wide or smaller parkways, and are causing the majority of the repeated damage to private and public improvements or underground utilities. Staff has presented a number of reports to the Council (Attachment G is one example) identifying the problems associated with problem trees and proposed remediation in early 2002. As a result of the staff and claim reports, Council authorized $60,000 in Fiscal Year 2002 -2003 for problem tree annual tree trimming (which inhibits root growth), root pruning, and installation of root barriers. Staff also received $50,000 in Fiscal Year 2003 -2004 to continue the programs. Photos of public and private damage caused by Problem Trees are attached (Attachment H). It will be some years before it will be known how successful the remedial programs for problem trees have been, but it is clear that the programs, if conducted Citywide, would cost well in excess of $150,000 annually if no problem trees are removed. As a matter of information, there have been no complaints nor private property claims in the two years since City and contract crews did extensive repairs, root pruning, and installed root barriers adjacent to the Ficus parkway trees on Clay Street between Irvine Avenue and St. Andrews Drive. • The proposed policy for Problem Trees is relatively simple. It allows the approval of the City Manager for up to 250 Problem Tree removals per year (roughly the number G -1 Policy Review April 27, 2004 Page 6 of Problem Trees that were removed annually prior to Fiscal Year 1998 - 1999). There • is also a condition set to prevent denuding the streetscape by allowing that no more than one out of three consecutive parkway trees may be removed in a three -year period. Many Problem Trees are also causing view problems and the amended policy provides for property owners to request Problem Tree removals for view improvement as well. Replacement trees (24" box) may be planted if funding permits and is the responsibility of the City (if staff requested removals) or the requestor. The amended policy also contains appropriate required notices of the adjacent property owner (if not the requestor), a legally established homeowners association, and the Councilperson of the district where the removal is proposed. The amended policy is being recommended by the Ad Hoc Tree Committee and staff as a means of allowing more flexibility for the Problem Tree removals and to reduce the high costs of repairs and claims. Infrastructure Damage and Costs to Repair Trees have continued to cause considerable damage throughout the City. Currently there are 6,500 separate locations where sidewalks have been ramped with asphalt and await repairs. The average damage per sidewalk location is 80 square feet, which equals 520,000 square feet of sidewalk. Eighty percent of the 6,500 locations were damaged by tree roots; that equals 416,000 square feet of sidewalk damage alone. Using current private contractor bid costs per square foot this equates to $2.5 million to repair tree root damage to sidewalks. This is a significant increase (105 %) from the level of deferred maintenance of 253,120 square feet ten years ago. In addition, there are 3,000 curb and gutter locations that currently require repairs estimated at an additional cost of $1.5 million. On average, 22% of the trees in the City inventory cause frequent (every 3 -5 years) repairs to sidewalks, curbs, and gutters. Most of the repairs can be avoided by progressive tree trimming, root pruning and root barrier programs. As noted earlier, only 600 of the 7,142 Problem Trees are large enough (and located in confined parkways) to be causing the majority of the repeated hardscape damage. There is presently a one year response time to resident's hardscape repair requests, most of which are the result of problem tree root damage. The number of complaints about hardscape repairs has increased 56% in the past 10 years. An analysis of the latest bids for contractor hardscape repairs shows the cost to root prune trees has escalated rapidly with knowledgeable contractors charging $100 to $265 per tree location. Staff is presently evaluating the cost of private and public root pruning programs and has initiated a special root pruning work team, which consists of two maintenance workers and a new root pruning machine. G -1 Policy Review April 27, 2004 Page 7 • General Liability Claims Staff has prepared the attached tree damage claim report related to property damage by tree roots (Attachment 1). What is significant about the report is the growth in amounts paid per incident (largest claim at $575,000) and the doubling of the number of claims per year (15 -30) in a 5 year period. The number of claims filed for street tree damage to hardscape and underground utilities is rapidly escalating as the City continues to retain Problem Trees at significant cost under the current G -1 policy. City Costs Associated with Tree Root Damage The total current annual cost associated with tree root damage is estimated to be in excess of $1.3M. A breakdown of the estimated costs is as follows: Ficus Tree Remedial Programs Current level of funding) $50,000 Sidewalk, Curb, and Gutter Repairs (City Crews $633,712 Sidewalk, Curb, and Gutter Repairs Private Contractor $153,000 Underground Utilities Sewer, water, phone, etc $476,000 Total *$1,312,712 *Not included in this total are trip and fall and tree claim costs. . In early 2002, as a result of a number of staff presentations on the costs and liability created by City parkway Ficus trees as mentioned earlier, Council authorized a three pronged program to address Problem Tree damage including annual tree trimming, root pruning, and root barrier installation and authorized an expenditure of $50,000 to fund the program for Fiscal Year 2002 -2003. Under this program the majority of large parkway Ficus trees were trimmed, a root pruning program was established, and root barriers were installed at 60 locations. While this represented a good initial effort, at least $150,000 will be needed per year to slow the repeated hardscape damage caused by some 600 of the 7,142 Problem Trees. Staff has attached a number of photos illustrating extensive tree root damage to private and public improvements including underground utilities (Attachment H). This past fiscal year, City Utilities crews spent 80% of their time clearing City sewers of tree roots using large vacuum trucks and two men crews. In addition, they manage a sewer lateral cleanout program, a camera inspector van and operator to locate tree root blockages, and a root deterrent program using herbicide foam. As a matter of information, private tree root damage to City sewers is repaired at City cost by City policy. Trip and Fall Claims The City has been fortunate with losses related to accidental trip and fall injuries related to tree damage hardscape. Only 27 claims have been filed over the past five fiscal years. All but two of the 27 claims have been settled for a total of $23,194. The highest trip and fall claim paid to date (September 1997) was $60,000 for an G -1 Policy Review April 27, 2004 Page 8 accident that occurred before the period noted above. There are two outstanding trip • and fall claims: one for $4,500 and one for $2,500,000. The low claim rate for trip and fall accidents can be attributed to an aggressive City hardscape inspection program that was started over 10 years ago and a policy of ramping any uneven public hardscape surface within 24 hours of discovery. View Protection The current G -1 and G -3 Policies provide a limited degree of protection of public views and recognize the need to consider how City trees obstruct private views. However, neither policy, either in its current form or the draft G -1 Policy, provides property owners with a right to a view obstructed by City trees. Rather, a balance is struck between alternative tree trimming methods and reforestation funded by private property owners and homeowner's associations and a policy of preserving our older trees as they continually grow taller. Should the proposed changes to G -1 be approved, City trees, and particularly park trees, will still be protected by a stringent reforestation review process that includes a hearing before the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission and in some cases the Council. An example of the City tree preservation priority over view concerns is the old, large stand of eucalyptus City trees situated along 4th Avenue in Corona del Mar. These trees are the oldest trees in the City with some in excess of 70 years of age and extraordinary measures such as annual tree trimming and frequent monitoring of tree health are used to preserve • these trees. The proposed G -1 Policy does provide for more flexibility in tree trimming standards and reduced costs for view communities in that two Supplemental Tree Trimmings are not mandatory before a reforestation request can be submitted and City trees may be trimmed with alternative methods if authorized by the Urban Forester. If the revised policy is approved, provisions of the G -3 Policy (Preservation of Views) will be more easily achieved. Special Trees and All Other Trees Special and All Other Trees will continue to receive removal protection under the proposed policy. The Special Tree listing under the proposed changes could only be amended by the Council. Currently, the G -1 Policy allows the PB &R Commission the authority to add or delete trees from the listing. The removal process for Special Trees remains basically the same, except for a change that allows for consideration of the removal of a Special Tree without first requiring the use of a special hardscape treatment in instances where costs to use a special hardscape treatment are unreasonable or impractical. The amended policy does allow for Special Tree removal in connection with an approved Council beautification project. G -1 Policy Review April 27, 2004 Page 9 All Other Tree removal requests must still meet exact criteria and undergo an extensive public review process. An appeal of a decision by the PB &R Commission can only be called up by either a Councilperson or the City Manager. Tree Ordinances The matter of considering revisions to either of the two current City ordinances (13.08 and 13.09) was an issue that was addressed several times during the Tree Committee public hearings last year and discussed at the August 26 Council Study Session. Ms. Allen, Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Tree Committee, noted the Committee's recommendation that based upon information received during the hearings, the ordinances were adequate for protection of City trees and required no revisions. Staff, including the City Attorney staff, agree with that finding. Environmental Review: The City retained the firm of Dudek and Associates, Inc. to prepare an Initial Study under the California Environmental Quality Act. The Initial Study resulted in the determination that the proposed revisions to the City Council's G -1 Policy would not result in a significant impact to the environment and a Negative Declaration was prepared. The Initial Study, Negative Declaration and related analysis were completed to provide complete disclosure to the City Council and the members of the public regarding the reasonably foreseeable environmental effects of the proposed revisions (Attachment J). Under the analysis in the Negative Declaration, the proposed revisions will not result in a significant environmental impact for the specific reasons outlined in the document, primarily based on the fact that it is not reasonably foreseeable that the potential loss of trees under the revisions will exceed 470 trees per year initially and will reduce in number as the years pass. Based on this estimate, losses within the first two years of Policy implementation would represent less than 3% of the City's total inventory of trees and the loss will be temporary as replacement trees are planted and grow to maturity. While for some slower growing replacement trees, the time to maturity will be 8 -15 years or more, this is not true for all of the trees that could be potentially removed /replaced. Furthermore, the amended G -1 Policy retains the checks and balances of review prior to removal of any tree and does not automatically anticipate the immediate removal of numerous trees. The purpose of the revisions is to provide more flexibility in the factors for City Urban Forestry staff, the City Manager, PB &R Commission, and City Council to review before deciding to retain or remove a tree. Public Notice: Notice of availability of the Negative Declaration was posted at the County Recorder's office and published in the Daily Pilot on March 10, 2004. The Negative Declaration was posted on the City's website on March 12th. Notice of availability was mailed on March 17th to all persons who have participated in the Ad Hoc Tree Committee hearings or otherwise requested notice. Due to the date of mailing the Notice, the time for providing comments on the Negative Declaration was extended to G -1 Policy Review April 27, 2004 Page 10 April 6, 2004. The City received six written comments on the Negative Declaration. The written comments and written responses to those comments have been provided as attachments to this report (Attachments K and L, respectively). Funding Availability: Non - applicable. Summary: The proposed G -1 Policy provides for a more flexible decentralized administration of the urban forest while still retaining adequate oversight of our most valuable natural resources without undue expense. Street trees will remain the dominant street feature, but will be managed in a responsible, economical, and balanced manner if the revised policy is approved. The attached resolution permits adoption by Council of the Negative Declaration (Attachment M). This step must be completed before Council acts on approving the amended G -1 Policy (Attachment N). Alternatives: Council could choose to: • Disapprove some or all of the proposed G -1 Policy revisions • Make alternative revisions to the proposed G -1 Policy • Approve the negative declaration by resolution • Approve the proposed G -1 Policy • Continue the matter to address concerns Prepared by: David E. Niederhaus General Services Director Submitted by: 54L�. Homer L. Blu au City Manager Attachments: (A) City Council Regular Session Agenda Item of September 9, 2003 (B) City Council Regular Session PowerPoint Presentation of September 9 (C) Minutes of Council Regular Session of September 9, 2003 (D) Ad Hoc Tree Committee Agenda of October 7, 2003 (E) Minutes of Ad Hoc Tree Committee Meeting of October 7, 2003 0 L J 0 G -1 Policy Review April 27, 2004 Page 11 (F) Draft G -1 Policy of October 8, 2003 (G) City Council Study Session Report on Problem Tree Damage (H) Photos of Tree Root Damage (1) Tree Damage Claims Report (J) Negative Declaration G -1 Policy Amendments (Retention or Removal of City Trees, by Dudek & Associates, Inc., dated March 10, 2004 (K) Written Comments on the Negative Declaration (L) Responses to Written Comments on the Negative Declaration (M) Resolution approving Negative Declaration (N) Final G -1 Policy NOTE: (K) and (L) will be delivered with the supplemental packet on Friday, April 23, 2004. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Study Session Item No. ss2 September 9, 2003 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: General Services Department David E. Niederhaus, Director, 949 -644 -3055 dniederhaus @city.newport - beach.ca.us SUBJECT: G -1 Policy Review ISSUE: Does the City Council want to consider the revisions to the existing G -1 Policy (Retention or Removal of City Trees) recommended by the Ad Hoc Tree Committee at a future City Council meeting? RECOMMENDATIONS: 40 Provide staff with direction after considering proposed G -1 Policy revisions, Ad Hoc Tree Committee recommendations, additional staff reports, and public comments. DISCUSSION: Background: The G -1 Policy Review staff report of August 26 provides the background and history of the City G -1 policy. (Attachment A) At the Study Session of August 26, Council questioned staff on a variety of issues, following a staff PowerPoint presentation on the proposed changes to the G -1. In addition, Ms. Debra Allen, Chairperson of the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission and the Ad Hoc Tree Committee briefed the Council on the Committee's recommendations for changes to the G -1 policy. A copy of the minutes of the August 26 Study Session are attached (Attachment B). A substantial amount of public input was heard at the Study Session, but because several people in the audience did not have time to comment, the Council continued the matter to a September study session. Attachment A G -1 Policy Review September 9, 2003 Page 2 • Staff has responded to Council interests by providing additional information regarding the proposed revisions as well as various statistics. Current Policy Analysis The City urban forest consists of almost 40,000 trees valued in excess of $70M. The City budget to care for trees is currently $551K. The current budget does not include previous fiscal year funding ($50K) to address ficus tree damage problem. The forest is actively managed by the Parks and Trees Maintenance Superintendent as well as an Urban Forester. The City manages the forest through a series of policies that regulate the retention, removal, and planting of trees. The most prominent of the policies is the G -1 Policy. As it is currently written, the G -1 Policy which was adopted in April 23, 2000, prohibits removal of trees without considerable process and review. The current policy is considered very conservative in regards to tree removals. Almost all tree removals are opposed by some residents. Only 29 trees were removed by the City in the past fiscal year compared with 487 trees planted. The majority of tree removals were due to • settlement of tree root damage claims. Since FY 1999 -2000, which coincides with the adoption of the current G -1 policy, the City has been planting trees at a 9 to 1 ratio to tree removals. In essence, the City forest is growing at a rapid pace while the tree budget has not kept pace. Infrastructure Damage and Costs to Repair Problem trees have continued to cause considerable damage throughout the City. Currently there are 6,500 separate locations that have been ramped with asphalt and await hardscape repairs. The average damage per sidewalk location is 80 square feet, which equals 520,000 square feet of sidewalk in Newport Beach. Eighty percent of the 6,500 locations were damaged by tree roots; that equals 416,000 square feet of sidewalk damage alone. Using current private contractor bid costs per square foot this equates to $2.5 million to repair tree root damage. This is a significant increase from the level of deferred maintenance of 253,120 square feet ten years ago. In addition, there are 3,000 curb and gutter locations that need repairs estimated at an additional cost of $1.5 million. On average, 22% of the trees in the City inventory cause frequent (every 3 -5 years) repair to sidewalks, curbs, and gutters. There is presently a one year response time to resident's hardscape repair requests, most of which are the result of problem tree root damage. The number of complaints about hardscape repairs has increased 58% in the past 10 years. • An analysis of the latest bids for contractor hardscape repairs shows the cost to root prune trees has escalated rapidly with knowledgeable contractors charging $100 to $265 per tree location. G -1 Policy Review September 9, 2003 Page 3 General Liability Claims Staff has prepared the attached tree damage claim report related to property damage by tree roots (Attachment C). What is significant about the report is the growth in amounts paid per incident (largest claim at $575K) and the doubling of the number of claims per year (15 -30) in a 5 year period. The number of claims filed for street tree damage to hardscape and underground utilities is rapidly escalating as the City continues to retain problem trees at significant cost under the current G -1 policy. City Costs Associated with Tree Root Damage The total annual cost associated with tree root damage is estimated to be in excess of $1.3M. A breakdown of the costs is as follows: * Ficus Tree Remedial Programs $50,000 Sidewalk, Curb, and Gutter Repairs (City Crews) $633,712 Sidewalk, Curb, and Gutter Repairs (Private Contractor) $153,000 Underground Utilities $476,000 Total $1,312,712 *Not currently funded in the current fiscal year In early 2002, as a result of a number of staff presentations on the cost and liability created by City parkway Ficus trees, Council authorized a three pronged program including annual tree trimming, root pruning, and root barrier installation and authorized an expenditure of $50K to fund the program. Under this program the majority of large parkway Ficus trees were trimmed, a root pruning program was established, and root barriers were installed in the past fiscal year. The purpose of the program was to reduce tree root damage while preserving large Ficus trees. As noted above, this program is not funded in the current fiscal year. This past fiscal year, City concrete crews spent 80% of their time repairing hardscape damage due to tree roots. Their work is supplemented by a private contractor. City utility crews spend a significant portion of their time clearing City sewers of tree roots using large vacuum trucks and two men crews. In addition, they manage a sewer lateral cleanout program, a camera inspector van and operator to locate tree root blockages, and a root deterrent program using a herbicide foam. As a matter of information, private tree root damage to City sewers is repaired at City cost. u G -1 Policy Review September 9, 2003 Page 4 View Protection The current G -1 and G -3 Policies provide a limited degree of protection for public and private views. However, neither policy, either in its current form or the draft G -1 Policy, fully protects private property owner views obstructed by City trees. Rather a balance is struck between alternative tree trimming methods funded by private property owners and homeowner's associations and preserving our older trees as they continually grow taller. Should the proposed changes to G -1 be approved, City trees will still protected by a stringent reforestation review process that includes the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission and in some cases the Council. An example of tree preservation priority over view concerns is the old, large stand of eucalyptus City trees along 4t' Avenue in Corona del Mar. These trees are the oldest trees in the City with some in excess of 60 years of age. The proposed G -1 Policy does provide for more flexibility in tree trimming standards and reduced costs for view communities in that two Supplemental Trimmings are not mandatory before a reforestation request can be submitted. Comparison — Current and Proposed G -1 Policies One of the Council requests was for a comparison of the current and proposed G -1 Policies. To better understand the reasoning supporting the changes to the G -1 Policy, a matrix has been prepared that compares how the current and proposed policies might affect City or residents' tree requests (Attachment D). Tree Ordinances The matter of considering revisions to either of the two current City ordinances (13.08 and 13.09) was a second BAS issue that was briefly addressed at the August 26 Study Session. Ms. Allen, Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Tree Committee, noted the Committee's recommendation that the ordinances were adequate for City use and required no revisions. Staff, including the City Attorney staff, agree with that finding. Environmental Review: See Environmental Analysis section of Attachment A. Funding Availability: Not applicable. G -1 Policy Review September 9, 2003 Page 5 Summary The proposed G -1 Policy provides for a more flexible decentralized administration of the urban forest while still retaining adequate oversight of our most valuable natural resources. Street trees will remain the dominant street feature, but will be managed in a responsible more economical manner if the revised policy is approved. Prepared by: David E. Niederhaus General Services Director Submitted by: Homer L. BlusKu City Manager Attachments: (A) City Council Study Session Agenda Item dated August 26, 2003 (B) Minutes of Council Study Session of August 26, 2003 (C) City General Liability Claims (Tree/Tree Root Property Damage dated September 2003 (D) Comparison of Current and Proposed G -1 Policies 11 0 NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Adjourned Regular Meeting Study Session - 4:00 p.m August 26, 2003 ROLL CALL CURRENT BUSI]`1E$S 1. CLARIFICATION OF ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR. (4:00 P.M.) 2. G -1 POLICY REVIEW. (4:10 P.M.) Action: Provide staff with direction after considering G -1 Policy revisions, Ad Hoc Tree Committee recommendations and public comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS (Public comments are invited on non - agenda items generally considered to be within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Council— Speakers must limit comments to 3- minutes). ADJOUR - MENT 0 DRAFT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 9 City Council Minutes Study Session August 26, 2003 — 4 :00 p.m. Present: Heffernan, Ridgeway, Adams, Webb, Nichols, Mayor Bromberg Absent: Proctor CURRENT BUSINESS 1. CLARIFICATION OF ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR INDEX Council Member Heffernan requested that a drawing be provided prior to the evening meeting regarding the curb cut request for 428 Orchid Avenue, Item No. 9. 2. G•1 POLICY REVIEW. Council Policy G•1 (62) Using a PowerPoint presentation, General Services Director Niederhaus stated that on March 11, 2003, the City Council directed the Parks, Beaches & Recreation (PB &R) Commission to form an Ad Hoc Tree Committee. The • committee held five public meetings from April 1 to July 15, 2003, and received over 250 suggested changes to Council Policy G•1, Retention or Removal of City Trees, and 42 written comments. The process resulted in a proposed revision to the G•1 policy, which had previously not been amended since the year 2000. General Services Director Niederhaus reported that the classification of the City's trees was changed to include special trees, problem trees and all other trees. He stated that there are 965 special trees in the City, and that they include landmark trees, dedicated trees and neighborhood trees. Definitions for each category were also added to the policy. He pointed out that another proposed change to the G•1 policy is to allow the PB &R Commission to designate and remove trees from the special tree listing. The City Council would also have the right to remove trees in conjunction with beautification projects. General Services Director Niederhaus stated that problem trees include eight specific species of trees, which have been identified as causing major problems. He noted that there are approximately 7,000 problem trees in the City, and it is proposed that problem trees not be designated as parkway trees on the designated street tree list. He stated that it is also proposed that problem trees that are not designated as special trees be removed if they are causing hardscape or repeated damage due to significant street or sidewalk damage. He explained that such problem trees are currently causing expensive damage to the City's infrastructure. Problem trees could also be removed for causing a view impediment. General Services Director Niederhaus stated that problem trees can be proposed for removal by staff, private property owners or businesses, and that the Urban Forester has the authority to approve their removal. He added that no more than 250 trees would be allowed to be removed annually. City Manager Bludau suggested that the removal of view impediment trees be by approval of the City Manager. Volume 56 - Page 345 0 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes August 26, 2003 trees be by approval of the City Manager. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway asked for a clarification on the number of problem trees in the City. General Services Director Niederhaus stated that there are 7,142 problem trees and of that, 6,545 are parkway trees and 708 are view impediment trees. General Services Director Niederhaus stated that the cost of removing a view impediment tree would be the responsibility of the applicant. Mayor Bromberg asked why a property owner who has damage to his property caused by a problem City tree would have to pay for the removal. General Services Director Niederhaus stated that money was not budgeted in the 2003- 2004 fiscal year for reforestation of problem trees. Council Member Heffernan asked if the damage would be allowed to continue in such cases, General Services Director Niederhaus stated that funding is not available for regular reforestation, unless the request comes through as a claim and then the claim process is followed. Council Member Heffernan stated that it would make sense for the City to take the initiative to remove problem trees that are causing damage to private property and to include such situations in the budget. City Manager Bludau noted the provision in the proposed policy that places the responsibility of payment on the applicant for the removal of view impediment trees, but places the responsibility on the City for problem trees that cause damage to private property or the infrastructure. Continuing with the PowerPoint presentation, General Services Director Niederhaus stated that few changes were made to the policies for the all other trees classification, although it was clarified that all other trees are those not designated as special trees or problem trees. The process for the removal of special trees was also more clearly defined, and changes were made to the individuals that can appeal the decision not to remove a tree. General Services Director Niederhaus stated that the size of the replacement tree for all other trees was also increased. General Services Director Niederhaus stated that the policies for reforestation of City trees are often used by business associations or view communities. He stated that the policies were originally intended to handle problems with hardscape or view issues, but that it is being proposed to include trees that have reached their full life span, are in declining health or are the wrong species for a particular location. He stated that the petition process is also being revised to require pre-approval of petitions and who the petitions must be distributed to. The requirements for replacement trees is also proposed for amendment by reducing the size to the 24-inch boxed trees and requiring that it be done in a timely manner. In regard to encroachment and demolition permits, General Services Director Niederhaus stated that the proposal is to return the authority of requests for tree removals or replacements to the General Services Director rather than having them submitted to the PB &R Commission, which adds a greater period of time to the permit processing procedure. He stated that the tree trimming standards are also recommended for revision by allowing the Urban Forester to determine when supplemental tree trimming is impractical or infeasible. Volume 56 - Page 346 W511" City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes August 26, 2003 INDEX Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway noted that the proposed policy has not been submitted by the Ad Hoc Tree Committee to the PB &R Commission yet. General Services Director Niederhaus stated that the monthly meetings of the commission have included a report from the committee chairman. He added that the City Council did not request that the committee submit the proposed policy to the commission prior to it being reviewed by the City Council. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway stated that the PB &R Commission should review the proposed policy and make a recommendation. City Manager Bludau added that the resolution established the Ad Hoc Tree Committee as a committee of the PB &R Commission and did not require them to report back to the full commission. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway stated that he would respect their recommendation. Mayor Bromberg asked if the proposed policy would be sent out for environmental review. General Services Director Niederhaus stated that the environmental assessment will be handled by Assistant City Attorney Clauson. Assistant City Attorney Clauson stated that an environmental assessment has not been done, but that the City Attorneys office did attempt to quantify the potential tree loss under the proposed policy. She stated that if the proposed policy will be considered for adoption, an environmental assessment should be done. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway stated that a policy change shouldn't require an environmental review. Assistant City Attorney Clauson stated that it would be considered discretionary approval under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and that given the potential tree loss, she couldn't find a basis for being exempt. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway confirmed that if there's discretionary approval by the City for a change to the policy, the CEQA requirements would have to be complied with. Assistant City Attorney Clauson stated that Council Policy G-1 is being reviewed by the City at the current time as the result of a lawsuit settled in December of 2002, with the Balboa Arbor Society. As part of the settlement, the City agreed to review the policy and to also consider an ordinance for special tree protection. She stated that the committee determined that the current City ordinance sufficiently protects trees from being removed. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway stated that he was involved in the negotiations with the Balboa Arbor Society and that there was never a promise that special trees would remain inviolate. Council Member Webb asked if an environmental assessment had ever been done on any of the Council policies. Assistant City Attorney Clauson stated that Council Policy G -1 is the only Council policy that deals with potential physical changes to the environment. She added that if the proposed changes are made to the policy and it results in a loss of trees, an environmental review should be done. Council Member Heffernan asked if a property owner who removes a City tree without approval would be responsible for reimbursing the City for the value of the tree, in addition to the replacement. General Services Director Niederhaus stated that property owners who perform illegal tree removals are held responsible for the full value of the tree. He noted that the number of illegal tree removals has gone down. Council Member Heffernan asked who pays for a Volume 56 - Page 347 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes August 26, 2003 • tree removals has gone down. Council Member Heffernan asked who pays for a tree that is damaged as the result of an accident. General Services Director Niederhaus stated that a procedure is in place through the Revenue Division to recover damages to trees and City property caused by accidents. Council Member Heffernan asked if the City would bear the risk if a tree is damaged during trimming by City crews since the City approved the trimming, or if the entity that requested the trimming be done would be responsible. General Services Director Niederhaus stated that West Coast Arborists would bear the risk. City Manager Bludau added that the entity that requested the trimming wouldn't be responsible for the quality of the work that is done on the trees. Council Member Heffernan stated that it would seem that the entity that made the request should have to indemnify the City for any damages that occur as a result of the request, since they are the ones benefiting from the trimming. Assistant City Attorney Clauson stated that it would be the responsibility of the requestor if they used their own arborist, but the City doesn't allow this due to liability concerns. Debra Allen, Chair of the PB &R Commission and Chair of the Ad Hoc Tree Committee, stated that regarding the concern of the PB &R Commission reviewing the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Tree Committee, regular reports were provided to the commission. She noted, however, that a recommendation from the commission was not sought because the committee was established as an ad hoc committee of the City. Council, which would make the City Council the proper body to make recommendations on the proposed policy. Ms. Allen stated . that it's important to remember that the G-1 policy is just that, a policy, and not an ordinance. She stated that it's direction to staff about how to handle day to day problems with trees. She stated that the proposed policy is designed to make it easier for a tree to be removed that is causing damage. Ms. Allen provided copies of the existing City ordinances that address trees. She specifically referred to the provisions in Sections 13.08 and 13.09 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC), and stated that the committee determined that an additional ordinance was not needed. She stated that the proposed policy deals with problem trees, removal of trees and reforestation of trees. Mayor Bromberg asked if the existing G-1 policy references Section 13.08.030 of the NBMC. Ms. Allen stated that she didn't believe so, but that the section has been in place for a number of years. Regarding environmental review of the policy, Ms. Allen stated that the changes to the policy are minor but that she would defer to the City Attorney's office for direction. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway asked if there was any type of environmental review performed during the process. Assistant City Attorney Clauson stated that there was not. Referring to Section 13.08.030 of the NBMC, Mayor Bromberg asked if the determination by the City Council to relocate or remove a tree is based on the policies established in the G-1 policy. Assistant City Attorney Clauson stated that the G-1 policy is intended to manage the trees in regard to removal, relocation and tampering, and that it provides the process for removing a tree without prosecution under the City codes. Virginia Herberts stated that the proposed changes give the General Services Director and those that he hires too much authority. She provided a couple of examples of how trees have been saved in the past by the actions of concerned Volume 56 • Page 348 INDEX City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes August 26, 2003 examples of how trees have been saved in the past by the actions of concerned individuals who have proven that particular trees did not need to be removed. She agreed with the proposal to give the authority to the PB &R Commission to designate special trees, but she disagreed that the commission should have the authority to remove trees from the special tree listing. Ms. Herberts also expressed her concern for including public views in the discretion to remove trees and giving the authority to the Urban Forester. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway agreed that the ultimate authority should be with the City Manager, and not with the General Services Director. He also felt that there should be a standard established for what constitutes view blockage. Mayor Bromberg asked if trees that are impeding views would be trimmed or removed. Firstly, Ms. Allen agreed that the ultimate decision maker should be the City Manager and in response to Mayor Bromberg's question, she stated that the proposed policy does not allow for one neighborhood to remove trees in another neighborhood because of view blockage. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway agreed that offsite tree removal should not be addressed in the G•1 policy. INDEX Elaine Linhoff requested that the Main Street ficus tree issue not be considered when looking at the G•1 policy. She stated that the existing policy was developed after many meetings with input from both those in support of removing trees for various reasons and those in support of retaining all trees. She stated that a compromise was reached and that the resulting policy has worked for three years. She didn't see the need to make any changes to it. She added that the Ad Hoc Tree Committee was biased in one direction and that the public meetings that were held didn't allow for adequate public input. Eleanor Lumsdon displayed a map of Corona Highlands, which showed the homes that are impacted by the eucalyptus trees on Coast Highway. She requested that her neighborhood be allowed to follow the procedures and have the trees replaced, but expressed her concern that the policy only allows for property owners within 500 feet to submit such requests. She stated that properties further from the trees are affected. Iryne Black stated that she was involved with the development of the existing G•1 policy and felt that it worked well until the Main Street issue. She expressed her concern for the proposed policy and the lack of standards in place for the 250 trees the General Services Director would be allowed to remove annually. She stated that there are many other factors to consider than just views. Ms. Black also expressed her concern that renters aren't included in the new procedures and that a 500•foot limit has been set on those that can file an appeal. Lastly, she disagreed that property values are affected by view impediment trees. . Allan Beek, speaking on behalf of Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPON), stated that SPON recently voted in support of Dr. Jan Vandersloot's position that the proposed policy is detrimental and that the existing G•1 policy should remain and be enforced. Secondly, speaking on behalf of himself, Mr. Beek stated that he doesn't feel that the existing G•1 policy is working well. He stated that there • is no procedure in place for the general public to initiate any corrective action to the views that have been taken away by trees. He stated that there is also no Volume 56 • Page 349 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes August 26, 2003 INDEX • the views that have been taken away by trees. He stated that there is also no procedure in place to save trees on private property that enhance the community. Lastly, Mr. Beek expressed concern for the lack of standards regarding appeals. Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway confirmed with Mr. Beek that his personal view differs from that of SPONs. Laura Curran agreed with the proposed standards for the reforestation petition process, but felt that a notification process should also be considered. She also encouraged the City Council to consider native trees as replacement trees. Christine Carr expressed her support of SPON's recommendation to retain the current G•1 policy. She also expressed her support of those that developed the existing policy. In regard to the proposals involving tree trimming, Ms. Carr expressed her concern for those in charge of the trimming and the damage that is being done to the trees. Iris Kimmel, President of Harbor View Hills Community Association, stated that the issue is about not planting more trees than can be maintained. She stated that tree maintenance includes thinning, trimming, and removing dead wood on the inside, and that if a tree is properly thinned and trimmed, it remains healthy and doesn't impede views. She stated that the policies should allow people to maintain reasonable views and reasonable tree heights, and that a lot of it has to do with planting the right trees in the right places. Ms. Kimmel • requested that the City Council listen to what the majority of the citizens in Newport Beach have been saying and make a decision based on what the City can realistically deliver. Referring to a letter sent by the association to the City Council, she offered to answer any questions. Mayor Bromberg asked for a clarification from Ms. Kimmel regarding the location of the trees that the City refused to lower. Ms. Kimmel stated that they were City trees in the Harbor View Hills and Cameo communities. Urban Forester Conway stated that the City is limited on the amount of trimming that can be done reasonably and that the request would require that the trees be removed or defoliated completely. Bob Pastor stated that approximately twenty years ago, he worked with the City on trimming some trees in his neighborhood. He stated that the trees weren't lowered, they were just thinned, which didn't help with the view problem in the neighborhood, and that the community association ended up trimming the trees themselves. He encouraged the City Council to also review Council Policy G-3, Preservation of Views. Mr. Pastor noted that he currently has a tree that is blocking the view from his home. Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway asked if the G-3 policy applies to private or public views. Assistant City Attorney Clauson stated that Council Policy G-3 does not protect views, but it does identify the importance of views, includes a policy to preserve and promote the aesthetic and environmental benefits of trees, and expresses the City's endeavor to maximize public and private view planes. • Council Member Adams asked General Services Director Niederhaus to discuss an issue he mentioned earlier regarding Cameo Shores. General Services Director Niederhaus reported that several months ago, the City was conducting Volume 56 - Page 350 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes August 26, 2003 INDEX Director Niederhaus reported that several months ago, the City was conducting routine grid trimming in the area, and the residents asked them to stop and to trim the trees to the standard used in prior years. He stated that this type of trimming didn't follow the standards set by the National Arborists Society. The City worked with the residents and trimmed some of the trees, according to the G-1 policy, and asked for their opinions. He stated that the residents have since become actively involved with the review of the G -1 policy, and feel that they might be able to remove the trees due to view impediments. Council Member Adams asked if the proposed policy would allow the residents to petition for removal of the trees. General Services Director Niederhaus stated the he doesn't believe that the association can afford to do them all, but could possibly do it in phases. He added that they might also have two alternatives, one by means of the reforestation policy and one by the policy for problem trees. Lastly, he stated that the trees are too mature to trim down to 14 feet, as the residents have requested. In response to Council Member Adams' question, General Services Director Niederhaus stated that the residents would have the responsibility of paying for the work because it is being requested for view impediment and not hardscape damage. PUBLIC COMMENTS IE_NTS Allan Beek requested that the E1 Morro trailer park issue be placed on the agenda of a future City Council meeting. He stated that the beaches in Newport Beach are overcrowded and it's time that the public had access to the public beach at El Morro. He stated that the residents of the trailer park are fighting the idea. Mayor Bromberg stated that he has spoken to the City Attorney about the issue and has requested that the item be placed on a future agenda. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway stated that El Morro is within the City of Laguna Beach's sphere of influence, and disagreed with the City of Newport Beach addressing the issue. Mayor Bromberg stated that he had the same concern, but it is public property handled by the State and anyone has the right to express opinions, even though the City would have no jurisdiction or authority to demand or expect anything beyond providing an opinion. Council Member Heffernan stated that El Morro is a beach facility with easy access and, if certain improvements are made, it could take some of the pressure off of Corona del Mar beach. He stated that it would be in the interest of the Newport Beach residents to promote the use of El Morro. After a brief discussion by the City Council members, it was decided that the G-1 Policy Review would be continued to the Study Session of September 9, 2003. Council Member Adams encouraged residents and staff to share their stories and issues regarding the trees in the City. He noted that the information about Cameo Shores was enlightening and that he'd like to hear from others about their specific issues and concerns. Volume 56 - Page 351 • City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes August 26, 2003 • Council Member Webb requested that information be presented on what the City is doing to protect and maintain problem trees. He noted that he doesn't live in what is considered a view community and that the trees, themselves, are the views. Mayor Bromberg agreed that what may be appropriate for one neighborhood may not be appropriate for another. General Services Director Niederhaus stated that over a year ago, funds were provided in the budget for the City to begin annual trimming of ficus trees, a root pruning program and other services to retain problem trees. He stated that it has not resulted in the need to replace fewer sidewalks, and that he would present the Study Session report that addressed the issue to Council Member Webb. Council Member Heffernan requested that a ten-year summary of the claims submitted to the City for damages caused by trees also be included in the information provided to the City Council, and that it include the money that has been spent by the City to resolve them. Assistant City Attorney Clauson also suggested that the General Services Director provide information on the cost and location of sidewalk replacements and repairs that have been done as a result of tree damage. Council Member Heffernan agreed. Assistant City Attorney Clauson additionally noted the tree loss report that was included in the staff report, which identifies the trees that the Urban Forester has determined are problem trees. ADJOURNMENT — 5:45 p.m. The agenda for the Study Session was posted on August 20, 2003, at 3:00 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. City Clerk L Recording Secretary Mayor Volume 56 - Page 352 INDEX 9 d a �x 9 � m 03 u oKi oni d a m 3 o c 3c- 3 o m 3 d o f i0 rs �•�vmo`<po m� 0 3= e 3 m c C 9 CC x m 3 N < N a p. N y' N N 0 O. 0 7 7c N O ND O D N �• O N = 7 O. 'mJ7 ? m o m m l< CD w CD O O S S S f0 t0 f0 f0 S f0 4A 4A ������ fA A f_A f_AW fA fA N W OI N 00 00 N 0 A A 0 W W T 0 CND S p4p7� f0 A O t0 T t0 W O T O A O V T O A W Oto IV 000OOto OOO W O O A 0 O O O O O 0 O W O 0 0 0 OI 00 V V W O A W W O f0 A T W N OND S z A O N (011 -` T m T OI N O N 0 Z w x W obi vy .X J�m2 obi x-N�•= N `< w 1N Ol o C FD' -o m co 0= 7 N 7< d m N 0 m d ID —a> v• vo vm. S _ 3 n v 3 W o c o o� v 0t 0 o of o S o m n N n C n m C m n d A A A CD m m S N• C N N N m N 7 CD N l< N O N 7 'O 3 7 m '0 N m m v 3 m W A 0 W A T T- V V W A- W A W C Cg Cg A C C C A C C A C C A C C � 33 30 3G m 3D �3�A ED Go Go Go c c Go m D �. . 0 3 3 y 3 n 3 m x d? 3a < -I d N N m N CO 0 f0 — ma C CD CD n C o 0 0 m 3 N r T A A T V f0 V V CO r3n�rpQ3oo :NNN�m�Nr�3r3�� � m� c3�mm W W W W W V W0 m mm 00 00 0 m h 4A rn 4A cn d+ W K) 14 ODD OI fA fA (A 4A N 4A V OOD A OfAO (11 OI -+-+OI W OOD W W A O OD O t0 O OI O O W N t0 O �O NOOI OOS W O O t0O tOOOO A O O O O D O O I V O I V O O O f 0 V S N O O S 000000 O O O N W N O W O N A W N N _N V N O N -+ GNC �V m �ci ID 00 y 9 o�ni CL 0 CL p N 0 =, �j m m � ON O. r,d <o.� m m 0 r v 3 d M m M m m c M y W W- m W r n m S R c m c m m N 3 N< N< N m G) 3 N G) a +A..'D V C C m CD H H D 3 3 Q CD m C C C A C C C C A C A C A A C A m 0 mm O � Or r lu W AF 04 A 0 �5 D y 3 D m m It �' s 3 an 4 . � • 9 V d N w' 03 o� a) 0 �CD 0 a) mtn� 3030 D3� ^W 3 3 N= X 7 C° a �• `a m 00 y= o °S ° °�'mH@ WW3a�oQD�303CDp3� -°—m3 n 5• �. 3° o m W c n in C 0 o m Vj d co >. N N 3 ID K CL N -n (D N 1 O 3 m -y a �< P c 2 S N N N 0 N N . . O N tN A C\ll W W f3 f3 N T V 0 0 0 0 0 O O ap 00 V 00 Z! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° 000000 0 0 4 3 7 3 a o°CD �mm m Wm Wm c C 3 m a$ A 3 y m m 0 W o m —ab m y N N CL d y p N CD a m F x x a n � N 3 m d 3 ' N N V T T�iA A W W \C7 C7 C7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O d h fA fA fA -+ (A (A fA fA (A (A OD fD fA fA fA fA N 0 W 14 N O W V W V (p � NFp 0 -+ N N W V V� (A O W 0 A W O IV A V T N_ N W -+ 01 (J A O N T N T V N N O W CD (J1 O 000 O W O N V (A (A W T V' O V fA A W VI fD VI VI VI O f0 C O O N( A 0 0 T O W O W W O O T 0 N 01 00 O A T O W O O O ID A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 "00000,400000 O O O O O O O O O V O O W O V O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 " O O O O T o O O O O O V 0 W -+ -+ -+ T A -+ T N N V N N" W W N O W N W W V W W V T 0 0 0 W O W W T N W O O A N V W 0 O O N O O O VI T T O < r, y CD Q)no 0 M W -00 W vo �m <v2 OW O' < N jN ? O" W CI N 0 0 N 3 N N m N r •i S CL N a N N N x W° (A N of .N^.. N w Cl Q 7 D r W c C w 4 D D° N a 01 m m m < < 5D m m A N W 0- N F N N N N C) 0 u$ a . m W 7 m g a v_ Q) m T T T V m T m m T T T T m v m D m m K o T T C 0 p 0 C 0 C C 0 0 0 o C� C N C 0 y N 0° d N N N N 0 N 0 0 N N N N 0 N 0� 0 N 7 p N N V N V N V V v V V �• Ox N v N v N N N N N ° CL T A A M M M W V A T T W N M M M W M- T- V A u�i o o rcn��i rcu��i u�i rc�w rc w� w w o rc�w�' w w g g�� chi w� o VI N N W VI A V -` 8 W W W T O W N_ O O T O O •' -4 A V' S N o=0N �N (D (D N d 3- --ao�oo>>o" D�(A DDS o o y0 ��oCD�y H m m 1 n 0 0 v � 3 O M M m T W T:R T T T N o o C o 5'm 0 0 0 c 7 � m � m rn w w rn w rn rn rn w� N m > > > x > > n m m m Mmm OA r O C MED A r 04 �5 Dy D m m , Orr A�;o a) Er a) �m Aoai 2 o=i �y Sid Noai co �3vT2�o p1 0 To of m o m 3 m 3 o• H W o q <, o o m o W �. a =D=i Tm - '< -1 m m A a o• c co a) G) oni `2 �' W m H WOm Cc Wao N'<3moo Nyco WWa U3 U3 r,; mo b o m�?� >> oo. W� W < >> off. ?WIr3� I3 CL <g o 0 CD _. CD x 3 (`I OO 000OO2n A A W W W W W` W `J -�-� -� -�-� -� -�-� -�-�W0 V V -� W++ C\11 t3 W N W W � f0 QD V t0 � � O t0 V N O O O N O N N N O O O O O O N N N N O O N N 0 O O O 0D to N O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N O O O O O •0 '0 '0 '0 '0 •0 •0 '0 •0 10 10 '0 '0 •0 T -� Ut U1 FA fJ FA FA -� W A Ut N N V f0 � -� -� -� T U1 O O O O V T O" N N T w O o O A fA N N N O N N W fA fA O 0 fA fA O N O O O 0 fA O O 0 O N O A O W O O fA 0 A 0 0 A A m V A A 0 0 0 V O O O A 0 0 0 f0 O O O W O Ut O W N 0 0 0 0 O N O O O" V w O V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O N O O O O A f0 O O O W O O D A W U1 O O U1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0" 0 0 0 U1 O O O O N" O O O (0 O O O w �" A O W W A V A W A" K) O" A N. -� N" O A N O A O A� � f 0 -" O O N T T W m N N N N V W O m N N O O N m m O T m O N W N f0 f0 N A A 0 0 -� N bf «0"oNbfoDO=N m m V W a V ;AioyCA CA SA Dpi m W -WW W NUAS7 Cb mA W < ntiNnt G) m ��' SS9 <W nr�Dai W �n13 s i c o o D C5. '° @ W o m 2 N °� d�� d s$ M m s s � � o x a) CD co tNO n m O 0 W y n° Xr N o N N n< H W to y W W X0.7 07 0CL y 5m v� v a �. o a m D 1 a 0 <a 0 0 o 3 S v _ m p: o zv v v PL 3 v 3 Z Z T Z m K T D O m m T [) T T m m m T T T T T T T T T T m m� T C O D O O O O C m o N W O O O O O C C C 0,0 0 o O O O O O O C C W O n W p• N N N N ((d1D N 7 O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N W N a D 0 WD O N a = N N N v N N O' CD C O CD ci 9 C 3 A W O O W O O A � O W A O W W W O O O O O V V C C A C C A A C A C A A C C A-Y A C A A A A C C C A A A C C C C C m>> m>> m m 5 m S m m a m >> m Pr Pr w w 0 o o y y w m d m m m m >w w > > w S m m m g d >W > w > w > w > ma v 'c m � 3 � o- W mm m N 3 o �D x =. p 0 o N i! y 0 n W 3 N N O W O O O O W N O (A FA N m 4A V f0 CO A O O N t0 O f0 O O N V m O N O m O N O LAi a 0 v T n T N O N O O CL W 0 W m m m 3 R I I. 0 ;D A C� O� O m m D N 3 D m 0 0 v A v 'c N O m W � p0 0 -m f-C�m0 E' cnzpe CL W S-cn CL m o, a m> _- O m y P m Pr c 3 m o=i' d c> > c 0 �' d �c F m c 7C c CL CL CL -1 N g7 m rl m °' �� _�0 °: W- CL a w3 d'�N O r O CD m mm OmaN C0K SOON 70r7 c�T m m y o y y of 3 m D 5' H T 3 O (�'1 3. p1 °; `2 0 °; m °�' =.i m d o °�' U3 < f0 f0 O fa/ = m x O m m- O �j O N* c = m. 7 m m N g 7. m• 7 M CD N m N N O m 7 m C K m= m' m 7 N N f1 0 (D 3 Qp 7 Qc = -w N O 0 m w 7 O 7 m A m m 3 .< nH N Q n N N `G N 7 O. P m CD m 3 a N ID N O O r < < m m O. j 0 0 � W � O 0 � 0 0 14 1 � A T V nl O N 14 1 T � O W W W W W W O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N U3 —� N N N N O d n N 0, fA �+ fA (A (A fA fA fA fA fA N fA N Fp FAN O V +V X00 W t014 W 0 W 0M0 9p 3 V A I V T T+ 0 0 0_ 0 0 W+ V 0 T W 0 O T w A W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 fN0 O OOD ODD O ODD A (Vll 000 O D V N O VI VM1 V O V W N A + N N T A+ A + A A � - O O 0 N O N N N V O W W W O T W 0 O N A 0 W !2 NN O + W N O A 0 C V N (n T (n � N 0 T N O 0 2'o m a w W, . 0 c c 0 w (n J (n 'o p K y o o m CO C> m 2 �• m= K 5' c v m �' m m n m m W 5' _ <. 5' v D o v N m< m m x D D l/) 2 s 3 to ' 3 ° m cn N cn CD m m � '< o. 0 5' c 5 3 . N =; o 0 R n FL on, M o T SKr,�MMMMoTMM �MKMMwTnTTTTm„ 50 0 .O n O O C n m m C C O O m n 0 0 m°° n n C n O N m m N= C N N N N N N d N N �=• N a N N N N N N O O '< C N C C m ° C C CD CD n' v mr C CCD m m T fD Q N C A C C C C C A C A C A A A C A A A A x x x x C C C C A C A 0 m>>>>> �1 > m 0 m m m0 m m m m m m m m >>>> m� m w3wwwwww3w33ow R0l3333wwww3w3 m m m m m m m $ m m$ m m m m m ?X aan?xa a ?X FL ?XnRR Fn m ' 0 mAmA OD Or r m n > D m m 0 d O 0 d 3 N W OI O d N V p N W T D <n O G1 D O ° v 0 CD 3 �' (D OO N (�D O < N < `G � C (D O 0 C � ? <n O G1 D 0 m 0 0) c y •0 --lo 'v cx o a o � � (D o O.. (D (D o p (D (D :3 m7 7 O (D D) 7 C w N a(°ii o < 0 3 c o w =D3 d (D ° o 7 (D to < o (D 3 CD � s < w I o. 0 _� p) (D O O m 3 .O S D) y. G7 °• �c (D c2_i. m W CD 0 o � (D : f d'0 N N .0.. 0 o o CD 0 d w y n CD CD (D w .°.. = O C ex (OD N o � � � O n 0 ° `G 7. 'p CO 3 0 S — 0. Z (p 3 c g °' � d ... c n (B 0 o ° •° T. ,vo 3 0 =• m 0 < •0 Z0 (D d (D O < 3 CD 0 C (D In a CD y CD w �• 3 o o. o. o — m :3 �•0 m D o v • (D c, d o o m (o CD o � f , CD CD d N w< (D o < o N• w w v_ W rn w 7 n (O/i 3 SOY w C7 c n 3• d m n o° v ° Cl) m O 0 `< _ fD =r �G (D `2 D) I< < (D 0 7 n m 0 Q• a, m o U) c �D 3 (o CD 3 CD o 3 O m m 0 < T O 0. d (D < a) o CD 3 d aa) (D d (D w 3 CD ° 0 E� -4 0 _�. w o m < p d (D 7 C7 (OD (D v N• O d ° Q .. (3D m 0 3° �, 0 m m m 0 CD n n. 0 o < <n Un (o CD U) m m :E Q. Q. 'v cx o a o � � (D o O.. (D (D o p (D (D :3 m7 7 O (D D) 7 (D w N N O 0 ° o d o w N d (D O w 7 m Ic m N M IC (D 1 CD I- L-1 O (D O O QJ CD U) !D O 07 d (D d m o �c cx o a 3 x o (D CD m o (D (D :3 ( 0 7 O (D D) 0 u) N w =r 7 O 3 N O 0 ° d o w m x w m o (D w 2. o x CD ° w w I o. (G') to N =' (D o 2. m 3 cx Z y. G7 °• W CD d 7 O O � E 3 < p, (CD vi I< (D o o CD d w y (n CD m Ic m N M IC (D 1 CD I- L-1 C � O' < •3 (D n 0 ('��D ° (D c m . (D T n) (D m 3 CD < O =r N T N + (D N 7 7 O N 7 3 3 v c 3 3 (o O CD o c CD -D m N N N c o o � o n. CD 3 ° d wo o �• v Ic a) CD o d m .Z1 O C •O C (D O C (D m CD co Ca Er CD ° E3 , (D = N M N (D N N N '0 O O N N m o n m o 7 7 .•. °) _3 ? w Qa f d m -" m o o' (D m m O 0 7 ( D 7 o C 3 N (D 7 p I 0 0 CD c CD 0 =° 3 (n T c 3 w y N v N 4A G o (D , 7 �. v 3� m m ; o CD . C cn °° N d -p `L O v7 7 N w 3 d (D o N O . m o° °: n� o m 7 n) cn y g .D m v O CD C 3 �'i .0 `< m (D d N (D Q' n: O V1 a N N CO cn 3 T 7 3 ° CD 3 O ° (D O - (D N aT, o o n°i f CD a n y p 0 O N d CD (D (n y ° w 0 w > t o o D c (1 o o o O 06 o N (—D (Z C 7- (Oii 0 O. N d cD 3 ro Q CD d O p°j �• (D (D 7 OL) O 3 CD d N N' �' 0, d L m aC" o .0 (D 3 �c A (7D v (D ° S T N (D .N•. n) O d o (� 52 y � O < 'O (D d (D O O p T U) r (D (D O d (D :E to 3 (D (D 3 C n '< ( 3 (D 0 m 3� o °-� v c f o nL f [� -. N 0. N O O O () O C7 7• wm N (� c• N_ (z� '< 3 Q 3 G EF (D N 'O N (n O (n Q (D 'O 3 g at -w ° 3 p �. p (D 7 c 2 Q N CD 5i d O > > �. ° (n < Fu d cci °� f m n n-� n o CD � m . 3 -� ° m (D O o C ° o o' v '< m x ca v m cx CD CD' f l< �, 3 0 i u 'di 'f�i.�.4..• (D N N NNV a) F o U U c C.) (D '— CO c� 'a C cu O (a N O •� U Q � 4 L- - 'O a) N .� O a) � O C N C 'cn c cn O .— O o E 'cu O �� � 0 � .Q °ca ��- ��a c E�� _ O O C .O O L Cn `� O cn c m �o0�a,' E 0�L- cOn a o c� � s O E C)� �, U 0 0 aC;) � O O O V N 0 (U O C a) E O}.��}.ca(.�Oc W • 1 .•v-y� t 4) LM 0 V a E W O C co .cn_ .Q O CU C (a O O � L � C o a) W . L 3 . U � U a O + O - L cn N O > O C O O E cn co C -a .cn O N cn � a) Ef} cn CU 4-0 CO .� > N A N a) E 5,2 Y O CO C C O O N > .Q :3 - a) L U � Q CD (a O O a) cu U cn C • • • E 0 0 a) O .cn_ O .O O O .^, o a) W . C' 3 . U � U a O + N - E cn N O > C O E cn co .O .cn O � CU 4-0 (Da)UQ a ` > :3 - L U � = CD O O a) • E 0 0 0 .o (D C t0 CL t� O M 0*0 O *-I �' N V N M N d Cl) N M N A N L N U) 02 C E M V N N (� N � V Ira LOOT I M = N N N O � ^ o / F.._ 0 E O toW O O M O O 07 �- i O CD O m m m O E M � r O W 2 E L d �" 0 CA ``A A4 U) O V L H M O ftftftft N O N LL 0 0 0 0 r 0 • 0 N O O CY) T O O CY) ti 00 O O LO � LO c O O MM E To- r O f` CL (D m N m d' bg bg toe't. tol't. 0 0 0 0 r 0 • 0 cn O U c E _L •� 0 m CL m U cn c •5� Q a W ) L , li 0 0 0 0 r 0 • 0 r- -I 0 i E a 0 d' M So ti ao � NO N f` co � 00 N 0000 V O LO O O ea 69- 69- 69- 69- CL 0 ..;.. -:. a M N O O o O O O 07 �.+ N O 07 00 aLM LL LL LL LL LL O ._ ._ E 0 E • L -a O _O �E v U E 0 u a) V .° a) cu � CU 'Q a) LLI .... �'� c a) .... L c� co U VO • • O ._ ._ E 0 E • 0 N O O O 'r-- O O 00 I` O O M O M � � O N O a) O N _�, > O i' U n. LL L_ L_ �r L L L L E a) a) Q t3 rn rn a) i a) c LM 4 _ a) a) ..LttY:'�+ .. -Yi�!4 r4`2d., ie�li'�:a Tl�:'::.:... .., it.: =i ". •:a r ti r M L O LL L c� �t O M O ,0 O U AW N O>m V LL O 07 07 O 07 07 O LO LO LO (D 07 M M d' N I` 60. 60. CD .0 CC a) a) cu El • U cn C6 .E i U 0 L 0. • 0 0 • Jc Jc N .N C �- 4-a 4-m p >% O 2 - ._ . U U Op • O O O °° o ti 1 i O > O cn > LL j :,,.. cn N z. U > I- N .N CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Minutes Study Session September 9, 2003 — 4:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: 1- 2. I IZI t Proctor, Ridgeway, Adams (left early), Webb, Nichols, Mayor Bromberg, Heffernan (arrived at 4:10 p.m.) None CLARIFICATION OF ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR Council Member Webb stated that he would be pulling Item No. 4, Sidewalk, Curb, and Gutter Replacement Program 2003 -2004, at the regular meeting to discuss the possibility of including the installation of root barriers in the contract. Council Member Nichols stated that he would be pulling Item No. 3, Coast Highway Channelization and Landscape Median Improvements, to receive a better explanation of the issue. City Manager Bludau stated that he would be pulling Item No. 5, Professional Services Agreement for Preparation of EIR on Regent Newport Beach, to provide the opportunity for a public presentation and discussion. G1 POLICY REVIEW. Using a PowerPoint presentation, City Manager Bludau stated that a review of the G -I Policy was also conducted during the Study Session on August 26, 2003. He stated that the City's urban forest includes approximately 40,000 trees and is valued at over $70,000,000, and that $495,000 is budgeted in the 2003 -04 fiscal year for tree trimming and $236,599 for other tree maintenance expenditures. He displayed a list of the expenditures made during the 2002 -03 fiscal year for tree damages, which included $50,000 for ficus tree remedial work, $633,712 for sidewalk, curb and gutter repairs done by City crews, $153,000 in repairs done by the private sector, and $476,000 for repairing sewer and water lines. He noted that the costs totaled $1,312,712. City Manager Bludau stated that there is a backlog in repairs that also needs to be addressed, and that it totals $2.5 million for sidewalks and $1.5 million for curbs and gutters. Lastly, he displayed a list of private property claims and payments made by the City during the past five years. City Manager Bludau summarized the payments made during the 2002 -03 fiscal year for tree maintenance, repairs and liability claims, and noted that they total approximately $2.1 million, with $4 million in repairs that need to take place in the future. He displayed a list of the trees removed and planted each year since 1997 -98, and noted that 52 trees were removed in 2002 -03 and 487 were planted On average during the six -year period, for every tree that was removed, 7.7 trees were planted. Looking at the big picture and expressing his viewpoints, City Manager Bludau stated that the $2 million spent annually on the City's urban forest indicates the high priority trees have for the City and its residents. He stated that much of the money is spent on repairs that are only temporary in nature because it's the same trees causing the same damage, but with the current G -1 Policy, the removal provisions inhibit the City from spending its infrastructure repair money effectively because it is too restrictive in allowing problem trees to be removed. In conclusion, City Manager Bludau stated that the current G -1 Policy protects individual trees at the expense of good, sound and economical management of the City's urban forest. He stated that the G -1 Policy should provide for more balance in terms of the community's needs and the needs of the urban forest. http://www.c'tty.newport-beach-ca.us/CouncilAgendas/MN09-09.htm Page 1 of 18 Council Policy G -1 (62) 09/18/2003 Attachment C E l Vll l Vl 1VL YY1 Vl \1 ULia Y\i in response to a question raised by Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway at the previous Study Session, Assistant City Attorney Clauson stated that the reforestation provisions are • intended to limit tree removal requests in City parks to the homeowners association that includes the particular park within their geographical boundaries She stated that the policy does not clearly address requests of individuals. Assistant City Attorney Clauson suggested that one option would be to limit individual requests to parkway trees. City Manager Bludau referred to the attachment to the staff report that compares the current G -1 Policy with the proposed amended policy. He stated that both policies address special tree redesignations, but that the proposed policy allows the Parks, Beaches & Recreation (PB &R) Commission to designate and delete trees from the listing. He stated that the proposed policy also provides for clear definitions of special trees. City Manager Bludau stated that the current policy does not link the view goals with Council Policy G -3, but the proposed policy does. City Manager Bludau further noted that the proposed policy allows the City Council to remove special trees in conjunction with City beautification projects, and the Urban Forester to authorize the removal of problem trees. Additionally, the requestor has been given the responsibility to pay for the removal of trees done so for view reasons. City Manager Bludau stated that the proposed policy still defines removal criteria for all other trees, but it has been liberalized. He stated that the proposed policy only allows certain entities to appeal the decision of the General Services Director not to remove a tree. The proposed policy also requires that the City replace trees with 36 -inch boxed trees at a cost of $700 instead of with 24 -inch boxed trees, which cost $195. City Manager Bludau stated that in dealing with reforestation requests, the proposed policy adds a third category to when reforestation is allowed and that is a determination by the Urban Forester that a wrong species of tree has been planted in the wrong location. The proposed policy also requires review by the City of the petition circulated by the applicant, • and specifies the number of property owners to be petitioned and the manner of distribution. The requirement for the replacement tree is also recommended to be reduced from a 36 -inch box tree to a 24 -inch box tree for such requests. City Manager Bludau stated that the proposed policy also changes the requirement to submit tree removal requests for encroachment and demolition permits from the PB &R Commission to the General Services Director. He explained that this will speed up the process and would be done in adherence with the requirements of Council Policies L -2 and L-6. City Manager Bludau stated that alternative tree trimming requests for view would be allowed by legally established community associations only. And, lastly, the proposed policy would allow the Urban Forester to determine if two supplemental trimmings are impractical or infeasible. Council Member Webb stated that there isn't any money being spent on maintaining and prolonging the life of mature trees. He stated that he agrees with setting up policies for the removal of view impediment trees, but that he'd like to see preventative maintenance attempted on trees in non -view areas prior to removal. He stated that different policies can be established for trees in view areas and those in non -view areas. He specifically noted that the effect on a neighborhood should be taken into consideration before removal of trees in non -view areas is authorized. Council Member Heffernan asked why the change to the size of replacement box trees was made. Debra Allen, PB &R Commission, stated that when the City pays for the replacement, the size is recommended to be increased, but when the resident or the homeowners association is required to pay, the size has been reduced in the proposed policy. She stated that the Ad Hoc Tree Committee felt that the City could afford the higher -priced replacement trees, but that the higher price would prohibit the view neighborhoods from being able to remove Lees. Council Member Heffernan referred to the proposed policy for supplemental trimming, and stated that it appears to give the homeowners associations a larger right to impose trimming than is given to individual Property owners. Ms. Allen stated that supplemental trimming is only an issue in view 1 LL6' L Vl lU http: / /www. city.newport- beach. ca.us /CouncilAgendas/MN09 -09.htm 09/18/2003 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Page 3 of 18 neighborhoods. Council Member Heffernan stated that those that drive by the trees are also affected. Ms. Allen stated that the homeowners associations can only request reforestation and supplemental trimming for trees within their boundaries. Council Member Heffernan noted that the value of the properties in the view neighborhoods is high and their homeowners associations should be able to afford the higher -priced replacement trees. Ms. Allen stated that it's a legitimate concern, but the total budget of the associations is not high and the associations are the only ones being given the authority to request reforestation. Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway asked if a citizen can ask to have a City tree removed. Ms. Allen stated that she believes they can, but that it is the homeowners associations that typically make the requests. City Manager Bludau added that builders will also make requests. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway stated that he's speaking of parkway bees. Ms. Allen stated that the current and proposed policies both only allow the homeowners associations to request removal or reforestation of trees within their boundaries, which requires the property owners to work through their board of directors and the community's Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&R's). Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway asked if an individual can request tree trimming and reforestation for a tree in a different association. Ms. Allen stated that the individual would still be required to go through the board of the association that includes the tree in its boundaries. She expressed her agreement with the Assistant City Attorney that requests by individuals to the City be limited to parkway trees. Kathy Young, Cameo Association, complimented the efforts of the Ad Hoc Tree Committee. Ms. Young stated that the Cameo Association has been successful in controlling its property owners' trees, but is looking to the City to control the height of the parkway trees. She stated that they are only concerned about maintaining their views and feels that the proposed policy will allow the association to get more help from the City. She stated that the association also supports the decrease in the box size of the replacement trees, and noted that the total cost for the removal and replacement of trees would be greatly reduced. Ms. Young stated that another improvement in the proposed policy is the recognition that certain trees shouldn't be planted at all due to the damage that they cause. She agreed with the City Manager that it's currently too hard to remove problem trees and that a significant amount of money is being spent on repairs. She expressed the association's support of the proposed policy. Yvonne Houssels, Harbor View Hills South, noted that representatives from several view associations were not given the opportunity to speak at the previous Study Session. She slated that many of the associations support the proposed policy and feel that it makes it possible for the view associations to work with the City, and more equally and economically resolve view issues. She complimented the efforts of the Ad Hoc Tree Committee and City staff. She stated that an environmental report should not be necessary, and that the newly revised policy is needed as soon as possible. Ms. Houssels stated that supplemental trimming is also necessary and that the annual trimming that used to be done resulted in trees that were more attractive and didn't impact views. She also noted that increased property values don't necessarily mean that the homeowners are wealthier, expressing her support for allowing the associations to use the reduced box tree size. Ms. Houssels stated that Council Policy G -3 addresses trees outside the boundaries of the associations. Mary Porter requested that the City Council not make any changes to the current G -1 Policy. She stated that it has worked well for three years, and that tree removals should be looked at closely. She stated that she enjoys the mature trees and the atmosphere that they create. She suggested that signs be posted regarding the dangers of the cracked sidewalks. Reggie Hams, Southern California Edison (SCE), stated that SCE is concerned that the proposed policy does not address SCE's underground equipment or facilities. He stated that they've had problems with tree roots and have severed roots in the past, which can affect the health of the trees. He stated that there's also an issue regarding safety and reliability when SCE cables are damaged. Jane Brown, SCE, stated that SCE doesn't have any problems or concerns with the G -1 http: / /Www.city.newport- beach. ca .us /CouncilAgend&%/NlN09- 09.htm 09/18/2003 • E • Policy. He stated that they just wants the City to be aware of how tree roots affect SCE's underground equipment and facilities. at Irwin suggested that the City of Newport Beach adopt a policy similar to the City of Laguna Beach's that urges residents to consider their neighbors' views when planting trees. Jan Vandersloot, Balboa Arbor Society, stated that the lawsuit settlement was intended to have the G -1 Policy reviewed in terms of strengthening the protection of the trees in the City and developing a tree care ordinance. He stated that the direction seems to have gone the other way, and he requested that the current policy remain as is. He stated that the concerns regarding maintenance and cost expressed earlier by the City Manager can continue to be addressed under the current policy. Dr. Vandersloot stated that if the policy is changed, he would request that the PB&R Commission not be allowed to add or remove trees from the special tree listing, as is proposed. He explained that the authority should lie with the City Council, which is directly accountable to the citizens. Additionally, Dr. Vandersloot stated that the City should be spending its money on preventative maintenance, such as root pruning. He pointed out that the problem tree category is not needed, because. any tree causing a problem can be removed under the existing policy. He stated that the existing policy is serving its purpose and is working well, and the proposed policy favors the removal of trees. Dr. Vandersloot stated that if the proposed policy is considered, a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) evaluation should be done. Barry Allen, Harbor View Hills Community Association, stated that the association supports the proposed changes to the G -1 Policy, and that many of the changes benefit the view associations. He suggested that individual requests for tree removals be addressed at another time. Mr. Allen, speaking on behalf of himself, stated that root pruning doesn't work, is an ineffective way of trying to control trees and increases the risk of the trees falling over. He stated that problem trees have to be removed and sidewalks need to be made level, and that the proposed G -1 Policy makes it easier for the view associations and the City to remove problem trees. He requested that the proposed policy should be approved as submitted by the Ad Hoc Tree Committee. George Parker stated that he has a view of the harbor from his home and can attest to the problem that property owners have with trees that impede their views. He stated that the trees in the City are getting larger and larger, and the City is continuing to plant more trees. He stated that views are important and trees need to be controlled. He expressed his support of the proposed policy, and stated that those that don't want trees removed should be more concerned about the many orange groves that have been lost in the County. He stated that view property owners shouldn't be singled out and required to pay for removals and replacements. He complimented those involved in amending the policy. Marian Rail asked if the policies for the view communities could be separated from those for non -view areas. She stated that the City of Burlingame has very old trees and no one there files claims against the City. She stated that the citizens there realize that the trees are one of the beautiful things about their community, Jeanne Wanlass stated that she lives in a non -view area and the trees in the area are an asset. She also requested that the non -view areas be looked at separately from the view areas. She expressed her support for the current policy. Tom Tobin, PB&R Commission and the Ad Hoc Tree Committee, stated that the committee met five times and heard over fifteen hours of testimony. He encouraged the City Council to approve the proposed policy. Virginia Herberts stated that the proposed changes to the policy only reflect what was requested by the view communities, and that nothing was included to address the concerns of the tree lovers. She stated that the City's tree policy was originally developed because individuals were removing mature trees, and admitted that it didn't address views. She supported the idea of looking at a separate policy for view communities. Ms. Herberts stated that root pruning is an acceptable procedure for preserving mature trees. She also http: / /www. city.newport- beach. ca.us /CouncilAgendasNW09 -09.htm 09/18/2003 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Page 5 of 18 stated that the president of her homeowners association doesn't feel that the proposed policy includes any meaningful right of appeal. She stated that appeals should be allowed to go through the City Council. She referred to a recent incident where a tree was removed to settle a claim and no one was given the opportunity to appeal. Anne Balderston stated that she is uncomfortable with the City being able to remove mature trees. She stated that many of the trees in her area are special. She agreed that there should be more of an opportunity to examine, on a case by case basis, whether a tree really needs to be removed. Ms. Balderston stated that the City deserves to lose its designation as a Tree City USA if the proposed policy is approved. She stated that trees are needed for quality of life. Mayor Bromberg stated that there are strong opinions on both sides of the issue. He stated that he would support the proposed policy being presented to the City Council for approval, and that this doesn't mean that the City isn't tree friendly. He reminded everyone that the City has 40,000 trees, with a replacement ratio of almost nine to one. He stated that Newport Beach is as much a view community as it is a beach community, and the property owners with views have a right to have their views preserved. He noted, however, that in other areas of the City, the views are the trees. Mayor Bromberg stated that the proposed policy is a mechanism for dealing with the issue of tree removals. He complimented those involved in drafting the proposed policy, and reminded everyone that modifications could still be made. He specifically stated that he supports the City Manager having final authority instead of the General Services Director. He suggested that a provision possibly be added to notify council members of tree removals within their districts. In regard to an environmental review, Mayor Bromberg stated that he would need more information before forming an opinion. He did support the idea of having two policies, and felt that the view property owners shouldn't have to pay entirely for removals and replacements. He explained that the City should provide the services expected of a view community. Council Member Webb suggested that the proposed G -1 Policy be designated as the view policy, and the existing policy be kept to address the needs of the other areas in the community. He further suggested that the existing policy include a provision for preventative maintenance. He stated that other communities maintain their mature trees because of their beauty. Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway thanked those in attendance at the meeting and the Ad Hoc Tree Committee for its work. He stated that the proposed policy has balance and he'd like to see it be considered by the City Council. He agreed that the City Manager should have final authority, and also suggested that the proposed policy be amended to strengthen noticing and right of appeal. He suggested that the Ad Hoc Tree Committee review these two matters and make a recommendation He also agreed that two policies may be needed. Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway stated that he would support all replacements being done with 36 -inch box trees and felt that the associations could afford it. He stated that it's a quality of life issue and the view communities should pay their fair share. He stated that he supports the proposed policy and the limit on the number of trees that can be removed per year. Lastly, Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway stated that he'd like the Ad Hoc Tree Committee to also review and clarify when trees can be changed on the special tree designation list. Council Member Heffernan stated that he is concerned about the liability issues and feels !, that it's the job of the City Council to spend and save the taxpayer's money wisely. He j complimented the Ad Hoc Tree Committee and supported the proposed policy for the procedures established for tree removals. He stated that the policy shouldn't provide so much tree protection that it exposes the City to financial liability. Council Member Nichols stated that Council Policy G -3 prohibits trees on certain streets in Corona del Mar. He stated that it was done to preserve views, and possibly this should be considered in some of the view communities. He also supported the idea of two different policies. He suggested that the Ad Hoc Tree Committee also review Council Policy G -3. http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca .us /CouncilAgendas/MN09- 09.htrn 09/18/2003 • 0 Mayor Bromberg complimented the Ad Hoc Tree Committee and suggested that Ms. Allen meet with the City Manager to discuss the remaining issues. He stated that the options should then be ready to present to the City Council for action at a regular meeting. He asked that everyone remain flexible. PUBLIC COMMENTS —None. ADJOURNMENT — 5:45 P.M. The agenda for the Study Session was posted on September 3, 2003, at 2:45 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. 0 City Clerk Recording Secretary Mayor CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Minutes Regular Meeting September 9, 2003 — 7:00 p.m. INDEX STUDY SESSION — 4:00 p.m. CLOSED SESSION — Cancelled. A. RECESSED AND RECONVENED AT 7.00 P.M. FOR REGULAR MEETING B. ROLL CALL Present: Heffernan, Proctor, Ridgeway, Webb, Nichols, Mayor Bromberg Absent: Adams C. CLOSED SESSION REPORT —None. D. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Council Member Heffernan. E. INVOCATION — Reverend Dr. Dennis Short, Harbor Christian Church, & President, Newport- Mesa -Irvine Interfaith Council F. PRESENTATIONS http://www.city.newport-beach.ca.us/CouncilAgenda&lMN09-09.htm 09/18/2003 City of Newport Beach Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission • Ad Hoc Tree Committee Tuesday, October 7, 2003 — 5Pm City Council Chambers AGENDA 1. Call to Order - Chair Allen 2. Public Comments on non - agenda items within the limited subject matter jurisdiction of the Ad Hoc Committee. Comments are limited to 3 minutes per person. 3. Reports/ Discussion regarding: Questions posed to the Committee by the City Council: a. Should the City Manager be the final decision authority in the removal of Problem Trees and what should the overall appeal process be for any and all tree removal decisions? b. Should the City have two tree policies: one for view and one for non -view? How would you define a "View Community "? c. Should all tree removals require replacement with a 36" box tree? Is this realistic given space constraints and availability? d. Should there be any changes to how removals and additions to the Special Tree list take place, and if so, what is the process? e. Should the policy include a goal to establish and maintain appropriate diversity in tree species and age classes to provide a stable and sustainable urban forest with a minimum tree inventory (i.e. 30,000 trees) that the City can reasonably maintain in a healthy and non- hazardous condition and require that in approving any tree removal or reforestation request the PBEtR Commission shall find that approval of the request will not adversely impact the overall inventory, diversity and age of the City's Urban Forest. 4. Public testimony regarding items 3a - 3e above. Testimony is limited to 3 minutes per person subject to extensions granted by the Chair for persons who represent, and are speaking on behalf of every member of a group 5. Committee discussion, revisions if desired, and straw vote(s) and /or final recommendations to City Council on draft G -1 Policy . 6. Adjourn Attachment D 0 E CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Ad Hoc Tree Committee of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission October 7, 2003- 5pm SUMMARY MINUTES t. Called to order at 5pm ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Allen, Skoro, Tobin Staff: Marie Knight, Recreation t3 Senior Services Director David Niederhaus, General Services Director Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney Teri Craig, Administrative Assistant Public: Joanne Burns Christine Carr Laura Curran Susan Daly Joe Fox Jeff Gilbert Gloria Gilbert Yvonne Houssels Veronica Kubat Tess Lier Jackie Melbon Lenore Miller Homer Oatman George Parker Peggy Stair Jan Vandersloot MaryAnn Walker Jeanne Wanless Kathy Young 2, PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON- AGENDA ITEMS - None 3. REPORTS /DISCUSSION REGARDING: QUESTIONS POSED TO THE COMMITTEE BY THE CITY COUNCIL: a. Should the City Manager be the final decision authority in the removal of Problem Trees and what should the overall appeal process be for any and all tree removal decisions? • Chair Allen stated that she has talked to the City Manager and agrees that the there should not be two appeals and that he works at the witt of the Council and that this is a Council Policy and that he can decide if it should go to Council or not. Answer - Yes the City Manager should have final approval subject to appeal process. b. Should the City have two tree policies: one for view and one for non -view? How would you define a "View Community "? • Commissioner Skoro commented that a view policy is not needed. Answer - No. c. Should all tree removals require replacement with a 36" box tree? Is this realistic given space constraints and availability? f Attachment E Ad Hoc Tree Committee October 7, 2003 Page 2 • Commissioner Skoro stated that is it is practical that a 36" boxed tree will be used. • Commissioner Tobin stated that the Urban Forester should have the power to decide the appropriate size. • Chair Allen stated that the policy should protect all views but a view is different to different people. Answer - A 36" box tree should be used when space constraints and funding and tree type are available; unless it is being reforested for view reasons then it should be replaced with a 24" box tree. d. Should there be any changes to how removals and additions to the Special Tree list take place, and if so, what is the process? • Chair Allen stated that once the policy is approved that the Tree Committee should review the Special Tree List Answer - PB &R should review with Council as approval authority. e. Should the policy include a goal to establish and maintain appropriate diversity in tree species and age classes to provide a stable and sustainable urban forest with a minimum tree inventory (i.e. 30,000 trees) that the City can reasonably maintain in a healthy and non- hazardous condition and require that in approving any tree removal or reforestation request the PBBR Commission shall find that approval of the request will not adversely impact the overall inventory, diversity and age of the City's Urban Forest. • Chair Allen stated that the policy is a guarantee that the City is going to look at each tree removal. Answer - Yes, so that it will have something to measure decisions by. 4. Public Testimony regarding 3a -3e above The following are summary comments: • Yvonne Houssels stated that it is not reasonable to always plant 36" boxed trees and that 24" trees will be just as big in 3 -4 years; she also added that no trees should be planted that can obstruct views. • Kathy Young commented that larger trees have tangled roots that prevent good growth and stated that 24" boxed trees are much better as long as you have a good product with a good root system. • Tess Lier stated that there should only be one tree policy and that if the City plants an inappropriate tree that the homeowner should not be held responsible for the mistakes that they make. There just needs to be better controls. • Peggy Stair, Seawind HOA stated that she had concerns regarding the berries that grow on ficus trees. Deputy City Attorney recommended that Ms. Stair took at reforestation as an answer to her problem. • Veronica Kubac, Seawind HOA, stated that she would not have purchased her property had she known about the berries that the ficus tree produces. • Dean Wilson Seawind HOA stated that he is very frustrated that he has to clean his gutter every week because of these berries Chair Allen stated that the goal of this committee is to make the removal of problem trees easier, the problem is that not everyone agrees what a problem tree is. Ad Hoc Tree Committee October 7, 2003 Page 3 • • Jean Wanless stated that homeowners should be happy that we have as many trees as we do otherwise the noise from the airport would be much more apparent. • Jan Vandersloot stated that this draft policy is not in keeping with the spirit of the settlement with BAS and the City of Newport Beach. He stated that the revisions of the policy have literally turned it upside down and now believes that the G -1 should stay exactly the way it is. He commented that the City Manager should decide what a problem trees is and stated that a separate paragraph as with Costa Mesa should not be added. He recommended that a Tree Board be added as a Board or Commission and noted that there should be a separate policy for views but that should be discussed later as we need to discuss retaining trees not removing them. He stated that there should not be an absolute size requirement as it should be planted based on location and type of tree. He went on to say that the view community should not be crying poor and that the Commission should not have the authority to add or delete City trees and commented that the 40,000 trees are a benefit to the community as they help the water, air and the surroundings of the City. He stated that an EIR is needed if the City is serious about the removal of all problem trees. • Linn Miller stated that she agrees with Jan Vandersloot and went on to say that the reason behind the lawsuit was to make the City enforce the G -1 policy. She commented that all maintenance that can be done should be done before any tree is removed. • Christine Carr also supports Mr. Vandersloots comments and stated that an EIR is • needed and that any removal should include the City Manager and 2 residents. • Susan Daly stated that as trees get older, problems get bigger and sidewalks are not usable and that the City is unwilling to deal with these problems and that something has got to be done now. • Laura Curran stated that two people are needed to decide on the removal of a tree and that there should be a view oriented policy and that she is very frustrated in the way the City notices removal of trees. • George Barger asked how many of the 30,000+ trees are actually native to this area and restated that that the inappropriateness of the tree and its problems should not be borne by the homeowner. Director Niederhaus stated that the policy was written for trees for all season. 5. Committee Discussion, Revisions if desired and straw vote and or final recommendations to City Council on draft G -1 Policy, Deputy City Attorney Clauson stated that some kind of environmental review will need to be done. The following final recommendations were made by Chair Allen: a. Should the City Manager be the final decision authority in the removal of Problem Trees and what should the overall appeal process be for any and all tree removal • decisions? Answer -yes the City Manager should have final approval subject to appeal process. b. Should the City have two tree policies: one for view and one for non -view? How would you define a "View Community "? Answer - No. c. Should all tree removals require replacement with a 36" box tree? Is this realistic given space constraints and availability? Ad Hoc Tree Committee October 7, 2003 Page 4 Answer - A 36" box tree should be used when space constraints and funding and tree type are • available: unless it is being reforested for view reasons then it should be replaced with a 24" box tree. d. Should there be any changes to how removals and additions to the Special Tree list take place, and if so, what is the process? Answer - PB &R should review with Council as approval authority. e. Should the policy include a goal to establish and maintain appropriate diversity in tree species and age classes to provide a stable and sustainable urban forest with a minimum tree inventory (i.e. 30,000 trees) that the City can reasonably maintain in a healthy and non- hazardous condition and require that in approving any tree removal or reforestation request the PB &R Commission shall find that approval of the request will not adversely impact the overall inventory, diversity and age of the City's Urban Forest. Answer - Yes, so that it will have something to measure decisions by. A straw vote was taken and approved that the above recommendations should be forward to the City Council for their review and discussion. Commission Tobin made the observation that it is a hardship to use a 36" box in all cases and that the City Manager is a smart man would not be making any decisions without listening to staff recommendations and that they would not be made in a box. 6. ADJOURNMENT - 6:50pm Submitted by: Teri Craig, Admin Assistant E • •1 2 5 6 0 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 • 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 • 42 RETENTION OR REMOVAL OF CITY TREES GOAL OF POLICY October 8, 2003 Draft G -1 To establish and maintain appropriate diversity in tree species and age classes to provide a stable and sustainable urban forest with an inventory that the City can reasonably maintain in a healthy and non - hazardous condition. To require that in approving any tree removal or reforestation request the PB &R Commission shall find that the tree removal request will not adversely impact the overall inventory, diversity and age of the City's Urban Forest. PURPOSE The purpose of this policy is to establish definitive standards for the retention, removal, maintenance, reforestation, tree trimming standards and supplemental trimming of City trees. City trees are an important part of the character and charm of the entire City and provide environmental benefits as well. Regular care, trimming, root 12runing, maintenance, and programmed replacement are necessary to preserve this charm while at the same time protecting views consistent with Council Policy G -3 and preventing public and private property damage. The City classifies public trees in one of three categories: Special Trees Problem Trees and All Other Trees. SPECIAL CITY TREES It is the City's policy to retain City trees categorized as Landmark, Dedicated, or Neighborhood trees, which have historical significance, and /or contribute to and give character to a location or to an entire neighborhood. Landmark, Dedicated, and Neighborhood trees are identified by speciesen by Attachment 1, and shall hereinafter be referred to as Special Trees. Trees within these categories shall be identified '` «a, mapped, recorded and administered by staff for the Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission ( "Commission "). The Commission shall have she _uthe_:�,. } review the Special Tree list on an as needed basis and forward recommendations for additions or deletions to the City Council for approval Landmark Trees are identified as those individual Special Trees that possess historical significance by virtue of their size age location or species Dedicated Trees are Special Trees donated for or in the memory of specific individuals or organizations. Attachment F October 8, 2003 Draft G -1 1 2 Neighborhood Trees are Special Trees that by their unusual size, number, species, or 3 location lend a special character to a residential, commercial, or business area. 4 5 Special Trees shall be retained, unless there are overriding problems, such as death, 6 disease, or the creation of a hazardous situation, which require their removal. Prior to 7 consideration for 2any removal of a Special Trees , the General Services Director, or 8 designee, shall prepare a report identifying and implementing specific treatment to 9 retain the tree(s). If specific treatment is unsuccessful or impractical in retaining a 10 tree(s) then a full staff report shall be made to the Commission before any further action 11 considering removal is taken. Prior to any removal of Special Trees , the City must 12 comply with the noticing provisions of the Removal of City Trees section set forth in 13 this Policy, unless a tree Special Tree is considered hazardous that necessitates an 14 emergency removal. Any such removal must be recommended by the General Services 15 Director and the Risk Manager and approved by of the City 16 Manager. 17 18 During normal sidewalk, curb, and street repair activity requiring root pruning, all 19 steps shall be taken to retain Special Trees. If tree roots are to be pruned in association 20 with sidewalk, curb, and gutter improvements, sufficient timing in advance must be 21 planned to ensure that pruning will not destabilize or kill the tree. If both sides of a 22 Special Tree's roots are to be pruned, one side should be pruned 6 months to.a year in 23 advance of the other side depending upon the species and other related factors. If root 24 pruning methods are not practical and /or critical to the health of the tree, then alternate 25 or special hardscape improvements should be considered shall be installe by the City 26 in order to retain the tree providing that costs are reasonable. All proposed root 27 pruning or other tree treatment shall be assessed and approved by the Urban Forester. 28 29 Special Trees may be considered for removal in conjunction with a City Council 30 approved beautification project utilizing the Removal of City Trees procedures noted in 31 a subsequent section of the Policy. 32 33 PROBLEM TREES 34 35 A Problem Tree is defined as a tree that by virtue of its species causes excessive 36 hardscape or utility damage due to its excessive root system. The following trees are 37 defined as Problem Trees: 38 39 0 Ficus nitida (Indian Laurel Fig) 40 0 Ficus rubi tg•nosa (Rusty Leaf Fig) 41 0 Ficus benjamina (Weeping Fig) 42 0 Erythrina caffra (Kaffirboom Coral Tree) 2 • • • 1 o Fraxinus uhdei (Shamel Ash) • 2 o Cupaniopsis anacardioides (Carrotwood) 3 o Lii uidambar styraciflua (American Sweet Gum) 4 o Schinus terebinthifolius (Brazilian Pepper) 5 6 Es3 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 022 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 • 42 October 8, 2003 Draft G -1 Problem Trees shall not be designated as parkway trees on the Designated Street Tree List. Problem Trees that are not designated Special Trees maybe removed for the following reasons: A. The City tree has had a repeated history of damaging public or private sewers, water mains, roadways, sidewalks, curbs, walls, fences, underground utilities, or foundations based on City records or other competent and reliable authority. Water or sewer stoppage that results from tree roots and causes significant documented private property damage (greater than $500) shall be sufficient criterion for tree removal. B. The City tree has had repeated history of significant interference with street or sidewalk drainage, despite specific treatment by the City to alleviate repeated damage. C. The City tree has created, in the opinion of the Urban Forester, a view impediment that cannot be resolved by normal nor alternative tree trimming procedures. Problem Trees may be proposed for removal by either staff or private property owners The authority to remove Problem Trees rests with the T Tomreste: City Mangier. No more than 250 Problem Trees may be removed per year by staff under this criteria without special approval of the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission. In removals under Sections A & B above, no more than one of three parkway trees in a continuous row may be removed in a three year period without a hearing before the Commission. Replacement trees of a 24 -inch box size may planted if funding permits. Staff are responsible for noticing the adjacent property owner, the legally established homeowners association, and the Councilperson of the district where the removal is proposed, if applicable�of the intent to remove a Problem Tree. The decision by the City Manager to remove a problem tree is final unless called up by at least one Councilperson. The Urban Forester shall report the removal of Problem Trees on a monthly basis to the Commission. The cost to remove and replace Problem Trees will on 3 0 11 October 8, 2003 Draft G -1 1 ALL OTHER CITY TREES . 2 3 A City tree which is not designated as a Special or Problem Tree is designated as an All 4 Other Tree. It is the City's policy to retain All Other City Trees unless removal is 5 necessary for one of the following reasons: 6 7 A. The City tree has had a proven and repeated history (defined as twe or fnere 8 : hin a 18 fneqth of damaging public or private sewers, 9 water mains, roadways, sidewalks, curbs, walls, fences, underground utilities, or 10 foundations based on City records or other competent and reliable authority 1 1 despite specifie t-eatment by the City to .. .. Water or 12 sewer stoppage that results from tree roots and causes significant E19E�enteE} 13 public or private property damage (greater than $500) shall be sufficient criterion 14 for tree removal. Replar drain or pipe Elearing hall . 16 pet:ferfn such preventive maintenanee: 17 18 B. The City tree has had a repeated history (defined as twe ^... 19 of significant interference with street or sidewalk 20 drainage, despite specifie n he alleviate 21 C. The City tree is dead, diseased, dying, or hazardous, and presents a signiftEant .22 23 liability to the City. A dead tree is one that has been assessed by the Urban 24 Forester and found to have deceased. Diseased trees are defined as those trees 25 that cannot be cured by current arboricultural methods, are in an advanced state 26 of decline, and have no prospect of recovery. Dying trees are those that have no 27 prospect of recovery. Hazardous trees are defined as those that are defective, 28 have a potential to fail, and would cause damage to persons and property upon 29 failure. The Urban Forester will perform a hazard assessment whenever a tree is 30 identified as hazardous. The assessment will identify: structural defects of the 31 tree, parts of the tree most likely to fail, targets where imminent personal injury 32 or property damage may result with tree failure, and procedures or actions 33 necessary to abate the hazard. After assessment, the Urban Forester will 34 expeditiously convey his written findings and recommendations to the Risk 35 Mangier for evaluation. If the Risk Manager agiees with the Urban Forester 36 findings to remove a tree, the hazardous tree will be removed without further 37 delay. In the case of imminent tree failure, the Parks and Trees Maintenance 38 Superintendent or the Urban Forester shall have the authority to direct the 39 removal of a hazardous tree. 40 0 11 October 8, 2003 Draft G -1 1 D. The tree(s) have been requested to be removed in conjunction with a City 2 Council- approved City, commercial, neighborhood, or community association 3 beautification program. 4 5 E. The City Manager, upon the advice of the General Services Director, City 6 Attorney, Risk Manager or the Traffic Engineer, shall have the authority to 7 remove individual Problem or All Other Trees gees to resolve claims or safety 8 issues. 9 10 REMOVAL OF CITY TREES Il 12 The initiation to remove (Special or All Other)any City treeW may be made by the staff 13 of the General Services Departmen , and/or Public Works Departments, a legally 14 established community association, or a private property owner by making application 15 to the General Services Director, utilizing_ the City tree removal form. The provisions 16 and procedures of this Section of the Policy do not apply to the Problem Tree nor 17 Reforestation tree removal processes, which are described in other sections of this 18 Policy. Special Trees may be considered for removal under the provisions of this 19 Section provided a special report by the General Services Director is provided to the 20 Commission detailing the necessitv of removal and anv specific previous treatment of �21 the tree. 22 23 After receipt of the application, a Tree Inspection Report shall be prepared by the City's 24 Urban Forester (Attachment 2) to determine if the tree(s) meets the criteria outlined in 25 the above All Other City Trees section for consideration for removal. Simultaneously, 26 the Urban Forester shall provide a notice of the proposed tree removal to the a€feeted 27 adjacent property owner (if not the applicant), the private property owners 28 immediately adjacent to the applicant's property, and the appropriate community 29 association if applicable, (not applicable to the emergency removal of hazardous trees 30 with under Item C above nor to trees that meet the criteria of Item E in the 31 preceding All Other City Trees section). The Urban Forester shall determine whether in 32 his /her judgment additional specific treatment can be initiated to retain the tree 33 provided the costs are reasonable. If a tree(s) is to be removed, the tree(s) will be posted 34 at least 30 days prior to the removal with a sign notifying the public that they have the 35 right of appeal. The sign shall also note a staff contact. Once a recommendation is 36 made by the Urban Forester and the Parks and Trees Maintenance Superintendent to 37 the General Services Director and the General Services Director or designee concurs, 38 then the applicant, the adjoining owners, private property owners on either side of the 39 street within 500' in each direction of the tree location and tla legally established 40 community association, if applicable, shall be notified of the decision to remove or 41 retain the tree within 30 days of the proposed removal. A legally established �42 community association is responsible for notification of all association members 5 October 8, 2003 Draft G -1 1 pursuant to their established procedure. The General Services Director, or his a 2 designee, shall prepare a staff report for a regularly scheduled PB &R Commission 3 meeting of all trees recommended for removal using the Trees Division Artiv 4 Repert, except for those trees categorized in Paragraph C. (dead, diseased, or dying 5 trees ) or Paragraph E (claims and safely issues) in the preceding section on All Other 6 City Trees. OnLy Aan applicant, an adjoining property owner, or 7 a legally established community association, the City Manager, a PB &R Commissioner, 8 or a Councilmember may appeal the decision of the General Services Director not to 9 remove a tree to the Commission. The Commission, in considering any appeal, shall 10 determine whether the removal meets the criteria outlined in this Policy, as well as any 11 unique factors which may be pertinent to the removal or retention of tree(s). The 12 decision of the Commission will be considered final unless called up by at least one 13 Councilmember or the City Manager. 14 15 The General Services Department will delay any tree removal(s) for at least 14 calendar 16 days following the date of the Commission decision in order to allow time for a 17 Councilmember or the City Manager to call the item. 18 19 The City will endeatv-er replace all trees removed in accordance with the All Other 20 City Trees removal criteria on a one for one basis. Replacement trees will be a 21 minimum of a "36" boxed size. If 36" boxed trees are not available, or funding, or 22 space constraints prevent planting of a large tree, then a minimum of a 24" boxed tree 23 will be planted. The full costs of removal and replacement of Special or All Other 24 Tree(s) will be the sole responsibility of the City, unless an applicant voluntarily _ pays 25 for a new tree(s). 26 27 REFORESTATION OF CITY TREES 28 29 The concept of systematically replacing Problem or All Other Trees which are creating 30 hardscape and /or view problems and cannot be properly trimmed, pruned or modified 31 to alleviate the problem( they create, or those which have reached their full life, and 32 are declining in health, or are simply the wrong species of trees for the planted location 33 is referred to as reforestation. The Urban Forester shall make a finding for the latter 34 category of inappropriate tree species for a specific location. His determination may be 35 appealed to the General Services Director whose decision will be final. 36 T 37 It is recognized and acknowledged that City trees were planted many years ago and in 38 some cases were planted with specific species that when fully mature cause damage to 39 curb, gutter, sidewalk or underground utilities. 1a-- Within the geographical boundaries 40 of certain view neighborhoods, City street trees may encroach into blue water views 41 from public and private property depending on the length of time since the trees were 42 last trimmed, or the age and height of the trees. In other cases the wrong species of tree 2. 0 October 8, 2003 Draft G -1 1 was planted originally and simply does not conform to the current treescal2e or 2 represents a safety hazard. 3 4 Arborists continue to develop lists of tree species which will grow in restricted parkway 5 areas without causing significant damage to curb, gutter, sidewalk, utilities or loss of 6 views. The City Street Tree Designation List, which specifies a species for each City 7 street reflects an effort by the City to prescribe appropriate tree species that will not 8 cause future problems. 9 10 As a City which understands the importance of trees and the beauty they bring to a 11 community, the City desires to continually improve the urban forest through 12 reforestation. In areas where City trees have been removed through City initiation, the 13 City sketild will expeditiously endeavor to replace theta trees with the appropriate 14 designated City tree. -sidemits process 16 17 Individual private property owners, as well as legally established community 18 associations, may apply for single or multiple tree reforestation in their respective area 19 by submitting a request to the General Services Director for consideration by the 20 Commission that meets the following requirements: 21 �22 A. The proposed area must have clearly defined contiguous geographical 23 boundaries that include the tree(s) proposed for removal and replacement, street 24 address(es), block number(s), or other geographical information. This section 25 applies to individual and group requests. 26 27 B. Residential communities, neighborhoods, or business organizations who apply 28 for reforestation must submit a petition signed by a minimum of 60% of the 29 property owners within the area defined for reforestation. A neighberkeed —is 30 defined yr the pp� ow : f the ^l: to mere homes - :.: 31 the C-ity.- The petition content must be approved and dated by City staff prior to 32 distribution by the petitioner. The staff - approved petition must be distributed 33 by the petitioner to a maximum of 30 private property owners (up to 15 34 contiguous private property owners on both sides of the street up to 500' in 35 either direction -from the location of the proposed reforestation). Signatures by 36 non - property owners are not acceptable for petition purposes. All petition 37 signatures shall be verified by City staff for property owner status of the 38 person(s) signing the petition. As an alternative to the above requirements, areas 39 represented by a legally established community association em eive. _d ivit GC 40 mss, may submit a resolution of the Board of Directors formally requesting a 41 reforestation with a statement that all members of the community association 42 having their residential views affected, have been officially notified and given an N October S, 2003 Draft G -1 1 appropriate opportunity to respond before the Board voted on the request. 2 Individual private property owners living within a legally established 3 community association area with mandatory association membership 4 must petition for reforestation through their respective 5 association. 6 7 C. Individual private property owners not residing within a CG ° R based legally 8 established community association area may submit individual requests for 9 single or multiple tree reforestation. The applicant must submit a petition signed 10 by a minimum of 60% of the resident a maximum of 30 private property owners 11 (up to 15 contiguous private properties on both sides of the street up to 500' in 12 either direction from the location of the proposed reforestation site) per 13 direction r_,.m the refer .stab, site as well as the endorsement of the 14 appropriate homeowners' association, if applicable. The petition content must be 15 droved and dated by staff prior to distribution. All Qetition signatures shall be 16 verified by City staff for private property owner status of the person(s) signing 17 the petition. 18 19 D. A written agreement must be submitted to the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation 20 Commission by the petitioning sponsor (individual private property owner( so 21 group) to pay 100% of the costs of the removal and replacement of the public 22 trees in advance of any removal activity. The actual removal and replanting 23 will be coordinated by the General Services Department. The total costs shall 24 include only the contractor's removal and replacement costs and be paid in 25 advance of any removal actions. 26 27 E. The replacement tree(s) for reforestation shall be the Designated Street Tree(s as 28 prescribed by City Council Policy G -6, or the organization must request and 29 obtain approval from the Commission of the designation of a different tree 30 species prior to submitting any reforestation request for a tree skies other than 31 the designated street tree. This section applies to individual or group requests. 32 33 F. There shall be a minimum of a one - for -one replacement of all trees removed in 34 reforestation projects. Replacement trees shall be a minimum size of 24" 36" 35 boxed trees, unless the parkway space will enly-not accommodate a 24" boxed 36 tree or a tree cannot be planted due to planting restrictions contained in Council 37 Policy G- If there is not room for the replacement trees ...mat a specific site 38 as prescribed by City Council Policy G -6, then the replacement trees shall be 39 planted in a public area in the same neighborhood at the option of the petitioner. 40 This section applies to individual or group requests. 41 0 0 0 October 8, 2003 Draft G -1 1 G. Reforestation requests must be completed and submitted in a timely manner by 2 the petitioner. Petitions that are dated more than 90 days in arrears from date 3 stamped by staff before distribution will not be forwarded to the PB &R 4 Commission for consideration. 5 The decision of the Commission on reforestation requests will be considered final unless called up by at least one Councilmember or the City Manager. 9 TREE MAINTENANCE 10 11 The City shall require the proper care and watering of replacement trees by the 12 reforestation petitioner to ensure their proper growth and development as outlined in 13 City Council Policy G -6. Furthermore, no person shall tamper with replac-efRen t giv 14 trees in violation of Section 13.08.040 of the Municipal Code. Further, the City will 15 endeavor to fund the care of the Urban Forest to the hiehest level possible through the 16 efficient use of regular tree trimming, root pruning, root barrier and pesticide 17 programs. 18 19 ENCROACHMENT AND DEMOLITION PERMITS 20 1021 All encroachment permits (permits for private property development which are has 22 proposed to encroached upon the City right of way) or demolition permits that involve 23 the removal or replacement of City trees) must be specifically noticed by the property 24 owner to City staff prior to the building and /or demolition permit process whenever 25 possible. The proposed construction plans must indicate preservation of existing City 26 trees wherever possible (exempt: dead, dying, or in an advanced state of decline). if the 27 proposed development, as deemed by the General Services Director, requires the 28 removal of City trees, the property owner must nxay submit areferestation tree removal 29 request to the General Services Director, aid -shall pay all related tree removal and 30 replacement costs (one for one replacement) and 31 meet all provisions of Council Policies L -2 and L -6 and City Ordnance; 13.08 and 13.09. 32 Approval or disapproval of all tree removal/ replacement requests associated with 33 encroachment and demolition permits will be the responsibility of the General Services 34 Director or a designee. 35 36 TREE TRIMMING STANDARDS /SUPPLEMENTAL TRIMMING ITATG 37 38 The City Council has adopted tree trimming cycles for trees of different ages and 39 species. The Eurren Tree trimming cycles and trimming standards shall represent the 40 maximum feasible frequency and extent of tFinuning given current fiscal conditions. 41 Except as provided in Skis -the Supplemental Trimming Section below, trimming shall be 0 42 in accordance with the standards of the International Society of Arboriculture (1SA). In October 8, 2003 Draft G -1 1 those communities with a legally established community association, periodical tree • 2 trimming with an emphasis on height reduction will be considered by the Ci Urban 3 Forester upon written request by the association. 4 5 SUPPLEMENTAL TREE TRIMMING 6 7 The City will consider, and as a general rule approve, requests to trim certain trees 8 more frequently or to trim trees consistent with practices applied prior to the adoption 9 of 1SA standards (to enhance public and private views, preserve required 10 sight /distance standards, or other public purposes) which are submitted by affected 11 esidn<s private property owners or the board of a legally established community 12 association and, the request is accompanied by a completed "Supplemental Tree 13 Trimming Form" and full payment for the requested tree trimming. However, since 14 these practices often require 'topping or op ssible severe disfiguring of a treew and are 15 often aesthetically displeasing and injurious to a tree, reforestation shall onit, be 16 considered epee -when supplemental tree trimming is impractical or infeasible as 17 determined by the Urban Forester. ihis praetice has eeE>trre Fnere ihan Within - 18 one year period. 19 The General Services Director shall establish procedures to implement the supplemental 20 trimming provisions of this Policy. An approval must be obtained from a legally 21 established association by the requestor of supplemental tree trimming in areas with an 22 active homeowners' association if the requested trimming is to be undertaken within • 23 the association area. 24 25 26 27 [Attachment 1- Preservation e Special Trees] 28 [Attachment 2- Tree Inspection Report] 29 30 Adopted - May 9,1966 Amended - April 11, 1994 31 Amended - August 14,1967 Amended - February 26,1996 32 Amended - November 9,1976 Amended - July 14,1997 33 Amended - November 12,1985 Amended (Administratively) - 34 Amended - November 28,1988 November 24, 1997 35 Amended - March 14,1994 Amended - August 10, 1998 36 Amended - February 22, 2000 37 Formerly I -9 10 LJ 0 0 I-- Z W I-- Q W 0 CO W U_ w CO Z W CD C/) N O N I-- _0 N c CO _U Q LL +�' V O C) U c 0 C) _0 o c -t .� M Q CU -0 CO O O 0 I CM Oi Cl smi i Ws Clow WIM �F/.CN ar � o o I.a y0 .�y0 • • • C cn ` M CD •U p � I.L cC N p 00 p N J � C f0 C •� E -D -a •U U C Q a) a) C O O p O O > f0 O I F.. O 00 cn U U W O a) -a . W c M Q- m E = r- cn ca E a) 1 cn a) CU U- V (n Q E N m a) cn J a) O N (1) N N LL E O a) a N O cu U a) D p cn to > ca U C a) U C (U O LL O .m LL p -0-0-0 ..0 O N O_ p N :3 -a L co p � U fu N LL A fu -0 a) Q) 0) U U a) H cn cu • 0 cn "d CO L E U I C U- M M M O • • • C •CD CD p p CD •U a) O O p O O > O I O m U c Hi m E 1 a) O O N (1) -0 � CD O LO cu to > a U E -a -a N CD M U -0 p • 0 cn "d CO L U C U- M M O s (L) .� CD E cc% Q- U CD U _0 N - 0 (O a a) m cu Q) L E U a) 'p N ( L c cu (L> O i0 cn C a) O C cu O N o cn E U co U ci 4- I I I U w • • • 0 Cf) CD CD � � � U LL Jc: � e � Kd, � � L � � � � U c O C) 0 _ cu & 6 cu U) cu 22� m a @ 0 0 $ 0 $ > CU m 2 CU o P o E E 0 2 EO ( (D & 6 $ E J a) 0-A 6 E cm @ � cL 2 � k m / 'cn : CU > E \ °' 2 ( cu q c c � CU E E LL (D D E > C/) 0 S CM m : m m C-6 Cf) CD cu / 3 o m m o � . � cu 2 2 / $ / cn $ p % \LL= � � = m m m D 3 •/ •/ $ C w / w $ o cu 0) � @ _ 7 \ E _ ; q E •@ cu E U \ E C t CU E E m @ a- cu in E cu E $ ƒ :E cu o cn q ' � CL 0 m d !E cm > E E 0 k m L- 0) o C 0 co c . � 2 '$ E $ q x @ cu � � E E x E � x \ : @ U) cu Ucn cn � \ 0 � m � � E .e 75 : U m � 0 E2 m � � � : v : m � � U 0) .E ,2 � m E � � 75 m U) m � � 0 � E cu / � E : $ E cu L- 0 � cu E cu CL 0 0 0 � $ 0 U- cu � / .e � cu m cu E E E 0 m C- -6-0 .i3: qv- ,0 C) W C) -&--# N � M U CD CU U C 0 E •\ to L 0 L � U 0 a� c a� ca L U � LL O O7 J. •L (O to � U * 00 CD 00 U-) 00 O O M CD ti to d' d' O d "' N m O 00 M L O to ti _ d U-) N 00 O N U-) � 00 N m E!} (O "d N 0 O U 5 N U O C L O - c O c Y •C N M -,:I- U-) to I ` N (: N N N N N N c C D D D D c�0 in O O U ~ 0 0 0 E O O ry N N H _U L.L N CC5 O T O cn _N E cu X W X ti w w w ti U O O CD W L U LL W .Cf) cu W 4- O cn _O m x W r � . e, AN Cl tYf F W 0 U F- 1 0 N cm cu E -1--i O �0 I..L L cn U l' T O 0 cn L W -1--i CZ— L L U • U Z O 0 Z Q Y Q 11 O C •C i O O KIN O c ca Y U N m O O m c Y L O O O L f0 N lf') M O m L .O L O m 0 0 c m N N C O Q cn O O_ i N M "O -0 a) O O cr N U C O C O U L Q N U "d f0 a� i a) 0 0 O i MP Y L O N > O f0 • O O A c O a) O U O C C N r i f0 O Q a� ca 0 0 N O C L O N N U m a) cm cu E cu L cn U_ L.L cn O O cn 4-- Lu L L A l P cn E 0 L 0_ CD 0 c 0 � L 0_ E c 0 m C X W o -0 o 0 � c m U) c • o > 0 "a > 0 c �- W 0 E ca C o O 0_ c o CL E 0 cQ v� Z X f° `o O � •ca - Q c � Q N Lo 2 0 c a) LO E E E U W L 0 a� eFr 0 0 W o 01 a) 0 0 H Z 0 0 0 w P • • N ^W W L U_ W cu Qi O v (n W If 0 W W -+� W U) Q U C) CD C Q C c0 a) C C a) 3 a) a) U LL N Q O Q U Q C c0 a) cu .0 D. C O O O a) c a) X a) O N Y_ c0 CD co N >1 m _Y m a) U C O U C c0 N a) cn J. C O c0 0 a) m ca E 2 cu O_ a) w r. L o a) O ,._ 4- L O Cl) O LD 2 vim) o '- 0 0 0 o Q cQ O N a) CD LO "a N N E (m m E n cn L C C � N L a) 0 0 00 0 00 ti M 60? cn O U W LLI try C/) J U a IN CD N m r O i O O O N LL O L O N •L cu U U LO LO co M O O O N O f-, O O O N a� N N C5 ff3 69 b9 dg CD O O N ai cn U Q i U Ca Lli (D M cm p U q> C Q c 15 LL m LL w LL U • vi a� U_ O C C 15 C N Q � i O C � N N EQ cv ca Q U c "a O m Q � O C * * cv LO LO LO a C-0 c0 * ai O O O OO M N CO O lf-) f�- f�- N rn CV M U-) CO I- c Ef} ef} ef} ef} Ef} 6113- C i C� C Q L CB U O (D, N O N C:>i to O c c O0 C C N O :. O> a% U N Q .Q LL U 0 co E O O v O LJJ O Q C m m a> Q CD U o is °x" c > c`a a�i p Q U Z 1— LL LJJ Q U • cu cn E CU cu Q L E E U O �r cu CU U C/) Q 0 co O N O O N LL U) W IL IL U 0 LLI IL w IL co O N O O N ULU Of d LU 0 O O Of a cn -a ca ai 2 E N f0 Q) � L. Q) 7 U U 0 f0 L. L Q O C Q) c Q) cr cn Q) 0-0 Cf) = i0 -p C C O M c � � O C _OCD O O ti O .— a) a) N0 m M cn a) ^ U N O LL- -0 N U W O �L M N N (n >- E m cn m a) Q �O C C Q ° a � ca CD N (n V � O H c � 'o Q) U O O N O O Q > L > > `O Q C f0 to O C > N `) > EO O N E a) (D `- O s >+ N L ~ CU L.L > > L• N ~ "a U E o N c0 0-0 O> O NC N O L a� E co a_cni n N • Q) U en, = Q) C O N E Z3 O > O c O y a) O O O O M ?i 5 O O a) N O U cr N U CIO � "O N U a U (O O a) + d O Q) d O O- :_. r 2 O' m i= O O vi O O O i O o a) a O-a a) c N o C 2 O co O N O O N ULU Of d LU 0 O O Of a cn -a ca ai 2 E N f0 Q) � L. Q) 7 U U 0 f0 L. L Q O C Q) c Q) cr cn Q) 0-0 Cf) = i0 -p C C O M c � � O C _OCD O O ti O .— a) a) N0 m M cn a) ^ U N O LL- -0 N U W O �L M N N (n >- E m cn m a) Q �O C C Q ° a � ca CD N (n V � O H cu E O ry cu �-i--+ V ) LJJ co U LL U L ca a) O_ ca >, LO Q o o a) E a) Q 0 A) 00 .o O Q crc0 ,c0 c Q Lu c0 � O O N N r a) L a) a) �- o � c0 a) C c0 c n ca a) O � t U LLJ IL Z O LJJ U LLI Z LJJ LLI O U ca a) L a) a) rn � C >+ � O ` O Q- L. O > O O j � a) � L a' to LU N cn NCL N O a) L. L. O `L >% O "a � c0 c cn c � � U O LL O N LO M L Hi o.. LJJ IL LLI LJJ ZD U LL LLI is • a) ca a) L. CL a) o � ti a) 0) Q m O E .-. m CU a) o c a) L Q ca CM M a rn M y cn M � O U L O o U O N •- cp a) 6} O v O C °— a) c a) cn 0 M O N cm N >' O cu O cu ca c U cu U N N E CU . ' :. U O O � cu U c •E U N E LE v) E o CD U . CM >+ U- c0 N c0 CD E C E i °- O H Q H m Q is • • t3-- .. 1 t a 4', v njI •11 .' 440, F 17-Ij -4 -41 • ■ �� � � \\ l;. �Al 6-0 44., AV. yi \� \ 2 . \ -'. - . I i :, � }� % ;. I. x ti hr E 1 ?f ff t • -4I I. 11 0 wi �f C CO E ea a CD C2, eA CM c COD' CO' C cc: S Ch ti�4t } J Z O W c� U) ¢ g¢ 0 U } �- W J d ai ¢IL J d LU Z W W W W W a s a a a a a vrn y y a a y a a y y a a a L O O s O L O O G O O O L O O u E E '`� E u E u u E E E u `u `u c v v c v c v c c v v v c c c a (0 M r (O th (0 (0 M N (0 N r th (0 N O. N O N N d (L Q) OD E 0 N N v E d v?° m _° 2 C°> J QI IL dm and lL W LL W lL dE UH J N N > > J > Q ¢ C ¢ - C N c NN t N O N y N 0 Q) C ' O > J L C> C O C O. y ( d¢ N _ u0 L 2��2d¢Uw O N h w N N O O O O O h (O (O N N w a N (0 M N O O O O) O O) O O th O O O N O N W O O) N th O O N O (0 O O) O w O a 00 th w O th N N N O f9 O a w O h Vi N 59 f9 f9 f9 1° w 1° M f9 f9 f9 f9 )f 4N9 (00 0 w w � wwmw wm�mmmmm r r r N th r r m r W (0 a a N (O L E U C E ° o v ~ m T o # w p U � E a o Y m o LL ` a wC o6 N c Z. ¢ ° ob L cob E ob ob of c c> c c> c c > >> c> c c c u u E u `a E u u E E E u E u u u c c v c c v c c v v v c v c c c N O. O E N a Q) (L ¢ T N L U N _ C U U U U U U LL LL d 'L LL LL LL .9'.2 > .0 lL d LL LL LL W LL m d O W N« U N a Qi C 2> J> m N C) m U(L y m o O O O >. N N C N L N O O N c N2 Yo ma m472 mzU V) co LO mm W, m2)n 0 V zOw N O 1° O N (0 O N M N O) O 1° N th (0 a O) O M w a 0 M a r N M a M N M N N M a 0 (O h O a 0 (O O th O) (O O) O O) O N E O) O th r f9 (O f9 � f9 � f9 f9 f9 f9 m m m rn rn rn --- O O O O m W N M O m m-- w N N O r N th N 0 O) N O) iz:O O O —� N \ N Q° `) C C C of > 0 N 0 0 a C N N OI u N CO N to U C N C N N Q) t I/) O= U C7 �' O E ° c m OO -Oj C N O L'- OI W U3 O L O >, O N _a ) m N N N O V O O Y N N (p N 0 U�UZ� C N E v — � _c mQ i N w a °v n CL` hl d L A m N Q J U H J_ m Q J J Q w W 2 W a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 o> o> E E E S S S u E u u E � — M ( ( ( — N ( N N M O ) N O c M O C_ j c i C r v @ >d v H @ 0 U U U C c- y LL LE LL L1, d m 0- LL W LL LL H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 o o o c c 0 0 c c c 0 c c c c c c c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 u o 0 0 t o 0 0 0 0 0 E E E S u E E u 'b u E u ra u u u$ 'b E E 5 E E E KKK > > K K > > > K > > > > > > > K K D w w cr M� — O— O O O � M( ( M� N O O O M M f N O N m N O@ J J J J J J DO v0 O T T T T Y T ??? O) N N N N N N N N N Fu 0 N 0 O N U U @@ U J C j U U U U j j U j c 2.2 U j U Lp U L LL L LL U L LL W d W L LL LL LL LL W W LL W d LL LL LL W L LL U I L H h c > c N > @ "o �v a°)i y 3 � v c Q O 0) D V > O N C `y U O @ > 0 N d Q Z C '0 N Q m > @@ N@ y N J Q@ U C N 'O_ Q Q T T L C J O) m C> U O N V N C C O V C> U N IUO Co T 0,6 C@ J J (OII C@ O m 0 E W y 0@ 0 0 0 C @@ co U Q Q C O O C@ O @ @� �y @. NUM 2d> Q)m @U L1 (DW 0 C)U) NJOQf�O O- N CD N 00 � N N O co O O O � O N O m 0 M N T O O t0 — N N N M (O N O O O (N� 00 O (O M O M M O M O O O r (O O N M O M 00 M r� n� M� M N N � N M M �� N N O D) O O O V O O O M (O N O M 00 O M O (O O O R M N O O D7 M (O D7 10 O M, S S O O CD 00 V W O r O M N O O O O O O O O N N D) (O LO � EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA fA fA fA fA fA O N D) r M r M (O a0 V O O N Ei N EA EA EA EA O O EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA fA fA b9 10 m to EA EA 60 fA N C g E E n v_ N_ a 0 w a L is y M O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N\ R m N O m M N O0 N r�� N (`� N N � � (O � N C �� � N\ � N D) N N N E m N E E 0 U r y @ T W U O 0 0@ @ O) O OC N m m c `m rn O J y y C 2 D O) J m E LL T y E t y m o rn a c Q) m E= E aci Q u') Q) c @ `` U `` mC Y U N m@ �` U U C N J @@ C @ @> U> 0 Q 0 (� V U O OJ 0 L> Z U M N J H J@ 00 O) 00 @ O) O L U~ => 'O O. 00 c m> c d L C— C O Y O0 0. J L@ N V m� C 0) T O. C= 'X O ._ t '0 C J U c 3 > 0 J @% c N QZ� ��<YO >�O� ��mlL���U� �fn W m0m2�QY ��U�tA C g E E n v_ N_ a 0 w a L is 0 J Z O W C7 J O U } F- ~ W J J � f- z ui � W W K ui W a 6j- E E i u u c `�c v° r a c f c `�c aEi ° f: f of d of I� n t0 tD tD tD N tD N ch tD tD ch r I� tD r c`') t0 t0 tD tD t0 � y N V E y y y y 0 U N E « « « « o « L Q T CL C-4' ' 04 0 T T" 2 U a ~ 'O N O' U J J U U U U U O D U U J J U U p O U J U Q UJILw W lL ii ii ii ii U ii ii LL W W ii LL 00 WiiFO- N O J N > 0 'O 'O � c > o Q 0 g m d > N > O r« m O 'O N> N c O N K c m 0 V c U 0 X m N OI N C 0 m, C 0 'O 0 C c� Q a _C O O N O m C J O y J L '� O N U) U> U) In N N ��Um�in xin C6 CO ao w aoo�� IL U �,.� N GO 0 0 1n 0 0 O 1n 0 0 O O a 0) In N O a0 tD O a0 m v a a s 1n N a In , N . . . N 0 N a M a M CO a a a v m m m m m m m m o > >> i> 0>> ro '6 r5c E E E E E E E E E c c c c d 0 v d v v d d d a � tD tD N ch N ch tD � tD ch M N CL CL N D 0 a_ >> d N C U N a s V J J E J J J J O O a N N J U U �p V O V N V V j j y W ii ii ULE m ii 2 ii ii W Wa o O O E E _ ai c IA c U c L r V) > Q X > f0 v W E X O a N N c Q U c O C (0 O a J J ¢0 00c7 V) C6 a- n o�c'�o�ovo�000�o a0 c7 O a N 0� tD O M m O O O lh O O CD O Its O O O O O 0. 0 0 0 0 0 O O N M O O M N c`7 In In O O a0 O O co' O a a0 O a a N 1+� c7 I� u7 (D W O W tD O a u7 O a In O a 0. 0 0 ch In a N N O N CD O In a In N C O ch In N O O m tD a m N m u7 u7 a � 0 0 N N fA a 0 In O c7 tD a0 O r I� t0 O t0 In c] r N m 69 c`7 c7 I� � � M W N u7 u7 fA fA � N fA f9 fA fA b9 b9 b9 FA b9 b9 b9 b9 tD 00 I O N a e» r» N N IL A 0 cc O O N N N N N N~ N N N N N N N N N N N o O O O O N N N O N N O O O N O N O O N 0000000000— O N O O N N I\ N l 0 0 0 0 0 O m 0 0 O D n O O) O N 0 0 N c\ a0 N 1\ a0 N N N N In r iD N— N— N N M— O N N n n ao O] M M M c7 c7 in co co I� Orn co co w w m m m v N N E c m Q). C y Q) o E o T c `o s o d E a�i v m a m y J N T N c 'o # L U C N L — ) J N a c '� 'O E m E 2 — c m y �i y m o U C7 o L c m T LL LL IL Oc LL E � 2 a m E o c 2 a M m N c° o m Y c m m �o L C C L L O O c L N O N N L N N «" J m 2 U_ m N U_ U J LL O N F- Z LL 0 F- ci 0 0 (n 2 0 x m 2� lL �: 2 N r m a U a C c N« c N T Y V O U N L N O > O N` 3 C J N V N U 0> J t IO W �`i to Y.oa cJ yx y J y> N �V c c S c j m N 2 to Q w� 0 Z V) V) � m U C E E r d_ c n ma s _N v v n v 21 } J Z O W f// Q g� U } m J_ M mO Q �a J Z Q' ui U W W m ui W W K > c c> c >> c >> c c E a� 6 E u E E 6 E E a� 6 t0 M N � t0 R t0 t0 t0 t0 t0 M C. C. N O. O. c N y l o a d E E c c > E U U Q 2 m O U Q U o o U W LL 11 J m m 2 11 'J 11 LL H pj O C y O O Q o j .o a N m E -aoi ° ° aoi Ol O 'a L M E '� E N O m 2 m m LL S lL m MRCMM �n n�noo t00 N�� C N R 1� C M C � a �'9 o�o�m ova° o�o�o�a arnaaaarna O m O m m m m O O m m m O m m m m m m m m x Ox 0 0 0 0x x 0 0 0x 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 R V N, N 1 V M R N 1 r M r �, M M M H fp N� m N m ) N m m >� o 3t � m _ O c y L> ' ° m � U o mo J 0 0 m aQ w of mr'�' y a•C'.YO w 0 'C E c '`� LL Q S m o O LL 10 W S 7 O N Q O O M t0 t0 m O N N u7 r~ O m O M o � O O M M C 00 c t0 M m �ryryO N O R O N N c 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O� o m 0 0 O O w O M 1 CL O. o. O. 0 w N y N O N H H C O m N � O M� O O) p) p) Y O O 1� O O O O O O O R IG O M O O M M M 0 0 0 C V O t0 01 O N N N, W O M M 0 0 0 tO t0 0 N Q rq N 1� N N O U N H H T W EA W EA W EA W EA fA H fA fA EA EA to N ° 2 E m m W M� Ow 0 m c o a• o o g o B Q) m o m 4 c_ m o 'LL o O O WllmJll to LL LL IlmLL LLUQ U IL a a a- �llH H N� m N m ) N m m >� o 3t � m _ O c y L> ' ° m � U o mo J 0 0 m aQ w of mr'�' y a•C'.YO w 0 'C E c '`� LL Q S m o O LL 10 W S 7 O N Q O O M t0 t0 m O N N u7 r~ O m O M o � O O M M C 00 c t0 M m �ryryO N O R O a a s O O n O O O O O w O O M O M O N O O O � O O O O H O O O O t0 � C C O O O O o c 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O� o m 0 0 O O w O A 1 O � 1 p R p 0 0 O O O w 0 1. 6 6 m O O N O 46 6 1� M O O O 60 , o) c uO u0 co O O M O 6 0 O O 60. O M M H H C O m N � O M� O O) O O O 1� O) Y OD t0 Y O O 1� O O O O O O O R IG O M O O M M M 0 0 0 C V O t0 01 O N N N, W O M M 0 0 0 tO t0 0 rq N 1� N N O N O r N N N O M M W EA W EA W EA W EA fA H fA fA EA EA to W V: EA EA EA EA O� C V W M� Ow 0 to a a s a a a m a g m a m a a m a a m A A m 0 0 0 N N H M M H H O O M mm M M M M M M M M O O_ 0 0 0 O O M O O M M M 0 0 0 M M O M M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n W O M M 0 0 0 tO t0 0 0 0 0 0 M O tO 0 0 0 O N M O O O M N h E O c 0 0 o c U Y Q) y y O m O T p m O V c L L J Y 'O .0 O ik � t E ti 4 E E Y c c n E U l0 m H U L C 10 Jena �O E'er � Q)j 0 NEGATIVE DECLARATION • City of Newport Beach G -1 Policy Amendments: Retention or Removal of City Trees Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 Contact: James Campbell Telephone: (949) 644 -3229 Prepared By: `N 6: ASSOCIATES, INC. PmfrWonal Team for Complex Pnjeas 605 Third Street Encinitas, CA 92024 Contact: Joe Monaco Telephone: (760) 942 -5147 MARCH 2004 Attachment J Table of Contents Section Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Project Need and Objectives .................................... ............................1 -2 1.2 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Authority to Prepare a Negative Declaration .............................................. ............................... 1 -1 1.3 Other Agencies That May use the Negative Declaration and Preliminary Environmental Review ......................... ............................... 1 -3 1.4 Public Review Process ............................................... ............................1 -3 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................... ............................2 -1 2.1 Project Location .......................................................... ............................2 -1 2.2 Environmental Setting ................................................. ............................2 -1 2.3 Project Characteristics ................................................ ............................2 -1 3.0 FINDINGS .................................................................................. ............................3 -1 3.1 No Significant Effect Finding ...................................... ............................3 -1 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ................................................. ............................4 -1 • 5.0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ................. ............................... 5 -1 5.1 Aesthetics ..................................................................... ............................5 -1 5.2 Agricultural Resources ............................................. ............................... 5 -4 5.3 Air Quality .................................................................. ............................... 5 -5 5.4 Biological Resources ................................................... ............................5 -5 5.5 Cultural Resources ....................................................... ............................5 -7 5.6 Geology and Soils ........................................................ ............................5 -8 5.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ........................... ...........................5 -10 5.8 Hydrology and Water Quality .............................................................. 5 -1 1 5.9 Land Use and Planning .............................................. ...........................5 -14 5.10 Mineral Resources ....................... ............................... ...........................5 -14 5.11 Noise ............................................................................. ...........................5 -15 5.12 Population and Housing ............................................ ...........................5 -16 5.13 Public Services ............................................................. ...........................5 -17 5.14 Recreation ................................................................... ...........................5 -17 5.15 Transportation/ Traffic ................................................. ...........................5 -18 5.16 Utilities and Services Systems .................................... ...........................5 -19 5.17 Mandatory Findings of Significance ........................ ...........................5 -20 -- 0 February 2004 4002 -01 S ASSOCIATES, INC. Newport Beach G -1 Policy Amendmen6 i 0 Section Table of Contents Page 6.0 REFERENCES .............................................................................. ............................6 -1 7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ................................................................ ............................... 7 -1 Appendices Appendix A City of Newport Beach Street Tree Designation List Appendix B City of Newport Beach Proposed G -1 Policy Amendments Appendix C City of Newport Beach Undesirable Species - Street Tree List List Of Figures . Figure 1 Regional Map .............................................................. ............................2 -2 FsMarch 2004 4002 -01 SSOCIAI ES. IVC. Newport Beach G -1 Policy Amendments cY SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROJECT NEED AND OBJECTIVES The City of Newport Beach's (City) urban forest, (i.e. City trees located on public property) was historically planted in stages, in different areas of the City, and without any comprehensive plan. The beach areas within the City were developed first, on historically small lots, and on poor sandy soil. Trees were planted without regard to the appropriateness of the tree in the location selected, mostly because tree growth patterns were unknown at the time. Since the early 1990's, the City's urban forest has been more carefully managed. This document will discuss City owned trees, not the many thousands of trees located on private property and subject to control of private property owners. Since 1992, 1,225 City owned trees have been removed, an average of 111 per year. Over the same time period, 3,763 trees have been planted, an average • of 342 per year. Thus, there have been roughly three trees planted for every one removed, resulting in a net increase of approximately 9 percent in the size of the urban forest since 1992. The City's current inventory of publicly owned trees includes approximately 31,000 trees, and is valued at $68 million. It should be noted that this number does not account for trees in the recently annexed areas of Newport Coast, nor sites available for trees to be planted in all other parts of the City. The City's tree inventory may increase once this new area is inventoried in early 2004. Of the total City trees, 25.2 percent are young trees, 33.2 percent are moderately sized and aged trees, and 28.6 percent are mature trees. Since 1966, the City has maintained a City Council Policy (hereinafter referred to as the G -1 Policy) related to tree trimming, removal and replacement practices. The Policy has been amended over the years to adjust to the management needs of the urban forest. As the Urban Forest has grown and matured, more information about tree growth has become available. The past practice of planting any tree at any location has now evolved into a decision to plant or replant the most appropriate species of tree for the location. In those instances where a mature tree has outgrown its location and been removed, the newly • March 2004 4002 -01 & ASSOC]ATES, ISC. New on Beach G -1 Policy 1-1 Section 1.0 Introduction 0 planted replacement trees have succeeded in establishing themselves with great success. The City has developed a list of Designated Street Trees to indicate appropriate tree species to be used as street trees (Appendix A). It is projected that during the next three year trimming cycle, under the current G -1 Policy provisions, 29,553 trees will be trimmed, 3,980 will be planted and 232 will be removed. The City proposes to amend the G -1 Policy, (Appendix B) to give the City additional flexibility for the management of the urban forest in the City of Newport Beach while maintaining protections for the urban forest. The goal of the Policy, as proposed in the amendment, is the following: "To establish and maintain appropriate diversity in tree species and age classes to provide a stable and sustainable urban forest with a tree inventory that the City can reasonably maintain in a healthy and non - hazardous condition. To require that in approving any tree removal or reforestation request the Parks, Beaches and . Recreation Commission shall find that the tree removal will not adversely impact the overall inventory, diversity and age of the City's urban forest." (City of Newport Beach 2003b). 1.2 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) AUTHORITY TO PREPARE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION The City is the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) responsible for the review and approval of the project. Based on the Initial Study /Environmental Checklist, the City has made the determination that a Negative Declaration (ND) is the appropriate environmental document to be prepared in compliance with CEQA. Under CEQA, a ND may be prepared when a proposed project will not have significant effect on the environment and does not require the preparation of an environmental impact report. This ND has been prepared by the City as the lead agency under Section 15070, subsection (a), of the State of California CEQA Guidelines, because the ND and the Initial Study /Environmental Impact Discussion demonstrates that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the City, that the • project may have a significant effect on the environment. _ March 2004 4002 -01 & ASSOCIATES. INC. Newport Beach G -1 Policy V.ol,u+wl T.— MC-01u Yrnien, wpo icy Amendments 2 Section 1.0 Introduction This ND addresses the proposed amendments to the City's Tree Removal or Retention Policy, also known as the G -1 Policy. Additional information is presented in Section 1.1 above and Section 2.3. This document has been made available for public review at the City Clerk's Office located at City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach. The discretionary action associated with project implementation is approval by the City, the Lead Agency for the proposed amendments. No other discretionary actions are anticipated by the City or any other agency based on this ND. 1.3 OTHER AGENCIES THAT MAY USE THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION Based on the analysis in Section 4, Initial Study /Environmental Checklist, and Section S, Discussion of Environmental Impacts of this document, no other responsible or trustee agencies have been identified for the proposed project. 1.4 PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS A 20 -day review and comment period from March 10, 2004 to March 30, 2004 has been established in accordance with Sections 15072(a), and 15105(b) of the CEQA Guidelines. Comments may be made on the ND in writing before the end of the public review period. Following the close of the public comment period, the City will consider this ND and comments thereto in determining whether to approve the proposed project. Written comments on the ND should be sent to the following address by 5:00 P.M., March 30, 2004. City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 Attention.'Jaines Cainpbeii, Senior Planner •i _ March 2004 4002 -01 •� ASSOCIATES. 12NC.I Newport Beach G -1 Policy Po Amendments 3 1 • 1 0 SECTION 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION The proposed project would be implemented citywide, throughout the City of Newport Beach, California. Figure 1 illustrates the proposed project location. 2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The City of Newport Beach is a community of 75,662 residents and 10,076 businesses that was incorporated in 1906 and chartered in 1955 (City of Newport Beach 2003c). The size of the City is 16,245 acres, or 26 square miles, and includes a variety of land uses including approximately 50 percent residential, 36 percent open space, and 10 percent commercial use. Other uses include institutional and industrial. As discussed in Section 1.1, the City's current urban forest consists of approximately 31,500 trees of various species. The City's management of its urban forest (regular tree trimming, removal and replacement activities) is currently regulated by the existing G -1 Policy. As previously noted, the G -1 Policy relates to retention and removal of trees on city - owned land. To understand the context within which this analysis is framed, it is important to note that a substantial number of trees that contribute to the overall urban forest within the city exist on private lands. Data are not available to afford a precise quantification of trees on private lands, but a reasonable estimate would likely exceed 60,000 trees. This is based on the fact that there are approximately 30,000 residential lots within the City, each of which likely contains 2 to 3 or more trees on average, and on the numerous trees located within commercial areas, particularly Fashion Island, as well as within privately owned and maintained residential common areas. Therefore, while potential impacts associated with the G -1 Policy changes are discussed with respect to the inventory of city trees only, the effects of the Project, when viewed in the context of the overall urban forest, will be less than discussed in this analysis. March zoos 4002-01 & ASSOCLATE5. INC. Newport Beach G -1 Policy Amendments 2 -1 Section 2.0 Project Description 9 2.3 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS The following describes the elements of the proposed amendments to G -1 Policy that would have the potential to result in physical effects on the environment. This description is not all inclusive of the proposed amendments since some of the amendments relate more to procedural elements of the Policy, such as noticing and 0 March 2004 4002 -01 A ASSOCIATES. INC. Newport Beach G -1 Policy Amendments 2-2 u Section 2.0 Project Description Figure 1 Regional Map &ASSOCIATES, INC. March 2004 4002 -01 Newport Beach G -1 Policy Amendments 2 -3 Section 2.0 Project Description • application procedures, that would not materially influence how the Policy would affect the physical environment. The existing Policy allows for tree removal and replacement with certain limitations. Quantification of tree removals presented in the following description is intended to address implementation of the revised G -1 Policy. The description of the amendments is presented by category of tree or activity that is addressed in the Policy. The overall intent of the G -1 Policy is to provide a mechanism to effectively manage the urban forest. Therefore, replacement of trees that are removed with species that are more appropriate for the specific location is an important feature of implementation of the Policy. While the analysis contained in the Initial Study is based on a worst case scenario of potential impacts, tree removals will fluctuate and will in most cases be considerably less than estimated in this analysis due to existing and unchanged requirements to obtain approval to remove a tree. In addition, tree removals have been and are projected to continue to be, limited by available funding under the City budget. Special Trees Special Trees are defined as those categorized as Landmark, Dedicated, or Neighborhood trees which contribute to and give character to an entire neighborhood, and are specifically listed in Attachment 1 to the Policy (Appendix B). The current Policy requires, as one of the criteria for removal of a Special Tree, the use of "special hardscape" in circumstances where normal sidewalk, curb and street repair activities require root pruning, and where it is determined that the required root pruning may destabilize or kill the tree. The proposed revisions to the Policy require consideration of "special hardscape" improvements but will no longer require "special hardscape" be used prior to consideration of removal of a Special Tree if the costs are not reasonable. It is not anticipated that this change would result in an increase in removals of Special Trees, because the other procedures for removal of Special Trees are unchanged including the need for Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission approval. The proposed revisions to the Policy also provide for consideration of removal of Special Trees in conjunction with City Council approved beautification projects. Removal /replacement of Special Trees associated with a beautification project would be subject to additional public review and consideration as the • March 2004 4002 -01 &ASSOCIATES, INC. Newport Beach G -1 Policy 24 f- C-0- r.aK� Po kY Amendments Section 2.0 Project Description • beautification project itself would be a separate discretionary action of the City Council; therefore, and because such removal would be still subject to the Policy provisions, including replacement on a one - for -one basis, the impacts of beautification projects are not separately considered in the Initial Study. There are currently no such beautification projects proposed or anticipated. (City of Newport Beach 2003a). Problem Trees The proposed revisions to the Policy include an entirely new section defining and addressing Problem Trees. A Problem Tree is defined as a tree that by virtue of its species causes excessive hardscape or utility damage due to its intrusive root systems. The Problem Trees species are: • Ficus nitida (Indian Laurel Fig) • Ficus rubiginosa (Rusty Leaf Fig) • Ficus benjamina (Weeping Fig) • Erythrina caffra (Kaffirboom Coral Tree) • Fraxinus uhdei (Shame) Ash) • Cupaniopsis anacardiodes (Carrotwood) • Liquidambar styraciflua (American Sweet Gum) • Schinus terebinthifolius (Brazilian Pepper) The proposed Policy amendments allow for removal of Problem Trees that are not designated as Special Trees, and have caused: (1) damage to public or private property; (2) significant interference with street or sidewalk drainage; and /or (3) a view impediment that cannot be resolved by tree trimming procedures. Features of the proposed revisions to the Policy that provide restrictions on removal of Problem Trees include the following: • No more than 250 Problem Trees may be removed per year by staff under the proposed criteria without special approval of the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission. • In removals involving trees that are resulting in damage and /or drainage • impediments, no more than one of three parkway trees in a continuous March 2004 4002 -07 & ASSCxaA'rES. LVC. Newport Beach G•1 Policy P Amendments 2 -5 Section 2.0 Project Description row may be removed within a three year period without a hearing before • the Commission. In such cases replacement of Problem Trees would be pursued if funding is available. • Replacement of Problem Trees resulting in a view impediment and removed pursuant to an application by a homeowner is required at a 1:1 ratio and is the responsibility of the applicant. • Any Problem Tree that is also a Special Tree may not be removed under this Section of the Policy. There are a total of 7,142 Problem Trees within the City, of which 6,545 are not located in City parks. Of these, there are an estimated 750 Problem Trees that have a trunk diameter of 19 inches or greater. (Appendix C provides an inventory of Street Trees that are considered Undesirable Species.) Of the 750 Problem Trees, 600 are located in five foot wide or smaller parkways. 150 are located in a larger parkway and are designated Special Trees and cannot be removed under this section of the Policy. Therefore, approximately 600 of these 750 Problem Trees would be the subject of removal under the Policy within the • near term, as these trees are most likely to result in damage to public and private property, due to their size and the constraints of their planting area. Removal of Problem Trees would be subject to the limitation of 250 trees per year and available funding. All Other Trees The current Policy provides for removal of "Other City Trees ", a term that the proposed amendments revise and define as "All Other Trees ". An All Other Tree is defined as a City tree which is not designated as a Special or Problem Tree. The proposed Policy amendments would modify the conditions under which removal of All Other Trees would be considered. The modifications include elimination of the provision that there be two or more occurrences of damage or impediments to street or sidewalk drainage within an 18 month period, and elimination that proof of damage be submitted. The proposed amendments allow for consideration of the removal of an All Other Tree when there is repeated history of damage to public or private property or significant interference with street or sidewalk drainage. Because all other procedures and limitations on All Other Tree removals remain unchanged, the City's Urban • '. I March 2004 4002 -01 :&ASSOCL \TE5. IN( .. Newport Beach G -1 Policy Amendments 2.6 Section 2.0 Project Description Forester has estimated that, based upon his knowledge of City tree inventory and past tree removal requests, tree removals resulting from the proposed All Other Tree Policy amendments will not exceed 200 trees per year. It should be noted that this is an extremely conservative (high) estimate, based on past experience. In recent years, All Other Tree Removals have proceeded at a rate of approximately 10 to 15 trees per year. The proposed amendments to the Policy specify a one to one ratio for replacement trees and increase the minimum size of replacement trees from 24" to 36" boxed size specimens, with the exception that if 36" boxed size trees are not available, or funding, or space constraints prevent planting of a large tree, then a minimum 24" boxed tree will be planted. Reforestation The reforestation provisions of the G -1 Policy allow private parties or community associations to initiate the systematic removal and replacement of certain trees that are creating hardscape and /or view problems. Reforestation is paid for by the requesting individual or group, and a minimum of one - for -one replacement is required. Portions of the Reforestation provisions of the Policy relating to minimum replacement tree size are proposed to be amended. The minimum size of replacement trees installed pursuant to the Reforestation provisions would be reduced from 36" to 24" boxed size. This will reduce the cost of the required replacement trees, and could therefore result in an increased number of reforestation requests. However, the vast majority of reforestation requests are for the removal and replacement of Problem Trees. Based on the City Inventory, the Urban Forester anticipates that under the revised Policy, reforestation requests will continue to focus on Problem Trees. Specifically, some of the 600 Problem Trees (previously discussed) that have been identified as the most likely to be removed in the first few years of implementation of the revised Policy may be removed and replaced through the Reforestation process rather than by City initiation. This is not expected to increase overall tree removals. The reduction in size of the replacement trees will increase by 12 to 18 months the amount of time until replacement trees reach maturity, but 24" specimens are still large enough to provide a reasonably equivalent canopy size to 36" box specimens. • March 2004 4002 -01 I& ASSOCIATES. INC- Newport Beach G -1 Policy Amendments 2 -2 Section 2.0 Project Description In addition, provisions to allow for removal and replacement of trees that are determined to be the wrong species in the wrong location, have been added to the reforestation provisions. This new policy is projected to result in the removal and replacement of up to 10 trees per year, based on the City Inventory and the Urban Forester's evaluation of trees falling under this new provision. Encroachment and Demolition Permits Proposed amendments to the provisions related to tree removal associated with a demolition or encroachment permit include specification of a one to one replacement ratio. Policy amendments would require staff approval prior to issuance of a permit, provided provisions of Council Policy L -2, Driveway Approaches and L -6, Private Encroachments In Public Rights -of -Way are met. These Policy provisions would result in loss of approximately 10 trees per year. Supplemental Tree Trimming The provisions of the Policy related to Supplemental Tree Trimming are proposed for modification to increase the threshold for consideration of removal /reforestation for certain trees where trimming is required or requested on a cycle that is more frequent than that specified in the standards of the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA). The proposed modifications require that the Urban Forester determine that Supplemental Tree Trimming is impractical or infeasible before reforestation can be considered. The current Policy requires consideration of reforestation when supplemental tree trimming has occurred more than twice within a one year period. This change would not increase the number or frequency of tree removals because it would actually increase the threshold for consideration of reforestation. • March 2004 4002 -01 & ASSLX:IATFS 1NC. Newport Beach G1 Policy Amendments 2.8 SECTION 3.0 FINDINGS 3.1 NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT FINDING The City finds that the project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment based on the Initial Study /Environmental Checklist (see Section 4) and the Environmental Evaluation Discussion (see Section 5). A Negative Declaration is therefore proposed to satisfy the requirements of CEQA (PRC 21000 et. seq. 14 Cal Code Regs 15000 et. seq.). This conclusion is supported by the following: 1. Aesthetics: Scenic vistas and corridors would not be significantly affected by the proposed project. The project would benefit view neighborhoods. The removal and replacement of trees would have less than significant impact on both a Citywide level and a local level. Impacts would be temporary and are limited by policy provisions. Therefore, significant impacts to aesthetics would not occur with project implementation. See Section 2.3, Project Design Feature and Section 5. 1, Aesthetics, for further discussion. 2. Agricultural Resources: The project would not affect farmland, agricultural products, or agricultural uses. See Section 5.2, Agricultural Resources, for further discussion. 3. Air Quality: The proposed G -1 Policy amendments would not affect air quality. See Section 5.3, Air Quality for further discussion. 4. Biological Resources: Less than significant impacts to biological resources are anticipated. See Section 5.4, Biological Resources for further discussion. 5. Cultural Resources: No significant impacts to historical or cultural resources are anticipated. See Section 5.5, Cultural Resources for further discussion. 6. Geology and Soils: The proposed project would not expose people or structures to adverse risk associated with geologic or soil conditions. • 1 ebruary 2004 4002 -01 j& ASSOCIATES, INC. Newport Beach G -1 Policy Amendments 3 -1 P.f—t -1 vow tw C—M-N emu Section 3.0 Findings Impacts would be less than significant. See Section 5.6, Geology and Soils, for further discussion. 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The project would not introduce significant hazardous materials to people or the environment. See Section 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, for further discussion. 8. Hydrology and Water Quality: The project does not have the potential to significantly affect local or regional water quality. See Section 5.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, for further discussion. 9. Land Use and Planning: The proposed project would be compatible with existing and planned land uses in the project vicinity. No change in land use is proposed. See Section 5.9, Land Use and Planning for further discussion. 10. Mineral Resources: Project implementation would not affect mineral resources. See Section 5. 10, Mineral Resources, for further discussion. 11. Noise: The primary source of noise includes short -term tree removal and replacement activities. The noise levels would not exceed the City of Newport Beach noise criteria. See Section 5.11, Noise, for further discussion. 12. Population and Housing: The project would not affect local housing availability or generate additional population; therefore, the approval of the project would have no significant impact on human population and housing. See Section 5.12, Population and Housing, for further discussion. 13. Public Services: The proposed project would not generate a demand for public services; less than significant impacts would occur. See Section 5.13, Public Services, for further discussion. 14. Recreation: Implementation of the proposed project would not create additional demand for recreational facilities or increase the use of existing recreational facilities. No impacts to recreation would occur. See Section 5.14, Recreation, for further discussion. March 2004 4002-11 6, ASSC)CLKfES. INC. Newport Beach G -1 Policy Amendments 3-2 0 0 Section 3.0 Findings 15. Transportation /Traffic: The project would not result in a substantial impact on traffic volumes nor change in traffic patterns in such a way as to affect the level of service (LOS) or vehicle to congestion ratios on study area roadways. See Section 5.15, Transportation /Traffic, for further discussion. 16. Utilities and Service Systems: No impacts to utilities and service systems would occur. See Section 5.16, Utilities and Service Systems for further discussion. 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance: As described in the previous discussions for each environmental category, impacts from the proposed project are considered to be less than significant. Project design features have been incorporated into the project which reduce impacts to aesthetics. No long -term significant impacts are associated with the project, and impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. March 2004 4002 -07 i�OCltTkS IVC. Newport Beach G -1 Policy Amendments 3 -3 �' o /••• owi T­ fw C—pl- r.mm, SECTION 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST t. Project title: City of Newport Beach G -1 Policy Amendments 2. Lead agency name and address: City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92658 3. Contact person and phone number: James Campbell (9491644-3210 4. Project location: 5. Project sponsor's name and address: City of Newport Beach 6. General Plan Designation: Various 7. Zoning: 8. Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or offsite features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) The City of Newport Beach proposes to amend its G -1 Policy to aive the City additional flexibility for the management of the urban forest in the City of Newport Beach, while maintainina appropriate protections for City trees 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: City of Newport Beach is mostly a residential beach community with over 7 miles of coastline as its southern border. The City has several small commercial villac3es such as Balboa Island, Corona del Mar and Balboa Peninsula. Fashion Island is the largest commercial area with retail and March 2004 4002 -02 III ASSOCIATES, INC. Newport Beach G -1 Policy Amendments 41 NO ....... I r.,,m.I- c+.W,. nw..0 0 office space. Citywide there are an estimated 00,000 trees located on private residential and commercial property. March 2004 &ASSOCIATES,IVC. Newport Beach G. 1 Policy Amendments 4002 -02 4.2 Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a 'Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. 9 Aesthetics 9 Biological Resources 9 Hazards & Hazardous Materials 9 Mineral Resources 9 Public Services 9 Mandatory Findings of Significance 9 Agricultural Resources 9 9 Cultural Resources 9 9 Hydrology/ Water Quality 9 9 Noise 9 9 Recreation 9 9 Utilities/ Service Systems 9 DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: Air Qualify Geology/ Soils Land Use /Planning Population/ Housing Transportation/ Traffic I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 9 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 9 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 9 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant March 2004 4002 -02 .4 ASSOCIATES, 1 \C. Newport Beach G -1 P01icy Amendments 4 -3 i 0 • Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist 0 6] impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. 9 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Date James Campbell, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach March 2004 4002 I& � SSOCL\TES, L \C. I Newport Beach G-1 Policy Am 4A endments <-0 Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist 9 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact' answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project- specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project- specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off - site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project - level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than . significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from earlier analyses may be cross - referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. . March 2004 4002 -02 '& ASSOCIATES, INC. Newport Beach G•1 Policy Amendments 43 1J Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated;' describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site - specific conditions for the project. b) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. • 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant March 2004 4002 -02 S ASSOCIATES, INC. Newport Beach G -1 P011q Amendments 4-6 i + +rn owrtmmlo. C�mpr, r.o�a Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist j March 2004 4002 -02 &ASSOCIATES, INC. Newport Beach Gl Polo Amendments 4.7 A�..rl T.— c_'K.. My E • Less than ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant Referto Section 5 fora detailed discussion Potential Impact With Less of environmental impacts ly Mitigation Than No Significa Incorporate Significa Impac Discussion of Environmental Impacts nt Impact d nt Impact It I. AESTHETICS —Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic 9 9 9 vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, 9 9 9 but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character 9 9 9 or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare 9 9 9 which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES — In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or 9 9 9 Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or 9 9 9 a Williamson Act contract? c) Would the project involve other changes in the 9 9 9 existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non - agricultural use? III. AIR QUALITY — Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 9 9 9 applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute 9 9 9 substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase 9 9 9 of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 9 9 9 concentrations? j March 2004 4002 -02 &ASSOCIATES, INC. Newport Beach Gl Polo Amendments 4.7 A�..rl T.— c_'K.. My E • 0 0 Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist March 2004 4002 -02 10 i,.—, 1, � & ASSOCIATES. L \C. Newport Beads G -1 Poliq Amendments 4$ Rol.u+owl T—p c—'J. Pq„u Less than ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant Refer to Section 5 fora detailed discussion Potential Impact With Less of environmental Impacts ly Mitigation Than No Slgnifica Incorporate Slgnifica Impac Discussion of Environmental Impacts nt Impact d nt Impact t e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial 9 9 9 number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or 9 9 9 through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian 9 9 9 habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally 9 9 9 protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any 9 9 9 native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinance 9 9 9 protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat 9 9 9 Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the 9 9 9 significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the 9 9 9 significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique 9 9 9 paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those 9 9 9 interred outside of formal cemeteries? March 2004 4002 -02 10 i,.—, 1, � & ASSOCIATES. L \C. Newport Beads G -1 Poliq Amendments 4$ Rol.u+owl T—p c—'J. Pq„u Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist March 2004 4002 -02 i& ASSCX;IA7ES, NC. Newport Beach G -1 Policy Amendments 4 -9 0 0 0 Less than ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant Refer to Section 5 fora detailed discussion Potential Impact With Less of environmental impacts ly Mitigation Than No Significa Incorporate Significa Impac Discussion of Environmental Impacts nt Impact d nt Impact t VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS —Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial 9 9 9 adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as 9 9 9 delineated on the most recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 9 9 9 iii) Seismic- related ground failure, including 9 9 9 liquefaction? iv)Landslides? 9 9 9 b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of 9 9 9 topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is 9 9 9 unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 9 9 9 18-1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the 9 9 9 use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS — Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 9 9 9 environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 9 9 9 environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or 9 9 9 acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of 9 9 9 hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a March 2004 4002 -02 i& ASSCX;IA7ES, NC. Newport Beach G -1 Policy Amendments 4 -9 0 0 0 0 Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist March 2004 4002 -02 &ASSOCIATES, I1rC. Newport Beach G -1 Policy Amendments 4 -10 P.ok 1T wc..W. r... -, Less than ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant Refer to Section 5 for a detailed discussion Potential Impact With Less of environmental impacts ly Mitigation Than No Significa Incorporate Significa Impac Discussion of Environmental Impacts nt Impact d nt Impact It result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan 9 9 9 or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, 9 9 9 would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with 9 9 9 an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of 9 9 9 loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII.HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY — Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste 9 9 9 discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or 9 9 9 interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of 9 9 9 the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of 9 9 9 the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would 9 9 9 exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? March 2004 4002 -02 &ASSOCIATES, I1rC. Newport Beach G -1 Policy Amendments 4 -10 P.ok 1T wc..W. r... -, Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Less than Significant Refer to Section 5 for a detailed discussion Potential Impact With Less o f environmental impacts ly Mitigation Than No Signifca Incorporate Signifca Impac Discussion of Environmental Impacts nt Impact d nt Impact t f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 9 9 9 g) Place housing within a 100 -year Flood hazard area 9 9 9 as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other Flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year Flood hazard area 9 9 9 structures which would impede or redirect Flood Flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of 9 9 9 loss, injury or death involving flooding, including Flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? I.) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 9 9 9 IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING — Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? 9 9 9 b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or 9 9 9 regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation 9 9 9 plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES — Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral 9 9 9 resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- 9 9 9 important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? XI. NOISE — Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise 9 9 9 levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive 9 9 9 groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise 9 9 9 levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in 9 9 9 ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? -- March 2004 4002 -02 6i ASSOCIATES, INC. Newport Beach G -1 Policy Amendments 4-11 PMeunwl Tew I. Lela 0 s • 0 • Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist March 2004 4002 -02 I& ASSOCIATES, INC. Newport Beach G4 Policy Amendments 4 -12 P,.& - -1 Teams (m Cmpu Rahn Less than ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant Refer to Section 5 fora detailed discussion Potential Impact With Less of environmental Impacts ly Mitigation Than No Significa Incorporate Significa Impac Discussion of Environmental Impacts nt Impact d nt Impact It e) For a project located within an airport land use plan 9 9 9 or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, 9 9 9 would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, 9 9 9 either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, 9 9 9 necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, 9 9 9 necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII.PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? 9 9 9 Police protection? 9 9 9 Schools? 9 9 9 Parks? 9 9 9 Other public facilities? 9 9 9 XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing 9 9 9 neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or 9 9 9 March 2004 4002 -02 I& ASSOCIATES, INC. Newport Beach G4 Policy Amendments 4 -12 P,.& - -1 Teams (m Cmpu Rahn Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist r March 2004 4002 -02 .6r ASSpC1pTES. INC. Newport Beach G -i Policy Amendments 4.73 0 I Less than ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant Refer to Section 5 for a detailed discussion Potential Impact With Less of environmental Impacts ly Mitigation Than No Significa Incorporate Significa Impac Discussion of Environmental Impacts nt Impact d nt Impact t require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANS PORTATIONfTRAFFIC — Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in 9 9 9 relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level 9 9 9 of service standard established by the County Congestion Management Agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including 9 9 9 either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design 9 9 9 feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 9 9 9 f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 9 9 9 g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs 9 9 9 supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the 9 9 9 applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or 9 9 9 wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm 9 9 9 water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve 9 9 9 the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in determination by the wastewater 9 9 9 treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the r March 2004 4002 -02 .6r ASSpC1pTES. INC. Newport Beach G -i Policy Amendments 4.73 0 I 0 Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist �--� March 2004 4002 -02 & ASSCTCIA7'E$ INC. Newport Beach G -1 Policy AmentlmenLS 4 -74 Less than ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant Refer to Section 5 fora detailed discussion Potential Impact With Less of environmental impacts ly Mitigation Than No Significa Incorporate Significa Impac Discussion of Environmental Impacts nt Impact d nt Impact t project's projected demand in addition to the provider /s existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted 9 9 9 capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and 9 9 9 regulations related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the 9 9 9 quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually 9 9 9 limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which 9 9 9 will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? �--� March 2004 4002 -02 & ASSCTCIA7'E$ INC. Newport Beach G -1 Policy AmentlmenLS 4 -74 SECTION 5.0 0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 5.1 AESTHETICS a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact In circumstances where Problem Trees are impeding scenic views, the proposed G -1 Policy amendments add provisions that would facilitate tree removal and replacement for purposes of view enhancement at the request of residents through existing community associations. The proposed Policy amendments would therefore result in a beneficial impact to view neighborhoods, since replacement of existing trees with more appropriate tree species would be facilitated within certain view sensitive areas. No other effects to scenic vistas or view neighborhoods are anticipated as a result of the proposed new Policy provisions. Therefore, there are no substantial adverse effects on any scenic vista as a result of the proposed project. • b. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.? Less Than Significant Impact. To assess potential aesthetic impacts, the potential changes to the visual and aesthetic environment resulting from the proposed G -1 Policy amendments are considered, including changes to the city -wide landscape character and impacts to local, site - specific areas. The significance of the visual change resulting from implementation of the proposed project is evaluated. When determining the extent of visual change, the viewing experience of the individual viewer that may be affected by the project is considered. For purposes of analysis, individual viewers are those that would be most affected by proposed Policy amendments, including pedestrians, drivers, and adjacent residents. Visual changes or impacts resulting from the proposed project were evaluated by viewing the existing visual character of the landscape and assessing the degree to which change, or contrast, • _ . . March 2004 4002 -01 & ASSOCIATES, INC. Newport Beach G•1 Policy Amendments 5.1 wor...w' T.... h. C..44. r .. Section 5.0 Discussion of Environmental Checklist would occur. Generally, a substantially altered view, or a strong contrast visible to an individual viewer, is considered to have significant adverse visual impacts. Citywide: On a City -wide level, of the project could result in a potentially higher number of trees to be removed and replaced. The actual number of trees that could be removed would depend on specific circumstances surrounding individual tree problems, as well as funding constraints. However, for purposes of this analysis, the City has made a good faith estimate of the maximum number of additional trees that would be removed under the revised Policy, per year for a least the first two years of Policy implementation. That estimate includes the following: • 250 Problem Trees per year • 200 All Other Trees per year 10 Reforestation per year • 10 Demolition Process (Policies L -2, L -6) per year . . Total 470 trees per year It should be noted that in both the Problem Tree and All Other Tree Categories, while the policy amendments could result in removals of up to the maximum per year, it is anticipated that that rate would taper off after the first one to two years and likely fluctuate at the lower historical average level of 200 per year after that time frame. With the reasonable application of the Policy amendments in the context of overall Policy provisions not more than 470 trees would be removed annually. When considered in relation to the total number of trees in the City's urban forest, over the next two years, potential tree removals would represent less than 3 percent of the City's urban forest. In addition, based upon past City practice, the rate of anticipated replacement of trees would exceed the number of trees that are removed under the amended policy, resulting in an increase in the inventory of trees within the urban forest overall. On a city -wide scale, the impact of total tree removals under the revised G -1 Policy would not be perceptible and would not result in a significant impact to scenic resources within the City. • Local Impacts: The proposed Project would also have local, visual effects March 2004 4002 -01 &ASSOCIATES, INC. Newport Beach G -1 Policy Amendments 5 -2 Nd. ia T-- f., C n k., Section 5.0 Discussion of Environmental Checklist for viewers along individual City streets where trees could be removed under the policy amendments. Loss of trees in the numbers estimated in this analysis will be dispersed through the entire city and localized impacts will be experienced in the context of surrounding trees within both the City Tree inventory and trees within private landscaping. As described in Section 2.3, the City has identified Problem Tree species that could be removed under the proposed G -1 Policy amendments. Two of the largest and most common Problem Tree species are in the ficus species, the Rusty Leaf Fig (Ficus rubiginosa) and the Indian Laurel Fig (Ficus nitida). At maturity, these two species on average exhibit a 30 to 40 -foot canopy and have a diameter breast height (DBH, trunk diameter measured at 4.5 feet off the ground) of 15 to 19 inches (Conway, pers. comm. 2003). The Kaffirboom Coral Tree (Erythrina caffra) (also a common species in the Special Tree category) grows to a 40 -foot canopy with a DBH of 12 inches. The Brazilian Pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) and American Sweet Gum (Liquidambar styracifula) are also common species in the Problem Tree category. Brazilian Pepper typically matures with a 30 -foot canopy and DBH of 30 inches, and American Sweet Gum matures with a 15 -foot canopy and DBH of 12 inches (Conway, pers. comm. 2003). While the Problem Tree dimensions represent the natural canopy development for these species, in the majority of cases where Problem Trees are considered for removal, their canopies have been drastically altered by years of pruning. Extensive pruning has been practiced in an effort to remedy some of the problems caused by these trees and in an attempt to fit the tree in a location that limits its natural growth pattern. Canopy reductions resulting from pruning have typically resulted in restrictions of 30 % -40 %the natural canopy. Potential effects that are anticipated to be experienced locally in areas affected by tree removal and replacement include a loss or temporary reduction in the canopy cover, shade, and visual character in the immediate area of tree removal. The City's suggested replacement tree species have been designated on a street by street basis per the City Street Tree Designation List (Appendix A). These replacement species reflect an effort by the City to prescribe appropriate tree species that will not cause future problems (City of Newport Beach 2003b). Of the replacement tree species, the Crape Myrtle (Lagerstroemia indica x F March 2004 4002 -01 �& A[cp('IATFS. 1 \C. Newport Beach G -1 Policy Amendments 5 -3 nd...... ,. +1.6.x. n...e 0 1] Section 5.0 Discussion of Environmental Checklist Lagerstroemia faurieij, Saint Mary, Magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora - "Saint Mary") and Hong Kong Orchid (Bauhinia blakeana) would be the trees that would exhibit the smallest canopy at maturation. These tree species have been chosen for this analysis to demonstrate a "worst case" scenario for impacts related to canopy dimensions. It should be noted that trees with smaller canopies are generally designated as street trees in view neighborhoods for the express purpose of providing the aesthetic and other benefits of street trees while maintaining scenic vistas. The Designated Street Tree list contains a diversity of tree species, including species with mature canopies that would exceed the dimensions of existing Problem Trees, but that would not result in adverse conditions related to their root structures, or other features that make Problem Trees inappropriate for certain locations. Estimated maturation for the three species chosen for the worst -case analysis is 8 to 15 years for 24 -inch box specimens (Conway 2003). Hence, 8- 15 years would be the worst case duration for visual impacts resulting from removing and replacing trees under the proposed G -1 Policy • amendments. However, canopies become evident, 5 -8 years within planting. After 15 years, the canopies of the Crape Myrtle and St. Mary, Magnolia and Hong Kong Orchid would reach approximately 20 to 25 feet. In addition, as noted previously, this comparison overestimates potential impacts since the majority of trees anticipated to be replaced are Problem Trees that have experienced extensive pruning. The extensive pruning results in unnaturally small canopies. This fact in itself is an important consideration in assessing aesthetic impacts in that the replacement trees will be afforded the ability to achieve and maintain a more natural looking canopy with a similar canopy size to the typical aggressively pruned Problem Tree. If is anticipated that replacement of aggressively pruned trees with species that can develop more naturally will enhance aesthetics in the areas affected. An impact limiting feature of the proposed project is the limitation on the number of Problem Trees that can be removed within a given area. Removal of Problem Trees in parkways is limited to one of three in a continuous row, without a Parks, Beaches & Recreation Committing hearing. This will reduce the visual effects on a local level, such that the 0 perceived visual contrast to the large majority of viewers would not be March 2004 4002 -01 && ASSOCIATES, INCINC. Newport Beach G -t Policy Amendments 5-0 P-1—w.1 Te. Cw nmea. Section 5.0 Discussion of Environmental Checklist substantial; impacts would be less than significant overall. Local impacts associated with All Other Trees involves different considerations than for Problem Trees, because of three primary factors: 1) typical species within the All Other Tree category are different from those typical of Problem Trees; 2) the process required for consideration and approval of removal of All Other Trees is different and more restrictive than for Problem Trees; and 3) All Other Tree removals have a lower likelihood of occurring than removal of Problem Trees, because of the procedures and limitations associated with All Other Tree removals. The typical species that are most likely subject to removal include various types of palms, Lemon Gums, Melaleuca, Aleppo Pine, Jacaranda, Monterey Pine and Blue Gums. These species tend to reach a fairly large size at maturity. Therefore, removal of mature specimens would likely result in a more perceptible change in aesthetic conditions compared to the typical Problem Tree removal, as analyzed above. However, because the process required for removal of All Other Trees involves first a request • by a resident, and second, consideration of each individual tree on a case -by -case basis, consideration of each tree in the context of its surroundings will be given in the decision to remove the tree. Therefore, analysis of a "typical" impact scenario as is provided for Problem Trees is not applicable to All Other Trees. In addition, if is important to note that requests for removal of All Other Trees are typically for single tree removals associated with issues related to individual trees. If is unlikely that requests would be received for multiple removals within close proximity, as may be the case for Problem Trees. This is primarily due to the fact that the problems caused by Problem Trees are consistent within areas where the Problem Tree species had been planted in a regular pattern, and are of uniform age and growth form. Problems that may be associated with All Other Trees are typically more specific to a particular tree in a particular location. Impacts related to removal of All Other Trees are considered by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Committee through a discretionary process that is open to the public. Because the Committee will consider and weigh the specific circumstances associated with each tree removal and will I March 2004 4002 -01 6i ASSOCIATES LVC. Newport Beach G -1 Policy Amendments 5 -5 P-f,vi lT-/ CmPlaP Wu 0 0 Section 5.0 Discussion of Environmental Checklist have the ability to direct actions to minimize impacts associated with the loss of individual trees, and because the number of All Other Trees removed in a given location would not be substantial, no significant aesthetic impacts would result from All Other Tree removals under the revised policy. C Would the project degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less Than Significant Impact. See response 5.1 -a and b. Upon maturation of replacement trees, the visual character of the area of replaced trees would continue to be compatible with the existing surrounding land uses. The proposed project would not have a long -term significant impact on the City's visual character or quality. March zoos 4002-01 L:OCLA r�S L \C. Newport Beach G -1 Policy Amendments 5-6 Pio(e[ w(I.�rpl.M,rhye[t, Section 5.0 Discussion of Environmental Checklist d. Would the project create a new source of substantial /fight or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? No Impact. The project would not involve the use of any new source of light or glare: no impacts to any day or nighttime views would result. 5.2 AGRICULTURE RESOURCES a. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use? No Impact. The project would not occur within agricultural areas and would not convert agricultural lands to non - agricultural use. No impacts to agricultural resources would occur. b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract. No Impact. See response 5.2 -a. No feature of the project would conflict with areas zoned for agricultural use. and no Williamson Act contracts would be affected: no impacts are anticipated. C. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non - agricultural use? No Impact. As stated in responses 5.2 -a and 5.2 -b. no portion of the project is located within existing agricultural areas. nor would facilities necessary for project implementation result in the conversion of farmland to urban use. Therefore. conversion of existing farmland to urban uses will not occur. 5.3 AIR QUALITY a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 0 March 2004 4002 -01 S ASSOCIATES. IN( Newport Beach G -1 Policy Amendments 5 -7 P,,1w"1 Te -f­Cmm Pwmu Section 5.0 Discussion of Environmental Checklist 0 applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The proposed Policy amendments involve changes to the City's tree retention or removal policy and would not have any effect on air quality planning. The project would not result in air quality impacts related to air quality plans. b. Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? No Impact. See response 5.3 -a. C Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? • No Impact. See response 5.3 -a. d. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No Impact. See response 5.3 -a. e. Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No Impact. The project would not involve the emission of objectionable odors; no impacts would occur. 5.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Came or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? March 2004 4002 -01 & ASSOC WTE5. 1 \C. i Newport Beach G-1 Policy Amendments 5-8 P.d.vuui TrvM la co.ga Pw.m Section 5.0 Discussion of Environmental Checklist 0 Less Than Significant Impact. The areas affected by the proposed Policy revisions are generally urbanized and are typically absent any natural habitat resources: however. the urban forest does provide some benefits to bird species and their nests within the City. As indicated in response 5.1 -a. the maximum number of trees that would be removed under the proposed Policy amendments would represent less than 3 percent of the existing urban forest as a whole. because the Policy provides in most cases for a 1:1 replacement of removed trees. In addition. past practice of planting new trees would continue so that the rate of tree replacement is anticipated to exceed the rate of loss. The long -term effect of implementation of the amended G -1 Policy would be minimal. No other wildlife species would be affected by the proposed Policy amendments. For these reasons. impacts would be less than significant. b. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or • regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. See response 5.4 -a. No riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities would be affected by the proposed Policy amendments. C Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federallyprotected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. See response 5.4 -a. No wetlands would be affected by the proposed Policy amendments. d. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? • March 2004 4002 -01 &ASSOCL4TES. iNC. Newport Beach Gl PoGq Amendments 5•9 Pm4..;e.i T. f.Cw (. N.wrc 0 Section 5.0 Discussion of Environmental Checklist Less Than Significant Impact. See response 5.4 -a. Some bird species use the urban forest canopy for nesting and other activities, and the proposed G -1 Policy Amendments would increase the rate of removal and replacement of certain trees. However, the scale of the proposed amendments to the Policy would not significantly affect bird species' use of the City's urban forest as a wildlife corridor. There would be no impacts to wildlife corridors resulting from the G -1 Policy amendments. e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinance protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. No Impact. The policy amendments are intended to provide additional clarity and specificity pursuant to the overall objectives of the policy and do not represent changes that would conflict with those objectives. The proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. To the extent that the new policies will be a change from prior policies, the G -1 amendments will constitute the City's new Urban Forest Management Policy. The City's existing Tree Protection Ordinance remains unchanged. f. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. The City participates in the Central /Coastal Orange County Natural Community Conservation Plan /Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP /HCP). The project's proposed amendments to the City's G -1 Policy would not impede or conflict with the provisions of the NCCP. Therefore, no impacts to a local, regional or state habitat conservation plan would occur. 5.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of historical resource as defined in Section /5064.5.7 Less Than Significant Impact. Certain trees identified as Landmark Trees March 2004 4002 -01 &ASSCk]ATFS. INC. Newport Beach G- 1 Policy Amendments 5 -10 Pu {na wll.�. r. P�nu Section 5.0 Discussion of Environmental Checklist within the City's Special Trees category are considered to have historical significance. It is not anticipated that any of the Landmark Trees within the current inventory of Special Trees that are considered to have historical significance would be affected by the Policy changes. This conclusion is based on an analysis of Landmark Trees, which examined the location of the trees relative to streets and infrastructure that could be susceptible to damage, as well as the species of the trees to determine the potential for the tree to be removed for problems caused by invasive root systems. As noted in the Project Description, the elimination of the requirement to implement special hardscape prior to consideration of removal of Special Trees would not otherwise change the process that would need to be followed for their removal. Therefore, it is not anticipated that any additional loss of Special Trees would result from implementation of the revised G -1 Policy. Removal of Special Trees is considered on a case -by- case basis and requires approval by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission. The relative historical value would be weighed in the decisions of the Commission. b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance • of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 75064.57 No Impact. See response to 5.5 -a. C. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? No Impact. The project does not have the capacity to affect paleontological resources or unique geologic features. d. Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No Impact. No such resources would be affected by the proposed amendments to the G -1 Policy. 5.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS i March 2004 4002 -01 IBS ASSOCIATES, INC. i Newport Beach G•1 Policy Amendments 5 -11 i•„k,.mwt v�m.l••. Co.W.. Rmm� Section 5.0 Discussion of Environmental Checklist a. Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault. Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. No Impact. The project would not result in increased exposure or people or structures to earthquakes. No impacts would occur. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking. No Impact. See response 5.6 -a, i. iii. Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? • No Impact. See response 5.6 -a, i. iv. Landslides? No Impact. See response 5.6 -a, i. A Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. No Impact. The proposed project would not involve activities that would result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. C Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in, on or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? No Impact. The proposed project would not create unstable soils that would result in landslides, lateral spreading, liquefaction, or collapse. II�March 2004 4002 -01 4 ASSOCI,�TES, INC. Newport Beach G -1 Policy Amendments 5d2 Section 5.0 Discussion of Environmental Checklist d. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1- 9 of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property. No Impact. The proposed project would not affect expansive soils such that substantial risks to life or property would result. e. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact. No aspect of the proposed project would involve the introduction of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, no impact would occur. 5.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS a. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? No Impact. The project would not involve the transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials. No such materials would be used in the tree removal and /or replacement process. A Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. No Impact. See response 5.7 -a. No feature of the proposed project would involve the release of hazardous materials into the environment. C Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. No Impact. See response 5.7 -a. • March 2004 4002 -01 &ASSOCIATES, INC. Newport Beach G4 P01icy Amendments 5.13 0 0 • Section 5.0 Discussion of Environmental Checklist d. Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65961. S and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. No Impact. See response 5.7 -a. e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use March 2004 400 .5� ASSOCIATES, INC. Newport Beach G -1 Policy Am 5 -1 endments 5-14 Nep.....wi u„ ��, J- C—pin P.w.n. Section 5.0 Discussion of Environmental Checklist airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The project would not subject users to safety hazards associated with public or private airports. f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. See response 5.7 -e. g. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No impact. Project implementation would not interfere with emergency response plans or evacuation plans. h. Would the project expose people or structures to a signirIcant risk of loss, injury or death involving wiidiand fires, including where wiidiands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No Impact. The project does not involve activities that would expose people or structures to a significant risk involving wildland fires. 5.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY a. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? No Impact. The proposed G -1 Policy Amendments would not involve any water discharge or result in any water quality effects. b. Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of a local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a March 2004 4002 -07 &ASSCKIA'It5, 1 \C. Newport Beach G -1 Policy Amendments 5 -15 0 Section 5.0 Discussion of Environmental Checklist level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? No Impact. Tree removal and replacement activities associated with the proposed project will not affect groundwater supplies. Also, the project would not increase the amount of impermeable surfaces and would not interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of a local groundwater table level. Furthermore, amendments to the G -1 Policy would not require use of groundwater supplies. The proposed project would not have a significant impact on groundwater supplies and recharge. C. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or offsite? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not involve substantial alteration of the existing drainage patterns of any tree removal or replacement site. Minor, temporary changes would occur during the tree removal and replacement process to correct damage caused by Problem Trees, but drainage would be restored to properly flow into existing storm drain systems, and impacts to existing drainage patterns would be less than significant. Also, substantial erosion or siltation offsite is not anticipated to occur as a result of the Project. d. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or offsite? Less Than Significant Impact. See response 5.8 -c. The proposed project would not involve substantial alteration of the existing drainage patterns of any tree removal or replacement site. The proposed project would have a less than significant effect on the existing drainage patterns and a substantial increase in surface runoff in a manner that would significantly increase flooding on or offsite is not anticipated. March 2004 4002 -07 i ASSOCIATES, 1NC. Newport Beach G -1 Policy Amendments 5 -16 P.Nmmul T.—ty, Co r-Prwem Section 5.0 Discussion of Environmental Checklist 0 e. Would the project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runofi.7 Less Than Significant Impact. See response 5.8 -c. f Would the project otherwise degrade water quality. Less Than Significant Impact. See responses 5.8 -a, c, and e. g. Would the project place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary of Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No Impact. No portion of the project would involve the placement of housing within a delineated Federal Flood Hazard Boundary of Flood Insurance Map or other flood hazard delineation map; no impacts would occur. A Would the project place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact. See response 5.8 -g. I. Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of levee or dam? No Impact. No portion of the project would involve the construction of a levee or dam which could potentially place downstream people or structures at risk. No impacts are expected to occur. J Would the project be susceptible to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.? No Impact. The project does not propose any development that would be exposed to such hazards. March 2004 4002 -01 Newport 6i ASSOCIATES. INC. 8each G -1 Polity Amendments 5-17 P.dn.i —,T-- M Cm .N*11, 0 Section 5.0 Discussion of Environmental Checklist 5.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING a. Would the project physically divide an established community. No Impact. The proposed project involves proposed amendments to the Tree Removal or Retention Policy and would not physically divide an established community. b. Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. No Impact. The proposed G -1 Policy Amendments would not conflict with existing land uses and are not expected to conflict with any land use plans. including the City of Newport Beach General Plan. C Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact. See response 5.4 -f. 5.10 MINERAL RESOURCES a. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. No portion of the project would increase the likelihood that known mineral resources would be affected. The project would have no significant impact on known or expected mineral resources. • b. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally- important March t 4402 01 S ASSOCIATES. INC. Newporr B t Beach G-1 Policy Amendments 518 Section 5.0 Discussion of Environmental Checklist mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific • plan or other land use plan? No Impact. See response 5.10 -a. 5.11 NOISE a. Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less Than Significant Impact. There are localized noise impacts associated with tree trimming and removal activities. Increased frequency of tree removal may increase the frequency of localized impacts. However, the noise impacts are temporary, typically lasting no more than 2 - 4 hours. Tree removal will be conducted within the limitations of existing noise restrictions. Therefore impacts are not considered to be significant. A Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration orgroundborne noise levels? No Impact. See response 5.11 -a. The proposed project will not require blasting, therefore persons will not be exposed to excessive groundborne vibration or noise levels. No impacts would occur. C. Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? No Impact. See response 5.11 -a. Localized noise levels would increase temporarily as a result of implementation of the proposed project. However, the increase in noise levels would not exceed standards established by the City of Newport Beach and would be temporary. The proposed project would not result in a significant permanent increase in ambient noise levels. d. Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without March 2004 4002 -01 I& ASSOCIATES. INC.I Newport Beach G -1 Policy Amendments 5 -19 V..I-u -" I.-'. C'mmp4a P.oum Section 5.0 Discussion of Environmental Checklist • the project. Less Than Significant Impact. See response 5.11 -a. e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use 0 • March 2004 4002 -07 .0 ASSOCIATES, WC. Newport Beach G -1 Policy Amendments 5 -20 Section 5.0 Discussion of Environmental Checklist airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. See response 5.11 -a. The project would not affect or expose people residing or working in the project areas to excessive noise levels. f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. See response 5.11 -e. The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. 5.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING a. Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes or businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other • Infrastructure)? No Impact. No feature of the proposed amendments to the G -1 Policy would result in induced population growth. A Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. See response 5.12 -a. No houses would be displaced as a result of the proposed project. C. Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. See responses 5.12 -a and b. No people would be displaced as a result of the proposed project. 5.13 PUBLIC SERVICES E March 2004 4001 -07 & ASSCh:lA7L5, W C. Newport Beach G -1 Policy AmentlnienLS 5 -21 Section 5.0 Discussion of Environmental Checklist a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the following public services: i. Fire protection? No Impact. The proposed project involves amendments to the City's G -1 Policy. No increase in the need for additional public services would result from revised policies related to tree retention and removal, since those activities do not generate demand for public services or facilities. ii. Po /ice protection? No Impact. See response 5.13 -a,i. • iii. Schoo /s? No Impact. See response 5.13 -a,i. iv. Parks. No Impact. See response 5.13 -a,i. V. Other pub //c facilities? No Impact. See response 5.13 -a,i. 5.14 RECREATION a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? • No Impact. The improvements would not result in a loss of recreational March 2004 4002 01 &ASSOl1ATES. INC. Newport Beach Gt Policy Amendments 5 -22 r.d.... I, c­ r....11 Section 5.0 Discussion of Environmental Checklist facilities or increase demand for recreational facilities or services. b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. No Impact. The proposed project does not include recreational facilities and would not require construction or expansion of recreational facilities. No adverse physical effect on the environment would occur as a result of the proposed project. 5.15 TRANSPORTATION /TRAFFIC a. Would the project cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i. e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections). No Impact. No part of the proposed project would result in a substantial increase in traffic. No impacts would occur. A Would the project exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the County Congestion Management Agency for designated roads or highways. No Impact. See response 5.15 -a. The project would not result in a substantial impact on traffic volumes nor change in traffic patterns in such a way as to affect the level of service (LOS) or vehicle to congestion ratios on study area roadways. No impacts would occur with implementation of the project. C, Would the project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks. No Impact. The project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns; March 2004 4002 -01 & ASSOCIATES, INC. Newport Beach G -7 Policy Amentlments 5 -23 r,.tr....a T— N, c—. wq.. E • • Section 5.0 Discussion of Environmental Checklist no impact would occur. d. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e. g., sharp curves of dangerous intersections) orincomoatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact. See response 5.15 -a. The project would not create traffic or roadway - related hazards. e. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access. No Impact. No feature of the project would not create traffic or cause a condition that would cause inadequate emergency access; no impacts would occur. f. Would the project result in inadequate parking capacity. No Impact. The project does not involve any features or activities that would result in inadequate parking facilities. g. Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks). No Impact. No feature of the project would result in impacts to adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation. 5.16 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS a. Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board. No Impact. The proposed project would not create any demand for public utilities services or systems; no impacts would occur. A Would the project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the . construction of which would cause significant environmental effects. March 2004 4002 -01 '6 ASSOCIATES, INC.I Newport Beach 6 -1 Policy Amendments 5.24 Section 5.0 Discussion of Environmental Checklist No Impact. See response 5.16 -a. 0 C, Would the project require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact. See response 5.16 -a. d. Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed. No Impact. See response 5.16 -a. e. Would the project result in determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider /s existing commitments? No Impact. See response 5.16 -a. f Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Less Than Significant Impact. The project may result in increases in the production of green waste as a result of increased removal rates. Green waste would be separated from municipal waste and recycled. Therefore, impacts to municipal waste systems resulting from project implementation are not anticipated to be significant. g. Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statues and regulations related to solid waste? No Impact. The proposed project would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. 5.17 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the 0 March 2004 9002 -01 LAS SOCIATES, iN C. Newport Beach G -1 Policy Amendments 5 -25 Section 5.0 Discussion of Environmental Checklist environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Less Than Significant Impact. As described in Section 5.4. the proposed project would not impact sensitive wildlife. plants or habitats. The project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment. substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels. threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community. reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. No impacts to important examples of major periods of California prehistory or history are anticipated. b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (`Cumulatively considerable "means that the Incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects ofprobable future projects)? Less Than Significant Impact. As analyzed in the various Initial Study sections above. no significant impacts would result with implementation of the project. Impacts to Aesthetics are the only issue of note for the project. as described in Section 5.1. As described in Section 5.1. short -term aesthetic impacts would occur. after tree removal and before replacement trees reach maturity. The project analysis in Section 5.1 considers cumulative impacts since it assesses the impacts resulting from the proposed amendments to a city- wide policy and considers the City's urban forest as a whole. As stated in that section. aesthetic impacts would be less than significant. and they would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts. C. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? I� I March 2004 4002 -01 I'S ASSOC ATES, INC. Newport Beach G•1 Policy Amendment 5 -26 r,,,t,...o, o­. T­ n „1.m _r,o,..,, Section 5.0 Discussion of Environmental Checklist No Impact. Based on the analysis of the above questions, it has been determined that there would be no direct or indirect effect on human beings. • • —I March 2004 4002 -01 [8, ASSOCIATIS. I.1;C_I Newport Beach G -1 Policy Amendments 5-27 V -J� ...... W'T... .. r. . . • SECTION 6.0 REFERENCES Conway, John. 2003. City of Newport Beach Urban Forester, personal communications with Shawn Shamlou, Dudek & Associates. December 12. Newport Beach, City of. 2003a. Projected Loss of Trees under Proposed Amendments to G -1 Policy. Office of the City Attorney Memorandum. July 10. Newport Beach, City of. 2003b. Draft G -1 Policy Amendments: Retention or Removal of City Trees. October 8. Newport Beach, City of. 2003c. City of Newport Beach website. Demographics and land use data accessed via httr):/ /www.city.newport- . beach.ca.us /pin/ demographic2002.htm. March 2004 4002 -01 i& ASSOCIA'nS, LAC. Newport Beach G -1 Policy Amendments 6.1 r',...... d C I...,.. SECTION 7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS City of Newport Beach James Campbell, Senior Planner John Conway, Urban Forester Marcy Lomeli, Urban Forester Dudek & Associates, Inc. Joe Monaco, Senior Project Manager Shawn Shamlou, Environmental Planner Tom Larson, Senior Arborist Lesley Terry, GIS Analyst Annabelle Cuypers - Collins, Word Processing • • March 2004 4002 -01 6i ASSoci —"- S.1VC. Newport Beach G -1 Policy Amendments 7-1 P. ... ..ennl Trv. — I — - -- APPENDIX A City of Newport Beach Street Tree Designation List APPENDIX B City of Newport Beach Draft G -1 Policy Amendments APPENDIX C City of Newport Beach Undesirable Species - Street Tree List • F�EWPORT o \N C9Cir00."�r ATTACHMENT A General services, Department TREE DIVISION Tree Removals and Plantings •:• One tree removed for every 7.7 trees planted over the past 6 years, less than I% of urban forest removed. *(23) Tree removal request Trees Removed Trees Planted FY 2002 -03 52 (23)* 487 FY 2001 -02 12 540 FY 2000 -01 43 333 FY 1999 -2000 123 519 FY 1998 -99 26 310 FY 1997 -98 59 247 315 2,436 •:• One tree removed for every 7.7 trees planted over the past 6 years, less than I% of urban forest removed. *(23) Tree removal request RESOLUTION NO. 2004 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING AND APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR REVISIONS TO THE CITY'S G -1 POLICY - RETENTION OR REMOVAL OF CITY TREES WHEREAS, the City Council, of the City of Newport Beach has reviewed the Initial Study and the Proposed Negative Declaration for revisions to the G -1 Policy — Retention or Removal of City Trees ( "G -1 Policy "), and all of the relevant information, including a staff report dated April 27,2004, all attachments to the staff reports, public presentations, the Negative Declaration, comments on the Negative Declaration, written responses to comments, public comments, and all other documents, reference, and writings made a part of the record for consideration of the revisions to the G -1 Policy and the Negative Declaration. Based upon its independent review of this record, the City Council now makes the following findings: 1. At its meeting of March 11, 2003, the City Council, initiated review of its G -1 Policy. As part of the review process, the City Council directed the appointment of an Ad Hoc Committee to consider potential revisions to the Policy and consider whether the City Council should adopt an ordinance for protection of City Trees in place of the G -1 Policy. The Ad Hoc Tree Committee held publicly noticed workshops in 2003 on April 10, April 24, May 15, June 3, and July 15'', The Committee received and considered • comments of members of the public and made recommendations to the City Council regarding proposed revisions to the G -1 Policy and based upon the information and comments received, recommended that the City's current Ordinances provided sufficient protection for City trees and that the G -1 Policy with the recommended revisions was an appropriate means for staff to administer the City's Urban Forest as it relates to City decisions for removal and retention of trees. 2. On August 26, 2003, the City Council, held a hearing at a regularly scheduled study session to consider the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Tree Committee. After public comments, the Council directed that the matter be returned to the Council at a regularly scheduled evening meeting. 3. On September 9, 2003, the City Council, held a hearing at a regularly scheduled meeting to consider further information regarding the revisions to the G 1 policy. After public comments were received the Council directed the Ad Hoc Tree Committee to consider additional issues raised at the meeting. The Ad Hoc Tree Committee held an additional publicly noticed workshop on October 7, 2003 and recommended the revisions contained in the October 8, 2003 draft revisions to the G -1 Policy. 4 Prior to City Council consideration of the October 8, 2003 proposed revisions recommended by the Ad Hoc Tree Committee, the firm of Dudek and Associates, Inc was retained to prepare the necessary environmental assessment under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 5. The Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City of Newport Beach and of the City Council. Attachment M 6. Based on the whole record before the City Council, there is no substantial evidence that the proposed changes to the G -1 Policy will have a significant effect on the environment. NOW, THEREFORE, based on the foregoing findings and on the whole record, the City Council, hereby approves and adopts the Negative Declaration for revisions to the City Council's G -1 Policy. ADOPTED this day of 2004. ATTEST: LaVonne Harkless, City Clerk • F:\ users \cat\shared\dalResolution\G -1 policy \042104clean.doc E f�J 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 W 21 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 01 2 RETENTION OR REMOVAL OF CITY TREES GOAL OF POLICY October 8, 2003 Draft G -1 To establish and maintain appropriate diversity in tree species and age classes to provide a stable and sustainable urban forest with an inventory that the City can reasonably maintain in a healthy and non - hazardous condition. To require that in approving any tree removal or reforestation request the PB &R Commission shall find that the tree removal request will not adversely impact the overall inventory, diversity and age of the City's Urban Forest. PURPOSE The purpose of this policy is to establish definitive standards for the retention, removal, maintenance, reforestation, tree trimming standards, and supplemental trimming of City trees. City trees are an important part of the character and charm of the entire City and provide environmental benefits as well. Regular care, trimming, root pruning, maintenance, and programmed replacement are necessary to preserve this charm while at the same time protecting views consistent with Council Policy G -3 and preventing public and private property damage. The City classifies public trees in one of three categories: Special Trees, Problem Trees, and All Other Trees. SPECIAL CITY TREES It is the City's policy to retain City trees categorized as Landmark, Dedicated, or Neighborhood trees, which have historical significance, and /or contribute to and give character to a location or to an entire neighborhood. Landmark, Dedicated, and Neighborhood trees are identified by species by Attachment 1, and shall hereinafter be referred to as Special Trees. Trees within these categories shall be identified, mapped, recorded and administered by staff for the Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission ( "Commission "). The Commission shall review the Special Tree list on an as needed basis and forward recommendations for additions or deletions to the City Council for approval. Landmark Trees are identified as those individual Special Trees that possess historical significance by virtue of their size, age, location, or species. Dedicated Trees are Special Trees donated for or in the memory of specific individuals or organizations. 1 Attachment N October 8, 2003 Draft G -1 1 Neighborhood Trees are Special Trees that by their unusual size, number, species, or 2 location lend a special character to a residential, commercial, or business area. 3 4 Special Trees shall be retained, unless there are overriding problems, such as death, 5 disease, or the creation of a hazardous situation, which require their removal. Prior to 6 consideration for any removal of a Special Tree(s), the General Services Director, or 7 designee, shall prepare a report identifying and implementing specific treatment to 8 retain the tree(s). If specific treatment is unsuccessful or impractical in retaining a 9 tree(s) then a full staff report shall be made to the Commission before any further action 10 considering removal is taken. Prior to any removal of Special Tree(s), the City must 11 comply with the noticing provisions of the Removal of City Trees section set forth in 12 this Policy, unless a Special Tree is considered hazardous that necessitates an 13 emergency removal. Any such removal must be recommended by the General Services 14 Director and the Risk Manager and approved by the City Manager. 15 16 During normal sidewalk, curb, and street repair activity requiring root pruning, all 17 steps shall be taken to retain Special Trees. If tree roots are to be pruned in association 18 with sidewalk, curb, and gutter improvements, sufficient timing in advance must be 19 planned to ensure that pruning will not destabilize or kill the tree. If both sides of a 20 Special Tree's roots are to be pruned, one side should be pruned 6 months to a year in 21 advance of the other side depending upon the species and other related factors. If root 22 pruning methods are not practical and /or critical to the health of the tree, then alternate 23 or special hardscape improvements should be considered by the City in order to retain 24 the tree providing that costs are reasonable. All proposed root pruning or other tree 25 treatment shall be assessed and approved by the Urban Forester. 26 27 Special Trees may be considered for removal in conjunction with a City Council 28 approved beautification project utilizing the Removal of City Trees procedures noted in 29 a subsequent section of the Policy. 30 31 PROBLEM TREES 32 33 A Problem Tree is defined as a tree that by virtue of its species causes excessive 34 hardscape or utility damage due to its excessive root system. The following trees are 35 defined as Problem Trees: 36 37 o Ficus nitida (Indian Laurel Fig) 38 o Ficus rubiginosa (Rusty Leaf Fig) 39 o Ficus benjamina (Weeping Fig) 40 o Erythrina caffra (Kaffirboom Coral Tree) 41 o Fraxinus uhdei (Shamel Ash) 42 o Cupaniopsis anacardioides (Carrotwood) 2 0 • 0 October 8, 2003 Draft G -1 1 0 Liquidambar styraciflua (American Sweet Gum) 2 0 Schinus terebinthifolius (Brazilian Pepper) 3 4 Problem Trees shall not be designated as parkway trees on the Designated Street Tree 5 List, 6 7 Problem Trees that are not designated Special Trees may be removed for the following 8 reasons: 9 10 A. The City tree has had a repeated history of damaging public or private sewers, 11 water mains, roadways, sidewalks, curbs, walls, fences, underground utilities, or 12 foundations based on City records or other competent and reliable authority. 13 Water or sewer stoppage that results from tree roots and causes significant 14 documented private property damage (greater than $500) shall be sufficient 15 criterion for tree removal. 16 17 B. The City tree has had repeated history of significant interference with street or 18 sidewalk drainage, despite specific treatment by the City to alleviate repeated 19 damage. 20 1 C. The City tree has created, in the opinion of the Urban Forester, a view 22 impediment that cannot be resolved by normal nor alternative tree trimming 23 procedures. 24 25 Problem Trees may be proposed for removal by either staff or private property owners. 26 The authority to remove Problem Trees rests with the City Manager. No more than 250 27 Problem Trees may be removed per year by staff under this criteria without special 28 approval of the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission. In removals under 29 Sections A & B above, no more than one of three parkway trees in a continuous row 30 may be removed in a three year period without a hearing before the Commission. 31 Replacement trees of a 24 -inch box size may be planted if funding permits. Staff are 32 responsible for notifying the adjacent property owner, the legally established 33 homeowners association, and the Councilperson of the district where the removal is 34 proposed, if applicable, of the intent to remove a Problem Tree. The decision by the 35 City Manager to remove a problem tree is final unless called up by at least one 36 Councilperson. The Urban Forester shall report the removal of Problem Trees on a 37 monthly basis to the Commission. The cost to remove and replace Problem Trees will 38 be the sole responsibility of the City based on availability of funding, with the exception 39 of Category C (view), which is the sole responsibility of the applicant. 40 41 ALL OTHER CITY TREES 02 7 October 8, 2003 Draft G -1 1 A City tree which is not designated as a Special or Problem Tree is designated as an All 2 Other Tree. It is the City's policy to retain All Other Trees unless removal is necessary 3 for one of the following reasons: 4 5 A. The City tree has had a repeated history of damaging public or private sewers, 6 water mains, roadways, sidewalks, curbs, walls, fences, underground utilities, or 7 foundations based on City records or other competent and reliable authority. 8 Water or sewer stoppage that results from tree roots and causes significant 9 public or private property damage (greater than $500) shall be sufficient criterion 10 for tree removal. 11 12 B. The City tree has had a repeated history - of significant interference with street or 13 sidewalk drainage. 14 15 C. The City tree is dead, diseased, dying, or hazardous, and presents a liability to 16 the City. A dead tree is one that has been assessed by the Urban Forester and 17 found to have deceased. Diseased trees are defined as those trees that cannot be 18 cured by current arboricultural methods, are in an advanced state of decline, and 19 have no prospect of recovery. Dying trees are those that have no prospect of 20 recovery. Hazardous trees are defined as those that are defective, have a 21 potential to fail, and would cause damage to persons and property upon failure. 22 The Urban Forester will perform a hazard assessment whenever a tree is 23 identified as hazardous. The assessment will identify: structural defects of the 24 tree, parts of the tree most likely to fail, targets where imminent personal injury 25 or property damage may result with tree failure, and procedures or actions 26 necessary to abate the hazard. After assessment, the Urban Forester will 27 expeditiously convey his written findings and recommendations to the Risk 28 Manager for evaluation. If the Risk Manager agrees with the Urban Forester 29 findings to remove a tree, the hazardous tree will be removed without further 30 delay. In the case of imminent tree failure, the Parks and Trees Maintenance 31 Superintendent or the Urban Forester shall have the authority to direct the 32 removal of a hazardous tree. 33 34 D. The tree(s) have been requested to be removed in conjunction with a City 35 Council- approved City, commercial, neighborhood, or community association 36 beautification program. 37 38 E. The City Manager, upon the advice of the General Services Director, City 39 Attorney, Risk Manager or the Traffic Engineer, shall have the authority to 40 remove individual Problem or All Other Trees to resolve claims or safety issues. 41 4 E 0 0 October 8, 2003 Draft G -1 . 1 REMOVAL OF CITY TREES 2 3 The initiation to remove (Special or All Other) City tree(s) may be made by the staff of 4 the General Services, and /or Public Works Departments, a legally established 5 community association, or a private property owner by making application to the 6 General Services Director, utilizing the City tree removal form. The provisions and 7 procedures of this Section of the Policy do not apply to the Problem Tree nor 8 Reforestation tree removal processes, which are described in other sections of this 9 Policy. Special Trees may be considered for removal under the provisions of this 10 Section provided a special report by the General Services Director is provided to the 11 Commission detailing the necessity of removal and any specific previous treatment of 12 the tree. 13 14 After receipt of the application, a Tree Inspection Report shall be prepared by the City's 15 Urban Forester (Attachment 2) to determine if the tree(s) meets the criteria outlined in 16 the above All Other City Trees section for consideration for removal. Simultaneously, 17 the Urban Forester shall provide a notice of the proposed tree removal to the adjacent 18 property owner (if not the applicant), the private property owners immediately 19 adjacent to the applicant's property, and the appropriate community association if 20 applicable, (not applicable to the emergency removal of hazardous trees under Item C 1 nor to trees that meet the criteria of Item E in the preceding All Other City Trees 22 section). The Urban Forester shall determine whether in his /her judgment additional 23 specific treatment can be initiated to retain the tree provided the costs are reasonable. if 24 a tree(s) is to be removed, the tree(s) will be posted at least 30 days prior to the removal 25 with a sign notifying the public that they have the right of appeal. The sign shall also 26 note a staff contact. Once a recommendation is made by the Urban Forester and the 27 Parks and Trees Maintenance Superintendent to the General Services Director and the 28 General Services Director or designee concurs, then the applicant, the adjoining owners, 29 private property owners on either side of the street within 500' in each direction of the 30 tree location and a legally established community association, if applicable, shall be 31 notified of the decision to remove or retain the tree within 30 days of the proposed 32 removal. A legally established community association is responsible for notification of 33 all association members pursuant to their established procedure. The General Services 34 Director, or a designee, shall prepare a staff report for a regularly scheduled PB &R 35 Commission meeting of all trees recommended for removal, except for those trees 36 categorized in Paragraph C. (dead, diseased, or dying trees) or Paragraph E (claims and 37 safety issues) in the preceding section on All Other City Trees. Only an applicant, an 38 adjoining property owner, or a legally established community association, the City 39 Manager, a PB &R Commissioner, or a Councilmember may appeal the decision of the 40 General Services Director not to remove a tree to the Commission. The Commission, in w41 considering any appeal, shall determine whether the removal meets the criteria outlined 2 in this Policy, as well as any unique factors which may be pertinent to the removal or 5 October 8, 2003 Draft G -1 1 retention of tree(s). The decision of the Commission will be considered final unless 2 called up by at least one Councilmember or the City Manager. 3 4 The General Services Department will delay any tree removal(s) for at least 14 calendar 5 days following the date of the Commission decision in order to allow time for a 6 Councilmember or the City Manager to call the item. 7 8 The City will replace all trees removed in accordance with the All Other City Trees 9 removal criteria on a one for one basis. Replacement trees will be a minimum of a 36" 10 boxed size. If 36" boxed trees are not available, or funding, or space constraints prevent 11 planting of a large tree, then a minimum of a 24" boxed tree will be planted. The full 12 costs of removal and replacement of Special or All Other Tree(s) will be the sole 13 responsibility of the City, unless an applicant voluntarily pays for a new tree(s). 14 15 REFORESTATION OF CITY TREES 16 17 The concept of systematically replacing Problem or All Other Trees which are creating 18 hardscape and /or view problems and cannot be properly trimmed, pruned or modified 19 to alleviate the problem(s) they create, or those which have reached their full life, and 20 are declining in health, or are simply the wrong species of trees for the planted location 21 is referred to as reforestation. The Urban Forester shall make a finding for the latter 22 category of inappropriate tree species for a specific location. His determination may be 23 appealed to the General Services Director whose decision will be final. 24 25 It is recognized and acknowledged that City trees were planted many years ago and in 26 some cases were planted with specific species that when fully mature cause damage to 27 curb, gutter, sidewalk or underground utilities. Within the geographical boundaries of 28 certain view neighborhoods, City street trees may encroach into blue water views from 29 public and private property depending on the length of time since the trees were last 30 trimmed, or the age and height of the trees. In other cases, the wrong species of tree 31 was planted originally and simply does not conform to the current treescape or 32 represents a safety hazard. 33 34 Arborists continue to develop lists of tree species which will grow in restricted parkway 35 areas without causing significant damage to curb, gutter, sidewalk, utilities or loss of 36 views. The City Street Tree Designation List, which specifies a species for each City 37 street reflects an effort by the City to prescribe appropriate tree species that will not 38 cause future problems. 39 40 As a City which understands the importance of trees and the beauty they bring to a 41 community, the City desires to continually improve the urban forest through Ci • • • October 8, 2003 Draft G -1 • 1 reforestation. In areas where City trees have been removed through City initiation, the 2 City will endeavor to replace the trees with the appropriate designated City tree. 3 4 Individual private property owners, as well as legally established community 5 associations, may apply for single or multiple tree reforestation in their respective area 6 by submitting a request to the General Services Director for consideration by the 7 Commission that meets the following requirements: 8 9 A. The proposed area must have clearly defined contiguous geographical 10 boundaries that include the tree(s) proposed for removal and replacement, street 11 address(es), block number(s), or other geographical information. This section 12 applies to individual and group requests. 13 14 B. Residential communities, neighborhoods, or business organizations who apply 15 for reforestation must submit a petition signed by a minimum of 60% of the 16 property owners within the area defined for reforestation. The petition content 17 must be approved and dated by City staff prior to distribution by the petitioner. 18 The staff - approved petition must be distributed by the petitioner to a maximum 19 of 30 private property owners (up to 15 contiguous private property owners on 20 both sides of the street up to 500' in either direction from the location of the •21 proposed reforestation). Signatures by non - property owners are not acceptable 22 for petition purposes. All petition signatures shall be verified by City staff for 23 property owner status of the person(s) signing the petition. As an alternative to 24 the above requirements, areas represented by a legally established community 25 association, may submit a resolution of the Board of Directors formally 26 requesting a reforestation with a statement that all members of the community 27 association having their residential views affected, have been officially notified 28 and given an appropriate opportunity to respond before the Board voted on the 29 request. Individual private property owners living within a legally established 30 community association area with mandatory association membership must 31 petition for reforestation through their respective association. 32 33 C. Individual private property owners not residing within a legally established 34 community association area may submit individual requests for single or 35 multiple tree reforestation. The applicant must submit a petition signed by a 36 minimum of 60% of a maximum of 30 private property owners (up to 15 37 contiguous private properties on both sides of the street up to 500' in either 38 direction from the location of the proposed reforestation site) as well as the 39 endorsement of the appropriate homeowners association, if applicable. The 40 petition content must be approved and dated by staff prior to distribution. All 41 petition signatures shall be verified by City staff for private property owner 042 status of the person(s) signing the petition. 7 October 8, 2003 Draft G -1 1 2 D. A written agreement must be submitted to the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation 3 Commission by the petitioning sponsor (individual private property owner(s) or 4 group) to pay 100% of the costs of the removal and replacement of the public 5 tree(s) in advance of any removal activity. The actual removal and replanting 6 will be coordinated by the General Services Department. The total costs shall 7 include only the contractor's removal and replacement costs and be paid in 8 advance of any removal actions. 9 10 E. The replacement tree(s) for reforestation shall be the Designated Street Tree(s) as 11 prescribed by City Council Policy G -6, or the organization must request and 12 obtain approval from the Commission of the designation of a different tree 13 species prior to submitting any reforestation request for a tree species other than 14 the designated street tree. This section applies to individual or group requests. 15 16 F. There shall be a minimum of a one - for -one replacement of all trees removed in 17 reforestation projects. Replacement trees shall be a minimum size of 24" boxed 18 trees, unless the parkway space will not accommodate a 24" boxed tree or a tree 19 cannot be planted due to planting restrictions contained in Council Policy G -6. If 20 there is not room for the replacement tree(s) at a specific site as prescribed by 21 City Council Policy G -6, then the replacement tree(s) shall be planted in a public 22 area in the same neighborhood at the option of the petitioner. This section 23 applies to individual or group requests. 24 25 G. Reforestation requests must be completed and submitted in a timely manner by 26 the petitioner. Petitions that are dated more than 90 days in arrears from date 27 stamped by staff before distribution will not be forwarded to the PB &R 28 Commission for consideration. 29 30 The decision of the Commission on reforestation requests will be considered final unless 31 called up by at least one Councilmember or the City Manager. 32 33 TREE MAINTENANCE 34 35 The City shall require the proper care and watering of replacement trees by the 36 reforestation petitioner to ensure their proper growth and development as outlined in 37 City Council Policy G -6. Furthermore, no person shall tamper with City trees in 38 violation of Section 13.08.040 of the Municipal Code. Further, the City will endeavor to 39 fund the care of the Urban Forest to the highest level possible through the efficient use 40 of regular tree trimming, root pruning, root barrier and pesticide programs. 41 42 ENCROACHMENT AND DEMOLITION PERMITS D • 0 October 8, 2003 Draft G -1 1 2 All encroachment permits (permits for private property development which are 3 proposed to encroach upon the City right of way) or demolition permits that involve 4 the removal or replacement of City tree(s) must be specifically noticed by the property 5 owner to City staff prior to the building and /or demolition permit process whenever 6 possible. The proposed construction plans must indicate preservation of existing City 7 trees wherever possible (exempt: dead, dying, or in an advanced state of decline). If the 8 proposed development, as deemed by the General Services Director, requires the 9 removal of City trees, the property owner must submit a tree removal request to the 10 General Services Director, shall pay all related tree removal and replacement costs (one 11 for one replacement) and meet all provisions of Council Policies L -2 and L -6 and City 12 Ordnances 13.08 and 13.09. Approval or disapproval of all tree removal/ replacement 13 requests associated with encroachment and demolition permits will be the 14 responsibility of the General Services Director or a designee. 15 16 TREE TRIMMING STANDARDS 17 18 The City Council has adopted tree trimming cycles for trees of different ages and 19 species. Tree trimming cycles and trimming standards shall represent the maximum 20 feasible frequency given current fiscal conditions. Except as provided in the WI Supplemental Trimming Section below, trimming shall be in accordance with the 22 standards of the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA). In those communities 23 with a legally established community association, periodical tree trimming with an 24 emphasis on height reduction will be considered by the City Urban Forester upon 25 written request by the association. 26 27 SUPPLEMENTAL TREE TRIMMING 28 29 The City will consider, and as a general rule approve, requests to trim certain trees 30 more frequently or to trim trees consistent with practices applied prior to the adoption 31 of ISA standards (to enhance public and private views, preserve required 32 sight /distance standards, or other public purposes) which are submitted by affected 33 private property owners or the board of a legally established community association 34 and the request is accompanied by a completed "Supplemental Tree Trimming Form' 35 and full payment for the requested tree trimming. However, since these practices often 36 require 'topping' or possible disfiguring of a tree(s) and are often aesthetically 37 displeasing and injurious to a tree, reforestation shall only be considered when 38 supplemental tree trimming is impractical or infeasible as determined by the Urban 39 Forester. 40 41 The General Services Director shall establish procedures to implement the supplemental 02 trimming provisions of this Policy. An approval must be obtained from a legally 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 October 8, 2003 Draft G -1 established association by the requestor of supplemental tree trimming in areas with an active homeowners' association if the requested trimming is to be undertaken within the association area. [Attachment 1- Special Trees] [Attachment 2- Tree Inspection Report] Adopted - May 9,1966 Amended - August 14,1967 Amended - November 9,1976 Amended - November 12,1985 Amended - November 28,1988 Amended - March 14,1994 Formerly I -9 10 Amended - April 11, 1994 Amended - February 26,1996 Amended - July 14,1997 Amended (Administratively) - November 24,1997 Amended - August 10, 1998 Amended - February 22, 2000 �J 0 • • HARBOR VIEW HILLS SOUTH HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION 17300 RedhiIl Avenue, Suite 210, Irvine, CA 92614 April 21, 2004 Mayor Tod Ridgeway and City Council Members City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mayor Ridgeway and Council Members: As City Tree Chairperson, I am writing to you on behalf of the Harbor View Hills South Homeowners Association (HVHS). Our association is a view community composed of 449 homes in Corona del Mar. We are requesting your approval of the newly revised G -1 Policy. Our experience has proven that the G -1 Policy Amendments will have a significant osn itive effect on the environment. In 1998 and 1999, HVHS became the first Newport Beach Homeowners Association to participate in a reforestation effort using the G -I Policy. The 24" box trees required under the G -1 Policy in effect at that time have grown rapidly and are healthy and • attractive in our neighborhood. Indeed, our homeowners have been so pleased with the new trees that many have asked to add, replace and/or reforest existing trees in their parkways. Additionally, we have been able to shape new trees to be beautiful at a height below the roofline in our community of mostly one -story houses and preserve the valuable views in our community. At the last City Council Meeting concerning the G -1 Policy, Kathy Young, Cameo Shores and Highlands Association, stated that she heard a speech by Robert Samus, the Los Angeles Times garden expert. In this speech he warned of the folly of trying to squeeze large size trees into narrow parkways. He explained that large trees have larger, often tangled roots that prevent good growth. Younger trees establish themselves quicker; produce a stronger any produce a stronger root system and ultimately stronger and fuller growth. This has indeed been our experience in Harbor View Hills South. Bruce Hagen, Urban Forest Specialist for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection addressed this matter in the open forum section of California Trees, Exploring Issues in Urban Forestry, Spring 1993. He states that, " trees are routinely topped when they block views, interfere with buildings or shade areas where sunlight is desired. At best topping is a temporary solution for oversized trees. He also states that "Adequate height reduction can sometimes be achieved by thinning or the removal of a few branches. If these remedies are not satisfactory, it is better to remove the tree and replace it with one that has a smaller growth form." He ends his article by saying, " Rather than . making a tree conform to a small space, it is more prudent to plant trees that are appropriate to the given space." (Article enclosed) making a tree conform to a small space, it is more prudent to plant trees that are • appropriate to the given space." (Article enclosed) We are now proceeding with phase three of our reforestation. Both the City staff and the Parks Beaches and Recreation Commission supported our request of a waiver for the 36" box tree requirement. This has encouraged our homeowners to beautify thew parkways and many additional replacement trees are now being planted. We believe the new amendments to the G -1 Policy will make it easier for the City to address the needs of individual communities and increase the size and attractiveness of our urban forest while still preserving the valuable views in our city. We support the amendments and the Negative Declaration. Sincerely, vonn City Tree Chairperson, HVHS Enc. 1 2 • rI • 000* l l ssue: T» Urban Forestry J �, OPEN,y; Ot4M — Why► Are, Trees Topped? By Bruce Hagen M OAY professional arbor4 rs ;no longer include tree - Mpping as a Wince arid. in fact, most consider it malprac- tice. Topping disflgtaes trees, leaving wu4hdy branch stubs and large, conspicuous pruning cuts charatlmulace dense, broom• litre branch growth. In addition, ate health, safety, and longevity are impaired. Tteverthetcss, topped trees continue to be a fairly common — and Unpkasent --- sight in Galifor• nit cities. Here's a look at the reasons, and the faulty reasoning, most frequently given for copping tees' Myth 101: Economy perhaps the «test common reason fat oopptng is a desire to saw money. Ironically, topping is actually the maet,experuive way to prune cress. While it may be eheapor to have a worker do thar flsar 'hatchet fob" with a chain caw, once a trea is topped it must con. anue to be pruned Mfulady and frequently to maintain desired sire, shape, and safety. The coat of this repeated mainmnance adds up quickly. Anod er wvot- cant cwddua cion Is the lmmedi- ate loa■ of property value dui. to a reduction in tadtstks, haaldn, and longevity of topped trem 5V moron, property kninad trees increase in value . Each roar., aid regular maince- nance costa are town over the G See open Fonarn. Pape 9 pia 140. : 949 o4H0120 San. 21 2084 12 :3VM P4 Open Forum, from Page r long term. Many trees, if property trained when young, require little of nn pruning When larger. Some- times all that is needed is light thinning or the removal of a few poorly spaced branches. Oocaston- aliy, heavier thinning is needed. However, once property thinned, a healthy tree may require no further pruning for ten years or more- Considering that chinning main rains natural shape, beartcy, health, and property value, It is, in the long term, far more economical than copping, Myth i2' Health Some tree owners mistakenly believe that the profuse growth of foliage and branches that follows topping is evidence of increased tree vigor. In reality, the tree is artttnpting to replace the lost leaves is needs ca make the food to support itself. 'Topping removes alLor moat of the wood and buds that contain stored energy for new growth. This depletes the rree's,enetgy reserves, increasing susceptibility-io Insects and-disease. In sortie trees, new buds ace slow to form and digback . . or tree death results. In all cases,. topping shifts a tmc s priority from growth to survival and repair. Myth ♦3. Height Reduction Trees are routinely topped when they block views, Interfere with buildings, or shade areas where sunlight is desired. At best. copping is a temporary solution for oversized trees. Most people do riot '*atlite that the sprouts of topped trees often grow back to thew orig• final height Faster than trees that have been properly pruned. Adequate height reduction can sometimes be achleveni by chin- n' sting, or the removal of a few large lrr+unchts if these remedies are not satisfactory, it is better to remove the tree and replace is with one that has a smaller growth form. Select a replacement tee a considering fu potential height and spread at maturiry, and Its adaptability to the planting site. Avoid planting trees whore they will eventually interfere with utili- ty lines or ocher obstacles, With careful planning, problems can be avoided, Myth 64: Saitty Large noes are often topped because people consider them-to be unsafe. They fear the tree will . blow down or drop large branches. All too often, they consult an untrained cree- trimmer or arratlace their neighbors attempt at pruning. Although topping may initially reduce x tme's hazard potential, it seldom corrects existing structural problems, and often creates new ones. The new shoots that sprout up near topping cuts are weakly attached and prone to breakage as they grow larger and heavier. In addition, their foliage is denser than that of normal bunches,, reeking them iris wind - resistant, These facts often make topped trees more hazardous than They were before they were cur' Myth RSi Clearance Large dens site frequendy`� topped when they inrerfere with . ovtthead utility lines. Unfoitu. nately. this practice has become a necessary evil to prevent power outages and eme Fires. It would bet- Mr serve the intereso of tree. health. appearance, and economics to replace these misshapen trees, which require continual pnmin with lowcr- growing species. in y .companies in California have pt*-, noted proper tree selection for some time now. (Call your local utility company for information) Myth re. Site Control Another reason cited for top• Ping is to keep'a large tree small (e.g., fruitless mulberry, sycamore) by removing each year's new growth in a practice known -as pot - tarclinF This requires yearly prun- ing, which is expemive and time consuming. While some formal' gardens may cultivate this old - fashioned omarrimml aesthetic, it doesn't make much sense on a street or park tree. Rather than making a tree conform to i Mali space, it is more prudent to plant nets that ate appropripte to the given space. ■ Bruce Masten is on urban For- pr speclausr rbr trw CerrrORtu pepavprenr of Fo,eawY end Fire Protection. AGENDA ITEM 23 - APPENDIX A, E & C TO NEGATIVE DECLARATION NEGATIVE DECLAMATION City of Newport Beach G -1 Policy Amendments: Retention or Removal of City Trees Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 Contact: James Campbell Telephone: ("949) 644 -3229 Prepared By: P, /jwa .l Tema,(ur Cnm Ufa: Prgrcm 605 Third Street Encinitas, CA 92024 Contact: Joe Monaco Telephone: (760) 942 -5147 MARCH 2®04 :;,ttaehment J AGENDA ITEM 23 APPENDIX A City of Newport Beach Street Tree Designation List 0 a N I.w O �r yl.w .IJJ •mow Qj Qj A Qj Qj ;.w Qj Qj G) iw .0 U Qj 6) W Ama iw O Qj Qj z O m :n n n + ry U d a 3 °x U w O r J w w Q w w a w¢ w¢ g r `L w 0 z z ¢ O of z_ z tt w w O m 0 0 (=7 z w Q S K W ¢ d° K X O d W O O w N J w w Q W w U m z O O W° Q y w z 2 2> N 0 S N ° W w S z J g QQ X11 a°¢¢ 2 N Z g w J F-. W N W O O m Q w Z O J g g¢ w W w r z J 2¢ J ° r O° z r w 2 N a z¢ m 0¢ s S f z Z X O ° U O w w �- F ¢ JQ °¢ w¢ ° Z w¢ Q t=- ? z z r¢ N w a w m F- ° W d g a z z¢ cW.i w f° C C (O Z m (� J¢ Z O d m Z 2 O O N° Q W Z W w H = W Q 1QQW1� S m Z aa 4WWw O Y ¢m W y O J k qa Q ¢ EL J w w K m o J k 2' U U x i-' N w W w° d' O r- N W z W z w J k W a Z N W J G V J z 2 Z Z w> Z w O r O W 0¢ O W O¢ W¢ >¢ O U ° O Q 2 2 g O W z° O >° W Q O x W 0 0° u~i tt gx r U m N°> m°¢ O r m> r� N N N> N r (� O w m a o g z m w x N¢ J o m g w r Q z U y W a E E w � 2 m n E E E w E Z .c � e P m� v .°'.cc o o e a' E m v e c m m z (`9 o °v ~ O 'm a m °° ao .' 'm =0 v 'm m c `-' 2 >. N 'm u m `-' m u 'v >. >. = v c L m `m c ,� m w Q, m _ 'v m m Q N 2 2 4� 4 1� °€ Y LL m m rn Q 1� U m 1- CL d g (9 (J � g m m g U' W �L I- F- m v m u o v a a c � m Q o O 0 O o O o O 0 O 0 O O O O O O O b O O O O N N O 2- O O O O O O O O N ¢] N O O O O O 0 YJ 0 O 0 O O 1� N O O N (O O O O O ¢] N n M O O O O N m M N N C M N O O ¢] O O O N N N N N N V M W .- N m N N N M 1� tp tp tp W O of m N m; O O N N M E � I2 1 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O N O v O m O n O m O N O v O O O c O m O N O m O m rn O O O [ O m O m O O M O M O a O O O O o O O M O W N O V LL C j j m w U w 0 0 w o U w z z U d fL 2 K r 2 > >> � � > Q J z qQ a r r 0 a !Q- m r m 2 U r❑ jjm a a r Q Q U a a r m vJ J Q 0 Q 0 Q 0 r r r r r r (n r m r m rte- m r m rte- m r m r m r m r m= r m r m¢ a m m 0 a a a O ° Z >> a K a O Q w J z w w » Q r O Q Q¢ w m m m m x x x x x x x❑ r o O a a w w w a a (? m z Q m m o 0 o w w r r r> Q Q C7 z z r m x> 0> r r r r r 0 u] u] N b b O M N U z z 2 2 2 2 z 2 2 m 2 2 (/J > >> y tD 1� OC Of r �- N N m M Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q a a Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q z N m V Iv V h tO f� co m O N (2 (2 m :n n n + ry U d a 3 °x U C O O N T CS 2 r, J.4 W! /JJ y�y^ A A� ttW� ICI i. V M� ri i.! it Q 3 w L N v O G L L-' �i F a U Y U1 W �r Z O F•' Q�. U) 01 �n n II .n N a 3 Q a U I w w I w H F w w M W a < a 2 2 M w W < a 2❑ 2 w W K K W a a I W O a Z F a U d x U W J- W J 2 0 Z ❑ W Z K W p H 2 U Z O r O y Z 0 K p ❑ { I- k W J M x x O J W m 2 W 1- J W CL O a 1- } W w W I- W a p a K a p= m J m < w Z r z z a z O O H 0 0 J w I- 0 Z a F i" z OO W❑< Z O g a J U U z Z K a J Q a J LL W a J m m 2 Y m LL m W m W J Q❑ a H 2 S W U R J W Z J W W W U Q J w W 2 W J a a ❑ LL H W rL O Y W p O LL m Z Z d Q O' Z O Z 2 w Z Z d W W m w = 222 W222 W m Wtt Z (/l M W a W U' W Z J Z a W W y Z z z� U N w LL M a a Z W Z Z 2 3 W z F N z FL w N Z a O¢ N t7 W w O o Z w w w X Z w ILLJJ W W W Z m (_m/J w > W k O p z w J J w z x o p w o❑ to 3 J r o N p z_ o O z z O a> O x x w w w x x O a a a O w K O LL a tt w w d w w w 0 r[ O x x U m J 0 0 0 Z 2 LL Z U U m m O C) 2 6] J LL fA F w H LL LL J F- N 6] LL' Z J m H H Q U U W F Q IZn V N W W c c C N N 1O N O .¢ �> E E 2 o c E '�. y m 1p Z E E° m m m 2 m m E' m >• °' u m 'o �• o �. °- o n 2 c v m 'o f m >, m n m f y �' L° m m 1p w a _>. c c c u >, c o o o E¢ mmr-zQ ¢�3a�00�S�� =aci �tiOw�v��i= Qi= mawi= xw`a��wti�m�LLcn a y v � o a a; N N N N N OJ N OJ OU N N N M OJ W N W N N of N OU OJ (`1 OJ W W W N p C 0 T v a HN O ; N W h N (`l N h h (`l (`l N N W N V' ' U ol O O O M O O .- m m r 0 0 0- 0 0 0 0 0 M r m rn uJ v m la in O m r v O O O N O O O l(J r O O N O V tp O O M O N �(J N N O O ifl O N N O O m M V M N V N N O V (p l(J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 f� O O O O O O N O 0 0 0 0 V V m l0 0 0 0 O O O O O O D m 10 0 m 0 0 0 0 m 0 M O O m M r l(J OJ O O LL T w O V N 0 w N n I � a K W 22C 2C F f1 Z N ❑ ° ° W a s 41 J J J I- ❑ F W R: 0' R Z >> J K J }} F p 0 0 F" Y mmm N 0 O 0 W tF/1 F F ° w °° w t! N a a a a F 41 F 41 fl Z ~ >> 0} x O w Fw- a m m> a O K W W° 0 ❑° U 0 a 0 a 0 Q o 0 3 >> a a W m W m m o K o °� W Z o Z o m O Z Z V v = v J J� a a vF VF Y (D Yc a 0 a t� a w rc m w w U U Z U m m m m N a U d a 0 W> U U LL O O] J Y} U O O a< O W W W W W y m Q Q Z 2 0 0 0 « «¢<< z z z z z< Q'Q w w w w w w w w w N N ?� ?� J J J J O 00 O O O O aaammmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Zv.. Q Q P r Q m Q m S a In � N ca N n N a N v� N <o N r N m I(1 m h o Ip � rD N tO m (O v.. (O (➢ fD r �➢ m t0 (O _ N v O G L L-' �i F a U Y U1 W �r Z O F•' Q�. U) 01 �n n II .n N a 3 Q a U 0 0 N T O Wr `V y� WJ • rl L�1 l ' L V CS Frl L ow V z 4N 0 A � r1 `J T U .'a a V a L-: W z i, W a Lc C Z N_ LLi G + w m in II v r M N G7 v 3 0 z J I w w m r J I r z w z w I ¢ zi L K w o w W CL ❑ w r w J o r K 4J N ¢ w >_ Q O C W¢ Z C7 rq LL W¢~ d Z r ¢ Z_ Z o¢¢¢ Z Z Z W d r¢ m O m¢¢ m❑ O w d O J d r a U r O r w❑ m LL r r w W a 0❑ M M M O W o U w 0 0 J_ LL r 0 0 y W z o r❑ r g Z rzd, r❑ Z g❑ w r 0❑❑ g �ddi J -i-rJm J w g> 2 r❑❑❑ zgggr�¢2z¢a�wzo J d¢❑ d d¢ w O z¢ o X z O❑ m¢ O z rn w w 0 0 W m W¢ m 0 0 w > m >> m¢ r r x¢ Q w N¢¢¢ w ¢ w a u_ a LL w J ¢ J r a W W ¢r z z m w W y W W W O Y K z Z W J> h O Z Z W W O Z Z Z Z O W n w W¢ U W ¢ K¢ y C C U W O d l¢- w Op z❑¢ W W w I¢- ❑ z z d d w W d a Z F F F Z❑ J F N J K Z F O rKr O w W F O m W W O Y z Z i Z o LL w W ae LL ¢ 2 O x¢¢ 2 Z W W o O x O m 4w 4w ¢ m x¢ to cr 2 ¢ w f/J rc h x h x J o ❑ O w g 2❑ o t/J m J w a Z s O o r v m w (i U U U r VI J r r r -D( LL M Z LL Q fn >¢> U U (/J > m W H Z � y E `c E �° W � y E ° EE v v u w a v E m z� �aaz�m 'c 'o °���zzeee'^ °,������, °eau m2nza �z,� Q v E .c m v >. ° c a°°" h N N� F E C c �v o N 2 �v c :.o c m a m d o d o o u¢ v E 'c m¢mm¢F -uw w l a b b c e b rc b � b b V n � � 3 ¢ o h W UJ M O (p O (p m h h N t0 iP h M M W W ID V r h O 61 iP m (O W QI r O Ol M O O O T C) t O N O O O O O1 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O M O O O O O O O O LL ❑_ U T Y T j° N iU O 1 O a w 0 N ❑ ❑ 2 ? ❑ 2 0 D p J J 2 a w 10, J O❑ ❑ 0: ❑$ r J w W 1- O a s K a a 2 F- J rj a 2 r. = F F- p p U' 0: O❑ 0: 2 2❑ O Ill m O F- 0 0 0 W W z W W a z a a N 0. ❑ U' ij z Q 0 0 0 W W 0: 0 0 0 :z =I 7 J Q m a J J N W W N F N W O 2 U U 2 K K W Q m z z Q w CO n w Y �orc�o Q (0 () > () >> () F » aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwxxxxtg `aL N FQ- FQ- J rx T U .'a a V a L-: W z i, W a Lc C Z N_ LLi G + w m in II v r M N G7 v 3 0 z J 0 0 0 N T R a C O R C" b� .r A 3. rr�^ V1 V R V �Q L ^O Q z O Le W V) :n u N W i 3 C zz w w w ¢ I a w w w D w W C7 z¢ O O p> w O Q�Q a 0¢ r W M K Z Z Z Z w¢ W Z C Z❑ J O J D_ Y Z w z❑ Z❑ D y Q Z w r w y X w 0 a a E O O w r O r1 0 O a w J 0 w z J N J a ❑ K w a U� O a J g F Z g r❑ Z O❑ W w X O W Z Z w g 0 m 2, tt z= 0 g J a r* z a OX m z m w m z 0 U o r❑ a > > > >❑ z Z m a r w w 0 C7 ug m z V O O" w w p m, m o m a 2 w ❑w °w 0❑ tt� J w a � w r* a J d' w= 0 0 c7 c'J c7 w a m Q a J z a Z J Y w Z Z U' tt Y Y w Q a Q ul p N z a O F a a a a a a w a a¢❑ a 2 Y 2 a z¢ z O a w a W 1 C� C O fwn > > = J ❑ 4 ❑ F a w w w ~ Z _ - d' ❑ w' f/1 Z ly W O W= Z UJ K a �_ Y Z J a (/J _ O W C Z O=❑ a' In ❑ ? S a❑ fn O 0 Q> ❑ w ❑ w ❑ w ❑ w ❑ w (7 Z= w K W K w a LL1 ❑ K O a ¢] V rn a m -� g m K K CL K W O z W W ❑ W E I W a WC W z u E W c ,un a C C m m E m m e C E O N W Z c p U $ x a a a m a t w m m m a m U N y W a W -. N �. W N -c6 . o Q m W o Y a Z .� I- m m Q e d .� I- m m U °o� Q m U m:° m m a 'c '�- .v U' '= ti t U vv N C7 'O- W ti= x W 0 W 0 W 0 W 0 W O m �. d " �- o W c I- c W a U W a c t- o 4 d D d N W N N N N N v] u] N N M N ro ro o OJ co u1 P d ; O K � b d a o� V � a ° O m m O M O 0 � 0 N 0 O m M 0 m o o -07—r o o m M o o O m m m n N - o 0 o 0 V 0 0 T d' m 0 0 0 N ' N V N m N o N o N N N N M N N N V N N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 O O O O O O O M 0 V d M M N V N m d m N O (O D m O N W O 0 0 0 f� M LL N I ❑ N '.�-O m w m m Fn p m a W m d a J a 0 ❑ z O r ? o o > I W F Z? y❑ z> z w W z Y Y ❑❑ O❑ Qj J Q ❑ K K K Q Z � >? F = Z ❑ N Y w w w X= w M m m W W W W w K 2 Q Q Z W Z W W J J Q Q ❑❑❑ O W 2 Q Z Z Z Q W Q d K K z? Q Z 2 N F=- N K K n: �' R R K Y Y m m F O O f a❑ Q O w W LL LL LL LL W LL 7 � 0 N Z 0 Q w 0 Z K 0 Z RK 0 O 0 F W 0 3 OOO w 3 K >� K N Y�=Z K m .J Q Q Q Q Z Q O m w O >Z8=w' w a 0 O 0 0 O w'> 0 w 0 W > 0 w > 0 W > 0 w > 0 W > 0 W > 0 W ><w 0 K wwom Q Q Q m Q M m m O J J y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0❑❑ ❑❑❑❑ ❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑ ❑❑❑ w w w w w w w W MITI V P O W N N N In N [O N N aJ N T N f➢ t0 t0 (O (O t0 t0 t0 tD [O r " 1- n FIT- W V) :n u N W i 3 C 0 0 N T a FM ..r �q i.4 u A u !u W i.. .:i u et u O w 0 U u7 m i i� u } N N W U a 0. 3 c a [7 J ( w W r w w w w w w m ¢ a r a 2 w H ¢ a ¢ O O a O o r O r z z z w Q O w r Z O r a r a j O p U z U' a r W w W❑ d z O d r r W LL 2 U f1 U' O w K w K W Z O J H z 0 0 H z O J W Z w U < Z to a =O r W F W F j W Z Z a O ❑ J r r Z r a J ul 2 s W O 2 r J W Q z O O O d J❑ Q W Z O J O J W S a 2 r a U z 2 z w W LL❑ K O J W >> 1- U O LL O J m r a Jq < Q 2 W 2 W W W Z CO 0 K U S Z d r W O ¢J Z O S U W Z N W q y w J a Z w N N W J IW- U J U N W a W a❑ W 0❑ U Z❑ N a r W J W J LL UI W W O> J LL J K O U W ❑ O a D 0 0 K O C7 Z N W i_ J LL Z J d X W I- O W J J X O J r? r r Q [[ ❑ d LL V O Q s Q O Q O G O W S O O O a O p O O 0� W w O W r r r W W Y S U O r U 0] Oi J U Y LL' N Z U r J S U U 4] m LL U U C7 J W � z W E w CD U $ a� m t 'g s o? 'v m" m m Z• ., ¢ v Z` v 'c .J � a a o E m .v .m om dm m °' o `w m 'o a a b e b a O rc � y b V ° a Q N N Ill N (O O V O O O N M N O O O M V' M N O N V N N O In O N M IN IN 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O N 0 0 0 r- O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O t(J O O O M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O LL C T T 19 T (? T T T N_ Y Y v ry Y N Y N N O O N O Y O Y m N fn Y N (n m 0 m 0 N a a o a °o a a a 0 z z > > > 0 o a a o o N a ? a a a z z m z J U z O LLa >O O z OOOOO C, 0 z W W 0 J O > O a z 0 N O W Q N w F N N w a w w F Q Q Q N a J J U W - Z W w a a w O W W r w w w J K K w O O❑❑ J K K Q> O o r a a a w w w w w OOOLL = R J N W W W W W W W W (7(7(7 (7(7(7(7(9 C7 C7 (7(7(7 (7(7(7(7(7= � - u7 m i i� u } N N W U a 0. 3 c a [7 C O O N T :S O VV bA rn �1 6) i.i V MM6) w L O^ w z �1 6M U .7 O o. L 5 0. F^ .7 Z LJ Lz7 a L� Q z 0 F a x W 00 N u rn ry w Z e a O a U w g Q I z z i O w I w O ¢ W I 2 K ¢ Fes- W W'� I �a Q ¢ j W Q Q W W Q ❑ W r' ? O W W 0 N O m w O Z rn x w w O J S U w z LL Y Z O a l a O J W W S z O 2 U r r rn w w w w m W w O z Z O Z 11- Z Z Q Q w �_ rr 0> r r Z O J U g Q p w x w _J S r J a U w 0 Q Q W w m W w W I J- o O U'_ U'_ p z 3 O d O W O r J r J z p rr m Q m> rr r Q F tr p m LL z w LL W o z U' 0 p o J J J o LL Q Q V O a O J J ti tow W Q z w W W c� w< o> w a Q = g rr w z o 0 w w w m w w o W Z W W r J W W J O m S O. W w N Q w W Z Z J 2 W Q p W w J W W W U' Y O O W C7 C O W W J W C m O O W O m Z< 4 D Q Z W Q LL Q �- LL W > z O Z Z J W W W F J J O Q U 0 a p2 a _ Q GG >J V 1- m m U vi IL O LL Q fn U O.' (� Q fn J a U m> Q 2 d W Z N m m ° W H a z i2 i2 ° I E E m a u E¢ °, o z c y� N= a O a u rn` u _ �. N N ip Ip N 0 N jp uu N wua�l- 1p ry ��tiwcDIN N C= zi mw`w��ntn�npwmi =���wm m n I N a a Z .0 h m ro �n m m l`l vl ('l N o] DJ �J «l W Cl vl ('l lh o N o] vl Cl vl O W N Vl O W a > 6 O Q � O N O r O N O 0 r 0 O IN .- .- Iq N O O r Yl O O O N C7 O O W O O W O O r 0 0 f0 O" r CD O V m O V O O N N C7 N N �- C2 VJ O C7 N JD O O O" N N O O V O O O V O O N O O r r C7 r O] W O .- (D r C7 r C7 r M( C7 O C7 V N YJ C' C7 V V O C7 r r C7 �Il O V O N O C7 t� (O OJ G N O O tD O O O O O O O O O O V O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 C O O N C2 O N O O w O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O In O O O O O O O O O !O D O N O �Il W O 0 N N (r- N p O C N N ❑ > y > LB -O m 0 r O D O ❑ R' a, m Y a ❑ z ❑ z ❑ z ❑ z ❑ ❑ > m z x X w z w g S g g w w J ? a a o o ❑❑❑ o °� I o ❑ ?, ❑❑ m m O W N N N N j> �' O r❑❑ K m m O w W> w W W O z z� m >i m W z z Y Y Y z O J m J > > > > > > > >> a> O W W ❑v� 2 2 00000000J2�"zgaa Q: 0' m m m O X aaayy>I- J a ❑N >> a a a a a a Q a ❑❑ j m 00 m �'G❑ W a a a a m m m mmm m w 0 0 J ❑ ❑❑ J a I- 1- a a W W W W W W W W 22 z m m W N r a J W. U J J J J J J N r J J N N> z z z z z z z z Q w U N z z m m >>>>>>> m K m m m m N N rn 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 E' ~ (p r W O1 O '- - N M V r Ql 14 IN N d N N N CJ dd- C N N N N N N C! N N N N CJ N N N N N N C�1 C�J N N N N N N N C! N U .7 O o. L 5 0. F^ .7 Z LJ Lz7 a L� Q z 0 F a x W 00 N u rn ry w Z e a O a U 0 0 O N T R bl Q J� R y� VN •may M� W L I� u R I=I z Q J� U r } w z n n N W c. 3 a C7 W W r r w w w¢ w U ¢ w w a w a a w a a W w O Z Y a ul W 0 S N❑ tt= W a < W w O O S m ❑ Y a W O a J S c7 O ~ a .� O a J a a a W O O w d U S `� U w¢ w 2? U CL W W OY !- w Z O J 44 W O !- w w❑ W a 0❑ z U' ❑ O z C7 O z z S N Z p W a W❑❑ O❑ S O f- ❑❑ K J W Z a 5S y W y> w❑ z Z LL' W vJ O z t7 w !- a U' a Z 0 W z LL > J LL' F- K F- O Z O K Z G J J N W a G J Z W J a K J m ~ J °' aa h !- a a Z W a a W a GOa J Q�G J W O a W W O O S Z W O J W U_ W W d Z N Z N a a a C7 WWQ�Q WWQ�Q O O O W W fW') K W LL S U J ❑ LL J W Z S 1T W a a a N W Z Oa Z❑ F Z w Z W O Z N O Z❑ W N Q N W Z W J !- (� a a 6 1- W a Z a 0 a (� O !- a Z a H vI h 1- a W V ❑ O A o p w a O O W O a W a Y 2 F❑ g Z O 0 a 0 0 z O Js Q❑ w O a a 0❑ 2 V S Z S W H I I 1 a N W a E F W O 2 O O O N o 0 S y c c t u c� 'm 'm m m m m c y �° m° m o m E' 2 ra c u y F_ .c' z y s m y c y m a .I .� E u y `m o a o¢ y E E oa .� h a E 2 76 -Cl V 3' O 1- ti ro m (9 U' m¢ a W U O U W �n J Q W d W D v v u ° "' 4] N °] CO I() W N N N ro ro Vl Vl N N ro Vl (`l N Vl N N O° o] o] ro °l N � Vl Vl N Vl OJ N Itl ItJ W n7 v ° v a v u ° 0 W Cl 4] Vl W N ul W Vl Vl W Vl N l`l ro Vl m Vl It] W N Vl M Vl °] It] Vl h o] o] C] l`l W l`l C Vl Vl N Vl M Vl N Vl 4 0 O O n o o o (O V O O W I() V W O O 0 0 IL) � w 0 m o O o O O N O V N 1() n l0 I() n N N Ol (7 :1 N O w C] N fp O O O o 0 0 O 0 p O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O LL O O In O N O t9 O O O W m Q 0 N 0 0 0 0 N N O O O O O O O N O M O N O O O m O O O N O C �a ola� o a i g ° > ? w a a a > p°> W> z J °❑ �O a y °❑° Q° Q ° J° a Q z W W !- J? p p z J W > Q Q Q W 1- d' F" K H K z °> y d p Q m Q m Q W W W z W W Y W W d g °a a J R' z O z? a K i- N N N a d' W W W J J O Q J❑ K z z> wm�=�rQQm >S'N OY¢aQF - O QOM N > »a(7 (7 (7 (7 z Q(7z W W z_ z W Qp���� Q W N !- W z �i �i Y Y Y O F K p W J S U❑° 1- 1' ? d' K d' m K K K K K K K 2 K= LL a N N z w a M a M Q Y W Y W Y W Y W Y W Y W Y W? Y Y N J Q J a J a J W J W J O J z J z J z J J '2 'G � 2 2 L G rL rL rL � 'G 2 2 2 ~ O W NN N Im � Oo t7 V m m W °l O r Z � N N N o . N . N " . N N o N N CI N N N N N Cl CJ ! N N N N N N . N m N m N o fl 0 t7 r } w z n n N W c. 3 a C7 C C N Q a y� y� WJ •.y A !u u L r.. S: u !"1 J.+ i. ^0^ 1�1 u YN O 1.+ ME 00 n �n M + N U Q } 3 C C U I w � W w w 1 I Q w w w w wj w w w a w F JO ' z z r w z z r a l%1 K Z r ❑ O_ O_ O Q r a m r a W LL O d 0 QQ W m j� , G d a a ¢¢ 2 U�� '- Z O� 2 U m U x U x U z (9 r W Z ❑_❑ O a -� __ = Z Z Z Z LL m O Z❑ J 0 K�� 0 0 0 a 2 2 J Z J J Z °0 3 °o - r g r g 3 a a a a OI m O m O m m Q Z g Q O 7 O 7> K a a a z w z w z z E a z z z z z z z z m w g W a w 0 0 0 0 r < J w -' -' N N a N W a a a J a a a a a a a a w O Z q "' W Q Y Y Y Y W d d d d J S U J J d o O Z w_ U' m m W❑❑ u+ W O 0 N O 0 O Z m m 1a- O X X w X W X W m k= w Z 0 0 0 Z Z Z Z z O O Z ('7 Z U' Z O Z p Z Q Z Z O Z K w 0- K w O m w a w Z 2 U m r O 0 x 0 2 o 2 0 2 a ❑ I 1 I W r Q Z ❑ � N N N N N Q ai v m a a y o 0 0 o Q e�2� oottr6 '� y Z o m m m m 0 0 0 y a a v � n N rc ; � y a m u ° a O O O O O O m O O O O O V 0 0 02 O O N N O O N O N V M N O M O O cV m r O N V � d' V � m � m V V :E N O m O N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O V 0 0 0 0 0 CO O O 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 LL M Nl m N] O tp O O O t'I OJ tp N T T T o Io v m 'o m ❑_x x os o� as '�^x o a j W W W W W 2 O 2 J w' W w' W w' W w W ❑ p 0 y m m w g g r r r r J J J z > w, z Q p❑ U U> z z z z J R Q O R p R R r N r N r N r N r N r N r N r N ❑❑ U> Q Q r Y Y== Q z J M J m W U W U W U W U J 2 J 2 J 2 z w' R z z O Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q O r O r y U N Q a N J J a x J w >❑ Q > O O w' W? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W 0 m m W W N r r r r r r r r r J Q r r U U U U U U U U p U U w R Z Z N R R w' m m Q' m m m 0 (1) m >> W R (7 ❑ w 0 0 m m N J 0 0 0 O O O O O O O= z $$ Q (D Q O Z Z =� w' W Iw Fw Fw z z w w OLL LL_ _LL LL_ LL_ LL_ LL_ 11 IL LL_ W z z z z w' m m w' m 7 ��� m w r W W Q Q U U m m F U U U U U U U U U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m Q Q W W W W W W W W W O O O D U w a w m M M D X Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q i i 2 2 i z z z z z z z z z z z z z z 01010 o o o o o o 0 w w w w w w w w w ~ Z ('J O M V O �n d1l. O O m O o � N M a N N N N N N N N N N M M C"1 M M M M V Q Q V V 00 n �n M + N U Q } 3 C C U 0 0 N T z a a VJJ •H A L 1� L s V C� ^Q^ �1 z Q A 0 a + + �n �n M N Lz7 U c, s 3 V 'I tt Y H W W w w O a w w w Cw U w a to Q O W C a a W a W a r W `-° w w w W W J ug w O? z 1�- o y Z x a x w a W m w ¢ O a w J Q a o C7 Z C7 w ¢ w w rc z z O z z O x X a J x W w � x a O w = w w _ w w W Z N J Z Q O W Q d F J Z Q F J O Z Q K O= C °i K _Z K Q F- K 1- J F J Q Q N O O m a O m❑ F J O m O Z QC J J Q 2 N N Q K F U V OCC LL W LLa W W E W E Z LL} O LL LL O W Q W W K W Z W S W W� Q❑ J 1- ❑ K O K L C W Q Z a W S>> Q °- w tl OY Q 2 W Z E N N Q S Q OW S F H W Z W Z r/1 WT$ Z to Z w C7 4 0 O _Z O O W O V1 G yyJ-- U o] W J> W U C W C U' U 'Y Z O V w W K> > W LL U' U Y >S >> W > W (n N 1 J- G m W Q m N W> W ¢1 N W F❑ (/J Q Q I t V- > >O LL LL LL W W O F O X W X W d O K Z O X W Q KK O K J O _Z S _Z S U m Z Z K>> N (n O Z w Lil S W J O W O S S T Q Q J H V ttl V] LL LL 2 U LL 01S 2 U m U' O w U U Q LL Y LL LL LL OL LL' m m O 4] N LL W �] O r U` U U Q N W Y K U LL Q U � W H a z W m E ❑ L v a o W c E o j P 'wt O vl L L E S E w m v" v s m `m Z' `m v m° E �. o E m .� o E V c E o -c E E -c E a m >> E t >> m a c o v o o o f° o � o° i° Z 0 E 0 `°i o v¢ m o `oa o¢ E a o `ol v 2 c m L t v¢¢ ¢¢ `-° o E o Cr u¢¢ u ¢ y Q E E m v m Z m m° O m N 3ti 'G ry v v`,3M N v �. m �. Mm3 o N m N o w1- a N p wu o u ry c L QQ e U c N c W a N �� a= N N C 1-atix �. y — E �. eoti ati(w �NawGm v° C C a y - v � v a d K O � N a Y V v "' M M Vl In W M M N W Vl W M Vl W m Vl O Vl 10 M W V) M M (`l M W � Vl Vl Vl Vl h W Vl N Vl Vl vl Vl a] Vl ¢) a� O t l O b 0 0 O O r O O O O N O N 0 0 0 0... (O M N N V N f- N O S Yl O N N N W W V O d' C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 to M N O to V O V O O In O m Ol m N M m V N r O1 W W r r °I M r 01 W N (D 10 V V' M 10 r r r N r W M O rn W W W G O O O O O O O 'R O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N O O O O O 10 O CO 0 to 0 0 r 0 rn 0 0 !n 0 10 0 (O 0 0 0 r 0 W 0 0 In 0 10 0 O 0 - 0 tl 0 M 0 M 0 V 0 r 0 r 0 M N m O M O t0 O N O O m 61 V W O r O (O W �' N N N N 0 N N N N n W p O p 1 } > } J > � ? O a a r ❑ ❑ z R a >> O Q a W W O Q R R J a W W N N }} a d' Z O a s a Z Z U Q❑ ❑❑ R L W ❑ W❑ W R. R R W❑❑ M W R W ❑❑ J J a W W U' Z Z W W O> W R a a J J R > Z > > > >> W W > a O W O W Y 00 O O J x Z Z❑❑~ W W f Q Q° OJ N N N a m m W m m J m J S N S N a W u N m a Y a Y a Y a Y a Y c� Y u J J J m a a a W ~ w w aa aa W N a F- f f F- r l- I- F- W} d a F a f- a f- a a a m O W a m m m m 2 R' S w U 0 N N a U a U Q N a N a _Z Z_ Z_ Z_ Z_ Z_ Z Z Z a J a R R R R R R R a a a a a a a a a a a w w w w w w w a a m J J J J o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 o 0 o h a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a ERIN a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a Z V Q Q Q Q N N N t() tlI N h N N N �D t0 t➢ t0 (O t0 t0 (O t0 t0 1— r r 1— r r r f— r r m f0 0 (� 0 0] c0 a + + �n �n M N Lz7 U c, s 3 V 0 0 0 N C$ c yC VN iW U C4 L C1 z 0 M n W n u, M N G] C+ y 3 O z L W W K W ' W Q W W K Q W m K r W r WLL W W r❑ W C7 I� O O W O O J O O QW K W W W W Z O W X❑ W W W U❑ W X J❑ W r W W J❑ W Q Z O W O W O m J '>! Z O Z O W y Z W LL W K J r O W r W ❑ r O LL LL F �' d �y r ❑ Q O Z J W J W Q> W Q J W Z W Z W d ti Q �_ W m r m r� Z m r W m W a�a J W J O W K Q K Q Z❑ W Q r Q V Q LLa W❑ Q K Z K d K W U m Z Q J U LL aaZ K J U K m m w z LL W r> W ❑ W W Q I z K❑ W Q Q W p Z 2 C C Z a W O S W Z W¢❑ J Z O d W O a W Z Z Q W N Z W W Z W W J N Z J g W N r r W W S W O O_ m r W r W> O O O S U y W r Y J X LL❑ W J❑ W O r w m W z r a Q z OJ K ❑ O W ❑ W Z W Z Q❑ W ,�- y W❑ J J W W Q °gym >3<auug W> >m u °a��mm uuj°Jua00CD �Q �u<g<LL 0 W r Q N W � ❑ a m v QQZ t C N O L t v A C j N t j Vl .� L N N 2 E m �2 FEi Z O] u O O `° U U N N L ry a O (p 4 N O E Q m m E m o N o >. ¢° E m E r j c E N@ N>> 0� u0 m` a ti u Q u 'a E w a a` w Y Y a` w u w` � m� Q) V, tip z u S 0� O x� m u o a C u 3� � 9 y ° V v _ 'P y ro m w ro m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m ro m m m m m m m ro m m m m m m m m m u ; ° L v V ° a h- h h h. h h h h h. h h. h M 3 a o O r m O O O m M m m N ^N O O O m M m N N ^N N M m n W W m N O N O2 m m2 �' � N N � N � (a•J N N � O^t � N N E � N � � N N N N � �2 �2 m 0 0 of O O O O c0 O W O O O O O O W O O O O O tD N °) O W O O1 O D7 Il °) O N W 1� M m O t0 O t0 N O1 M O1 M O O -- M J1 O r O r n D7 M Q! O N O N M 1� O O M O1 O N M Q2 O n O W O n M QJ m W O m O N n Ol O W O W O W O O O n K r N N N N N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y ❑_ O O O i' O i' O O O N Q N Q N Q N N fn N fn p N Q N a W a O d J J r a Z W d J a d N a N 0- 0- W p= a N s N a a Y a Y O Y 0_ r a C7 W== W J O_ W 0 W 0 J 0_ W r 0_ Y Z K p J W 0_ W 0_ d m p 7 a J J W LL Q V' J 3 Y W W Q W Q W (7 K C7 N N ❑ p O O Y J Z Y O J (� (� r. Z Z Z Y Q O w O O 0 Z? (7 O ^2 O 0 r 0 r❑ p N J O J W Z J K J 2 y J y J m Q m W J W Z W Z Q Q �i W J W W K �j N Y W J W J Q C7 O w w N N �i O ma LL Z Z J J O r J 0 0 W m W y K W H H F Q m N m K m m m Q 0 Q 0 Q 0 Q 0 Q 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 0❑❑❑ 7 n n n a W W Q 2 Q 2 2 Y QQ J J O J��� Q Q Q W Z O. K 0_ a�a K Q a' Q W t0 m N 0 0 0 0 7 0 r u+ r r r r r r- r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r F- 00000 010,010,01010 010 0 0 0 0 0 00 y a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a o. a a a a a o. a a a a a a a a r Z Ol O N CJ y' N :p 1� W T O N M Q N IO r uJ Ol O" N M V Yl 1p r Ol O N M V N 1p 1� aJ °� O n W n u, M N G] C+ y 3 O z L C O O N T R W� ..r O y� VN • rl 6) Q !6> u 6) L w+ u R F+w 3. O 0. W O U w �n II N N V 2 a 3 C x w w w w w M ( w w aw �w h� agl QQ w aQ¢ g ii W p m r W H~ w >r > O F w J O LL' (7 0 W O fUt-- � O O O O O Q a m C� Q 0 0 u 0 0 0 0 G 4' J g w Z� Z O U~ U tt F U z Q z Q r a W z 0 z 0¢ z O w O z w w U w w w y Z p 00 U Q C7 C7 w x Q OJ 0 i a U w tt a o (D z w z~ w Y W w W z w Q r a a F, z m g z Q z z g g O w a g g g g Um m V 0�? m< a w w Z ? 0 c N C O R yCy^^ .H A E� J� it V R V L O ❑w z w O b.! U z 00 �r n v, M N .sj Z. 3 C n v w Iw ' w w w ¢ w w w w ¢ wi m W w m¢ X ¢¢ wI w c r a w r r r r W r r r- r w w W C Q W Q W❑ J O O Q ❑ W W❑ O W m O W W 0 0 0 W W W W W r Q C Q w W O d Z QQ W Z r (1 S U ❑ Z p m K r W S U r❑ LL LL 1 Z w Z O d W CL Z C7 Z U' S U O p, a_ Z O K W Z y Z W W a' uJ O K J a J S z X ❑ K O W r Q W a W �_ a' O J z J J w r J -! r r Q J r > Q W O Z❑❑ 0 tt J y, r U' z W W Z W ❑ g J Q g r m r O a C7 F r m r Z r< O r K Y Y O Q r r Q K> Q K J ❑ V J W J W 1- a y Q Z Q W W Z W> U LL r Q Z w K C U D❑ m K K� K� Z K K ❑ m LL C7 a Q L C 2 2 F O O �q O Z❑ 2 Z m 2 2 Oy W 0 0 2 0 m N Q¢ r C 0 0 0 Q❑ Z "� W Z U❑❑ W W W W J m_ Z Z X W Z a>> > W Z j _ Z 00 Z w j ja O ❑ Z❑ !n W > > O K x K Q F. Qj J 02 W h� O O OS U W Op w h N N (a/1 Or OS K> a J O O K fn U K E fn H W H a z W ❑ y � j o f v v i m L v v v v v v v o Z E a m h Q E E E m .2 m u m E `m m a m m m E 5 U w¢ U w z v i " a a z Vl M Vl C'l N W W W N N N Vl N Vl Vl N N W OJ Vl V> N Vl Vl a h Vl h Vl W h M M M W W m M Vl N C'l Cl O O B O O O O N N (O O t0 M M t° O O Cl [l N O O N O M M N ul M t'l t'l O H O Cl Cl O (D t'l N O O O Vl � Cl ❑ T Y n n � Y O —0000 0 0 0 0 O O O a a ? a a x x x xr rrr rr° Na ° o o 0 r a Q° w❑ Q z J❑ z J J J O w 3 2 EO N Q °° �' z >> K > z z p 7 7 7 p__ 2 2 O O W W O J F. x x r J Q w 7 m 0 N p W °° J Q Q CY > Q Q 7 N 7> N Q F- C7 0 Q Q Q Q K Q K Q W F- Q w F- Q p C7 p= C7 U Y W Y 3 J y Q W d W d z O w z z Q Q co K U N 0 x 0 a 0 0 F- J w W w W r- �- r LL J J 3 3 ❑❑ w x Q p z (7 C7 Lu z O O O O � 'G 'G z Q U a a a p Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q z J z J p W W Q 3 z Q z z J J w W z Q z Q z a z a z a z a z a z a z a z a z Q ❑ z Q ❑ z Q ❑ z Q ° z Q ❑ z Q °❑ z Q z Q r z Q !- z Q I- z Q r z Q I- z Q H z Q F z Q N M a Q w Q w co Q w U❑❑ Q w u� Q w U' a w >> a w a w 3 Q w a w O U w a w w r r! w r w > w a w x h N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N � .- z 00 �r n v, M N .sj Z. 3 C n v C ' O I N Q' wl- Wr y ^V yMy^^ H L V CC V V z rl 6 I T U .7 Q d U W a W x H a U W C. W C _C `P Q z z d �n II .n :n II M N W U e c 3 C :7 w w w w w w W w w w w w w w c❑7 w r Q w w r mr r r W W r ¢ p ❑ C7 W r❑❑ a C7 p z- W m ¢ Z W ¢ ¢¢ ❑ ❑ W W m Y O Y J ❑ m❑ a U' U r z a r _z z U U W Z 0❑ H y y Z p )n Q❑ z W Q 0 m Q w J W W J d d W❑ r W o w w r W m 0 Q 'Y 0 w X ❑❑ Z T_ Q ❑ m m s O d O w �-' X W J W❑ J d• Q d' Q ❑ Q O Q O 4 W_ Z LL d' N H LL a LL a Z LL J d r Z w K> O m g g U p g g O O r J O m r fL r K r R r p W W tL V Q W Z d Q S W W W U Q W r W U H Z w w Q p J Q Q z W W Y Y K K p J 1 1 p J< Y W y r> O J J h J K d OY W Z Z> OI W Q W Z Z D 0 w Z�� w y Q W J J y Z W O 0 2 w 2 tL Z d (7 d ❑ W S I K J N z r r 0 0 0� m W d W d W W N z r m Z O rw m W O 7 O❑ Z W tt 5 d' d a' O 2❑> > J] O W J Z_ Z Z m _ Q Z d 5 C7 z O m m Z d Z W m Q Qd 1 r 1 O Q O Y Q O= W O z w S Q n W O w 0 g W Q Q O- K� Q❑ m m O 0 o m R g� g m O V m w� U m m U d d J m z m JUG 0 S 0 m r U d 4 m r r S U m u m c� U m U r U� W H Z z V N W N N N W I C E ° v Z v o � c c m c E v c m m m m o o 0 z m v m m c C sw 's;_ = a m a z E m c o "' 2 u u E u S, .m 2 u 2 m m �' m m m m o Z. m m m° m m 2 e `°`-° °1 E m o c c i E y m °x m v 3 °¢ me ¢ 'o .c ' 'c c° c c o c `c m c °a � . -c_ a m ,o a ,o 0 o m e �. v E ' - o v o m p C3 �l 2 N J 4. d W .l R 2 ti W 4 m Y �- �- a W Q (11 ti i- m W m h f- s s ti m ti W O S O m v � v o o Q m ; o z � v a v a z a o O O o 0 ') O O 0 O 0 m 0 N !r n O O N O O O O O m 1 m N N M O O N M O O m N !O I� r N N (O W n m I� r N M !O N G O O O O O O O O !N - O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o O O O N O OCT C O 0 O 0 0 0 m 0 w 0 n 0 O O O m O O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O m O O O O O m O O O LL T T N (n N (7 a a r O O Q J U R R R z m? 2 2 2 Q ? r Q Q 0 z z O} Y Y z J la- m❑ N N N R Rte' O F w z W?$ m m y z J z > >> m w F- r r W Y> R. ? Y a w m m m LU w m m Q 2 2' O W >j J z J F- a z> z z R W y> W z J r F- a a a Y N N N 67 a Q J X w= m W' J J J w w 0 z uull W W a 2 F a a 0 0 0 >�j w a N O z W z O z O z z z J ~ H W�rL¢wJ(7 w (7 O C7 Z¢¢�� m J R ww J> Wpm >> m w ❑ w X zw¢v� O O 2�r�Fz > > >C a W J Y 7 Y Y Y Q a a a R. R R m J 2 CL R J 6. a Y Q W W m m m d' O 01 01 O O O aF aF z z z a m m m m m m o m m m m N N N N m m m m m N la- F r r r- i- I- I- r l=- h 7 7 7> Z N N N N N VI h N N N N N N N In N In 1t) N Vl N Vl N 1(I N Vl In N N �n N N N N I T U .7 Q d U W a W x H a U W C. W C _C `P Q z z d �n II .n :n II M N W U e c 3 C :7 0 0 0 N :3 E- i�+ �F+ r.= i. it U it /Q rl z 4�r 0 ..w U + 00 �n II :n II M + N a 3 x V w ~ I . FI w �w w < w W a ❑¢ 3 w w w 5 F a = z O F w w x w ;� z w Q w¢ U O y U ❑ gg 'N Z z m W F O ~ O Z W O O N S Z w LL w w 2 Q a LL 0 pU ¢ Z Z g w "' Q LLQ W¢ z 7 g -' ¢ Q E V O x o J x m Q w❑ i `2 x¢ w w F w¢ ¢ a w ug F z 2 w Q j Z WLtI z K O N LL 2 z O z k N EllEwul z W O W x w w p U =❑ uLL. Q U z w w g x o o o wz U LL u. m m U a Y o¢ F- Y m z w U m x c7 m H O w a H �I o w s °1 m m .m o a o 0 v o x u m a c c m .S . o a m Z 2 a w i¢¢ U W i m U U ti m rn rn R a m NE a 0 o H � o _w H M d d a � � O o m m O N 0 0 0 0 t0 o [1 61 r m 0 ,Il O m m N r(J O V O O V N O NJ, V N O O m m N N N O N N N N N V N .- N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O M O O 0 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O J J N o o K K r U Z Z a w o E, o to N J O 00 Q a Z T J J J J E... O N N O LL LL LL LL J Q. 0 0 z 0 0 K m ? U Z LL M K w J J J? U N> Q 6 0❑ o o 0 0 w a s a <� W > >? w �� 0 N N N xa �' H a > a > Q > Q > tll > > > N > > _> > a a a > a > >a > > a > w 3� w 3� w 3� w > x > > x > >? > >? > >? > Q N N t-kklmd-ld - m dd-H-ImId N h N + 00 �n II :n II M + N a 3 x V APPENDIX B City of Newport Beach Draft G -1 Policy Amendments RETENTION OR REMOVAL OF CITY TREES GOAL OF POLICY October 8, 2003 Drn {t G -1 5 To establish and maintain appropriate diversity in tree species and age classes to 6 provide a stable and sustainable urban forest with an inventory that the City can 7 reasonably maintain in a healthv and non - hazardous condition. To require that in 8 approving any tree removal or reforestation request the PB &R Commission shall find 9 that the tree removal request will not adversely impact the overall inventory, diversity 10 and age of the City's Urban Forest. 11 12 PURPOSE 13 14 The purpose of this policy is to establish definitive standards for the retention, removal, 15 maintenance, reforestation, tree trimming standards, and supplemental trimming of 16 City trees. City trees are an important part of the character and charm of the entire City 17 and provide environmental benefits as well. Regular care, trimming, root pruning, 18 maintenance, and programmed replacement are necessary to preserve this charm while 19 at the same time protecting views consistent with Council Policv G -3 and reventing 20 public and private property.damage. 21 22 The City classifies public trees in one of three categories Special Trees, Problem Trees, 23 and All Other Trees. 24 25 SPECIAL CITY TREES 26 27 It is the City's policy to retain City trees categorized as Landmark, Dedicated, or 2,8 ''9 30 31 32 33 34 35 �e 37 38 39 40 41 42 Neighborhood trees, which have historical significance, and /or contribute to and give character to a location or to an entire neighborhood. Landmark, Dedicated, and Neighborhood trees are identified by species&t by Attachment 1, and shall hereinafter be referred to as Special Trees. Trees within these categories shall be identified esta�31islie I, mapped, recorded and administered by staff for the Parks, Beaches Recreation Commission ( "Commission''). The Commission shall .aE ethe ins to a .._*. all Sc-,e l Trees, as . ,n as the t __:t__ is 4irem r c l review the Special Tree list on an as needed basis and forward recommendations for additions or deletions `o the City Council for alproval Landmark Trees are identired as those individual Special Trees that possess hi,�torica' siggnificance by virtue of their size age location or species Dedicated Trees are Special Trees donated for or in the memory of Specific individuals or organizations. — I __.,- October 8, 2003 Draft G -1 1 Neighborhood Trees are Special Trees that by their unusual size number, species or 3 location lend a special character to a residential, commercial, or business area 4 5 Special Trees shall be retained, unless there are overriding problems, such as death, 6 disease, or the creation of a hazardous situation, which require their removal. Prior to 7 consideration for any removal of a Special TreeLs), the General Services Director, or 8 designee, shall prepare a report identifying and implementing specific treatment to 9 retain the tree(s). If specific treatment is unsuccessful or impractical in retaining a 10 tree(s) then a full staff report shall be made to the Commission before any further action 1 1 considering removal is taken. Prior to any removal of Special Tree(sI, the City must 12 comply with the noticing provisions of the Removal of City Trees section set forth in 13 this Policy, unless a tree Special Tree is considered hazardous that necessitates an 14 emergency removal. Any such removal must be recommended by the General Services 15 Director and the Risk Manager and approved by rcguhres the appyev-a of the City 16 Manager. 17 13 During normal sidewalk, curb, and street repair activity requiring root pruning, all 19 steps shall be taken to retain Special Trees. If tree roots are to be pruned in association 20 with sidewalk, curb, and gutter improvements, sufficient timing in advance must be 21 planned to ensure that pruning will not destabilize or kill the tree. If both sides of a 22 S eciai Tree's roots are to be pruned, one side should be pruned b months to a year in 23 advance of the other side depending upon the species and other related factors. If root 24 pruning methods are not practical and /.or critical to the health of the tree, then alternate 25 or special hardscape improvements should be considered shall by the City 26 in order to retain the tree providing that costs are reasonable. All proposed root 27 pruning or other tree treatment shall be assessed and approved by the Urban Forester. ^R 29 Special Trees may be considered for removal in conjunction with a City Council 30 approved beautification project utilizing the Removal of City Trees procedures noted in 31 a subsequent section of the Policy. 32 33 PROBLEM TREES 34 35 A Problem Tree is defined as a tree that by virtue of its species causes excessive 36 hardscape or utility damage due to its excessive root system The following trees are 37 defined as Problem Trees: 3s 39 Ficus nitida (Indian Laurel Fes) 40 o Ficus rubiPinosa (Rusty Led— , Fg) 41 0 Ficus benjamina ( Weeping Fig 42 3 Ervthrina catira (Kaffirboom Coral Tree) October 3, 2003 Draft G-i • Fraxinus ulldei (Shame! Ash) • Cupaniopsis anacardioides (Carrotwood) • Liquidambar stvraciflua (American Sweet Gum) • Schinus terebinth folius (Brazilian Pepper) 6 Problem Trees shall not be designated as parkway trees on the Designated Street Tree 7 List. 8 9 Problem Trees that are not designated Special Trees may be removed for the following 10 reasons: 11 12 A. The Citv tree has had a repeated history of damaging public or private sewers 13 water mains, roadways, sidewalks, curbs, walls, fences, underground utilities, or 14 foundations based on Citv records or other competent and reliable authority_ 15 Water or sewer stoppage that results from tree roots and causes significant 16 documented private property damage Greater than 5500) shall be sufficient 17 criterion for tree removal. 18 19 B. The City tree has had repeated history of significant interference with street or 20 sidewalk drainage, despite specific treatment by the Citv to alleviate repeated 21 damage. 22 23 C. The Citv tree has created in the opinion of the Urban Forester, a view 24 impediment that cannot be resolved by normal nor alternative tree trimming 25 procedures. 26 27 Problem Trees may be proposed for removal by either staff or private property owners 28 The authority to remove Problem Trees rests with the Tamer City :Manager. 29 No more than 250 Problem Trees may be removed per year by staff under this criteria 30 without special approval of the Parks Beaches and Recreation Commission In 31 removals under Sections A & B above no more than one of three parkway trees in a 32 continuous row may be removed in a three vear period without a hearing before the 33 Commission. Replacement trees of a 24 -inch box size may be planted if funding 34 permits. Staff are responsible for notifying the adjacent property owner, the legally 35 established homeowners association, and the Councilperson of the district where the 36 removal is proposed, if applicable of the intent to remove a Problem Tree The decision 37 by the Citv Manager to remove a problem tree is final unless called up by at least one 38 Councilperson. The urban Forester shall report the removal of Problem Trees on a 39 monthly basis to the Commission. The cost to remove and replace Problem Trees will 40 be the sole responsibility of the Citv based on availabilitv of funding with the exception 41 of Category C (view), which is the .sole responsibility of the applicant A r! 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 it 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ^9 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 October 8, 2003 Draft G -1 ALL OTHER CITY TREES A Citv tree which is not designated as a Special or Problem Tree is designated as an All Other Tree. It is the City's policy to retain All Other Qt-): Trees unless removal is necessary for one of the following reasons: A. The City tree has had a preven antrepeated history as t;ve er mere ' of damaging public or private sewers, water mains, roadways, sidewalks, curbs, walls; fences, underground utilities, or foundations based on City records or other competent and reliable authority . Water or sewer stoppage that results from tree roots and causes significant Ica public or private property damage (greater than $500) shall be sufficient criterion for tree removal. 0—b-- -l— a. airs pipe e'. ari, g shall net eens : atz sue i damage, Ref shall damage attr:but, d , rfe saeh preventive B. The City tree has had a repeated history (tdeiiRed as an 18 F-,ieiitk pei4eEl) of significant interference with street or sidewalk drainage, despRe C. The City tree is dead, diseased, dying, or hazardous, and presents a b «a liability to the City. A dead tree is one that has been assessed by the Urban Forester and found to have deceased. Diseased trees are defined as those trees that cannot be cured by current arboricultural methods, are in an advanced state of decline, and have no prospect of recovery. Dying trees are those that have no prospect of recovery. Hazardous trees are defined as those that are defective, have a potential to fail, and would cause damage to persons and property upon failure. The Urban Forester will perform a hazard assessment whenever a tree is identified as hazardous. The assessment will identify: structural defects of the tree, parts of the tree most likely to fail, targets where imminent personal injury or property damage may result with tree failure, and procedures or actions necessary to abate the hazard. After assessment, the Urban Forester will expeditiously convey his written findings and recommendations to the Risk Manager for evaluation. If the Risk 'Manager agrees with the Urban Forester findings to remove a tree, the hazardous tree will be removed without further delay. In the case of imminent tree failure, the Parks and Trees Maintenance Superintendent or the Urban Forester shall have the authority to direct the removal of a hazardous tree. 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 2U 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 8 39 40 41 42 October 8, 2003 Draft G -1 D. The tree(s) have been requested to be removed in conjunction with a City Council- approved City, commercial, neighborhood, or community association beautification program. E. The City Manager, upon the advice of the General Services Director. City Attornev, Risk Manager or the Traffic Engineer, shall have the authority to remove individual Problem or All Other Trees tT-ees to resolve claims or safety issues. REMOVAL OF CITY TREES The initiation to remove (Special or All Other)a-rt City treed may be made by the staff of the General Services Departmen , and/or Public Works Departments, a legally established community association, or a private property owner by making application to the General Services Director, utilizing the City tree removal form. The provisions and procedures of this Section of the Policy do not apply to the Problem Tree nor Reforestation tree removal processes, which are described in other sections of this Policy. Special Trees may be considered for removal under the provisions of this Section provided a special report by the General Services Director is provided to the Commission detailing the necessity of removal and any specific previous treatment of the tree. After receipt of the application, a Tree Inspection Report shall be prepared by the City's Urban Forester (Attachment 2) to determine if the tree(s) meets the criteria outlined in the above All Other City Trees section for consideration for removal. Simultaneously, the Urban Forester shall provide a notice of the proposed tree removal to the ae adjacent property owner (if not the applicant), the private property owners immediately adjacent to the applicants property, and the appropriate community association if applicable, (not applicable to the emergency removal of hazardous trees with a-ees under Item C awe nor to trees that meet the criteria of Item E in the preceding All Other City Trees section). The Urban Forester shall determine whether in his /her judgment additional specific treatment can be initiated to retain the tree provided the costs are reasonable. If a tree(s) is to be removed, the tree(s) will be posted at least 30 days prior to the removal with a sign notifying the public that they have the right of appeal. The sign shall also note a staff contact. Once a recommendation is made by the Urban Forester and the Parks and Trees Maintenance Superintendent to the General Services Director and the General Services Director or designee concurs, then the applicant, the adjoining owners: private property owners on either side of the street within 500' in each direction of the tree location and a legally established community association, if applicable, shall be notified of the decision to remove or retain the tree within 30 days of the proposed removal. A legally established community association is responsible for notification of all association members 5 October 8, 2003 Draft G -1 1 pursuant to their established procedure. The General Services Director, or 4�ds a 2 designee, shall prepare a staff report for a regularly scheduled PB &R Commission 3 meeting of all trees recommended for removal using the Trees Tai,: AetiAties 4 ? eper , except for those trees categorized in Paragraph C. (dead, diseased, or dying 5 trees) or Paragraph E (claims and safety issues) in the preceding section on All Other 6 Citv Trees. Only Aan applicant, an adjoining property owner, r A 'or 7 a legally established comrnunity association the City lVlanagger, a PB &R Comrnissioner, 8 or a Councilmember may appeal the decision of the General Services Director not to 9 remove a tree to the Commnission. The Commission, in considering any appeal, shall 10 determine whether the removal meets the criteria outlined in this Policy, as well as any 11 unique factors which may be pertinent to the removal or retention of tree(s). The 12 decision of the Commission will be considered final unless called up by at least one 13 Councilmember or the City Manager. 14 15 The General Services Department will delay any tree removal(s) for at least 14 calendar 16 days following the date of the Commission decision in order to allow time for a 17 Councilmember or the City Manager to call the item. 18 19 The City will ,~ to replace all trees removed in accordance with the All Other 20 City Trees removal criteria on a one for one basis. Replacement trees will be a 21 minimum of a "Se" boxed size. If 36" boxed trees are not available, or funding, or 22 space constraints prevent planting of a large tree then a minimum of a 24" boxed free 23 will be planted. The full costs of removal and replacement of Special or All Other 24 Tree(s) will be the sole responsibility of the Cite unless an applicant voluntarily pays 25 for a new tree(s). 26 27 REFORESTATION OF CITY TREES 28 29 The concept of systematically replacing Problem or All Other Trees which are creating 30 hardscape and /or view problems and cannot be properly trimmed, pruned or modified 31 to alleviate the problemLs) they create, or those which have reached their full life, and 32 are declining in health, or are simply the wrong species of trees for the planted location 33 is referred to as reforestation. The Urban Forester shall make a finding for the latter 34 category of inappropriate tree species for a specific location His determination may be 35 aprealed to the General Services Director whose decision will be final 36 37 It is recognized and acknowledged that City trees were planted many years ago and in 38 some cases were planted with specific species that when fully mature cause damage to 39 curb, gutter, sidewalk or underground utilities. In- Within the geographical boundaries 40 of certain view neighborhoods, City street trees may encroach into blue water views 41 from public and private property depending on the length of time since the trees were 42 last '::.-immed, or the age and height of the trees. In other cases, the wrong species of tree n. October 3, 2003 Draft C -1 was planted oridnally and simply does not conform to the current treescape or 2 represents a safety hazard. 3 4 Arborists continue to develop lists of tree species which will grow in restricted parkway 5 areas without causing significant damage to curb, gutter, sidewalk, utilities or loss of 6 views. The Citv Street Tree Designation List, which specifies a species for each City 7 street reflects an effort by the City to prescribe appropriate tree species that will not 8 cause future problems. 9 10 As a City which understands the importance of trees and the beauty they bring to a 11 community. the City desires to continually improve the urban forest through 12 reforestation. In areas where City trees have been removed through City initiation, the 13 City should will expeditieus!!, endeavor to replace them trees with the appropriate 14 designated City tree. Referes tie ma�- els nitiated by resiJeiit; utilizii=�g 4,e 15 16 17 Individual private property owners, as well as legally established community 18 associations, may apply for single or multiple tree reforestation in their respective area 19 by submitting a request to the General Services Director for consideration by the 20 Commission that meets the following requirements: 21 22 A. The proposed area must have clearly defined contiguous geographical 23 boundaries that include the trees) proposed for removal and replacement. street 24 address(es), block number(s), or other geographical information. This section 25 applies to individual and group requests. 26 27 B. Residential communities, neighborhoods, or business organizations who apply 2'8 for reforestation must submit a petition signed by a minimum of e0% of the 29 property owners within the area defined for reforestation. .^ _,,b _wb^-h_,a is " ` 30 gi 31 the The petition content must be approved and dated by City staff prior to 32 distribution by the petitioner. The staff - approved petition must be distributed 38 by the petitioner to a maximum of 30 private property owners (up to 15 34 contiguous private property owners on both sides of the street no to 500' in 35 either direction -from the location of the proposed reforestation). Signatures by 36 non - property owners are not acceptable for petition purposes. All petition 37 signatures shall be verified by Cite staff for property owner status of the 38 Person(s) signing the petition. As an alternative to the above requirements, areas 39 represented by a legally established community association ei- pe ere Qc—' 40 mss, may submit a resolution of the Board of Directors formally requesting a 41 reforestation with a statement that all members of the commun ty assoc'_ation 42 having their residential views affected, have been officially notified and given an 3 October S, 2003 Draft G -1 1 appropriate opportunity to respond before the Board voted on the request. 2 Individual private property owners living within a legally established 3 community association area with mandatory association membership 4 ei pe.,_ ere i iyit r'('P_P ' _ _ _ ____ _must petition for reforestation through their respective 5 association. 6 7 C. Individual private property owners not residing within a CC 'rimed legally 8 established community association area may submit individual requests for 9 single or multiple tree reforestation. The applicant must submit a petition signed 10 by a minimum of 60 °10 of was a maximum of 30 private property owners 1 1 (uo to 15 contiguous private properties on both sides of the street up to 500' in 12 either direction from the location of the proposed reforestation site) in eftha 13 the reieiesta&R site as well as the endorsement of the 14 appropriate homeowners' association, if applicable. The petition content must be 15 approved and dated by staff prior to distribution. All petition signatures shall be 16 verified by City staff for private property owner status of the person(s) signing 17 the petition. 18 19 D. A written agreement. must be submitted to the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation 20 Commission by the petitioning sponsor (individual private property owner Ls or 21 group) to pay 100% of the costs of the removal and replacement of the public 22 tree(s) in advance of any removal activity. The actual removal and replanting 23 will be coordinated by the General Services Department. The total costs shall 24 include only the contractor's removal and replacement costs and be paid in 25 advance of any removal actions. 26 27 E. The replacement tree(s) for reforestation shall be the Designated Street Tree( as 28 prescribed by City Council Policy G -6, or the organization must request and 29 obtain approval from the Commission of the designation of a different tree 30 species prior to submitting any reforestation request for a tree species other than 31 the designated street tree. This section applies to individual or group requests. 32 33 F. There sha11 be a minimum of a one -for -one replacement of all trees removed in 34 reforestation projects. Replacement trees shall be a minimum size of '41" 3-6" 35 boxed trees, unless the parkway space will en4ly, not accommodate a 24" boxed 36 tree or a tree cannot be planted due to planting restrictions contained in Council 37 Policy G -6. If there is not room for the replacement treeUs vvithin at a specific site 38 as prescribed by City Council Policy G -6, then the replacement tree(s) shall be 39 planted in a public area in the same neighborhood at the option of the uetitioner. 40 This section applies to individual or group requests. 41 3 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 20 27 28 29 30 31 32 0- 34 35 36 37 3g 39 40 41 42 October S, 2003 Draft G -1 G. Reforestation requests must be completed and submitted in a timelv manner by the petitioner. Petitions that are dated more than 90 days in arrears from date stamped by staff before distribution will not be forwarded to the PB &R Commission for consideration. The decision of the Commission on reforestation requests will be considered final unless called up by at least one Councilmember or the City Manager. TREE NIAINTENANCE The City shall require the proper care and watering of replacement trees by the reforestation petitioner to ensure their proper growth and development as outlined in City Council Policy G -6. Furthermore, no person shall tamper with replaceme ~t City trees in violation of Section 13.08.040 of the Municipal Code. Further. the City will endeavor to fund the care of the Urban Forest to the highest level possible through the efficient use of re-gular tree trimming, root pruning, root barrier and pesticide programs. ENCROACHMENT AND DEMOLITION PERMITS All encroachment permits (permits for private property development which are has proposed to encroached upon the City right of way) or demolition permits that involve the removal or replacement of City tree(s) must be specifically noticed by the property owner to City- staff prior to the building and /or demolition permit process whenever possible. The proposed construction plans must indicate preservation of existing City trees wherever possible (exempt: dead, dying, or in an advanced state of decline). IF the proposed development, as deemed by the General Services Director, requires the removal of City trees, the property owner must eiay submit aro sr tree removal request to the General Services Director, a,=�&shall pay all related tree removal and a . a k= .'e prev4 e. and ±a p replacement costs lone for one replacement)uc.u0.ur.. meet all provisions of Council Policies L-1 and L -6 and City Ordnances 13.OS and 13.09. Approval or disapproval of all tree removal / replacement requests associated with encroachment and demolition permits will be the responsibility of the General Services Director or a designee. TREE TRIMMING STANDARDS% S PP MENTA r TRI- IMI ,r The City Council has adopted tree trimming cycles for trees of different ages and species. The Tree trimming cycles and trimming standards shall represent the maximum feasible frequency ' P44 Rf -_ . rb given current fiscal conditions. Except as provided in this -the Supplemental Trimming SecY_on below: trimming shall be in accordance with the standards of the International Societv of Arboriculture (ISA). In a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 it 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 `'4 05 26 27 28 29 30 3i 32 33 34 35 36 37 October 8, 2003 Draft G -1 those communities with a legally established community association, periodical tree trimming with an emphasis on height reduction will be considered by the City Urban Forester upon written request by the association. SUPPLEMENTAL TREE TRIMMING The City will consider, and as a general rule approve, requests to trim certain trees more frequently or to trim trees consistent with practices applied prior to the adoption of ISA standards (to enhance public and private views, preserve required sight distance standards, or other public purposes) which are submitted by affected .e °',ts private property owners or the board of a legally established community association and the request is accompanied by a completed "Supplemental Tree Trimming Form" and full payment for the requested tree trimming. However, since these practices often require 'topping or osp sible see disfiguring of a treeL) and are often aesthetically displeasing and injurious to a tree, reforestation shall only be considered ene-when supplemental tree trimming is impractical or infeasible as determined by the Urban Forester. this praet_,_ has mere t4ai= ,_t i.. erne year peried. The General Services Director shall establish procedures to implement the supplemental trimming provisions of this Policy. An approval must be obtained from a Legally established association by the requestor of supplemental tree trimming in areas with an active homeowners` association if the requested trimming is to be undertaken within the association area. t [Attachment 1- P & Special Trees] [Attachment 2- Tree Inspection Report] Adopted - May 9, 1966 Amended - August 14,1967 Amended - November 9, 1976 Amended - November 12,1985 Amended - November 28,1988 Amended - March 14,1994 Formerly I -9 10 Amended - April 11, 1994 Amended - February 26, 1996 Amended - July 14,1997 Amended (Administratively) - November 24,1997 Amended - August 10, 1998 Amended - February 22, 2000 AGENDA ITEM 23 APPEN ©IX C City of Newport Beach Undesirable Species - Street Tree List City of Newport Beach Urdesirable Species - DSH rre,;'ercy ,lure 2003 COMMON DBH COUNT AME "CAN &NEc' 3 M G -6 t41 AME° CAN SWEE1GUN1 - "2 868. AIVIE:R CAN SWEETGUM 13 -13 00 AMERICAN SWEETGUAI 19 -2,1 d AMERICAN SWEETGUM 25 -30 2 BRAZILIAN PEPPER 0 -6 152 BRAD IAN PEPPER 7.12 626 BRAZILIAN PEPPER 13 -'8 486 BRAZILIAN PEPPER 19 -2z1 146 BRAZILIAN PEPPER 2 ° -3G ?+ BRAZILIAN PEPPER ,30 7 RR W CAOTOOD G -6 -35 CARROTWOOD 7 12 .. 16 CARROT WOOD -1-18 ' i2 CARROTWOOD 19 ' 1 CARROTWOOD 25 -30 INDIAN LAUREL F :G 0 -6 X15 INDIAN LAUREL F:G 7 -12 54 INDIAN LAUREL F C. ;'6 INDIAN LAUREL F G 19 -J.= A :INDIAN LAUREL F 25 'J '28' INDIAN LAUREL FiG "o 26 KAFFIRBOOM CORAL'FR. = 0 -r 12 KAF=iRBOOM CORAL TR- °_ 12 36 KAF= IRBOOM CORAL THE = 13 -18 61 KAF .-IRBOOM CORAL T : <E _ 19 2- .12 KAFFIRBOOM CORAL TRE= _.... _....--- 25 -3J 39 -._._. W \FFIRBOOM CGRAL iR_= >30 . •17 RUSTY LEAF F:G 0 -/. 79 RUSTY LEAF F G 7 -12 599 RUSTY LEAF F ;G 13 -16 360 RUSTY LEAF F.G 19 -24 30 RI-STY LEAF -iG 25 -30 6 SHAMEL AS: 1 G- 3 3 .. SHAMEL ASH 7 -12 20 SI -AMEL ASS 22 SHAME ASr- '.9 -2'1 25 Si =AMEL ASH 25 -3G 13 SHAMEL ASH >30 A ............................ WEEPING F G C -6 67 WEEPING : ;.1; t2 221 'Poc =PING - IG �EEP!NG =IG t 9-24 7112 1 . • 1, History ��y,}� How the Urban Fc iLL x. 0 1991.Treelnvenmrvunae7i d January 1996 —West Coast Arbonsts begins contractual we trimming for the City an the amount of City trees trimmed was documented. i commenced a Ciride tree trimming cycle. Once Me trimming cyc a was completed, in mid 1997, Me Use inventory noted 28,500 trees 9 In the subsequent years of 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002 West Coast Antedate continued with grid trimming. As a result of this grid trimming an additional 1,500 trees was added to me City inventory for a new total of 30,000 o Julyv 1, 2003 -The annexation of the Santa Ana Helgms area added an additional 1,500 street trees and sun to be undertaken is the has Cntory of the Newport Coast area, where the ity anOClpates an additional 7,000 trees, bringing a projected total of approximately 60.000 flees RECOMMENDATIONS Consider the Negative Declaration, comments received and responses provided, and if supported by the record as a whole, adopt a resolution approving the Negative Declaration. N 2. Approve revisions to the G -1 Policy or make alternative revisions as deemed necessary. J1� I t'• � — 11-13 �.. - -*Consists of approximately 40,000 City trees, includes estimation for Newport Coast • +Value — over $70,000,000 --Tree Inventory — location, species, height, trunk size and value Continued Growth Pattern -*-Does the City Council want to approve proposed revisions to the existing G -1 Policy (Retention and Removal of City Trees) as recommended by the Ad Hoc Tree % Committee, retain the existing policy, or make change to the proposed revisions? G -1 Policy was originally adopted May 9, 1966 and amended as follows: Amended (11) times— 1967 -2000 9' 1 G -1 Polic Consideration •: December 2002 - City Council and the Balboa Arborist Society (BAS) enter into agreement to commence a systematic review of City G -1 Policy •> March 2003 - City Council appoints 4 Chair of PB &R Commission to form Ad Hoc Tree Committee comprised of a total of three Commissioners to review G -1 for possible revision •: April 1 & 241 May 15 1 June 31 July 151 October 7, 2003 - Public meetings of Ad Hoc Tree Committee EMERGING BIG PICTURE -:-Our current G -1 Policy protects individual trees at the expense of good, sound, and economical management of our urban forest. As an example, a rural /natural forest with 30,000+ trees is going to lose more trees (due to disease, age, insect infestation, fire) than the City annually removes from its urban forest. The City's G -1 Policy needs to provide more balance in terms of the community's needs, balanced against the needs of the urban forest. FY 2002/03 TREE COSTS •:•Maintenance $731,599 •:-Repairs ;•r. .i ,: $1,312,712 '� •:Liability Claims �.I $48,829 September 9, 2003 - Staff Report present) $2,093,140 ES rIMATES E i •:•Future Repair Costs $4,000,000 • >Claim Payouts $11,477 Total $4,011,477 .t:, EMERGING BIG PICTURE •i The City spends over $2,000,000 annually on taking care of its urban ' forest and the damage it causes Much of that money is spent on repairs that are temporary, We keep I spending money on repairs caused by the same trees. •i Our current G -1 Policy's removal provisions inhibit the City in spending its infrastructure repair money effectively because it is too restrictive in allowing Problem Trees to be removed. Cost of Tree Damage to City Infrastructure in FY 2002/03 •:•Ficus tree remedial work $50,000 .--Sidewalk, CUrb, gutter repair (City) $633,712 - Sidewalk, Curb, gutter repair(private) $153,000 %•Sewer. water line repair 47$ 6.OW $1,312,712 2 August 26, 2003 —Ad Hoc Tree Committel [ report recommendations to Council at f. Council Study Session h September 9, 2003 - Staff Report present) by City Manager to Council at Council E i Evening Session ;I •> October 7, 2003 -Final public meeting of Ad Hoc Tree Committee to consider Council G -1 recommendations October 14, 2003 - City Council Meeting Parkway Flcus Tree Mai tenance Staff Report, Council approved a budget amendment for $60,000 which included $30,000 for trimming 775 trees, root t pruning, and installing root barriers to 60 trees .t:, EMERGING BIG PICTURE •i The City spends over $2,000,000 annually on taking care of its urban ' forest and the damage it causes Much of that money is spent on repairs that are temporary, We keep I spending money on repairs caused by the same trees. •i Our current G -1 Policy's removal provisions inhibit the City in spending its infrastructure repair money effectively because it is too restrictive in allowing Problem Trees to be removed. Cost of Tree Damage to City Infrastructure in FY 2002/03 •:•Ficus tree remedial work $50,000 .--Sidewalk, CUrb, gutter repair (City) $633,712 - Sidewalk, Curb, gutter repair(private) $153,000 %•Sewer. water line repair 47$ 6.OW $1,312,712 2 Current Estimated City Infrastructure Damage Remaining to be Addressed '-Sidewalk repair /replacement $2.5 million •-Curb /g utter repairs $1.5 million $4 million Costs to Maintain the Urban Forest FY 2003/04 ry Problem Tree Remediation $50,000 ry Annual Tree Trimming $495,000 •i Personnel $144,961 •i Pesticides, Misc. $91618 Total $781,599 ses Y COUNCIL POLICIES AND CITY ORDINANC[$ ry.� G -1 - Retention or Removal of City Lees FY 2003 -04 ` G-3 - Preservation of Views Pending G -O- Maintenance and Planting of Parkway frets., FV 2003-04 L- 2- Sidewalks, Curbs, and Gutters Y♦ - a L -6- Private Encroachments in the Right of Way FV 2002 -03 1.3.00 - Planting, OfficialTree List Removal. $ 11,477 Tampering, Prohibitions, and Trimming S t 13.09- Parkway Tree Requirements $ 4,600 "As of March 2004 Trees TREE CLAIM HISTORY jJ FY 2003 -04 ` Paid Pending FY 2002 -03 FV 2003-04 $ 21,000 $414,396' 12 FV 2002 -03 $ 48,629 $ 11,477 -9 FY 2001 -02 $ 435,252 $ 4,600 • Via— FY1996 -99 FY 2000 -01 $ 62,766 $0 59 FY1999 -2000 $209,278 $0 ,t FY1998 -99 63E 3.789 $0 O One tree removed for every 1.5 trees Planted over the past 6.5 years which represents less than Totals $1,410,914 $430,473 "As of March 2004 Trees Removed Trees Planted FY 2003 -04 ` 30 148 FY 2002 -03 52 467 FY 2001 -02 12 540 FY 2000 -01 43 333 FY1999 -2000 123 519 • Via— FY1996 -99 26 310 '• FY1997 -98 59 241 w Total 345 2,584 As of March 2004 O One tree removed for every 1.5 trees Planted over the past 6.5 years which represents less than 3 -` This City retained the firm of Dudek and Associates, Inc. to prepare an Initial Study under the California Environmental Quality Act. The Initial Study resulted in the determination that the proposed revisions to the City Council's G -1 Policy would not result in a significant impact to the environment and a Negative Declaration was prepared. The Negative Declaration and related analysis were completed to provide complete disclosure to the City iL Council and the members of the public regarding the reasonably foreseeable environmental effects of the proposed revisions. - ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW I -.-The G -1 Policy retains checks and balances of review prior to removal of any tree and does not automatically anticipate the immediate removal of numerous trees- - .-The purpose of the revisions is to provide more flexibility in the factors for City Urban Forestry staff, the City Manager, PBBR Commission and City Council to review before deciding to retain or remove a tree. ALTERNATIVES Council could choose to: - .-Disapprove some or all of the proposed G -1 Policy revisions -.-Make alternative revisions to the proposed G -1 Policy - .-Approve the Negative Declaration by resolution - .-Approve the proposed G -1 Policy - .-Continue the matter to -I address concerns Declaration, the proposed revisions will not result In a significant environmental impact. It is not reasonably foreseeable that the potential loss of trees under the revisions will exceed 470 trees per year initially and will reduce in number as the years pass. -> eased on this estimate, losses within the first two years of Policy Implementation would represent less than 3% of the City's total inventory of trees and the loss will be tempom y as replacement trees are plarted and grow to maturity. ' -- While for some slower growing replacement trees, the time to maturity will be 8 -15 years or more, this is not true for all of the trees that could be potentially removedimplaced. 1`E"1 - -: The proposed G -1 Policy ' 1 'i' 6 1 provides for a more flexible decentralized administration of the urban forest while still retaining adequate oversight of one of our most valuable -10 natural resources without .y undue expense. - %Street trees will remain the dominant street feature, but will be managed in a responsible, economical, and balanced manner it the revised CI APR —©E -04 10159 FROM.VANSLARCOM LE190LD V.4:4 BLARCOM LEIBOLD M.CCLbh'DON MANN A Sa�u:yvn e: Carr � +rnnun 10=949 4517 0305 PAGE srErxli:� t+t. aftf,�s S2YCL$G'S�A. t'#: 21'22 :4111 CIaEEe DINS, SLI:F 105 - Llcmin H¢LS, CAnFJRNII 32655 Tu 449.457.6300 • ran 419.157.6305 Aprils, 2004 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Y1.4 FAL'S44fJLE [949-644-J2291 AND US. -4 4f1. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Mr. James Campbell, Senior planner APR 9 6 2004 PM City of Nmvport Beach 71819110111112,11213141515 330'0 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92653 -3884 Re: Salhoa Arbor Society Comrnenfs on the h'eflpoi1 Beach G -1 Poicy Amendments Xegarrt'e Declaration Dear Mr. Campbell: This firm represents the Balboa Arbor Society ( "BAS ") and we appreciate the opnomtniry to eubmit Lhe following commentary on behalf of BAS. Unenforceable aad Advisory City Policies As you arc aware, SAS filed a lawsuit against the City of Newport Beach over the proposed removal of the Kam Street ficus trot on grotind> that the removal action violated the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") and the G -1 Policy. As a result of sett;ement of that lidg-ation, Section 6 of the Settiement Agreement between HAS and the City provides that: "City Tree Ordinance. On or b0bre the February 25, 2003; regularly whedtd;d City Council meeting, and following appropriate public notice, City staff shall bring to the City Council for approval, a recommendation to appoint a committee to commence a public process for the s}9 *.ematic revicw of the City's 0-1 Policy with respect to the preservation and removal of trees within the City. The Ciry Council squall also request the committee to consider and rnake recommendation for approval c binding Tree Ordinance. The City shall give serious consideration to farming for this purpose a committee that includes public metnbers, and if it opts to do so, members o: BAS residing in the C;ty will be invited to apply for appointment to the committee." (Emphasis added.) ATTACHMENT K COU Ci - AGENDA . N0 219 y -ar7- 02) Ca APP-OS-D, I0-56 FROM. v4NSLAPCOM LEIFOLD lU +949 457 6305 PAGE 3. Mr. James Campbell April 6,'004 pne 2 The distinc ion emphasized it 'be above quoted language is �hai consideration of a Tree Ordinance was a `crm ofscttlement because the Cite asserted, under penalty ofperpuy, that the G -1 Policyis merely advisory and does not have the affect of law'. Beaaase of the City's acknot ;?edg -nenl that the& i Folic. v Js B not enforceable; how is the City a 1p to male a ncgatiyc declaration of potential environmental impacts essociared with the proposed G- l Policy amendments? Any assessment of environmental impacts mould appear to be purc, speculation under toe circumstances. The .Absence of Analysis, Citation, and SupportiagDocumentation i'pon r °_vietir of the T egative Declaration, BAS has concluded that the Cin'has preps ed liaic more than a "naked CF-QA hecklist" and the City ha= prepare virtuallyno analysis of potential environmental imp acts ass ociatedwith the G -1 Policy amendments (assuming tbey are enforeabfe). rundamenta :Ey.the (3-1 iloiic -- srnendmcnts eiiminatc current standards that protect Cin trees. For Special Trees, the use of Ci "spcciai ha ✓dscap e" is no longer : Nuired pri o: to consideration of tree removal. Additionally, th-e City bas created acarcgoryofPreblern Frecsthat permits removal ofanunl :m,;telnumberojtre forsuehreasons as "view irtoedimeni. "li For "Ail Cihe, Trees," the G -1 Policy arnendments make ramovel easier by climinatingthcpiovi eionC- - latrtt gmresdocumentationofactualsteetandsidewalkdamage. Theresultis a n,,entyfold increase in tee icniotals of All Othrr recs. The N--gatiye Declaration concludes that tic ti -1 Policy amendments will result in no impact or, in the rare instance. less than significant impart; on the environment. Unforhmatcl_y, the Negative Decinratio;l 15 entirely dev6d of citation and fails to incorporate any documentation that can possibly supportthe .unfourdcdcoaciusionses >ah'. shed. (See CBQA Guidelines See ;ion1514% -15150.)Theeny p substa irive decurr.ent referct-..ced in the entire :> egatire Dmlaratiun is sct forth in the reference section at' the Negative Declaratl oa (Secti :�r. 5) and consists of personal contmumcaticn between John Conway "tire Cfr 's urban Forester) and Shawo Shamlou (Ci :y's Kegat�ve. Deckoration consultant) on December 12, 2001 The Negativet Declaration, concludes without citation of Supporting docuinentation thai: `7n t;,cse instances `.Where a mauve t_ee i.as outgrown its Iocaticn and been removed, the newly planted replacement ,Ices have suceedeJ in estab;ishing themselves with great success. The City has developed a list of Designated Street Trees tO indicate appropriate tree species to be used as street tree; (Appendix .A)." How E is "great suetcss" d ,ermined? How did the City establish an "appropriate" street tee and hO.v does lire repiace.1lent tree sate :o potential environmental impacts asso: fated with LheI0?s ofmamre trees, lRrger trees, hccs with a - Zltwercanopy, rstab :ishcd trees, biologieeIly sigruficrru !recs (e.g.. uecs that provide ! '7 he tires iv +llv_;aa:ier. r..pjaies :h-t "ru nore t�sa ?5G P:ob;e.m Tr:c n:sy be rmpccp p;:r yew' by sW nI -c: uc pre nsc0 : riteria ,sr :bout er eels; rporo, c! of tir_ Pe :is, 3cccLca, anc 1L-.a rmiCn i "o <r.issica." `khm ch:s mars i; Lhal v:ernia21nal 2So.Pro7,cnT :e ^sr_.arb_ie novO- a,:;*miae than Ole i3-1 Palicy it v;rcr.•to as zmead::d Fo![,!. ;sa [!m rrclo :cl of 250 Froblem Tre he Pis &.R L :o ^:rassio r. aulhwtr° s Noblem Ttct rerncral_ by F .., -.- . . :pvaeiepp;o• :�.. apgc.e!a "s ?cc: ail.,,* iic;% rased: atti^:: r; ncrsiiswin: ccsse ;�io :coutiPUUC :Cec.c;rn'•e!s a'hr.c l!.e ( }' :,'. rk� ._ ,i ^'gyp',• e�: isnry ar:d t:a rt:; cffcr[ of : :a- v. - Ai'Y. -gh -04 10 57 FPpM:VANELARCOM LE111 -1 rD.949 457 5305 Mr. James Catnpbeil April 0. 2004 Page 3 FAGS 4, nesting for raptors or migratory birds)? Hovr did the City forecastthe" anticipated" tree loss over the next several years' Base &n e h; cstablislting a baseline for existing City trees, the City esnmates That the City's "current inventory of publicly owned trees includes approximately 31,000 trees -" The \egative Declaration contains Tithe or no explanation ofhow the inventory was established and instead convolutes the issue of City trees anJ private trees in Section 22 ( "Frivi:onmtntal Setting'12 The Negative Declaration concludes that "whet vicwtd in the contest of the overall urban forest," potential impacts of the G -1 Policy amendments are insignificant. This conclusion is inappropriate in a baseline analysis- Moreover, the conclusion ignores the fact that the Cityis not analyzing impacts of ree removal on private proptrty. Tlie appropriate place for this er!alysis would he in Section 17 of the Negative Declaration ( "Mandatory Findings of Significanoc ") where the City ia:ls to address cumulatise impacts of both public and private tree removals. Aesthetics and Mitigation No substartial evidence exists that aesthetic impacts of the G -1 Policy amendments are less than signi`icart. As noted above, the Ncga!i,'e Declaration, esteblisbes view impediment as a basis to remove tree;. 'View impediment has nothing :o do with the establisbed "goal of the Polic %` set fortb in Section 1.1 of thejv'egative Declaration. Marc importantly, the motiva;ion to uddress view iripcdiulents resu is in a faiNre to add -css aesthetic impacts associated with the removal of trees. The cite is the aesthetic in question. not the view, By defirulion, all trees we an impediment to a pa.-tioularview. Tree3 consist of mass and are not transparent. in addressing aesthetics, however, :he existing trees are the physical em ironme :ntal seeing from which a view impact must he assessed frum a public and private vantage point. (See Oce:zn 1'i :)rEstc ?e5' i'U1rP :n9nd1'S :55oCiJ1l0l1. J'IC. }, :l't0 iCGIr'O 6Ju,trDisir :et, 200$ Cal. AV;). 1.EMS 24, (March 2. 2001.) The Nega,ive Peclatations asserts without citation or documentation that: "T1tc project would bencfii -viewreighbo-hocds." The eti ;e Declaration tails, however, fails to explain Wh;ite;actlyisa "view neighborhood" and ho,,; a "view neighbo-hoold' has anythir:b to do w ith the Project description, Frc ier.t goa)s or the potentiai Project impacts. 2 RV itir!tx at's^_:xc of any citaiiun c1 eccumen t iworpo :z6on to rc if, c:n) ldng set faa 1c it Ncgati ;e De:lerarion, Lht _...COv vices al.d in Semen 1.1 ! r: Omar 3 L5C4� t res i ^. _ c.:aio:: i and a:ikelj nt?,JCU Lets ir.m: in Seefio. ^.:.2. E:UV.' tCC�I i.C� hiil!i0!f Pecs, o: : ?.: CcG? E (cont.) H APR— CS-0`1 10 s7 FROM LEIHOI_D to Oq9 457 E305 PAGE Mr. James Campbell April 6, 2004 Page 4 Similarly, the Negative Declaration provides in a conclusory manner that: "fAesthctic) Impacts would be temporary and arc limited by policy provisions." Just bow temporary the aesthetic impact is, depends on the adequacy of mitiga:icn by replacement irec(s) (c.g., size, trunk diameter, canopy, rate of Tice hegabi ,c De!:iaration does not adequately address mitigation — probably because .bc Ncgaiive Declaration has concluded across the board that no potentially significant impacts exist. The mere reference of a `temporary impact" in the Negative Declaration is a contradiction.31 Finally, no K evidence exists to support the conclusion that "policyprovisioris" liruit temporary aesthetic impacs o f tree removal. To the contrary, eYidcrce in the Negative Declaration explains that aesthetic impacts of tree removals in "view neighborhood;' are fiachioaed to be perman: ni (e.g., replacement with a small tree Wish a lesser canopy). ' If the Negative Declaration is going to ce based on dtc perspective of `view neighborhoods," such neighborhoods need to be identified and the project description must he modified accordingly. tinder what City authority is a "view neighborhood" r, *iabli.shed? A fair argument supported by substantial evidence ;:an be made that a:tnual tree removals overt;:e next sec era] years m: ;y rep- 1113wt ?az greater than. 3 nerci•nt of the City's urban forest. A fair argument can aiso be made Thai a 3 percent cit3vide loss of Gees has no relationship to determining whether aparticular L loss of trees results in significant aesthetic impacts. All ene needs to do is observe the loss of ficus trees on Main. Street to detemtine Cpe aes hetic impact :sseciated with far',ess than 4"i 0 trees on eat attauai basis. do ; bstantia( evidence supports the ambiguous refere ce in the Negative Declaration (Section 5) that "...tae Policy provides in most cases for a LI rep'acement of removed trees.' There are no M requir emerts for adequate mitigation of tree loss in the 0-1 Policy, r„ l, Sr_t.ra 5 Q the Negative Dcc!arzuon 'a.-lher dzciacrs k u^: thous suevofriug r. itR :ion) bv: q1. PS:LFt c'oar ill ov'u it gave t 2Sility to di: at aeticas ro nlirintize :IUpvcu associate with th_ ioa> of irdiri,ica: bees„ ""his `wt= imitates u: Ldl e 1rt,14,,. :'.m rl of n 3ti4E!21G[1 O`. it lip. z.S' z;!Itt?fieg_t'. Y t ' � e'i L aac..:' a i r';, In iw: 4>i;+ -06 -04 10 59 FROM= VANgLARe OM %EISOLD 10.995 SS] 630S PAGE 6/6 W. James Campbali April 6, 2004 Page 5 Conclusion Based on the complete absence of any technical documentation to support the conclusions of The Negative Declaration, BAS respectfullyregt:ests that the comment period be extended and, preferably, that the adequacy of the G -1 Policy amerdmcws and Negative Declaration be rtwisited. Continuing to amend an unenforceable policy, in an apparent effo,t to immunize all future City tree removal actions from CEQA compliance, continues a flawed policy that has resulted in litigation and is contrary to terms of settlement that rccognized the need for enforceable protection of the City', urban forest. BAS resen°es the right, prior to the close of the hearing on this matter, to raise additional tree conscr anon and protection issues and tore spond to the City's deliberation aver the Negative Declaration. At that time BAS may have additional comments to submit in writing or verbally. On behalf of BAS. I :hank you for the opporrutrity to comment. Respectfully submitted. VAN BtAHCOM, 1;EfROLD, i�7CCL:;NJON SAC Il`i.4 /?V'1�i /P.C. BY' Stephan M, Miles Jan Vanderslnot, M.D., President, Balboa .Arbor Society Ms. Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney Comment No.2 JAN D. VANDERSLOOT, M.D. 2221 East 166 Street 1lorne Phone: (949048-6326 Newport I3ca-h, CA 92663 Office Phone: (714) 848 -C770 Email: JenV 3uuaoLcom Office Fax: (7 14) S49-6643 April 6, 2009 James Campbell. Senior Planner City of? evport Beach Planning Department P.O. Box 1768 Arewport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: Comments on G -1 Policy Negative Declaration Dear Mr Campbell, Below are comments I am making to the Negative Declaration, City of Newport Beach G -1 Policy Amendments: Retention or Removal of City Trees, March 2004. 1 am also sending these comments by email. The existing G -1 Policy has been used with success over the past several years, and the City ^ should enforce the existing G -1 Policy without the proposed charges that could lead to an excess M of 7,142 mature street trees being removed from the City's streets. The environmental assessment represented by the Negative Declaration (Neg Dec), for the B proposed G -1 Policy changes, is wholly inadequate, and the values of the existing City street o trees are being consistently understated. It is clear from the Neg Dec that the baseline conditions for the ;ree streetscape, and the C environmental values that are represented by these trees, are not being adequately evaluated. �r The Neg Dec fails to adequately analyze baseline conditions, including the numbers, sizes, and species of existing trees, the values of the existing trees, including the shade and cooling effects of the canopies of mature trees, the energy savings, habitat values, improvements to water quality, air quality, and aesthetics provided by mature trees., and the cumulative impacts Of replacing large trees with small trees that do not provide the environmental benefits of large trees p with canopies. The aesthetic impact of rep acing a grand large tree with an inherently tiny tree is not addressee at all. In addition, the policy charges do not have an enforcement mechanism to ensure that the policy is actually enforced, and the Neg Dec is not a Mitigated Neg Dec, so no mitigations for the loss of existing trees is being proposed Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist. 1. Aesthetics. Clearly the aesthetic of the trees will be significantly altered since large trots will he E replaced by srrall trees. This item should be checked "Potentially Significant Impact" III. Air Quality. No analysis is given of the replacement of 7,142 large bea_s with smaller trees vis- F a -vis air quality. IV. Biological Resources. No attempt is made to document sensitive bird species like the Great Blue Horon, which has been known to inhabit trees in the City of Newport Beach. This policy also G conflicts with "tie existing G -1 Policy (item e) because it .vill lead to more tree removals than the existing policy. VIII. Hydrology and Waver Ouallty. No mention of the amount of water absorbed by large tree u canopies compared to smaller trees is discussed. ssed. Large trees absorb substantially more rainfall, JAN A VANDERSLOOT, M.D. 2221 Fast 16" Street Home Phone: (949) 548 -6326 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Office Phone: (714) 848 -0770 -mail: JonV3 aaoLeom Office Pax: (714) 846 -6643 and therefore reduce urban runoff more than smaller trees. No discussion of this is made in the Neg Dec- X1. Noise, item c). Ambient noise is better absorbed by large trees, thus this is a Potentially Significant Impact. XVII. Mandatory Findings of Significance. The project clearly has the potential to degrade the environment, because of the loss of large mature trees and their canopies, and should be indicated as such. The problems of the G -1 Polley in the past, such as the Balboa Ficus Tree fiasco, have been due to failure to enforce the existing G -1 Policy, not a failure of the G -1 Policy i`self. Moreover, mitigation of loss of large canopy trees is not adequately addressed. The volume of canopy of large existing trees should be compared with the small, if nonexistent canopies of the replacement trees, to determine adequate mitigation. It is not simply a matter of number of :roes, but the size and volume of the tree, that determines the value of trees. Specifically, I have the following concerns: 1. Special City Trees. The existing G -1 Policy is more protective of Special City trees than the proposed changes. The new policy substitutes language saying hardscape treatment for Special City Trees "should be considered" rather than the current language that states "shall be instituted ". This diminishes the effort that the City will undertake to preserve Special City trees, leading to losses of these trees, which are supposed to be retained. There is no enforcement mechanism to protect Special City trees, which could be done with an ordinance protecting Special City Trees, rather than a policy, 2. Problem Trees. The new policy approves removal of up to 250 of these trees per year, whereas the current G -1 Policy only removes trees actually causing repeated damage over an 16 month period. This policy change will cause many more trees to be removed than currently. Loss cf these trees will significantly imoact aesthetics and other benefits of tees. 'What is the current average removal rate of trees ever the past 2 to 5 years? 3. All Other Trees. The Neg Dec states that up to 200 trees in this category will be removed each year, while currently, only 16 -15 trees per year are be :ng removed undercurrent criteria. The environmental impact o such large changes in foe streetscape are not adequately addressed, especially since the replacement trees are much smaller than the existing trees. VVhat has been the removal rate of NI Other City Trees over the past 2 io 5 years? 4. Given past history, it is simply not true that the "vast majority" of Reforestation: requests are for Problem Trees (page 2 -6`. View impairment has been the reason given most often for reforestation, of whatever tree is present The size of canopy should be a requirement for replacement trees, rather than size of the box that the tree is gown in. An ultimately small tree in a 36 inch box has less overat. tree value than ar; ultimately larger tree in a 24 inch box. The mitigations won't be. equal unless a multiple tree replacement is recuired, such as a 2 for 1, or 3 for 1, replacement ratio, which was an original provision of the G -1 revision, out which was dropped. l he Neg Dec should examine alternative mitigation strategies, such as 2 to 1 or 3 to 1 ratio for replacement trees, if the replacement trees have smaller canopies than the original trees. 5. The provision of "wrong tree in the wrong place` on page 2 -6 has no precedent and is entirely subjective, and should be removed as a criterion for Reforestation. There is no scientific evidence �H (coot.) 11 Ti }K �L �M �N JAN A VANDERSLOOT, M.D. '221 East 16'" Street Home Phone: (949) 548 -6326 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Office Phone: (714) 848 -0770 Email: ?onN73 t •aol.eom Office Fax: (714) 848 -6643 that the replacement trees will be any better, given the lack of any scientific basis for determining which trees are on the Designated Tree List, only a consultant's recommendation (Appendix.A). � (cont.) What is the basis for the estimate of 10 trees per year falling under this provision? Which trees in , which location? This appears to be a subjective rather than objective estimate. --t 6. Encroachment and Demolition Permits. What is the basis for an estimate of loss of 10 trees per year? Again, it appears to be a subjective rather than objective estimate. Which trees are being R considered for removal? Under Section 3.0. Findings, Section 3.1, No Significant Effect Finding, Under 1. Aesthetics. What about the aesthetic of the individual trees themselves, or the aesthetic of people looking at and c admiring mature city trees? The Neg Dec seems only to consider vistas without the trees, and not S the vistas provided by trees. Ever see a postcard of a beach without a tree framing the view? Under 3. Air Quality. Planting of trees has been actively pursued by the Air Resources Board and T AQMD. The loss of canopies provided by large trees is not adequately measured compared to the small trees envisioned as their replacements. Under 4. Biological Resources. Sensitive Species like the Great Blue Heron use trees with large U canopies as habitat. Loss of large trees in favor of small trees reduces bird habitat. Under 8 Hydrology and Water Quality. Large trees absorb many more gallons, like 700 gallons of water a year more than the smaller trees and therefore affect water quality and urban runoff. This " is a significant impact because large trees are being removed. Moreover, the roots of large trees Y absorb pollutants released by broken sewer pipes, thereby improving groundwater quality. Under 11. Noise. Large existing trees with substantial canopies, absorb ambient noise, like the W proverbial "quiet, tree -lined suburban street." Under 17, Mandatory Findings of Significance. The Neg Dec. undervalues Aesthetics, Air Quality, Water Quality, and Biological Resources, mainly because the difference between a large existing X tree with a canopy is not distinguished from a small replacement tree with virtually no, or greatly diminished. canopy. Section 5.0, page 5.2. The estimate of 470 trees per year was never contemplated by the City's Tree Committee that reviewed the policy change. This amount of tree removal will drastically alter Y the aesthetics of the City, and is a significant aesthetic impact not addressed by the Neg Dec. Page 5 -4. Canopies of trees such as the Hong Kong Orchid have not reached anything near 20- 25 feet in Newport Beach. Where does this data come from? Is Newport Beach with its saline soil Z not conducive to optimal growth of the replacement trees? No consideration of soil type was made in the selection of Designated Tree List, Page 5 -5. It is totally false to claim that the proposed project would not have a long -term significant impact on the City's visual character or quality. TAA Page 5 -7 Air Quality. Trees were planted 30 years ago specifically to address air quality BB concerns. Removing these trees now defeat the original intent of the tree - planting programs. Page 5 4 Biological Resources. No mention is made of the potential use of the City's trees by the �+��++ Great Blue Heron, among other species, which has been seen to occupy trees in Newport Beach cc because of the proximity to Newport Bay. JAN D. VANDERSLOOT, M.D. 2221 East 16" Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 Email JonV3(Fuaol.com Flome Phone: (949) 548 -6326 Office Phone: (714) 848 -0770 Office Fax: (714) 848 -6643 Page 5 -13. Section 5.8, Hydrology and Water Quality. No mention is made of the significant beneficial impact of trees on water quality, including absorbing rainfall, reducing urban runoff, and absorbing sewage in the soil. Page 5 -17, section 5.11 Noise. No mention is made of the beneficial impacts of mature trees absorbing ambient noise, and the loss of this benefit with the proposed project. This benefit, and loss of same, is totally ignored in the Neg Dec. Therefore, there will be a significant increase in ambient noise post - project. Page 5 -22. Item 5, The Neg Dec acknowledges increased removal rates and production of green waste. How much of an increase? What have been the removal rates over the past 5 years? Page 5 -23. Again, the Neg Dec totally ignores the significant impact of loss of big mature trees in favor of the same number of smaller trees with small canopies. This is a significant cumulative impact that needs to quantified and addressed in the environmental assessment. Appendix A. the Designated Tree List. When this list was developed a couple of years ago, no effort was made to determine the suitability or survivability of these trees in Newport Beach, given the variations in soif alkalinity and coastal location. Whether or not these trees do well in Newport Beach is untested, untied, and probably untrue. A scientific analysis should be done of these trees, or they may become "the wrong trees in the wrong place" Appendix C. Problem trees. Where did this list come from? Will proper maintenance including root pruning alleviate perceived problems caused by these trees? This analysis should be presented in the Neg Dec to determine accuracy. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this issue. Sincerely, Jan D. Vandersloot, MD Jan D. Vandersloot, MD DD EE } FF IGG HH r_, :.g/20 "4 0_°:17 - ,35- ^ Dr, -20 EiAI BOR VIEW HILLS 5CiL7TH FYQMEO'w`NER9 ASSOCLk'f'fQ 17300 Redhill Avenue, State 210, Jsrvine, CA 92614 RECEIVED BY 4arch 30,'004 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH James Campbell MAR 3 0 2004 Senior Planner PM City of-Newport Beach 7819 110 111112111213141516 Dear nor. Campbell. I am writing to you in response to your request for comments regarding the Negative Dee larationofthe G -1 Policy Amendments. I represent Harbor Pieta hills South horneow?lers Association as City Tree Chairperson. Our association is a view coatmunity composed of 449 homes in Corona del Nlar. A ?i e would like to express our sopport of the Negative Declaration in regard to the G -I Policy. Our experience has proven that the G -1 Policy Amendrricnts will have a significant positive eff-,ct on the environment. In 1993 and 1999, HVHS became the first. Newport Beach I- Ionteowners Association to participate in a reforestation effort using the G -I Policy, ilte 24" box trees required under the G -I Policy in effect at that time have grown rapidly and are healthy and attractive Lz our neighborhood. Indeed, our hottteowmers have been so pleased with the B new trees that many have asked to add, replace andlor reforest existing trees in their parkways. Additionally, we have been able to shape new trees to be beautiful at a height Ix:low the roofline in our contrttnnity of mostly one -story houses and preserve the valuable views in our, community. At the last Ciri- Council Meeting concerning the G -I Policy, Kathy Young, Cameo Shoes and T-lighlands .Association, stated that sire heard a speech by Robert Sarrtus, the Los Angeles Tiuncs garden expert. In this speech he wamcd of the folly of trying to C squeeze large size trees into narrow parkways. He explained that large trees have larger, oaten tangled roots that prevent good growth. Younger trees establish themselves quicker; produce a suonger any produce a stronger rool system and ultimately stronger and fuller 7yoNv,h. This has Ladeed been our experience in Harbor View Ifills South. Bruce Hageii, Urban Forest Specialist for the California Deparllne;nt of Forestry and Fire Protection addressed this matter %o. the open forum section of California Trees; Exploring Issues in Urban Forestrv. Spring 1991 He states that, " trees are routinely topped when D t_`trt- block sic«' >, interline with buildings or shale areas where sunlight is desire:]. At last topping is a tempos '' solution for oversized trees. He also states that, "Adequate height redo: tion can 'coIIIetim,:s he achieved bt tliiuning er the rertnoval of a -" branches. If lhcse remedies are nv: t satiefactor:, it is better to remote the tree and tep;ace it with one thmt has a smaller growth form." He ends his article by saying, " Father titan D (font.) rnaldna a tree conform to a small space; it is more prudent to plant trees that are appropriate to the given space." (f�rtiele enclosed) 'Ve are now proceeding with phase three of our reforestation. Both the City staff and the Parks 13eacbes and Recreation Commission supported our request of waiver for the 36" E box tree requiremez>t. This has enalivaged our homeoti�ners to beautify their parkwa }'s and many additional replacement trees have been requested. We believe the new amendments to the G -1 Policy will make it easier for the City to address the needs of individual communities and increase the size and attractiveness of F our urban forest while still preserving the valuable views in our city. We support the amendments and the Negative Declaration 53nCeCP,l }', i t "voone Houssels, City Tree Chairperson, HVHS Enc. 1 Pate ' of 3 From: PrUngbo', : w aol.com Sent: Tuesday. April 06, 2004 11:06 AM To: ,jcanipbel ha)city.necvport- beach. c a.its Cc: jocylittleshcll a!yahoo.cout; lonV ± a aol.cotn Subject: Proposed G -1 Policy changes Dear Mr. Campbell, We are wrong to say that the environmental assessment represented by the Neoative Declaratioe (Ned Dec), for the proposed G -1 Policy changes, is wholly inadequate, and that the value of the existing City street tre'. are being consistently understated. It is clear from the Neg Dec that the baseline conditions for the tree streetscape, and the environmental values that are represented by these trees, are not being adequately evaluated. The existing G -1 Policy has been used with success over the past several yeas, and the City should enforce the existing G-1 PohCy without the proposed changes that could lead to an excess of T'42 mature street trees being removed from the City's streets. The Neg Dec fais to adequately analyze baseline conditions, the values of the existing treescape, including the shade and cooling effects of the canopies of mature trees, the energy savings, habitat values, improvements to water quality, air quality, and aesthetics provided by mature trees, and the cumulative impacts of replacing large trees with small trees that do not provide the environmenta! benefits of large trees with canopies The aesthetic impact of replacing a Grand large tree with an inherently tiny tree is not addressed at all. In addition, the policy changes do not have an enforcement mechanism to ensure that the policy is actually enforced, and the Neg Dec is not a Ivilifigafted Neg Dec. so no mitigations for the loss of existing trees is being proposed Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist. 1, Aesthetics. Clearly the aesthetic of the trees will be significantly altered since large trees will be replaced by small trees. This item should be checked "Potentially Significant Impact ". Changes to the character of neighborhoods by tree removal or specie alteration should be assessed. III, .Air Quality. No analysis is given of the raplacemen` of 7,142 large trees with smaller trees vis -a -vis air quality IV. Biological Resources. No attempt is made to document sensitive bird species like the Great Blue Heron, which has been known to inhabit trees in the City o` Newport Beach. This policy also conflicts with the existing G- 1 Policy (item e) because it will lead to more tee removals than the existing policy. Impact to native species, territorial migratory or seasonal birds should be assessed. VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality. No mention of the amount of water absorbed by large tree canopies compa: ed to smaller trees is discussed. Laroe trees absorb substantially more rainfall. and therefore reduce urban runoff more than smaller trees. No discussion of this is made in the Neg Dec. XI, Noise• item c1. Ambient noise is better absorbed by large trees, thus this is a Potentially Significant Impact. XVII. Mandatory Findings of Significance- The project clearly has the potential to degrade_ the environment, because of the loss of larae mature trees and their canopies, and should be indicaied as such. The problems of the G -1 Policy in the past, such as the Balboa Ficus Tree fiasco, have been due to failure to enforce the existing CA Policy, not a failure of the G -1 Policy itself. Moreover mitigation of loss of large canopy trees is not adequately addressed. The volume of canopy of large existing trees should be compared with the small, if nonexistent canopies of the replacement trees, to determine adequate u)iligation It is not simply a matter of number of trees, but the size arid volume of the tree. that determines the value of trees. SDeCf Caly, We have the following concerns: 1. Special City Trees The existing G -1 Policy is more protective of Special City trees than the aroposed changes. The new oolicy substitutes larguage saying hardscape treatment for Special City Trees "should be considered" rather than the cucent language that states "stall be instituted•'. This diminishes the effort that the City will 11iC:::i': .!)OCi Hli i'n15',i!) '1L ".n =t) Utillt, < ;1C9tll ^I ?trll.l�CS }a i'j` }'�tip��SE'a�i>>(It i -1! n�Ot1�!hCl... 1.) -Vl) ..,()i.)4 TA JB Jc Its �- E �F �- H 1-1 T IL Page 2 of 3 undertake to preserve Special City trees, leading to losses of these trees, which are Supposed to be retained. There is no enforcement mechanism to protect Special City trees, which could be done with an ordinance L (cont.) protecting Special My Trees, ratherthan a policy. 2. Problem Trees. The new policy approves removal of up to 250 of these trees per year. whereas the current G- 1 Policy only removes trees actually causing repeated damage over an 18 month period. This policy change will cause many more. trees to be removed than currently. Loss of these trees will significantly impact aesthetics and M other benefits of trees. What is the current average removal rate of trees over the past 2 to 5 years'? All possible mitigation measures should be considered before removal and should be Included in any survey. 3. Ali Other Trees. The Neg Dec stales that up to 200 trees will be removed each year, while currently, only 10 -15 trees per year are being removed undercurrent criteria. The environmental impact of suzh large changes in the streetscape are not adequately addressed, especally since the replacement trees are much smaller than the N existing trees. What has been the removal rate of Other City Trees over the past 2 to 5 years? Local residents in the areas affected should have the last word in replacement trees or removal for cause. 4. Given past history, it s simply rot true that the "vast majority" of Reforestation requests are for Problem Trees (page 2-6). View Impairment has been the reason given most often for reforestation, of whatever tree is present. The size of canopy should be a requirement for replacement trees, rather than size of the box that the tree is grown in. An ultimately smali tree in a 3 6 inch box has less overall tree value than an ultimately larger tree in a 24 0 inch box. The mitigations won't be equal unless a multiple tree replacement is required, such as a 2 for 1, or 3 for 1, replacement ratio, which was an oidiral provision of the G -1 revision, but which was dropped. The Neg Dec should examine alternative mitigation strategies, such as 2 to 1 or 3 to 1 ratio for replacement trees, if the replacement trees have smaller canopies than the original trees. Annual tree trimming in view areas should be a high priority. 5. The provision of'wrong tree in the wrong place' on page 2 -5 has no precedent and is entirely subjective. and should be removed as a criteria for Reforestation. Thee is no scientific evidence that the replacement trees will be any better, given the lack of any scientific basis for determining which trees are on the Designated Tree List, P only a wnsultant's recommendation (Appendix A). What is the basis for the estimate of 10 trees par year falling under this provision? V✓nich trees in which location? This appears to be a subjectve rather than objective estimate. 6. Encroachment and Demolition Permits. What is the basis for an estimate of loss o 10 trees per year? Again, it Q appears to be a subjective rather than objective estimate. Which trees are being conscered for removal? Defineable diseased frees or trees which endanger public safety should be surveyed and targeted first. Under Section 3.0. Findings, Section 3.1, No Significant effect Finding. Under 1. Aesthetics. What about .he aesthetic of the individual trees themselves, or the aesthetic of Decole looking at and adrnii ing mature cty trees? p The Neg Dec seems only to consider vistas without the trees, and not the vistas provided by trees. Ever see a R postcard of a beach without a tree framing the view? Yearly growth projections for replaced trees should be addressed and supplied to the public. Under 3. Air Quality. Planting of trees has been actively pursued by the Air Resources Board and AOMD The loss of canopies piuvided by large trees 3 not acequately measured COmpafed to the small trees envisioned as them replacements. Under 4. Biological Resources. Sensitive Species like the Great Blue Heron use trees with large canopies as habitat. Loss of large trees in favor of small trees reduces bird habitat. Territorial destruction or removal of these habitats without having enough resources for specie relocation should be considered. Under 8. Hydrology and Water Quality. Large trees absorb many more gallons, Gke 700 galfcns of water a year more than the smaller trees and therefxe affect water cualiry and urban runoff. This is a significant impact I 1 because large trees are being removed Moreover, the roots of large trees absorb pnlhita-tts release] by broken U sewer pipes, thereby improving grourdwater quality. Under 11. Noise. Large existing trees with subs;antiai canopies absorb ambierf noise, hk.e the proverbial °quiet, V tree -lined suburban street." h3!! Schin_ s\ ii:: mpbe: fiPrskiop�f 'ro,poccd` :t_'0G- 1'o?CPolii.}.. 04:D 004 Page 3 of Under 17, Mandatory Findings of Significance. The Neg Dec. undervalues Aesthetics, Air Quality, Water Quality. W are Biological Resources, mainly because the difference between a large existing tree with a canopy is not distinguished from a small replacement tree with virtually no. or greatly diminished, canopy. Section 5.0, page 52. The estimate of 470 trees per year was never contemplated by the City's Tree Committee v X that reviewed the policy change, This amount of tree removal wil' drastically alter the aesthetics of the City, and is a significant aesthetic impact not addressed by the Neg Dec. Page 517. Canopies of trees such as the Hong Kong Orchid have riot reached anything near 20 -25 feet in Newport Beach. Where does this data came from? Is Newport Beach with its saline soil net conducive to optimal Y growth of the replacement trees? No consideration of soil type was made in the selection of Designated Tree List. Page 5-5. It is totally false to claim that the proposed prgjed would not have a long -tern significant impact on ttr Z City's visual character or quality. Page 5 -7 Air Quality. Trees were planted 30 years ago specifically to address air quality concerns. Removing A A these trees now defeat the original intent of the tree - planting programs. AA Page 5.4 Biological Resources. No mention is made of the potential use of the City's trees by the Great Blue p p Heron, among other species, which has been seen to occupy trees in Newport Beach because of the proximity to DD Newport Bay. Page 5 -13. Section 5.8, Hydrology and Water Quality. No mention is made of the significant beneficial impact of C C trees on water quality, ;ncluding absorbing rainfall, reducing urban runoff, and absorbing sewage in the soil. Page 5 -17, section 5.11 Noise. No mention is made of the beneficial impacts of mature trees absorbing ambient noise, and the loss of this benefit with the proposed project. This benefit, and loss of same, is totally ignored in the DD Neg Dec. Therefore, there will be a significant increase in ambient noise post- project. Fage 5 -22. item 5. The Neg Dec acknowledges increased removal rates and production of g-een waste. How EE much of an increase? What have been the removal rates over the past 5 years? Page 5 -23. Again, the Neg Dec totally ignores the significant impact of less of big mature trees in favor of the same number of smaller trees with small canopies. This is a significant cumulative impact that needs to quantified FF and addressed in the environmental assessment. Appendix A the Designated Tree List. When this list was developed a couple of years ago, no effort was made to determine the suitability or survivability of these trees in Newport 3each, given the variations in soil al<alinity and GG coastal location. Whether or not these trees do well in Newport Beach is untested, untried, and probably untrue. A scientific analysis should be done of these trees, or they may become "the wrong trees in the wrong place' Appendix C. Problem trees. Where did this list come from? Will proper maintenance incivaing root priming HH alleviate perceived pi oblems caused by these trees? This analysis should be presented in tie Neg Dec to determine accuracy. Thank you for the cpportuni'.y to comment on this issue. Sincerely, Ron & Anna Winship 34 Corsica Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 949 759 1868 {ile: �C:`. Docuutcvt :9- < ^_i!and"62il�ettir;er..ic niphcll '.Dcshtop'.I'rgpuse�'.'o''Oti 19uZOPolic�'... i?aiU �'O('14 Comment No.5 Campbell, James From: Katharine Young [ksyoung @post.harvard.edul Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 4:42 PM To: jcampbell @city.newport- beach.ca.us Subject: G -1 policy changes The Cameo Community (Cameo Shores and Cameo Highlands) continues to support A the needed changes to the G -1 policy. We hope the City Council will give it its speedy approval. Katharine Young phone 949 - 640 -6066 4601 Surrey Drive, Corona del Mar, CA 92625 fax: 949- 640 -6068 Comment No.6 Paae 1 of 1 Campbell, James From: Dubbietub @aol.com Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 5:06 PM To: jcampbell @city.newport - beach.ca.us; JonV3 @aol.com Subject: Trees: G1 Policy and Negative Declaration Dear Mr Campbell I would like to comment on the City's Negative Declaration concerning the changes to the G1 tree policy. Considering the magnitude of the change from the old G1 policy to the new /recent G1 policy , reality must conclude, and I must concur , that a "negative declaration" is inadequate . You have received Dr Vandersloot's A response to your "negative declaration ". Not to repeat verbatim his assessment; suffice it to say, I agree with him. Fi It must not be that so many trees could be condemned without due process. Is it true that it has never been toldlexplained why this new policy is better for the City ?. Its is incomprehensible , for one , that the removal of so much life -(the trees) - that removes CO2and exhales oxygen -would be better for the people of this city. Says who and why? What could be bad with abundant shade and habitat? Please reconsider more thoroughly addressing this important matter with just a negative declaration , just ticking B some boxes on a few sheets of paper. The City's quality and sustainability of life require much more. Thanking you for your consideration and including my comments Sincerely, Larry Porter - 2712 Cliff DR , Newport Beach 92660 Tel# 949 722 9166 & fax 949 722 9166 RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTER NO. 1 VAN BLARCOM, LEIBOLD, MCCLENDON AND MANN ON BEHALF OF THE BALBOA ARBOR SOCIETY APRIL 69 2004 Response to Comment A: This comment summarizes a provision of the Settlement Agreement between Balboa Arbor Society (BAS) and the City of Newport Beach and raises no issues related to the Negative Declaration. Therefore, no further response is necessary. Response to Comment B: The City of Newport Beach is considering an action that would amend a City Council Policy. The comment implies that since the G -1 policy is not enforceable by judicial action, no CEQA compliance was called for. The City, however, wishes to consider, in the course of formulating its policy amendments, whether these amendments might potentially have any adverse environmental impacts. The impact analysis is based upon the reasonably foreseeable results of implementation of the policy as amended. This is not speculative, but based on expert analysis and the historic record of the City and its past practices. The intent of Policy G -1 is to guide the City's urban forest management practices in the long -term, and the City has sought to address the updating of its policy in the context of the potential impacts. The Initial Study, Negative Declaration, and related analyses were completed in order to provide helpful and relevant information regarding reasonably foreseeable environmental effects to the decision- makers and members of the public in evaluating the proposed revisions. The City believes that this is the most prudent and conservative approach to compliance with CEQA and has prepared the Initial Study and Negative Declaration in the spirit of public disclosure and enlightened policymaking. Response to Comment C: Regarding the commentor's assertion that the Negative Declaration document is "little more than a `naked CEQA checklist "', the document contains 36 pages of text, exclusive of the checklist itself, that provide extensive detail on the project features that could potentially result in environmental effects and responses to each and every question contained in the checklist, including those cited in this comment. In fact, the remaining statements made in this comment appear to summarize information contained in the Project Description of the document, although the comment mischaracterizes the provisions of the G -1 Policy amendments. ATTAGKTEAT L Response to Comment D: The commentor complains that the Negative Declaration contains insufficient "citation" and "documentation." The comment is not accurate. The Negative Declaration includes several references and appendices. In addition, the analysis and level of detail of the discussion contained in the Negative Declaration represents the best available information regarding the potential impacts of the action, based on what is currently known and based on the experience of the City having been responsible for actively managing the urban forest under the G -1 Policy for nearly forty years. As part of their experience managing the urban forest, the City has created and maintained an inventory of City Trees, including the location, species, size and number of all trees within public rights -of -way, or on City -owned land. The inventory is a public document and is available for inspection during regular City business hours. For purposes of convenience, additional copies of the inventory and other related materials will be provided at the scheduled public hearing on the proposed action. In addition, the City has expended great efforts in compiling inventories of trees that are considered to be Problem Trees, based on the experience of the City of documented problems and public safety hazards created by trees of the same species and growth habits. The inventory of Problem Trees has been provided as Appendix C of the Negative Declaration. Further detail regarding the experience and expertise of staff who provided information that was used in the evaluation of impacts in the Negative Declaration is as follows: John Conway is the City's Urban Forester. His experience, expertise, and professional responsibilities, includes 32 years of Urban Forest Management experience, 16 years of which has been with City of Newport Beach. Mr. Conway is a Certified Arborist ( #0231) by International Society of Arboriculture for the past 18 years, and is one of the first certified arborists in California when the licensing program began. Mr. Conway has had four years of technical Urban Forest Management training from Cal Poly, Pomona, and has managed and developed the Urban Forestry Program for three cities including Newport Beach. Mr. Marcelino G. Lomeli is the City's Parks and Trees Superintendent. His experience, expertise, and professional responsibilities include 26 years for experience with three cities (West Covina, Beverly Hills, and Newport Beach) managing citywide parks systems and urban forestry programs. Mr. Lomeli served as a Park and Recreation Commissioner for the City of LaVerne for four years. One major task of the commission was the development of a citywide Urban Forestry Program that included a designated street tree list. Mr. Lomeli has also served as Founder and Board of Regent for five years of the Pacific Southwest Maintenance Management School. In this capacity, he was responsible for developing curriculum that included urban forestry. The school is currently in its 18 "' year with 150 students attending from federal, state and local governments. In addition, the expertise of the consulting firm, Dudek and Associates, that was hired by the City to prepare the Negative Declaration is highlighted as follows: Mr. Thomas A. Larson is a Certified Arborist ( #WC602) and a Registered Consulting Arborist ( #389). Mr. Larson has over 30 years of experience in urban and community forestry with an emphasis in ecosystem management. His work experience includes urban forest assessments, community forest management plans, tree inventories, and tree protection plans. Mr. Larson served on the State of California Urban Forestry Advisory Council Executive Board, one of twelve appointed professionals who advise the State's Director of Forestry and Fire Protection on urban and community forestry matters. Mr. Larson is the Founder of the Tree Society of Orange County, past president of the Orange County Natural History Association and he presently serves as the academic advisory chairman for the Forestry and Natural Resources Department of Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. Mr. Michael S. Huff is also a Certified Arborist ( #WC4276), a Certified Forester, and a member of the Society of American Foresters ( #1268). Mr. Huff is an experienced arborist, forester, and biologist with 12 years of experience in this field. He manages large urban and community forestry planning projects including forest and tree inventories, impact analysis studies, urban - wildland interface fire management plans, tree hazard evaluations, Urban and Community Forest Management Plans, and tree management and preservation plans. Mr. Joseph Monaco has a professional background that includes a master's degree in City Planning, and 17 years of experience in environmental planning, specializing in preparation of environmental impact studies. Mr. Monaco member of the American Institute of Certified Planners and has prepared over 200 environmental documents pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. The analysis presented in the Negative Declaration is based on the best available information, and on the expert opinions and analysis of City Staff who are responsible for management of the urban forest, based on their years of training and experience. As such, the City believes that the analysis provided is as comprehensive and detailed as possible, and represents a reasonable estimation of environmental effects that could result from the proposed action. The comment also cites provisions of the CEQA Guidelines that are of limited applicability where, as here, the project is the approval of a generalized policy (see Guidelines section 15146) and the determination has been made that a Negative Declaration rather than an EIR is appropriate (see Guidelines section 15071 [contents of a negative declaration]). Response to Comment E: Regarding the statement that "newly planted replacement trees have succeeded in establishing themselves with great success ", the following are recent successful reforestation efforts where replacement trees have established successfully, based on the opinion of staff and of the homeowners requesting the reforestation (see Comment No.3 (B))> a) Harbor View Hills Community Association- (2 1) Hong Kong Orchids and Magnolias b) Corona Del Mar— (180) Hong Kong Orchids and King Palms C) Balboa Peninsula- (46) Eucalyptus trees on Main Street d) Harbor View Hills South Homeowners Association — (142) Orchids and Magnolias Regarding how the city determined "appropriate" replacement trees, see Response to Comment No. 2 (Q). The relationship of replacement trees to potential environmental impacts associated with "the loss of mature trees, larger trees, trees with greater canopy, established trees, biologically significant trees" is documented in detail in the Negative Declaration, in particular in Sections 5.1 and 5.4, the discussions related to Aesthetics and Biological Resources, respectively. The methodology for determining the number of trees that are anticipated to be removed with implementation of the amended G -1 Policy is clearly established and explained in Section 2.3 and in Section 5.1(b) of the Negative Declaration. For clarification purposes and to assist the City Council in understanding the context of the comment in light of the information provided to the public in the Negative Declaration, excerpts from the Negative Declaration that are related to the calculation of potential tree removals are provided below: Section 2.3 — Special Trees: It is not anticipated that this change (elimination of the requirement to install "Special Hardscape ") would result in an increase in removals of Special Trees, because the other procedures for removal of Special Trees are unchanged including the need for Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission approval. In addition, it should be noted that provisions of the existing G -1 Policy (Appendix B to the Negative Declaration) that remain relatively unchanged by the amendments, require specific procedural considerations for the protection of Special Trees, as follows: Special Trees shall be retained, unless there are overriding problems, such as death, disease, or the creation of a hazardous situation, which require their removal. Prior to consideration for any removal of a Special Tree(s), the General Services Director, or designee, shall prepare a report identifying and implementing specific treatment to retain the tree(s). If specific treatment is unsuccessful or impractical in retaining a tree(s) then a full staff report shall be made to the Commission before ally fiu-ther action considering removal is taken. Prior to arzp removal of Special Tree(s), the City must comply with the noticing provisions of the Removal of City Trees section set forth in this Policy, unless a Special Tree is considered hazardous that necessitates an emergency removal. Any such removal must be recommended by the General Services Director and the Risk Manager and approved by the City Rlaragev. Section 2.3 — Problem Trees: i Features of the proposed revisions to the Policy that provide restrictions on removal of Problem Trees include the following: • No more than 250 Problem Trees map be removed per Year by staff under the proposed criteria without special approval of the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission. • In removals involving trees that are resulting in damage and /or drainage impediments, no more than one of three parkway trees in a continuous row may be removed within a three year period without a hearing before the Commission. In such cases replacement of Problem Trees would be pursued iffunding is available. • Replacement of Problem Trees resulting in a view impediment and removed pursuant to an application by a homeowner is required at a 1:1 ratio and is the responsibihio, of the applicant. • Any Problem Tree that is also a Special Tree may not be removed under this Section of the Policy. In addition the Policy provides that authority to remove a Problem Tree rests with the City Manager. The adjacent property owner, homeowner's association and councilmember of the district where the tree is located are noticed prior to removal. At least one councilmember can call the City Manager's decision to remove a Problem Tree for review. Section 2.3 — All Other Trees: Because all other procedures and limitations on All Other Tree removals remain unchanged, the City's Urban Forester has estimated that, based upon his knowledge of City tree inventory and past tree removal requests, tree removals resulting from the proposed All Other Tree Policy amendments will not exceed 200 trees per year. It should be noted that this is an extremely conservative (high) estimate, based on past. experience. In recent years, All Other Tree Removals have proceeded at a rate of approximately 10 to 15 trees per year. Section 2.3 — Reforestation: The minimum size of replacement trees installed pursuant to the Reforestation provisions would be reduced fr•orn 36" to 24" boxed size..... The reduction in size of the replacement trees will increase by 12 to 18 months the amount of time until replacement trees reach maturity, but 24 ° specimens are still large enough to provide a reasonably equivalent canopy size to 36" box specimens. Section 2.3 - Encroachment and Demolition Permits: Policy amendments would require staff approval prior to issuance of a permit, provided provisions of Council PolicyL -2, Driveway Approaches and L -6, Private Encroachments In Public Rights -of -Way are met. These Policy provisions would result in loss ofappr•oxirnately 10 treesperyear•. The estimate for the number of trees anticipated to be affected by Encroachment and Demolition Permits is based on past urban forest history, demolition permit history, and the review process. Through the review process tree retention is emphasized, however, in some cases tree removals have occurred, but have not exceeded 10 per year in recent years. Section 2.3 - Supplemental Tree Trimming: The current Policy requires consideration of reforestation when supplemental tree trinuning has occurred more than twice within a one year period. This change would not increase the number or• frequency of tree removals because it would actually increase the threshold for consideration of reforestation. Section 5.1(b), (Estimation of tree losses overall): On a City -wide level, the project could result in a potentially higher number of trees to be removed and replaced. The actual number of trees that could be removed - would depend on specific circumstances surrounding individual tree problems, as well as funding constraints. However, for purposes of this analysis, the City has made a good faith estimate of the maximum number of additional trees that would be removed under the revised Policy, per year for a least the first two years of Policy implementation. That estimate includes the following: • 250 Problem Trees per year • 200 All Other Trees per year • 10 Reforestation per year • 10 Demolition Process (Policies L-2, L -6) peryear • Total 470 trees per year It should be noted that in both the Problem Tree and All Other Tree Categories, while the policy amendments could result in removals of up to the maximum per year, it is anticipated that that rate would taper off after the first one to two years and likely fluctuate at the lower historical average level of 200 per year after that time fi•arne. With the reasonable application of the Policy amendments in the context of overall Policy provisions not more than 470 trees would be removed annually. Ii'hen considered in relation to the totaIn rmber of trees in the City's urban forest, over the next two years, potential tree removals would represent less than 3 percent of the City's urban forest. Response to Comment F: See Response E. It is unclear what the commentor means by "This approval is `special' in the sense that the approval is not necessary for continuous tree removals where the G -1 policy is simply advisory and has no effect of law." Without a clarification of the meaning of this comment, it is difficult to provide any further response. The G -1 Policy h one of many statements of policy adopted by the City Council. While the policy does not have the effect of law, it does give direction to staff and the City PB &R Commission on the City Council's policy for management of the Urban Forest. The Policy undergoes extensive public review before adopted by the City Council and staff is expected to follow its procedures in implementing the policy. Response to Comment G: The 31,500 City Trees referenced in the Negative Declaration is based on a physical inventory of City Trees conducted and maintained by the City, and as such represents facts that are a matter of public record, as noted in Response D (see also Response J regarding the generalized number of 31,000 versus the actual number 31,500). The comment is not correct in its assertion that the Negative Declaration "convolutes the issue of City trees and private trees." The impacts of the Policy, and the statement that the removals would constitute approximately 3 percent of the tree inventory, are based on the publicly owned trees only. However, the Negative Declaration includes additional information about private trees for helpful context. Section 2.2 states that: To understand the context within which this analysis is framed, it is important to note that a substantial number of trees that contribute to the overall urban forest within the city exist on private lands. This information is provided to help the reader understand that the Policy will only apply to those trees within the City rights -of -way and within City owned land, which comprises only a portion of the overall urban forest. It should also be noted that the commentor mischaracterizes the context of the discussion by saying that the Negative Declaration "concludes that `when viewed in context of the overall urban forest,' potential impacts of the G -1 Policy amendments are insignificant." In fact, the Negative Declaration (at Section 2.2) states the following: Therefore, while potential iinpacts associated with the G -1 Policy changes are discussed with respect to the inventory of city trees only, the effects of the Project, when viewed in the context of the overall urban forest, will be less than discussed in this analysis. (emphasis added) Nowhere in the document is it stated or implied that a comparison of the loss of trees associated with the G -1 Policy would be considered insignificant by virtue of the existence of other (privately owned) trees within the urban forest. In addition, the commentor incorrectly states that the overall urban forest (including trees on private property) was used as a baseline for the analysis. The Negative Declaration clearly states that the baseline for analysis is the inventory of City Trees. Regarding the issue of cumulative impacts, removal of trees on private property do not involve any discretionary action on the part of the City, or any other public agency, and are therefore not considered to be "Projects" under the definition provided in Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines. As such, consideration of private tree removals is outside the proper scope of the Negative Declaration, and any such discussion would be completely speculative. The City's best available information indicates that property owners in the City highly value their trees and that there is no immediate danger of any significant rise in private tree removals in the wake of adoption of G -1 amendments. Regarding the appropriate discussion of cumulative impacts, as noted in the discussion provided in Section 5.17(6) of the Negative Declaration, the analysis provided in the document does represent an analysis of all reasonable foreseeable past, present and future projects, since the proposed amended G -1 Policy is applicable citywide. Response to Comment H: The City disagrees with the commentor's first unsupported statement and believes that there is substantial evidence in light of the whole record that the aesthetic impacts associated with implementation of the G -1 Policy, as amended, would be less than significant, by virtue of the level of impacts anticipated, and impact- reducing features that are incorporated into the project. These facts are home out by the analysis contained Section 5.1 of the Negative Declaration. The comment states that: "As noted above, the Negative Declaration establishes view impediments as a basis to remove trees. View impediment has nothing to do with the established `goal of the policy'." This comment appears to relate to the actual provisions of the Policy, not the environmental analysis contained in the Negative Declaration. The commentor then proceeds to draw the inappropriate and unsupported conclusion that the City has a "motivation to address view impediments ". The remaining discussion in this comment is related to trees as view impediments. However, nowhere in the Negative Declaration is it stated that trees are considered to be "view impediments" in the context of the visual impact discussion. On the contrary, the Negative Declaration considers the tree to be the visual resource, and its removal to be the impact. The explanation of the methodology for conducting the aesthetic impact analysis is clearly explained in Section 5.1 of the Negative Declaration. The commentor's reference to the cited case is therefore not relevant to this project. Response to Comment I: While the Negative Declaration does make the statement that the project would have benefits to view neighborhoods, this is made in the context of applicability of the G -I Policy to requests by homeowners for tree removals that are blocking views. It is not made in the context of being an impact- reducing feature or "mitigation" for aesthetic impacts. Further, the commentor states that a view neighborhood is not defined, nor does it relate to the Project Description. The City does not believe that a specific definition of a view neighborhood is warranted in the context of the environmental analysis. As it is referenced in the Negative Declaration, a view neighborhood is simply a neighborhood with a view. The commentor is correct in stating that view neighborhoods are not intrinsically related to the Project Description, the Project goals or the potential Project impacts. Nor is the issue of view neighborhoods intrinsically related to the analysis of environmental impacts of the G -1 amendments in the Negative Declaration. Response to Comment J: The commentor is apparently attempting to suggest confusion where the document provides reasonable clarity. The difference between 31,000 and 31,500 is the result of approximation made in the introduction of the document, compared to a more precise figure provided in the more detailed analysis of the Project. As noted in Response G, the distinction between the 31,500 City Trees and the roughly estimated 60,000 private trees within the City is made sufficiently clear to a reasonable interpretation. Response to Comment K: First, it is important to note that tree replacement that may occur under the policy is not "mitigation" of adverse impacts under CEQA. The Negative Declaration discusses replacements in the context of being an impact- reducing feature of the project. Second, the commentor outlines a methodology for evaluating aesthetic impacts and implies that the Negative Declaration fails to apply such methodology. In fact the methodology described by the commentor is substantially the same as that used in the analysis. Therefore, it is not clear how the commentor can conclude that the analysis in the Negative Declaration is "conclusory". In comparing the visual conditions before and after removal of a "typical' tree, and replacement with a worst -case (smallest canopy /slowest growth rate) replacement tree, the Negative Declaration quantifies the effect in terms of canopy size and time that will elapse before the replacement tree reaches a size similar to the tree that would be removed. The commentor correctly notes that in certain circumstances, and at the request of homeowners within view neighborhoods as part of a reforestation application made by homeowners, replacement of trees that are removed may be tailored to suit neighborhood preferences and thus may result in reduced tree canopies. It should be noted that where Reforestation requests affect multiple properties, the Residential communities, neighborhoods, or business organizations who apply for reforestation must submit a petition signed by a minimum of 60% of the property owners within the area defined for reforestation. As noted in the analysis presented in Section 5. 1, most of the Problem Trees that are associated with view neighborhoods have substantially altered canopies, that do not represent natural growth habits, nor do they represent typical aesthetic conditions for the given species of tree. The canopies have been altered as a result of efforts by the City to maintain views, at the requests of homeowners. Therefore, as noted in the Negative Declaration, the typical change in aesthetic conditions within a view neighborhood resulting from tree removals represents a lesser aesthetic impact than the "typical" situation analyzed in the document. Contrary to the comment, the impact analysis of the Negative Declaration is not based on the perspective of view neighborhoods. The Negative Declaration at Section 5.1 clearly establishes the baseline for aesthetics analysis to be existing trees, not existing or potential views from view neighborhoods (See also Responses H and I above). Response to Comment U The commentor indicates that a fair argument can be made that tree removals would exceed the 3 percent figure that was determined as a result of the analysis in the Negative Declaration. However, no evidence is offered in support of this statement. In contrast, the Negative Declaration at Section 5.1(b) (and as further noted in Response G) provides support for a reasonable estimation of potential tree loss under the amended G -1 Policy. The commentor also states that a fair argument can be made that the 3 percent citywide loss "has no relationship to determining whether a particular loss of trees results in significant aesthetic impacts." As support for this purported fair argument, the commentor cites the loss of ficus trees on Main Street. In consideration of this comment, it is first important to note that significance determinations made under CEQA are based on significance thresholds that are recognized by the Lead Agency. In this case, the City used significance thresholds as they are outlined in the Initial Study Checklist questions, contained in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The City considers these thresholds to be appropriate and sufficient thresholds for purposes of analyzing effects of a Project. With that being said, it is also important to note that aesthetic considerations are by nature, subjective. The specific questions outlined in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines attempts to objectify standards that represent a reasonable measure of aesthetic impacts. Because of the subjective nature of aesthetics, all trees including trees ranging in aesthetic character from the Main Street ficus trees referenced in the comment, to aggressively trimmed trees in view neighborhoods with canopies that do not reflect a natural appearance, are considered a visual resource. However, the removal and replacement of such trees, when viewed in the context of the CEQA thresholds for significance, and other features of the policy that would provide for impact avoidance or minimization, does not rise to the level of significance. Therefore, what the commentor appears to believe is a fair argument that would warrant additional review under CEQA, is merely an argument that trees have aesthetic value. That fact is not disputed by the Negative Declaration, and in fact, is the basis for the analysis of aesthetic impacts. The City agrees that trees have aesthetic value. The City also believes that the analysis of aesthetic impacts provided in the Negative Declaration, and evidence contained in the record as a whole supports the finding of no significant impact reached in the document. Response to Comment M: See Response L. Again it should be emphasized that the Negative Declaration did not impose tree replacement as a mitigation measure for impacts, it evaluated tree replacement policies that are part of the G -1 Policy amendments. Attachment A to these responses provides some recent historical perspective on the practice of tree replacements by the City. It should be noted that all categories of tree removals identified in the amended G -1 Policy include consideration for replacement. Response to Comment N: The commentor is once again attempting to imply failure on the part of the Negative Declaration to ensure "mitigation" where no such "mitigation" is required. The full citation from Section 5 that the commentor references is important to note for clarification purposes: Impacts related to removal of All Other Trees are considered by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Committee through a discretionary process that is open to the public. Because the Committee will consider and weigh the specific circumstances associated with each tree removal and will have the ability, to direct actions to minimize impacts associated with the loss of individual trees, and because the number of All Other Trees removed in a given location would not be substantial, no significant aesthetic impacts would result from All Other Tree removals under the revised policy. Future PB &R considerations are reasonably characterized by the Negative Declaration as simply one of several impact avoiding features that are contained in the G -1 Policy. Response to Comment O: As noted throughout the Negative Declaration and these responses, sufficient and reasonably detailed technical and factual information was relied upon for the analysis contained in the Negative Declaration. The City believes that the Negative Declaration adequately addresses all of the reasonably foreseeable environmental effects that could result from implementation of the Project (please also see Response B). RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTER NO. 2 JAN D. VANDERSLOOT APRIL 6, 2004 Response to Comment A: The comment consists of the speculative, unsupported, not reasonably foreseeable assertion that the policy revisions "could lead to" removal of 7,142 mature street trees. In addition, this comment raises no specific issues relative to the Negative Declaration, and therefore, no further response is provided. Response to Comment B: The City disagrees with the generalized and unsupported statement contained in this comment and believes that the Negative Declaration fully complies with the requirements of CEQA. Response to Comment C: The Negative Declaration contains a thorough analysis of aesthetic impacts in Section 5.1 of the document. Please also refer to Response to Comment No. 1 (B), for further discussion regarding the baseline used in the analysis. Response to Comment D: Responses to this comment are provided as follows: The Neg Dec fails to adequately anaivze baseline conditions, including the numbers, sires and species of existing trees.... See Response to Comment No. 1 (G). The value of existing trees, including the shade and cooling effects of the canopies of mature trees, the energy savings ... As noted in Section 5.1 of the Negative Declaration, the analysis comparing canopy dimensions between typical existing trees and replacement trees is based on typical assumptions, since there is no specific tree removal(s) that is associated with the proposed amendments. It is therefore not possible for the environmental analysis to quantify any increases in energy demand that would result from the loss of shade or cooling effects that would result from a specific removal, and such analysis would be speculative. The speculative nature of such an analysis is particularly notable in light of the fact that the amended G -1 Policy applies citywide, and therefore, impacts are considered on a cumulative basis, in the context of the entire urban forest. Habitat values.... See Response G, below. Improvements to water quality.... See Responses H and V, below. Air quality ..... See Response F, below. Cumulative impacts of replacing large trees with small trees that do not provide environmental benefits of large trees with canopies. The commentor incorrectly states that the aesthetic impact of replacing a large tree with a smaller tree is "not addressed at all." In fact, Section: 5.1 of the Negative Declaration contains an analysis that is based on precisely the comparison that the commentor claims is lacking. In comparing the visual conditions before and after removal of a "typical' tree, and replacement with a worst -case (smallest canopy /slowest growth rate) replacement tree, the Negative Declaration quantifies the effect in terms of canopy size and time that will elapse before the replacement tree reaches a size similar to the tree that would be removed. As noted above and in the discussion provided in Section 5.17(b) of the Negative Declaration, the amended G -1 Policy is applicable citywide, and as such, the analysis provided in the document does represent an analysis of all reasonable foreseeable past, present and future (cumulative) projects. Regarding the enforceability of the G -1 Policy, issues related to CEQA compliance are addressed in Response to Comment No. 1 (B). Response to Comment E: The Negative Declaration in Section 5.1 (b) provides an extensive analysis and explanation of the relationship of the project to the thresholds for significance taken from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (the CEQA checklist referred to in this comment). The City believes that the Negative Declaration provides an impact analysis that is based upon the reasonably foreseeable results of implementation of the policy as amended, and fully complies with the requirements of CEQA. Aesthetic impacts were identified as less than significant because the analysis supported such a conclusion. Response to Comment F: This comment is premised on the continued speculative, unsupported assertion that the policy revisions "could lead to" the removal of 7,142 trees. The City is not representing that trees do not provide air quality benefits. However, the analysis contained in the Negative Declaration is based in the specific questions contained in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Specifically with respect to air quality, Appendix G considers an impact significant if the project would: • conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. • violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. • result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). • expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. • create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Substantial evidence in light of the whole record to support the finding of no significant impact, based on these specific thresholds, is provided in the discussion contained in Section 5.3 of the Negative Declaration. Response to Comment G: The comment incorrectly states that "No attempt is made to document sensitive bird species." The Negative Declaration in Section 5.4(a) does acknowledge that while ornamental trees are not considered to be natural habitats, the urban forest does provide some benefits to bird species and their nests within the City. However, the Negative Declaration concludes that, based on the level of anticipated impacts, including impact reducing features of the project, that the impact to bird species would be less than significant. Response to Comment H: The commentor draws erroneous conclusions regarding the relationship between evapotranspiration rates of large trees versus smaller trees, and urban runoff. Trees absorb water from the root zone, a process which requires water to be absorbed into the soil prior to being taken up through the root system. Urban runoff is generally considered to be surface water that has not yet been absorbed into the soil. Therefore, it is not logical, nor reasonable to suggest that large trees "reduce urban runoff more than smaller trees." Additionally, as noted in Section 5.8 of the Negative Declaration, the project would not increase the amount of impermeable surfaces, would not interfere substantially with groundwater recharge and would not involve substantial alteration of the existing drainage patterns of any tree removal or replacement site. Response to Comment I: The Negative Declaration at Section 5.11 provides a complete analysis of potential impacts related to noise that could result from the project. Significance of impacts was determined based on thresholds identified in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The analysis is based on the noise impact that could result from the action itself, and whether noise levels generated by the project would exceed established noise standards. There is no feature of the project that would have the ability to substantially increase ambient noise levels. Response to Comment J: A comparison of typical canopies of mature trees to typical canopies of replacement trees is provided in Section 5.1 of the Negative Declaration. As noted in Section 5.17 of the Negative Declaration specifically responding to the threshold question identified in the CEQA Guidelines (Appendix G), the project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. No impacts to important examples of major periods of California prehistory or history are anticipated. Response to Comment K: See Response to Comment No. I (B). This comment does not provide any specific information relative to the Negative Declaration, and therefore no further response is provided. Response to Comment L: A comparison of typical canopies of mature trees to typical canopies of replacement trees is provided in Section 5.1 of the Negative Declaration. It should be noted that replacement of trees lost as a result of implementation of the G -I Policy is not considered to be mitigation in the context of CEQA, but rather, features of the project that have impact- reducing effects. CEQA does not require that all impacts be eliminated or that pre - project conditions be completely restored, only that any significant impact be mitigated to a less than significant level. As noted in discussion in Section 5 of the Negative Declaration, no significant impacts, per the thresholds of significant established in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, have been identified. Response to Comment M: This comment appears to discuss provisions of the proposed amended G -1 Policy and to make comparisons to the existing G -1 Policy. Since this comment does not raise issues related to the Negative Declaration, no further response is provided. Response to Comment N: The Negative Declaration analyzes the potential loss of trees associated with amendments to the G -1 Policy that are referenced in this comment. Impacts associated with the loss of trees are documented in the Negative Declaration. In response to the question raised in this comment regarding the rate of removal of trees over the past 2 to 5 years, staff has prepared a summary of tree removals and replacement by fiscal year (Attachment A to these responses) to provide clarification to information provided in the Negative Declaration. Response to Comment O: See Response N. The City believes that the Negative Declaration adequately addresses all potential impacts of tree removals /replacements that can be attributed to the G -1 Policy amendments, in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. Response to Comment P: The commentor apparently confuses the reason for Reforestation requests with the type of tree typically associated with Reforestation requests. The Negative Declaration accurately states that the majority of Reforestation requests have involved removal and replacement of Problem Trees. The following is a summary of recent reforestation efforts, indicating the number and species of trees removed. As noted in this summary, all of the trees listed are Problem Tree species. a) Harbor View Hills South Homeowners Association — (68) Carrotwood and Brazilian Pepper trees b) Corona Del Mar— (106) Ficus nitida c) Balboa Peninsula- (26) Ficus nitida d) Harbor View Hills Community Association — (39) Ficus nitida Of the total trees which were removed under Reforestation provisions of the G -1 Policy (247 total trees), 97% or 239 trees have been Problem Trees and the remaining 3% (8 trees) were Lemon Gum trees (Eucalyptus citriodora). Response to Comment Q: See Response N regarding background for tree loss estimates. Regarding the appropriateness of species listed in the Designated Street Tree list, the list was adopted by the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission after public meetings conducted for input and comments. Then the list was formally adopted by the City Council. As additional background for purposes of clarification in response to this comment, the following information is provided regarding the basis for determining appropriate species of trees on the list. The Designated Street Tree list was based on the general characteristics that are found in Southem California and referenced in the text "Street Trees Recommended for Southem California," published by the Street Tree Seminar, Inc. This text was developed by that organization when it was created in 1956 (Last edition was published and revised in 1996) by tree professionals with a variety of related backgrounds to the management of street trees in both urban and rural areas of Southem California. Newport Beach has a diversity of all types of soils and consideration was given to soil types when composing the Designated Street Tree List. Response to Comment R: The estimate for the expected number of tree loss for encroachment and demolition permits is based on past urban forest history, demolition permit history, and the review process that emphasizes tree retention, however, in some cases tree removals have occurred, but not exceeded 10 per year in recent years. There are no current applications upon which the estimates are based, therefore, it is not possible to identify specific trees or specific locations. Response to Comment S: Contrary to the commentor's statements, the Negative Declaration considers the tree to be the visual resource, and its removal to be the impact. The explanation of the methodology for conducting the aesthetic impact analysis is clearly explained in Section 5.1 of the Negative Declaration which identifies baseline for aesthetics analysis to be existing trees, not "vistas without the trees" as the commentor states. Response to Comment T: See Response F. Response to Comment U: See Response G. Response to Comment V: See Response H. The City is unaware of any broken sewer lines, and if sewage were entering the groundwater from any such broken lines, the City would take the appropriate action to repair the lines. Response to Comment W: See Response I. Response to Comment X: See Responses J and D. Response to Comment Y: See Response E. The 470 trees that could potentially be affected by the project is a reasonable estimate based on the proposed amendments that was made for purposes of evaluating impacts under CEQA. Furthermore, the potential loss of trees from the proposed revisions was in fact contemplated by the Tree Committee by submittal of the July 10, 2003 Memorandum at its July 2003 meeting. Response to Comment Z: See Response Q. Hong Kong Orchids have been successfully established as replacement trees in Reforestation efforts in the Harbor View Hills Community Association, the Harbor View Hills South Homeowners Association and in Corona Del Mar. Response to Comment AA: See Response E. Response to Comment BB: The statement made in this comment does not have any basis in fact. Trees were planted based on grown potential, availability, and preference. There is no known support for the assertion that air quality concerns were considered in the choice of species, location or other factors involved in the planting of City Trees 30 years ago. Response to Comment CC: See Response G. Response to Comment DD: See Responses H and V. Response to Comment EE: See Response I. Response to Comment FF: The Negative Declaration states that the project may result in increases in the production of green waste as a result of increased removal rates, but that green waste would be recycled and therefore, impacts to municipal waste systems resulting from project implementation are not anticipated to be significant. The City recycles 100% of all tree trimmings and uses a large percentage on the medians and around trees as weed control. Logs are made into furniture such as the Castaways benches. Response to Comment GG: The discussion provided in Section 5.17(b) of the Negative Declaration, represents a cumulative impact analysis in that it considers all reasonable foreseeable past, present and future projects, since the proposed amended G -1 Policy is applicable citywide. Similarly, the specific issue of differences in canopy dimensions between existing trees and replacement trees is provided in Section 5.1. Response to Comment HH: See Response Q. Response to Comment I1: The Problem Tree list was developed from industry standards including the neighboring City of Costa Mesa as well as City claim and hardscape damage reports. Root pruning and proper maintenance depend on tree types, age, and location which may reduce and/or prolong problems. Root pruning is not always the solution since the integrity of the tree structure could be compromised or the area to root prune is confined. All of these considerations were made in developing the list of Problem Trees and overall in the amendments that have been drafted for the G -1 Policy. RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTER NO. 3 HARBOR VIEW HILLS SOUTH HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION APRIL 6, 2004 Response to Comment A: This comment expresses support for the proposed G -1 Policy amendments and raises no issues regarding the Negative Declaration. Therefore, no further response is provided. Response to Comment B: This comment provides the opinions of the commenter regarding the success of replacements trees and raises no issues regarding the Negative Declaration. Therefore, no further response is provided. Response to Comment C: This comment offers information supporting the use of smaller sized replacement trees as proposed in the amended G -1 Policy and raises no issues regarding the Negative Declaration. Therefore, no further response is provided. Response to Comment D: This comment offers information supporting the use of trees with smaller mature canopies in certain situations, as proposed in the amended G -1 Policy and raises no issues regarding the Negative Declaration. Therefore, no further response is provided. Response to Comment E: See response C. Response to Comment F: See Response A. RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTER NO. 4 RON AND ANNA WINSHIP APRIL 6, 2004 Response to Comment A: See Response to Comment No. 2 (B). Response to Comment B: See Responses to Comments No. 2 (A) and (C). Response to Comment C: See Response to Comment No. 2 (D). Response to Comment D: See Response to Comment No. 2 (E). The analysis provided in the Negative Declaration applies to typical trees in typical settings and does not address specific trees in specific neighborhoods. Such an analysis would not be possible since the precise location of trees that could be affected by the amended G -1 Policy are not known. The Aesthetics analysis provided in Section 5.1 of the Negative Declaration provides a reasonable estimation of impacts to the visual character of neighborhoods base on information that is currently available. Response to Comment E: See Response to Comment No. 2 (F). Response to Comment F: See Response to Comment No. 2 (G). Response to Comment G: See Response to Comment No. 2 (H). Response to Comment H: See Response to Comment No. 2 (I). Response to Comment I: See Response to Comment No. 2 (J). Response to Comment J: See Response to Comment No. 2 (K). Response to Comment K: See Response to Comment No. 2 (L). Response to Comment L: See Response to Comment No. 2 (M). Response to Comment M: See Responses to Comments No. 2 (N) and (II). Response to Comment N: See Response to Comment No. 2 (0). Response to Comment O: See Response to Comment No. 2 (P). Tree trimming in view neighborhoods is conducted on a regular basis, however as noted in the Negative Declaration at Section 2.3, the provisions of the Policy related to Supplemental Tree Trimming are proposed for modification to increase the threshold for consideration of removal /reforestation for certain trees where trimming is required or requested on a cycle that is more frequent than that specified in the standards of the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA). The proposed modifications require that the Urban Forester determine that Supplemental Tree Trimming is impractical or infeasible before reforestation can be considered. The current Policy requires consideration of reforestation when supplemental tree trimming has occurred more than twice within a one year period. This change would not increase the number or frequency of tree removals because it would actually increase the threshold for consideration of reforestation. Response to Comment P: See Response to Comment No. 2 (Q). Response to Comment Q: See Response to Comment No. 2 (R). The provisions of the amended Policy that relate to Encroachment and Demolition Permits are based on requests for removals, not on the relative health or condition of individual trees. Response to Comment R: See Response to Comment No. 2 (S). Estimations of growth rates for replacement trees are provided in Section 5.1 of the Negative Declaration. Response to Comment S: See Response to Comment No. 2 (T). Response to Comment T: See Response to Comment No. 2 (U). Response to Comment U: See Response to Comment No. 2 (V). Response to Comment V: See Response to Comment No. 2 (W). Response to Comment W: See Response to Comment No. 2 (Y). Response to Comment X: See Response to Comment No. 2 (Y). Response to Comment Y: See Response to Comment No. 2 (Z). Response to Comment Z: See Response to Comment No. 2 (AA). Response to Comment AA: See Response to Comment No. 2 (BB). Response to Comment BB: See Response to Comment No. 2 (CC). Response to Comment CC: See Response to Comment No. 2 (DD). Response to Comment DD: See Response to Comment No. 2 (EE). Response to Comment EE: See Response to Comment No. 2 (FF). Response to Comment FF: See Response to Comment No. 2 (GG). Response to Comment GG: See Response to Comment No. 2 (HH). Response to Comment HH: See Response to Comment No. 2 (II). RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTER NO. 5 CAMEO SHORES AND CAMEO HIGHLANDS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS APRIL 6, 2004 Response to Comment A: This comment expresses support for the proposed G -1 Policy amendments and raises no issues regarding the Negative Declaration. Therefore, no further response is provided. RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTER NO. 6 LARRY PORTER APRIL 69 2004 Response to Comment A: See Responses to Comments 2 (A) through (II). Response to Comment B: See Responses to Comments 1 (C). 4% WPOR T F > �C� FO rae� ATTACHMENT A TREE DIVISION Tree Removals and Plantings One tree removed for every 7.7 trees planted over the past 6 years, less than 1% of urban forest removed. *(23) Tree removal request ATTACxi1 N T 0 Trees Removed Trees Planted FY 2002 -03 52 (23)* 487 FY 2001 -02 12 540 FY 2000 -01 43 333 FY 1999 -2000 123 519 FY 1998 -99 26 310 FY 1997 -98 59 247 315 2,436 One tree removed for every 7.7 trees planted over the past 6 years, less than 1% of urban forest removed. *(23) Tree removal request ATTACxi1 N T 0 "RECEIV �D A ER AGENDA PRINTED:" a - a3 From: Niederhaus, Dave Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 7:10 AM To: Harkless, LaVonne Subject: FW: Proposed G -1 Tree Policy Amendments FYI - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Susan/Barry Eaton trnailtc:eaton7270earthlin }_.net] Sent: Sunday, April 2S, 2004 1:17 AM To: Adams, Gary; Ridgeway, Tod; Bromberg Steven; Heffernan John; Webb, Don; Nichols, Dick; Rosansky, Steven Cc: Bludau, F.omer; Hieaer aus, Dave Subject: Proposed G -1 Tree Policy Amendments Honorable Council members My HOA Board has hot taken a position on these proposed amendments; so I am writing this as an individual - but as one who as dealt constantly with tree /view issues for 5 years as President cf my HOA (Eastbluff). Eastbluff is one of the many HOAs in the City that have very definitive view protect -on provisions in our CC &Rs, which we enforce consistently; as I believe it is our fiduciary duty to do, on behalf of the majority of our 450 homes who have views that are becoming increas_ngly valuable to teir owners. Many of our owners have become very disappointed and disenchanted when they find cut what a cumbersome and bureaucratic process it -'s to try to have City street trees pruned, as compared to private trees in our community, that are governed by our CC &Rs. To the extent that the proposed G -= amendments wou-d make that process less cumbersome and more efficient, I believe that they are a much heeded improvement to t: ?:e G -1 policy. I have read the staff report, and the 14 attachments thereto; and I feel gnat the proposal represents a fair and balanced approach to an improvement of that policy. hope you will vote to approve the proposed amendments '°hank you for your cons'- deration, Barry Eaton April 20, 2004 Mayor Tod Ridgeway and Newport Beach City Council Members 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mayor and Council Members, We request that you approve the newly revised G -1 Policy. We are presently having new parkway trees planted in front of our homes using the 24" box trees called for in the revised G -1 Policy for view communities. We have found that this is an attractive and appropriate size for our parkways here in Harbor View Hills South. Thank you, HARBOR VIEW HILLS SOUTH HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION 17300 Redhill Avenue, Suite 210, Irvine, CA 92614 April 21, 2004 Mayor Tod Ridgeway and City Council Members City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Newly Revised G -I Policy, April 27 City Council Meeting Dear Mayor Ridgeway and Council Members: As City Tree Chairperson, I am writing to you on behalf of the Harbor View Hills South Homeowners Association (HVHS). Our association is a view community composed of 449 homes in Corona del Mar. We are requesting your approval of the newly revised G -I Policy. Our experience has proven that the G -I Policy Amendments will have a significant Positive effect on the environment. In 1998 and 1999, HVHS became the first Newport Beach Homeowners Association to participate in a reforestation effort using the G- I Policy. The 24" box trees required under the G -I Policy in effect at that time have grown rapidly and are healthy and attractive in our neighborhood. Indeed, our homeowners have been so pleased with the new trees that many have asked to add, replace and/or reforest existing trees in their parkways. Additionally, we have been able to shape new trees to be beautiful at a height below the roofline in our community of mostly one -story houses and preserve the valuable views in our community. At the last City Council Meeting concerning the G -I Policy, Kathy Young, Cameo Shores and Highlands Association, stated that she heard a speech by Robert Samus, the Los Angeles Times garden expert. In this speech he warned of the folly of trying to squeeze large size trees into narrow parkways. He explained that large trees have larger, often tangled roots that prevent good growth. Younger trees establish themselves quicker; produce a stronger any produce a stronger root system and ultimately stronger and fuller growth. This has indeed been our experience in Harbor View Hills South. Bruce Hagen, Urban Forest Specialist for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection addressed this matter in the open forum section of California Trees, Exploring Issues in Urban Forestry, Spring 1993. He states that, " trees are routinely topped when they block views, interfere with buildings or shade areas where sunlight is desired. At best topping is a temporary solution for oversized trees. He also states that, "Adequate height reduction can sometimes be achieved by thinning or the removal of a few branches. If these remedies are not satisfactory, it is better to remove the tree and replace it with one that has a smaller growth form." He ends his article by saying, " Rather than making a tree conform to a small space, it is more prudent to plant trees that are appropriate to the given space." (Article enclosed) We are now proceeding with phase three of our reforestation. Both the City staff and the Parks Beaches and Recreation Commission supported our request of a waiver for the 36" box tree requirement. This has encouraged our homeowners to beautify their parkways and many additional replacement trees are now being planted. We believe the new amendments to the G -1 Policy will make it easier for the City to address the needs of individual communities and increase the size and attractiveness of our urban forest while still preserving the valuable views in our city. We support the amendments and the Negative Declaration. Sincerely, Yvonne Houssels, Enc. I City Tree Chairperson, HVHS 00MM-1 fnlss ssues In Urban Forestry OPEN FORD ohY Are Trees Aped, By Bruce Hagen any professional azborists no longer include tree topping as a service and, in fact, resist consider It malprac- tice. Topping disfigures trees, leaving unsightly branch stubs and age, conspicuous Pruning curs that stimulate dense, broom - like branch growth, In addition, tree health, safety, and longevity are impaired. Nevertheless, topped trees continue to be a fairly common — and unpleasant- -sight in Califon• nia cities. Here's a look at the reasons, and the faulty reasoning, most frequently given for topping trees: Myth #I: Economy Perhaps,the mast common reason for topping Is a desire to save money. Ironically, topping is actually the most expensive way to prune trees. While it may be Cheaper to have a worker do that first "hatcher job" with a chain saw, once a tree is topped it must con- tinue to be pruned regularly and frequently to maintain desired size, shape, and safety. The cost of this repeated maintenance adds up quickly. Another in ipor. cant consideration is the immedi- ate lose of property value due, to a reduction in aesthetics, health, and longevity of topped trees, By comparison, properly , Pruned trees increase in value.. each year., and regular mainte- 1n__ance costs are lower over the U See Open Forum, Page 3 PHONE NO. : 949 6400120 Opan Forum. from TZ t long term. Many trees, ifprope, trained when young, require lit of no pruning when larger. So times all that is needed is light thinning or the removal of fc Poorly spaced branches. octa$i ally, heavier thinning is needed }lowever, once properly thine healthy tree may require no full Pruning for ten years or more. Considering that thinning main Wins natural shape, beauty, heal and property value, it is, in the long term, far more econornical than topping, Myth #2: Health Some tree owners mistakenly believe that the profuse growth o foliage and branches that follows toPPing is evidence of increased tree vigor. In reality, the tree is attempting to replace the lost leaves it needs to make the food r support itself. Topping removes all or most o the wood and buds that contain stored energy for new growth. This depletes the tree's.energy rm es, Increasing susceptibility to inseers anddiseasc. In some trees, new buds am slow to form and dieback or tree death results. In all cases,. Lopping shifts a tree's priority from growth to survival and repair. Myth M3: Height Reduction Trees are routinely topped when they block views, interfere with buildings, or shade areas where sunlight is desired. At best, topping is a temporary solucionfor oversized pees_ Most People do not realize that the sprouts of topped trees often grow back to their orig. inal height faster, than trees that have been properly pruned. Adequate height reduction can sometimes be achieved by thin- ning, or the removal of a few large branches. If these remedies are not satisfactory, it is better to remove the tree and replace it with one that has a smaller growth form. Select a replacement tree afce considering its potential height and spread at maturity, and its adaptability to the Planting site. Avoid planting trees where they will eventually interfere with utili- ty lines or other obstacles. With Tan. 21 2004 12:32PM P4 careful planning, problem Can be avoided. tic Myth +Q: Safety me• "rge trees are often topped because People consider them to " be unsafe. 7hcy fear the tree will °n" blow down or drop large branches. All too often, they consult an �' a untrained tree•trimmer her their neighbor's attempt at emulate P Pruning. Although topping may initially th, reduce a tree's hazard potential, it seldom corrects existing structural Problems, and often creates new ones. The new shoots that sprout up near topping cuts are weakly attached and prone to breakage as f additon,vtheir foliage is denser than that of normal branches,. making them less wind resistant. These facts often snake topped trees more hazardous than they O were before they were cur.' f Myth 05: Clearance Large rites are frequently s topped when they interfere with . overhead utility lines. Unfoitu- nately, this practice has become a necessary evil to prevent power outages and nee fires. It would bet - ler serve the interests of tree.. health, appearance, and economic to replace these misshapen trees which require continual pnrnln with lower- growing species. Ut iry companies in California have pro-. 'rioted proper tree selectiori for a some time now. (Call your local utility company or infomiadon.) Myth 08: Size Control Another reason cited for top- ping is, to keep a large tree small (e.g., fruitless mulberry, sycamore) by removing each year's new growth in a practice known as pol. lording. This requires yearly ptun- ing, which is expensive and time consuming. While some forma( gardens may cultivate this old - fashioned ornamental aesthetic, it doesn't makC much Sense on a street or park tree. Rather than making a tree conform to a small space, it is more prudent to plant trees that are appropriate to the given space. ■ Bruce Hagen Is an Urban Por. Pif Spec /el:sr nor fop CaI/rprrrl Deperrmsnf of Fo,osrry and Fire Pnoractlon. a April 20, 2004 Mayor Tod Ridgeway and Newport Beach City Council Members 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mayor and Council Members, We request that you approve the newly revised G -1 Policy. We are presently having new parkway trees planted in front of our homes using the 24" box trees called for in the revised G -1 Policy for view communities. We have found that this is an attractive and appropriate size for our parkways here in Harbor View Hills South. Thank you, Ms. Gladys Clark 3500 Seabreeze Lane Corom Del Mar, CA 92625 -1W ■ FROM PHONE NO. :aPR. 27 2004 11:58:?M Pl 6 s i G,•"t t. FI .. L Y too y, - • y �iY. � S \ If� y'' Now?ystx' Flqoltqpq,l F V LAI ov, Qww�k % Irk i pqww Ll pow., soo { Ile- zi ;f 1 L. J 0 'ILA onf Tk "Ir oil a �, i , .1. c I. r. PA _- I - of 44"'; ICA ♦ � � , mow,.,, _- 1 � _ �� •rte � ..tT� �� . . . . . . . •. . . . IrVi Nt 'Aw JZ if 40� AO �l 14 JOIN, 4e Own" All irk AN 777 - AN&WO A, #,) 3 RESOLUTION NO. 2004- 36 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING AND APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR REVISIONS TO THE CITY'S G -1 POLICY - RETENTION OR REMOVAL OF CITY TREES WHEREAS, the City Council, of the City of Newport Beach has reviewed the Initial Study and the Proposed Negative Declaration for revisions to the G -1 Policy — Retention or Removal of City Trees ( "G -1 Policy "), and all of the relevant information, including a staff report dated April 27,2004, all attachments to the staff reports, public presentations, the Negative Declaration, comments on the Negative Declaration, written responses to comments, public comments, and all other documents, reference, and writings made a part of the record for consideration of the revisions to the G -1 Policy and the Negative Declaration. Based upon its independent review of this record, the City Council now makes the following findings: At its meeting of March 11, 2003, the City Council, initiated review of its G -1 Policy. As part of the review process, the City Council directed the appointment of an Ad Hoc Committee to consider potential revisions to the Policy and consider whether the City Council should adopt an ordinance for protection of City Trees in place of the G -1 Policy. The Ad Hoc Tree Committee held �ublicly noticed workshops in 2003 on April 10, April 24, May 15, June 3, and July 15' . The Committee received and considered comments of members of the public and made recommendations to the City Council regarding proposed revisions to the G -1 Policy and based upon the information and comments received, recommended that the City's current Ordinances provided sufficient protection for City trees and that the G -1 Policy with the recommended revisions was an appropriate means for staff to administer the City's Urban Forest as it relates to City decisions for removal and retention of trees. 2. On August 26, 2003, the City Council, held a hearing at a regularly scheduled study session to consider the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Tree Committee. After public comments, the Council directed that the matter be returned to the Council at a regularly scheduled evening meeting. 3. On September 9, 2003, the City Council, held a hearing at a regularly scheduled meeting to consider further information regarding the revisions to the G 1 policy. After public comments were received the Council directed the Ad Hoc Tree Committee to consider additional issues raised at the meeting. The Ad Hoc Tree Committee held an additional publicly noticed workshop on October 7, 2003 and recommended the revisions contained in the October 8, 2003 draft revisions to the G -1 Policy. 4 Prior to City Council consideration of the October 8, 2003 proposed revisions recommended by the Ad Hoc Tree Committee, the firm of Dudek and Associates, Inc was retained to prepare the necessary environmental assessment under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 5. The Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City of Newport Beach and of the City Council. 6. Based on the whole record before the City Council, there is no substantial evidence that the proposed changes to the G -1 Policy will have a significant effect on the environment. NOW, THEREFORE, based on the foregoing findings and on the whole record, the City Council, hereby approves and adopts the Negative Declaration for revisions to the City Council's G -1 Policy. ADOPTED this 27'h day of April, 2004. ATTEST: YO R CITY CLERK `a STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH I, LaVonne M. Harkless, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California, do hereby- certify that the whole number of members of the City Council is seven; that the foregoing resolution, being Resolution -No. 2004 -36 was duly and regularly introduced before and adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting of said Council, duly and regularly held on the 27th day of April, 2004, and that the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit: Ayes: Heffernan, Rosansky, Adams, Bromberg. Nichols, Mayor Ridgeway Noes: Webb Absent: None Abstain: None IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the official seal of said City this 27th day of April, 2004. (Seal) yZ9 M 4 �� City Clerk Newport Beach, California