Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/15/2003 - Agenda PacketJULY 15, 2003 PB &R AD HOC TREE COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA PUBLIC INFORMATION The City of Newport Beach Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission Ad Hoc Tree Committee meeting scheduled for Thursday, July 10 has been RESCHEDULED to Tuesday, July 15, 2003, 7 -9pm at the General Services Training Room, 592 Superior Avenue, Newport Beach, CA 92663. AGENDA 1. Cal I 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 2 minutes per person. is 3. Minutes of the meeting of June 3, 2003. Waive reading of subject minutes, approve as written, and order filed. 4. Reports /Discussion regarding: • Regarding loss of tree impacts of proposed revisions to the G -1 Policy • Regarding City Tree Ordinance 13.08 5. Report regarding further revisions to the draft G -1 Policy. Committee discussion of draft G -1 Policy 6. Public testimony regarding the general areas or specific issues the Committee should consider during its review of Council Policy G -1 and Chapter 13.08 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and /or items 4 -5 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 9. Committee discussion, revisions if desired, and straw vote(s) and /or final recommendations to City Council on draft G -1 Policy and City Tree Ordinance 13.08. 10. Adjourn at 9pm. I +em 3 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Ills-103 Ad Hoc Tree Committee of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission June 3, 2003- 7pm 1. Called to order at 7pm ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Allen, Skoro, Tobin Staff: Marie Knight, Recreation 8 Senior Services Director David Niederhaus, General Services Director Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney Dan Ohl, Deputy City Attorney Teri Craig, Administrative Assistant 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON- AGENDA ITEMS - Director Niederhaus commented on the Cameo Shores tree trimming that was halted because residents were concerned that the trees were not being trimmed enough for view. The Urban Forester explained to them that the tree trimming was being done in accordance with international standards and staff was unable to do any more than that unless there is a separate trimming done by the HOA at their expense. He stated that because of that he met with homeowners on May 23, explained the alternative and offered an example trimming of two to three trees showing exactly what they were able to do without damaging them using the standards that were used prior to the adoption of the international standards. Director Niederhaus stated that the trimming of the two sample trees would be finished by the end of the week and the local homeowner contact would be Tess Lier. Director Niederhaus stated that staff would delay any further trimming to see if that was acceptable. Iris Kimmel, HVHCA President, stated that she was told to go to that meeting but once there was told by Director Niederhaus that the meeting was only on Cameo Shores trimming issues. She stated that she did go to the trouble to get the international standards and disagrees with Mr. Niederhaus. As the standards are written there is nothing that says that the trees cannot be trimmed in terms of lowering their height provided they are trimmed in accordance with those guidelines. She commented that her Association was not asking for topping and they would never support topping of any tree - lowering is not necessarily topping. 3. MINUTES - JUNE 3. 2003 Motion by Commissioner Skoro to approve the minutes of June 3, 2003 as amended. Motion carried by acclamation. 4. Report from General Services Director reeardine the consolidation, evaluation, and staff recommendations for the various sueeested chanees, additions, or deletions to the G -1 Policy. Director Niederhaus stated that staff was directed to prepare initial reports on the G -1 Policy and Ordinance 13.08 (Plantings) for the first Ad Hoc Tree Committee Meeting of April 10. Public input was also received at that time. The Commissioners particularly asked for any input from the Balboa Arbor Society (BAS) representatives. The second meeting of the Committee was held on April 24 where the Committee members reviewed staff reports on Tree Ordinance 13.08 and the history of illegal tree removals, tree replacement policies, City tree maintenance activities, and initial staff • I� LJ r1 U Ad Hoc Tree Committee April'24, 2003 Page 2 recommendations to revise the G -1 Policy. Various homeowners' associations spoke or provided written recommendations. At least two BAS representatives were present at the second meeting. One, Dr. Vandersloot, presented verbal and written comments, but in answer to Chair Allen's question, admitted the material was his own and not that of BAS. Chair Allen invited any BAS input for the Committee meeting of May 15. The third meeting of the Committee was held on May 15. Staff provided two reports, one included a matrix of G -1 Policy changes and a second report provided an amended G -1 Policy. Public input was received and included an official representative of BAS. After reviewing public testimony, the Committee directed staff to continue the review of the G- 1 Policy and Chapter 13.08 (Tree Ordinance). Director Niederhaus then provided highlights of the recommended changes to the G -1 Policy and how it related to matrix of changes. 5. Committee discussion of draft G -1 Policy and straw vote on staff recommendations. Committee discussion of Tree Ordinance and Chapter 13.08 C Straw votes and discussion ensued regarding line items on the matrix provided by Director Niederhaus. Staff will make the appropriate changes to the G -1 Policy tonight which will be reflected at the next meeting. Public Testimony regarding the General Area or Specific Issues the Committee should consider during its review PLEASE NOTE:The following are summary comments from the public. John Robertson thanked staff and the committee for their due diligence on the G -1 Policy but was concerned that Commissioner Skoro did not see the need for the section of problem trees. He commented that no one is anti tree but just want to protect their values and views. Iris Kimmel, President HVCA, believed that the number of problem trees that can be removed each year should be higher. She stated that she does not want to see beautiful trees removed only trees that are causing problems and if so staff should have the authority to remove. Laura Curran stated that she is encouraged that staff is leaning towards streamlining the policy but stated that the definition of a block is needed - possibly a specific standard. John Lungren commented that the cost is too much for reforestation and was concerned that 36" boxed trees would be used as they grow so fast. Commissioner Skoro stated that he was concerned that when a large expensive tree is replaced with a stick. Director Niederhaus commented that there are Locations within the City where a 36" box tree is either not available because of the species or it won't fit and would recommend that verbiage be added to the policy to reflect those conditions. Steve Llewelling voiced his concern that staff would have the authority to remove up to 125 problem trees per year and believed that number to be much too high; he also commented that 24" box trees should be the norm for replacement trees. Barry Allen agreed with most of the policy changes and the amendments to the matrix made earlier by the Committee. • Ad Hoc Tree Committee April'24, 2003 Page 3 Jan Vandersloot, BAS stated that this revised policy is a complete destruction and believes that the City will need to look into environmental impact and requested CEQA documentation. He stated that the agreement with BAS was to increase protection for special trees and now the City has the mechanism to destroy 125 or more just because they might be a problem tree. Mr. Vandersloot stated that the current G -1 Policy is a piece of cake compared to the revised one. Mr. Vandersloot went on to comment on specific sections of the revised Policy. He stated that he is very concerned about the air quality and demanded that an EIR be done. Virginia Herberts stated that it should not be up to the Director to approve the removal of a tree but the Urban Forester and believed that should be annotated in the revised policy. Director Niederhaus stated that the Urban Forester does makes the recommendation on tree removals. Terry Sanders stated that the City has lost many mature trees and replaced them with what you would call stick trees and thank. She commented that root pruning should always be done before removal is ever considered. Chair Allen stated that clearly there are areas of the City where trees offer the ambience of the neighborhood and when special trees are discussed by a Committee and will ask them to designate such areas. Commissioner Skoro commented that there should be a definition of a view community • also. 7. Committee Discussion and direction to staff regarding a Tree Ordinance Director Niederhaus recommended no changes to Ordinance 13.08. Assistant City Attorney Clauson stated that the City will apply CEQA to the proposed revisions before the next meeting. 8. Committee discussion and Dossible final actions on recommendations to draft G -1 Policy. Discussion ensued and final straw votes were taken on revisions made by the Committee to the draft G -1 policy. Chair Allen asked staff to make those revisions to the draft policy as discussed. Discussion ensued regarding possible dates for the next meeting. Chair Allen asked staff to view the City calendar and confirm the next meeting for July 10 at 7pm. 9. ADJOURNMENT - 9:10pm Submitted by: • Teri Craig, Admin Assistant • • n U I+em 4 ! 7jlsl 03 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY TO: G -1 Policy, Tree Committee Members FROM: Robin L. Clauson, Assistant City Attorney Daniel K. Ohl, Deputy City Attorney RE: Projected Loss of Trees under 1� Proposed Amendments to G -1 Policy DATE: July 10, 2003 The following analysis was developed in consultation with John Conway the City Urban Forester. The analysis is a best estimate of the additional tree removals that could result over the next ten years from the proposed changes to the G -1 Policy. Please keep in mind that the Policy generally requires replacement of removed trees on at least a 1 for 1 basis. BACKGROUND: The urban forest has been more carefully managed since the early 1990's. Prior to active management, the City's urban forest was planted in stages, in different areas, and without any comprehensive plan. The beach areas 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, possible because tree growth patterns were unknown at the time. REMOVAL/REPLANTING: The City's first comprehensive inventory of its urban forest occurred in June of 1991. It revealed the presence of 20,767 trees of various types, sizes and ages in various locations throughout the City. Since 1992, 1,225 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 are three trees planted for every one removed. Virtually all other cities, have either one (1) for one (1) or two (2) for one (1) replacement to removal. This active management practice has resulted in a 60% increase in the size of the urban forest. The City's current inventory includes 34,129 City tree sites, (including stumps and approximately 33,000 trees). The estimated value of the urban forest is $68 million. It should be noted that the City's current inventory does not include tree sites in the recently annexed areas of Newport Coast and Santa Ana Heights. The inventory will increase once the new areas are included. G -1 Tree Committee Members • July 10, 2003 Page: 2 As more information has become available, the past practice of planting any tree at any location has now evolved into a decision to replant an appropriate tree, of an appropriate and varied species into an appropriate location so that the error, which occasioned the removal in the first place are not repeated. The new trees, which have been planted, have succeeded in establishing themselves with great success. In comparison with other cities, the City has a higher and much more aggressive reforestation plan. As an additional mitigation measure, the City has sought to improve the coordination and communication between the Planning, Public Works, Building and General Services Departments to significantly reduce the removal of trees. Building and construction plans are now required to locate trees within the public right -of -way to prevent them from being removed during various types of projects. This active management process also insures that the trees that are in place are protected from damage. As further mitigation, in instances in which trees have been illegally removed, the City has sought restitution from those responsible for the removal and the money has been used to replant additional trees throughout the City. In one instance the City went so far as to institute • criminal charges against the offending homeowner. CnSTS- At current rates, it costs the City on average $250.00 to remove a tree. It costs the City a fixed amount to plant trees: $95.00 per 15 gallon tree, $195.00 per twenty -four inch (24 ") box tree and $700.OQ per thirty -six inch (36 ") box tree. This, of course, assumes that the desired specimen is readily available in the nursery industry. The costs are considered highly competitive. BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS: The City's initial management of its urban forest was done by in -house staff members, who would remove, plant, and trim the trees of the forest on an irregular basis. However, due to budget constraints in the early 1990s, the City Council determined the City would save cost and expenses by referring the service to an outside vendor. The City staff, which managed the forest, had been reduced from 15 employees to two. The budget has been reduced by almost 70% and as a result the trim cycle has been increased to every three (3) years. CLAIMS- Recent years has seen an increase in tree related claims for damage to real property. As the forest has matured, damage has become more noticeable and more easily verified. Because certain specimens were planted in certain locations at a time when their long -term effect was not known, those specimens now known throughout the industry to cause such damage are G -1 Tree Committee Members • July 10, 2003 Page: 3 reaching maturity. A number of these claims have been resolved by removing the tree, which is causing the damage, as it is the only practical and economic solution. In other instances, lesser mitigation measures can be taken, such as relocating the tree, pruning the roots or replacing the hardscape. CURRENT INVENTORY: As shown on the attached street tree inventory overview, there are 34,129 tree sites in the City's urban forest. The inventory categorizes 13% of the available tree spaces as vacant, 25.2% as young trees, 33.2% as tree of moderate size and age and 28.6% as mature trees. The City is divided into 21 grids for trimming. It is projected that during the next three year trimming cycle, under the current G -1 Policy, 29,553 trees will be trimmed, 3,980 will be planted and only 232 will be removed. The removals are less than 1 % of the total inventory. PROJECTED TREE LOSS WITH PROPOSED G -1 POLICY AMENDMENTS: • The following analysis is a good faith estimate of tree removals that could result from the proposed G -1 amendments. The estimates were prepared in consultation with the City's Urban Forester. Special Tree Removals: There currently are 965 City trees that are designated Special Trees. The Urban Forester has identified 170 diseased /dying trees that are anticipated to be removed, at an anticipated rate of removal of approximately 12 per year. The category breakdown for diseased trees is: 22 Landmark Trees, 11 Dedicated Trees and 137 Neighborhood Trees. There is no anticipated increase of tree losses due to any proposed changes in the policy. The change that could result in the additional loss of Special Trees recognizes removal of Special Trees under a Council approved beautification project. Staff is unaware of any such projects in the City so the long -term impacts of this addition are unknown at this time. Problem Tree Removals: There are 7142 City trees that are listed Problem Trees under the proposed policy changes. If parks are excluded there are 6545 trees. The Urban Forester has identified a total of 750 problem trees with a DBH of 19 inches DBH or greater located in parkways of 5' or smaller for possible removal. The rate of removal of these trees will be limited by two factors, first annual •limits of 125 or as suggested by staff 250, and second, budgetary considerations. For instance there is zero funding in the new Fiscal Yea 03 -04 to pay for any problem tree removals. Therefore in the first year, and maybe for the next several years, very few problem trees would •G -1 Tree Committee Members July 10, 2003 Page: 4 be removed under this proposed policy. If fully funded the loss could equate to 250 trees per year as per the proposed policy limit. All Other Trees: Over the past two years, an average of 18 trees per year have been removed because the tree dies, is dying or is causing property damage. 13 trees were removed to resolve pending litigation claims. The Urban Forester has indicated it is difficult to assess the increased loss of trees from the proposed changes to sections A -E. The removal of an 18 -month period to experience problems due to trees would accelerate tree removals and could increase the number of trees removed by 150 to 200 per year. However if paragraph F of the all other Tree Policy is approved regarding view impediments, at least 656 trees may be pursued for removal under this section and/or the Problem tree and Reforestation sections. The number of trees removed if there is no limitation on geographic boundaries would be much greater. For these reasons and for budgetary concerns, the staff recommendation is to remove paragraph F of the All Other Tree section of the proposed policy amendments. • Reforestation: Areas 7 -10 (Harbor View Hills, Harbor View Hills South, Cameo Highlands and Cameo Shores) are expected to pursue reforestation, which may entail 708 trees if the view impediment provision is approved. However there is the potential for reforestation requests in this area of 656 trees removed under current reforestation provisions. The 708 trees that may be removed for reforestation purposes, are the same trees as identified as Problem Trees. Unlike the Problem Tree section, there is no limitation on number of trees and removals. Depending upon the Associations ability to fund removal under this category the removal could occur within the next two years or the change would occur over time. Encroachment/Permits (policy L -2 and L -6): Pursuant to encroachment and demolition permits no more than ten trees per year are expected to be removed. Preservation is strongly emphasized and only in extreme cases are trees removed. If trees are allowed to be removed, the full value of the tree is collected from the developer before removal. CONCLUSION: In the past, the City has not been an active shepard of its urban forest, which in some part, has •allowed the wrong trees to be located in the wrong locations, resulting in any number of problems. As more technical and botanical information has become available over time, the City has become a much more active manager of its forest, and has reduced many of the problems which occurred in the past. The net result of the City's effort is a 60% increase in the •G -1 Tree Committee Members July 10, 2003 Page: 5 size of the forest, while removals account for less than 1% of the inventory. The proposed changes to the G -1 policy will give additional flexibility for the management of the Urban Forest but will result in an increase in mature tree removals. The above numbers assume a worst case scenario and assume that all requests for tree removal will satisfy the required criteria and be approved for removal and be fully funded. DKO:RC:cp /da Attachments: Special Tree Listing /Numbers Street Tree Inventory Overview Tree Removal Planting /Ratio Summary • Tree Maintenance Grid, Problem Trees /Undesirable Species List (June 2003) F:\ users \cat\shared\TreeComm \memo \PropLossTreeRpt.doc Rev: 07 -10 -03 `. • G-1 • PRESERVATION OF SPECIAL TREES LANDMARK TREES Balboa Library - Eucalyptus globulus - 3 Balboa Library Phoenix canariensis - s West Jetty (near Historical Marker) Phoenix canariensis - to Dover Drive at Westcliff Liquidambar styraciflua - 1. 400 block Poinsettia Eucalyptus corynocalyx- Ocean Blvd. Corona del Mar Phoneix canariensis - I. Westcliff & Dover (Groves) Eucalyptus globulus - I Main Street (between East Bay Ficus nitida - r Ave. and Balboa Blvd.) DEDICATED TREES No. Mariners Park (Marcie Schrouder) Pinus radiata N Mariners Park (Frank Tallman) Pinus radiata No. City Hall grounds (Billy Covert) Ficus benjamina- -;.p City Hall grounds (Walter Knott) Pinus halepewis \ City Hall grounds /\ z (Calif. Bicentennial) Pinus halepensis Las Arenas Park (Ed Healy) Melaleuca linarifolia -6 Mariners Park (Isy Pease) Pinus halepensis - s • City Hall grounds (U.S. Bicentennial Freedom Tree) Harpephyllum caffrum - Buffalo Hills Park (Bahia Community Earth Day Celebration) Erythrina caffra - Peninsula Park (Gray Lunde Memorial Tree) Chamaerops humilis - Cliff Drive Park Quercus agrifolia - ! (Gary Lovell) Begonia Park Prunus cerasifera - (Cheryl Bailey Ringwald) Castaways Park Quercus agrifolia - a Qan Vandersloot) (Jean Watt) Peninsula Park Ravenea rivularis - I (Don Perdue) Grant Howald Park Metrosideros excetsus - z 1 (Pete Munro) 2 (Mark Munro) Bob Henry Park Ficus Rubiginosa - (Bob Henry) Cliff Drive Park Quercus agrifolia - t • (Dr. Jan Vandersloot) 6 Pi • • DEDICATED TREES (contd.) NEIGHBORHOOD TREES G1 Veterans Park Lagenstroemia indica faueri - I (Rosemary Rae Hill Hansen) Mariners Park Stenocarpus sinuatus - (N. Beach Sunrise Rotary Club) (Christopher & Marisha Thompssn) Pinus eldarica z (Meghan & Camielle Thompson) Pinus eldarica Parkway in Shorecliffs Marguerite Avenue Goldenrod Avenue Dover Drive (Mariners to Irvine) 15th Street (Newport Heights) Irvine Avenue Median Holiday between Irvine & Tustin Along Avon Avenue Via Lido Bridge Marine Avenue (Balboa Island) Seaview Avenue (Corona del Mar) Poppy Avenue (Corona del Mar) Heliotrope Avenue (Corona del Mar) Candlestick Lane, etc. (Baycrest) Commodore Starlight Glenwood Candlestick Sandalwood Adopted - May 9, 1966 Amended - November 9,1976 Amended - November 28,1988 Amended - October, 1993 Amended - July 14,1997 Amended -January 25, 1999 Amended - February 22, 2000 Attachment 1 0 Erythrina caffra - to, 17 '41 Phoenix canariensis - 10 7 Washington robusta - 14 o Eucalyptus globulus - 3 Eucalyptus cladocalyx - 3 1 Eucalyptus globulus - 13 ° Eucalyptus globulus - ' Eucalyptus globulus -- a Eucalyptus globulus - Eucalyptus rudis - Pinus radiata - 4 s Eucalyptus rudis - t0 Pinus radiata - 30 Eucalyptus citriodora - 0 Eucalyptus citriodora - 2- Eucalyptus citriodora - { Z Eucalyptus citriodora - Eucalyptus citriodora - Eucalyptus citriodora - 3 4, fn ( — 9L,!;' City of Newport Beach Street Tree Inventory Overview allay 2003 Total number of tree sites collected (including vacancies) Number of days on the project Average number of trees collected per day INVENTORY STATISTICS DBH in inches COUNT PERCENT ---- ' 4,344 12.7% 0-6 8,485 24.9% 7-12 12,350 36.2% 13 -18 6,355 18.6% 19 -24 1,448 4.20/6 25 -30 810 2.4 "/a >24 337 1.00/6 34,129 100.0% 0- HEIGHT in feet COUNT PERCENT ----- 4,442 13.0% 1 -15 8,600 25.2% 16 -30 11,339 33.2% 31-45 5,631 0.7% 46 -60 2,480 7.3% >60 1,637 4.8% 34, 129 100.00/0 RECOMMENDED MAINTENANCE COUNT PERCENT GRID PRUNING 29,553 86.6% TREE PLANTING 3,980 11.7% None 364 1.1% REMOVALS ---'-- ---'-- -------------- 232 0.7% Diseased or Declining ----' 88 --- - -- o- 0.3 /o Overhead Spacing 6 0.0% Poorly Structured 12 0.0% Seedling or Volunteer 22 0.1% A pacing Critena 6 0.0% " "htump 98 U.J% 34,129 100.0% 34,129 76 449 DBH Frequency LY -24 / -J s24 _____ 4% 2% 1% 13% 7.12 36% HEIGHT Frequency >60 46 -60 5% •u. 23% t6 -36 3G% Recommended Removals 6Nmp sva.mYC -Dena El YeeaDn6 at VWUnKer vaony s..,,am.w O aen�ea6 sva.v,Y E] dacasd wD�cYnin9 S D-6 26% 2y w zo w 60 so too 120 • • TREE REMOVALIPLANTINGIRATIO SUMMARY FY 2002 -2003 Regular Removal Reforestation Approved Emergency Removals Total Claim Related Removals 25 2 2 29 1 487 13 Regular Removals Emergency Total 58 1 FY 2001 -2002 Regular Removals Reforestation Approved Total 10 2 12 1 540 FY 2000 -2001 Regular Removals 41 Reforestation Approved 2 Totall 43 1 4 1 333 FY 1999 -2000 Regular Removals 21 Reforestation Removals (CdM) 89 Emergency /Storm 4 Emergency /City Manager 7 Emergency 2 Total 123 2 519 FY 1998 -1999 Regular Removals Total 26 26 2 310 FY 1997 -1998 Regular Removals Emergency Total 58 1 59 3 247 FY 1996 -1997 Removals 284 2 185 FY 1995 -1996 Removals 241 1 244 FY 1994 -1995 Removals 212 3 650 FY 1993 -1994 Removals 172 224 FY 1992 -1993 Removals 24 24 C, Since FY 199 207 trees have been removed. 1,879 trees have been planted A 9:1 ratio 9 trees have been planted for every 1 tree removed. G -1 Revised z Tree Trimming Areas •� City of Newport Beach TREE MAINTENANCE GRIDS Grid Description 1 Eastbluff 2 Airport 3 Buffalo Hills 4 Spyglass Hills 5 Fashion Island 6 Broadmoor 7 Harbor View Hills • 8 Harbor View Hills South 9 Cameo Highlands 10 Cameo Shores 11 Shore Cliffs 12 Corona Del Mar 13 Irvine Terrace 14 Balboa Island 15 Lido Island 16 Westcliff 17 Balboa Peninsula 18 Newport Heights 19 Individual Medians 20 Parks 21 Newport Coast 0 0 0 'III's 0 • • City of Newport Beach Undesirable Species - DBH Frequency ?0 r/0o IS23r. 3i'f �8y :lv 3z4 q960 0('31 gagSo 0 L%110 ig 3o,(5 -q i �'Sv ss4 ic(6 r�Y IoBaao .7.7 sf G Jp 000 --V'2 X855 -/ 0 • • City of Newport Beach Undesirable Species - DBH Frequency - Street Trees Only .II IRP 9M.'A COMMON DBH COUNT AMERICAN SWEETGUM 0-6 410 AMERICAN SWEETGUM 13-18 94 AMERICAN SWEETGUM 19.24 13 AMERICAN SWEETGUM 25-30 2 AMERICAN SWEETGUM 7 -12 845 BRAZILIAN PEPPER 0-6 144 BRAZILIAN PEPPER 13-18 466 BRAZILIAN PEPPER 19 -24 140 BRAZILIAN PEPPER 25 -30 39 BRAZILIAN PEPPER 7 -12 560 BRAZILIAN PEPPER a30 7 CARROTWOOD 0-6 343 CARROTWOOD 13.18 165 CARROTWOOD 19-24 11 CARROTWOOD 25-30 1 CARROTWOOD 7 -12 1062 INDIAN LAUREL FIG 0 -6 43 INDIAN LAUREL FIG 13-18 114 INDIAN LAUREL FIG 19-24 205 INDIAN LAUREL FIG 25-30 126 INDIAN LAUREL FIG 7 -12 140 INDIAN LAUREL FIG X30 26 KAFFIRSOOM CORAL TREE 0-6 8 KAFFIRBOOM CORAL TREE 13 -18 43 KAFFIRBOOM CORAL TREE 19 -24 27 KAFFIRBOOM CORAL TREE 25-30 38 KAFFIRBOOM CORAL TREE 7 -12 28 KAFFIRSOOM CORAL TREE X30 40 RUSTY LEAF FIG 0-6 165 RUSTY LEAF FIG 13-18 390 RUSTY LEAF FIG 19-24 28 RUSTY LEAF FIG 25-30 6 RUSTY LEAF FIG 7 -12 526 SHAMEL ASH 0-6 2 SHAMEL ASH 13-18 15 SHAMEL ASH 19 -24 16 SHAMEL ASH 25-30 13 SHAMEL ASH 7 -12 17 SHAMEL ASH X30 12 WEEPING FIG 0.6 59 WEEPING FIG 13-18 49 WEEPING FIG 7 -12 177 1 I I I • PORT � SEW o 0 G z e.. ,P ��F00.� Agenda Item No. 5 July 15, 2003 TO: Ad Hoc Tree Committee PB &R Commission FROM: General Services Director SUBJECT: Final Suggested G -1 Policy Revisions Recommendations Review the suggested changes to the G -1 Policy, vote on changes, and direct staff to prepare the draft policy for Council review. Background • On March 11, 2003, the City Council directed the review of the G -1 Policy by an Ad Hoc Tree Committee comprised of Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commissioners to be appointed by the PB &R Chairperson, Debra Allen. Ms. Allen appointed Commissioners Val Skoro and Tom Tobin to the Ad Hoc Tree Committee. Staff was directed to prepare initial reports on the G -1 Policy and Ordinance 13.08 (Plantings) for the first Ad Hoc Tree Committee Meeting of April 10. Public input was also received at that time. The Commissioners particularly asked for any input from the Balboa Arbor Society (BAS) representatives. The second meeting of the Committee was held on April 24 where the Committee members reviewed staff reports on Tree Ordinance 13.08 and the history of illegal tree removals, tree replacement policies, City tree maintenance activities, and initial staff recommendations to revise the G -1 Policy. Various homeowners' associations spoke or provided written recommendations. At least two BAS representatives were present at the second meeting. One, Dr. Vandersloot, presented verbal and written comments, but in answer to Chair Allen's question, admitted the material was his own and not that of BAS. Chair Allen invited any BAS input for the Committee meeting of May 15. • The third meeting of the Committee was held on May 15. Staff provided two reports, one included a matrix of G -1 Policy changes and a second report provided an amended G -1 Policy. Public input was received and included comments by an official representative of . BAS. After reviewing public testimony, the Committee directed staff to continue the review of G -1 Policy and Chapter 13.08 (Tree Ordinance). The fourth meeting of the Tree Committee was held on June 3. Staff presented a number of changes to the draft G -1. After much discussion, the Committee voted on the individual changes to the G -1 Policy, as well as directing staff to finalize the draft document for the final meeting of the Committee on July 15. Discussion Staff has completed a final review of all past input, both written and oral, regarding the G -1 Policy. A copy of the latest draft of the Policy as well as the Matrix of Recommended Changes is attached for consideration. The most significant of the most recent changes to the G -1 Policy include: a) Removal authority for Problem Trees delegated to Urban Forester b) Increase of annual removal rate of Problem Trees from 125 to 250 per year c) Appeal procedures for Problem Tree removal • d) Problem Tree removals related to view are the financial responsibility of the applicant e) Deletion of Special and All Other Tree removals for view improvement f) Additional category of Reforestation - Inappropriate Tree Three of the items need a further explanation: a) Problem Tree Annual Removal Rate — Records for City tree removals prior to 1997 illustrate a level of approximately 200+ problem tree removals per year. At that time, the urban forest consisted of approximately 26,000 trees. Our current inventory identifies over 33,000 City trees, of which 6,545 are parkway problem trees. A restriction to 125 trees per year, which includes view related removals, will not significantly contribute to solving the problem of hardscape damage (sidewalks, curbs, gutters, and roadways) and view impediments. Staff recommends the original level of 250 trees per year. b) A second very significant change to the G -1 Policy is the expansion of the Reforestation criteria. Currently, the Policy provides for only two removal • categories, hardscape damage or view problems. A third category, unsuitable trees for a particular location, is proposed to be added. An example would be a species • of palm tree that has sharp fronds (which are a hazard to pedestrians) and was inappropriately planted in a parkway. c) The third item is the lateral distance from a proposed tree removal that should be used for petition purposes. Currently, the Policy specifies one block in each direction. Unfortunately, there is no standard length of a City block or in some cases, a City block continues past a geographical location. Staff considered 300' as a limit as well, but eliminated that distance as too short. After conferring with the various City departments, we are recommending 500' in each direction as the petition requirement. In summary, staff has completed our review of revisions to the G -1 Policy and is prepared to process the final recommendations for Council review. Very respectfully, David E. Niederhaus Attachments: (A) Draft G -1 Policy • (B) Matrix of Suggested Changes to G -1 Policy r� LJ July 10, 2003 Draft G -1 1 RETENTION OR REMOVAL OF CITY TREES 2 3 The purpose of this policy is to establish definitive standards for the retention, removal, 4 maintenance, reforestation, tree trimming standards, and supplemental trimming of 5 City trees. City trees are an important part of the character and charm of the entire City 6 and provide environmental benefits as well. Regular care, trimming, root Bruning, 7 maintenance, and programmed replacement are necessary to preserve this charm while 8 at the same time pretee#tg- considerin views and protecting public and private 9 property from damage. 10 11 The City classifies public trees in one of three categories: Special Trees, Problem Trees, 12 and All Other Trees. 13 14 SPECIAL CITY TREES 15 16 It is the City's policy to retain City trees categorized as Landmark, Dedicated, or 17 Neighborhood trees, which have historical significance, and /or contribute to and give 18 character to a location or to an entire neighborhood. Landmark, Dedicated, and 19 Neighborhood trees are individually identified on 12y Attachment 1, and shall 20 hereinafter be referred to as Special Trees. Trees within these categories shall be W21 identified established, mapped, recorded and administered by staff for the Parks, 22 Beaches & Recreation Commission ( "Commission'). The Commission shall have the 23 authority to designate all Special Trees as well as the authority to remove tree(s) from 24 the Special Tree listin&_ 25 26 Landmark Trees are identified as those individual Special Trees that possess historical 27 significance by virtue of their size, age, location, or species. 28 29 Dedicated Trees are Special Trees donated for or in the memory of slecific individuals 30 or organizations. 31 32 Neighborhood Trees are Special Trees that by their unusual size, number, species, or 33 location lend a special character to a residential commercial or business area. 34 35 Special Trees shall be retained, unless there are overriding problems, such as death, 36 disease, or the creation of a hazardous situation, which require their removal. Prior to 37 consideration for ay removal of a Special Treefs) the General Services Director, or 38 designee, shall prepare a report identifying and implementing specific treatment to 39 retain the tree(s). If specific treatment is unsuccessful or impractical in retaining a 40 tree(s) then a full staff report shall be made to the Commission before any further action •41 considering removal is taken. Prior to any removal of Special Tree fs the City must 42 comply with the noticing provisions of the Removal of City Trees section set forth in 1 July 10, 2003 Draft G -1 1 this Policy, unless a #ee Special Tree is considered hazardous that necessitates an 2 emergency removal. Any such removal must be recommended by the General Services 3 Director and the Risk Manager and approved bX requires the ^^ ^ ~ ^TZ'1 of the City 4 Manager. 5 6 During normal sidewalk, curb, and street repair activity requiring root pruning, all 7 steps shall be taken to retain Special Trees. If tree roots are to be pruned in association 8 with sidewalk, curb, and gutter improvements, sufficient timing in advance must be 9 planned to ensure that pruning will not destabilize or kill the tree. If both sides of a 10 Special Tree's roots are to be pruned, one side should be pruned 6 months to a year in 11 advance of the other side depending upon the species and other related factors. If root 12 pruning methods are not practical and/or critical to the health of the tree, then alternate 13 or special hardscape improvements should be considered shall be installed by the City 14 in order to retain the tree providing that costs are reasonable. All proposed root 15 pruning or other tree treatment shall be assessed and approved by the Urban Forester. 16 17 Special Trees may be considered for removal in conjunction with a City Council 18 approved beautification project utilizing the Removal of City Trees procedures noted in 19 a subsequent section of the Policy. 20 `11 PROBLEM TREES 22 23 A Problem Tree is defined as a tree that by virtue of its species causes excessive 24 hardscape or utility damage due to its excessive root system. The following trees are 25 defined as Problem Trees: 26 27 o Ficus nitida (Indian Laurel Fig) 28 o Ficus rubi inosa (Rusty Leaf Figs 29 0 Ficus benjamina (Weeping Fia) 30 o Erythrina caffra (Kaffirboom Coral Tree) 31 0 Fraxinus uhdei (Shamel Ash) 32 o Cupaniopsis anacardioides (Carrotwood) 33 o Liquidambar styraciflua (American Sweet Gum) 34 o Schinus terebinthifolius (Brazilian Pepper) 35 36 Problem trees shall not be designated as parkway trees on the Designated Street Tree 37 List. 38 39 Problem trees that are not designated Special Trees may be removed for the following 40 reasons: 01 July 10, 2003 Draft G -1 1 A. The City tree has had a VK2y2n=2LA repeated history of damaging public or 2 private sewers water mains roadways sidewalks, curbs, walls, fences, 3 underground utilities or foundations based on City records or other competent 4 and reliable authority. Water or sewer stol2l2age that results from tree roots and 5 causes significant documented private property damage (greater than $500) shall 6 be sufficient criterion for tree removal. 7 8 B. The City tree has had repeated history of signi icant interference with street or 10 damage. 11 12 C. The City tree has created in the opinion of the Urban Forester, a view 13 impediment that cannot be resolved by normal nor alternative tree trimming 14 procedures. 15 16 Problem Trees may be proposed for removal by either staff or Rrivate property owners. 17 The authority to remove Problem Trees rests with the Urban Forester. No more than 18 -125 250 Problem Trees may be removed per year by staff under this criteria without 19 special approval of the Commission In removals under Sections A & B above, no more 20 than one of three parkway trees in a continuous row may be removed in a three year 4021 period without a hearing before the Commission. Replacement trees of a 24 -inch box 22 size may be planted if funding permits Staff are responsible for notifying the adjacent 23 property owner and the legally established homeowners association if applicable, of 24 the intent to remove a tree. Either party has the right to appeal the removal to the 25 r-, -e -a, See- v:,..,. Pir -eetei Parks and Trees Maintenance Superintendent within 10 days 26 of notification The Park and Trees Maintenance Superintendent may refer the matter 27 to the General Services Director if necessary. The decision of the General Services 28 Director will be final The Urban Forester shall report the removal of Problem Trees on 29 a monthly basis to the Commission. The cost to remove and replace Problem Trees will 30 be the sole responsibility of the City based on availability of funding with the exception 31 of Category C (view) which is the sole responsibility of the applicant. 32 33 ALL OTHER CITY TREES 34 35 A City tree which is not designated as a Special or Problem Tree is designated as an A_ ll 36 Other Tree. It is the City's policy to retain All Other QW Trees unless removal is 37 necessary for one of the following reasons: 38 39 A. The City tree has had a repeated history (defined as t-.ve or more 40 occurrences within a 14 ,neRt -h period) of damaging public or private sewers, •41 water mains, roadways, sidewalks, curbs, walls, fences, underground utilities, or 42 foundations based on City records or other competent and reliable authority 3 July 10, 2003 39 40 • 41 4 Draft G -1 • 1 „ as^ Water or despite by City to specifie treatment the alleviate repeated � 2 sewer stoppage that results from tree roots and causes significant documented 3 public or private property damage (greater than $500) shall be sufficient criterion 4 for tree removal. Regular drain or pipe ^'^._:Rg shall ffat " tate sue 5 d damage failure the owner to shall .hail..,. to y proper�x b . 7 8 B. The City tree has had a repeated history 9 within an 18 monffi period) of significant interference with street or sidewalk 10 11 drainag e, despite speeifie treatment by the City to allev" re—e—ed A-- 12 C. The City tree is dead, diseased, dying, or hazardous, and presents a sign4fica�t 13 liability to the City. A dead tree is one that has been assessed by the Urban 14 Forester and found to have deceased. Diseased trees are defined as those trees 15 that cannot be cured by current arboricultural methods, are in an advanced state 16 of decline, and have no prospect of recovery. Dying trees are those that have no 17 prospect of recovery. Hazardous trees are defined as those that are defective, 18 have a potential to fail, and would cause damage to persons and property upon 19 failure. The Urban Forester will perform a hazard assessment whenever a tree is 4021 20 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 22 or property damage may result with tree failure, and procedures or actions 23 necessary to abate the hazard. After assessment. the Urban Forester will 24 expeditiously convey his written findings and recommendations to the Risk 25 Manager for evaluation. If the Risk Manager agrees with the Urban Forester 26 findings to remove a tree the hazardous tree will be removed without further 27 delay In the case of imminent tree failure the Parks and Trees Maintenance 28 Superintendent or the Urban Forester shall have the authority to direct the 29 removal of a hazardous tree. 30 31 D. The tree(s) have been requested to be removed in conjunction with a City 32 Council- approved City, commercial, neighborhood, or community association 33 beautification program. 34 35 E. The City Manager, upon the advice of the General Services Director, Deputy City 36 Attorney, Risk Manager or the Traffic Engineer, shall have the authority to 37 remove individual Problem or All Other Trees trees to resolve claims or safety 38 issues. 39 40 • 41 4 July 10, 2003 Draft G -1 • 1 2 REMOVAL OF CITY TREES 3 4 The initiation to remove (Special or All Other)any City tree(a) may be made by the staff 5 of the General Services Depaeftt, and/or Public Works Departments, a legally 6 established community association, or a private property owner by making application 7 to the General Services Director, utilizing the Citv tree removal form. The provisions 8 and procedures of this Section of the Policy do not apply to the Problem Tree nor 9 Reforestation tree removal processes which are described in other sections of this 10 Policy. Special Trees may be considered for removal under the provisions of this 11 Section provided a special report by the General Services Director is provided to the 12 Commission detailing the necessity of removal and any specific previous treatment of 13 the tree. 14 15 After receipt of the application, a Tree Inspection Report shall be prepared by the City's 16 Urban Forester (Attachment 2) to determine if the tree(s) meets the criteria outlined in 17 the above All Other City Trees section for consideration for removal. Simultaneously, 18 the Urban Forester shall provide a notice of the proposed tree removal to the a€feeted 19 adjacent property owner (if not the applicant), the private property owners 20 immediately adjacent to the applicant's property, and the appropriate community �1 association if applicable, (not applicable to the emergency removal of hazardous trees 22 with ices under Item C aloe nor to trees that meet the criteria of Item E in the 23 preceding All Other City Trees section). The Urban Forester shall determine whether in 24 his /her judgment additional specific treatment can be initiated to retain the tree 25 provided the costs are reasonable. If a tree(s) is to be removed, the tree(s) will be posted 26 at least 30 days prior to the removal with a sign notifying the public that they have the 27 right of appeal. The sign shall also note a staff contact. Once a recommendation is 28 made by the Urban Forester and the Park and Tree Superintendent to the General 29 Services Director and the General Services Director or designee concurs, then the 30 applicant, the adjoining owners, owners within 500' in each direction of the tree location 31 and tea legally established community association, if applicable, shall be notified of 32 the decision to remove or retain the tree within 30 days of the proposed removal. A 33 legally established community association is responsible for notification of all 34 association members pursuant to their established proced ire. The General Services 35 Director, or his a designee, shall prepare a staff report for a regularly scheduled PB &R 36 Commission meeting of all trees recommended for removal using he Trees Division 37 Activities Report except for those trees categorized in Paragraph C. (dead, diseased, or 38 dig trees) or Paragr aph E (claims and safety issues) in the preceding section on All 39 Other City Trees. Qn!y Aan applicant, an adjoining property owner, or- any 40 partyor a legally established community association the Ci Manager, a PB &R •41 Commissioner, or a Councilmember may appeal the decision of the General Services 42 Director not to remove a tree to the Commission. The Commission, in considering any July 10, 2003 Draft G -1 • 1 appeal, shall determine whether the removal meets the criteria outlined in this Policy, 2 as well as any unique factors which may be pertinent to the removal or retention of 3 tree(s). The decision of the Commission will be considered final unless called up by at 4 least one Councilmember or the City Manager. 5 6 The General Services Department will delay any tree removal(s) for at least 14 calendar 7 days following the date of the Commission decision in order to allow time for a 8 Councilmember or the City Manager to call the item. 9 10 The City will endeavor to replace all trees removed in accordance with the All Other 11 City Trees removal criteria on a one for one basis. Replacement trees will be a 12 minimum of a 436" boxed size. If 36" boxed trees are not available, then a minimum 13 of a 24" boxed tree will be planted The full costs of removal and replacement of Special 14 or All Other Tree(s) will be the sole responsibility of the City. 15 16 REFORESTATION OF CITY TREES 17 18 The concept of systematically replacing Problem or All Other Trees which are creating 19 2jgngj �t hardscape and /or view problems and cannot be properly trimmed, pruned 20 or modified to alleviate the problem(s) they create, or those which have reached their 421 full life and are declining in health, or are simply the wrong species of trees for the 22 planted location is referred to as reforestation. The Urban Forester shall make a findine 23 for the latter category of inappropriate tree species for a specific location His 24 determination may be appealed to the General Services Director whose decision will be 25 final. 26 27 It is recognized and acknowledged that City trees were planted many years ago and in 28 some cases were planted with specific species that when fully mature cause signific ant 29 damage to curb, gutter, sidewalk or underground utilities. I,,Within the geographical 30 boundaries of certain view neighborhoods, City street trees may encroach into blue 31 water views from public and private property depending on the length of time since the 32 trees were last trimmed, or the age and height of the trees. In other cases, the wrong 33 species of tree was planted originally and simply does not conform to the current 34 treesca ep or represents a safety hazard. 35 36 Arborists continue to develop lists of tree species which will grow in restricted parkway 37 areas without causing significant damage to curb, gutter, sidewalk, utilities or loss of 38 views. The City Street Tree Designation List which specifies a species for each City 39 street reflects an effort by the City to prescribe appropriate tree species that will not 40 cause future problems. W1 0 July 10, 2003 Draft G -1 • 1 As a City which understands the importance of trees and the beauty they bring to a 2 community, the City desires to continually improve the urban forest through 3 reforestation. In areas where City trees have been removed through City initiation, the 4 City should will &_r_a -0 =__' -; endeavor to replace them trees with the appropriate 5 designated City tree. Refer-,.station may also be initiated by residents utilizing h= 6 proeess outlined below. 7 8 Individual private property owners, as well as legally established community 9 associations, may apply for single or multiple tree reforestation in their respective area 10 by submitting a request to the General Services Director for consideration by the 11 Commission that meets the following requirements: 12 13 A. The proposed area must have clearly defined contiguous geographical 14 boundaries that include the tree(s) proposed for removal and replacement, street 15 address(es), block number(s), or other geographical information. This section 16 applies to individual and group requests. 17 18 B. Residential communities, neighborhoods, or business organizations who apply 19 for reforestation must submit a petition signed by a minimum of 60% of the 20 property owners within the area defined for reforestation. ^ neighborhee -is 1 defined for. the ptffpeses of this pehey as ten or more homes in 4 22 the E or to 23 distribution by the petitioner. The staff - approved petition must be distributed 24 by the petitioner to all property owners within 500' in each direction from the 25 location of the proposed reforestation. Signatures by non - property owners are 26 not acceptable for petition purposes All petition signatures shall be verified by 27 City staff for property owner status of the 1erson(s) signing the petition. As an 28 alternative to the above requirements, areas represented by a legally established 29 community association empowered with CC & R's , may submit a resolution of 30 the Board of Directors formally requesting a reforestation with a statement that 31 all members of the community association having their residential views 32 affected, have been officially notified and given an appropriate opportunity to 33 respond before the Board voted on the request. Individual private property 34 owners living within a legally established community association area with 35 mandatory association membership must petition for 36 reforestation through their respective association. 37 38 C. Individual private property owners not residing within a CC p R based legally 39 established community association area may submit individual requests for 40 single or multiple tree reforestation. The applicant must submit a petition signed "1 by a minimum of 60% of the private property owners residents residing on both 42 sides of the street within a ene bleEk distanee500' in either each direction from 7 July 10, 2003 Draft G -1 • 1 the reforestation site as well as the endorsement of the appropriate homeowners 2 association, if applicable. As noted earlier, the petition content must be 3 approved and dated by staff prior to distribution. All petition signatures shall be 4 verified by City staff for property owner status of the 1erson(s) signing the 5 ettition. 6 7 D. A written agreement must be submitted to the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation 8 Commission by the petitioning sponsor (individual private property owneru or 9 group) to pay 100% of the costs of the removal and replacement of the public 10 treeW in advance of any removal activity. The actual removal and replanting 11 will be coordinated by the General Services Department. The total costs shall 12 include only the contractor's removal and replacement costs and be paid in 13 advance of any removal actions. 14 15 E. The replacement tree(s) for reforestation shall be the Designated Street Tree(s) as 16 prescribed by City Council Policy G -6, or the organization must request and 17 obtain approval from the Commission of the designation of a different tree 18 species prior to submitting any reforestation request for a tree species other than 19 the designated street tree. This section applies to individual or group requests. 20 W1 F. There shall be a minimum of a one - for -one replacement of all trees removed in 22 reforestation projects. Replacement trees shall be a minimum size of 24" 36" 23 boxed trees, unless the parkway space will only-not accommodate a 24" boxed 24 tree. If there is not room for the replacement treeW iviffiin -at a specific site as 25 prescribed by City Council Policy G -6, then the replacement tree(s) shall be 26 planted in a public area in the same neighborhood at the option of the petitioner. 27 This section applies to individual or group requests. 28 29 G. Reforestation requests must be completed and submitted in a timely manner by 30 the petitioner. Petitions that are dated more than 90 days in arrears from date 31 stam ep d by staff before distribution will not be forwarded to the PB &R 32 Commission for consideration. 33 34 The decision of the Commission on reforestation requests will be considered final unless 35 called up by at least one Councilmember or the City Manager. 36 37 TREE MAINTENANCE 38 39 The City shall require the proper care and watering of replacement trees by the 40 reforestation petitioner to ensure their proper growth and development as outlined in •41 City Council Policy G -6. Furthermore, no person shall tamper with rem nt City 42 trees in violation of Section 13.08.040 of the Municipal Code. Further, the City will E July 10, 2003 Draft G -1 • 1 endeavor to fund the care of the Urban Forest to the highest level possible through the 2 efficient use of regular tree trimming root pruning, root barrier and pesticide 3 programs. 4 5 ENCROACHMENT AND DEMOLITION PERMITS 7 All encroachment permits (permits for private property development which are has 8 proposed to encroached upon the City right of way) or demolition permits that involve 9 the removal or replacement of City treeW must be specifically noticed by the property 10 owner to City staff prior to the building and /or demolition permit process whenever 11 possible. The proposed construction plans must indicate preservation of existing City 12 trees wherever possible (exempt: dead, dying, or in an advanced state of decline). If the 13 proposed development, as deemed by the General Services Director, requires the 14 removal of City trees, the property owner must may submit a feferestatierrtree removal 15 request to the General Services Director, aP4-shall pay all related tree removal and 16 replacement costs (one for one replacement) and 17 meet all provisions of Council Policies L -2 and L -6 and City Ordnances 13.08 and 13.09. 18 Approval or disapproval of all tree removal/ replacement requests associated with 19 encroachment and demolition permits will be the responsibility of the General Services •20 Director or a designee. 21 22 TREE TRIMMING STANDARDS/ 23 24 The City Council has adopted tree trimming cycles for trees of different ages and 25 species. The curre zt Tree trimming cycles and trimming standards shall represent the 26 maximum feasible frequency and extent of tri c ft given current fiscal conditions. 27 Except as provided in this- Supplemental Trimming Section below, trimming shall be 28 in accordance with the standards of the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA). In 29 those communities with a legally established community association, periodical tree 30 trimming with an emphasis on height reduction will be considered by the City Urban 31 Forester upon written request by the association. 32 33 SUPPLEMENTAL TREE TRIMMING 34 35 The City will consider, and as a general rule approve, requests to trim certain trees 36 more frequently or to trim trees consistent with practices applied prior to the adoption 37 of ISA standards (to enhance public and private views, preserve required 38 sight /distance standards, or other public purposes) which are submitted by affected 39 Y-esiAeHts property owners or the board of a legally established community association 40 and the request is accompanied by a completed "Supplemental Tree Trimming Form' •41 and full payment for the requested tree trimming. However, since these practices often 42 require 'topping' or osp sible cep disfiguring of a treeW and are often aesthetically 0 LJ 2 3 4 5 6 A H 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 W0 1 22 • July 10, 2003 Draft G -1 displeasing and injurious to a tree, reforestation shall o& be considered onee -when supplemental tree trimming is impractical or infeasible as determined by the Urban Forester. *ties more than twiee ivid:kin a one year period. The General Services Director shall establish procedures to implement the supplemental trimming provisions of this Policy. An approval must be obtained from a legally established association by the requestor 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 -f 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 • THE FOLLOWING CORRESPONDENCE ARE ATTACHED FOR YOUR REVIEW: 1. Ltr from K. Drillishak, 6/13/03 2. Ltr from S. Porterfield, 6/22/03 3. Ltr to K. Drillishak, 6/27/03 • • 0 • P.O. BOX 626, BALBOA, CALIFORNIA 82661 13 June 2003 Mr. David Niederhaus General Services Director 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 Subject: Benches and Memorials on Peninsula Point Dear Mr. Niederhaus: 05 -19 -03 °02:06 RCVD This letter is a follow -up to my testimony at the 4 June 03 PB&R Commission meeting regarding commemorative benches at West Jetty View Park. You may recall • that I expressed concern about the proliferation of commemorative benches and other memorials at this location. I brought this matter to the attention of the BPPA Board at our regular Board meeting on 13 June 03 and, after extensive discussion, the Board voted unanimously to oppose any additional benches, monuments or other memorials on the parks and beaches of Peninsula Point. This resolution specifically refers to: 1. Triangle park at Miramar Drive and E. Balboa Blvd. 2. L Street Park 3. M Street Park 4. West Jetty View Park/Wedge The Board feels that future proliferation of benches, monuments and memorials in these locations will only serve to clutter the park -like setting and detract from the ambience that the residents enjoy when they regularly visit there. This resolution does not apply to replacement of worn-out benches in the referenced locations, or to benches on the channel and boardwalk ends of lettered streets. In these cases, we request that BPPA be given enough notification of any future requests to allow us to discuss them at our next scheduled Board Meeting and give you our opinion prior to making any commitments to the requestor. • We understand that many people are desirous of placing visible memorials in our neighborhood, but we hope you will appreciate and convey to them that we are protective • Page 2 — 13 June 03 - Niederhaus of the integrity of the neighborhood for the enjoyment of our residents and all who visit us. There are many other places in the community to place memorials and many constructive ways to donate to the community without impinging on the rights and desires of residents who regularly use these ah eady crowded locations. Thank you for your continued support of our BPPA objectives and for your dedicated service to the City of Newport Beach. Sincerely, A� Kenneth S. Drellishak, Ph.D. President, Balboa Peninsula Point Association KSD /pd CC: Debra Allen — Chair, PB&R Commission Tom Tobin — Vice Chair, PB &R Commission • Pat Beek — Member, PB &R Commission Roy Englebrecht — PB&R Commission Bill Garrett — PB&R Commission Gregory Ruzicka — PB&RCcommission Val Skoro — Member, PB &R Commission Homer Bludau — City Manager Tod Ridgeway — City Council Member • CONTRACTING ENGINEERS GRADING • UNDERGROUND UTILITIES STREET AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS License #784350 June 22, 2003 Ms Debra Allen Chairman Parks Benches & Recreation Commission 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, California 92658 Dear Ms Allen I am requesting that the PB &R Commission reconsider the petition for a park bench donated for Michael Porterfield that received a tied -vote at the last commission meeting on June 4, 2003. Prior to the commission meeting on June 4, 2003, it was my understanding that this donation would be accepted based on the history of the bench donation program. I was initially surprised by the insensitive regard with which the item was addressed on the agenda. I felt it was unnecessary and inappropriate of a commissioner to discount the significance of my mother's donation request based on her state of residence. Our family has been living in this community for over 30 years and doing business in the City of Newport Beach since 1990. Our first business was Clayton Engineering, Inc. (CEI) which supported numerous community development improvements' including The Widening of Irvine Avenue and Bike Trail Project and The Balboa Blvd Street Improvements @ 15th Street. Our current business is Contracting Engineers, Inc. (city business license #BT20110302). We participate in supporting the Newport Beach community as an active member of the Newport- Balboa Rotary Club, contributing to various projects such as Reading by 9. My twin daughters, who will be seniors next year at Newport Harbor High School, have attended school in the district throughout their lives. Our request for a bench donation is not coming from an out of state family. Today I spent some time down at the "wedge ". The park located at the end of Channel Drive is very popular and has several donated benches. All of these benches were being used throughout my visit today. I continued down the path to the jetty, near the myoporum trees, to the proposed location of the bench. This is also a very popular location. I observed pedestrians, bicyclists, fishermen and surfers utilizing this path to the jetty. Unlike the pathway through the park, here there are not any benches to sit on and enjoy this very special place. My brother, Michael Porterfield, was killed in a motorcycle accident in 1987. A few days after his death our family and friends gathered at the myoporum trees and reflected on Michael's life. This location serves as a special place for all of Michael's loved ones, living in the local area and from out of town, to honor the life my brother lived in this community. This bench is practical for the City of Newport Beach, this bench is good for the community, and this bench will be very significant to my family. Please reconsider our bench donation and place it on the next commission agenda. A 0 Sincerely, Scott Porterfi Cantracting Engineers, Inc. • 1401 Quail Street uite 115 • Newport Beach, CA 92660 • PH 949.863.6262 EX'S FAX 949.863.0203 • www.4cei.com lib CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT David E. Niederhaus, Director June 27, 2003 Mr. Kenneth S. Drellishak, Ph. D. President, Balboa Peninsula Point Association Post Office Box 826 Balboa, CA 92661 Dear Dr. Drellishak, This letter is in response to your correspondence dated June 13, 2003, regarding benches and memorials on the Peninsula Point. The City receives many inquires from the public relative to donations to the City park system. The City Council Policy, G -5 (copy attached), provides the acceptance of various donations to City facilities. The typical donation requests that are received by staff, are for: trees, benches, and drinking fountains. These donations can range in price from $500 to $5,000, depending on . the item selected and the location of placement. Many of the donations replace aged, worn, and deteriorated amenities that the City cannot afford to replace due to limited funding. Inquiries by the public are usually specific as to the possible location of the donation and are generally associated with a sentimental attachment to the area. Staff usually meets with the donors on site and reviews one or several locations prior to a final selection. The donor is made aware of the process in that the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission must approve the donation at a scheduled meeting. The donation request is then placed on the Commission meeting agenda with a staff report and is subsequently approved or denied. Staff appreciates your concern relative to the donations at various City parks and public right of ways and while public input is always encouraged, we feel that the approval or denial of a particular donation anywhere in the City is the decision of the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission. The City will continue to notice the presidents of homeowners association notices and provide a copy of any future donation agenda items that are applicable so that they may participate in the decision process before the Commission. We will endeavor to provide as early a notice of future donations as possible so that any concerns can be noted before staff prepares a report to the community. In summary, while staff is sensitive to residents' concerns and positions about the integrity of • their neighborhood, the beaches and parks of the City are public areas that in most instances can continue to be improved by donations. The donors have a right to solicit the City and receive a fair consideration by the Parks, Beaches and Recreations Commission when homeowners groups are welcomed to express any concerns. 3300 Newport Boulevard • Post Office Box 1768 • Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915 Telephone: (949) 644 -3055 • Fax: (949) 650 -0747 • www.city.newport- beach.ca us 0 Please contact me at 644 -3055 if you have any questions. Sincerely, David E. Niederhaus, Director General Services Director DEN /pr cc: Mayor Pro Tern Tod W. Ridgeway Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission City Manager Attachment: City Council Policy G -5 E • 0 G -5 PARK AND STREET IMPROVEMENT DONATIONS The City Council recognizes the need to provide residents with the opportunity to donate trees, benches, and drinking fountains or related park and street improvement items. This policy establishes criteria for donations to assure attractiveness, usefulness and the capability to be maintained. TREE DONATIONS The tree -lined walkway at Oasis Passive Park beginning at 5th Avenue and Marguerite in Corona del Mar shall be identified as one area where a tree with a bronze plaque can be installed. Other trees with plaques can be donated and installed at locations recommended by the General Services Director and approved by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission. BENCH DONATIONS It shall be the responsibility of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission to • designate the type, style, design, and placement of City-owned benches on City property. Areas of placement may be parks, streets, along the beachfront, within villages, commercial districts, and neighborhoods, on a specific island, etc. Once an area has been designated with a certain style or type of bench, the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission may require that the designation be changed only by a formal request for a redesignation. • The factors to be addressed in preparing the list of approved benches for the City as well as the final design for a specific site will include at a minimum: size, usage, vandalism, traffic, security, view obstructions, location, style reflective of neighborhood and cost. The Arts Commission will provide design review assistance as required. Donation requests will be submitted to the General Services Department and meet the following requirements. A. Bench donations along a City street or beachfront will require the approval of the General Services Director and the Traffic Engineer. B. Bench donations within a commercial district will require notification of, and an endorsement from, the local business association. 1 0 G -5 C. Bench donations for parks within a residential community will require notification of residents within 300 feet of placement and an endorsement from the homeowners association, when applicable. 0 PARK AND STREET AMENITIES Items such as benches, drinking fountains, tables, etc., can be donated to be included in the public park system. Recognition on the item shall be a 2" x 6" plaque and limited to Donated by (Name) or Donated for (Name) as a means of identifying the donation. Donors of major park improvement gifts may elect to provide a dedicatory plaque not exceeding 5" x 7" with name, date and appropriate text not exceeding 25 words. All donations must be approved by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission. The cost of a donated item, including identification plaque, shall be borne totally by private funds. The City will assume ownership and maintenance if accepted and placed in a public park or on a sidewalk unless other arrangements have been agreed upon. The City will not assume responsibility for replacement due to vandalism or theft. Adopted - July 22,1992 Amended - January 24,1994 Amended - June 27,1994 Amended - June 24,1996 Formerly I -15 • 2 4 z 0 .N °Q a E $E 0 cv E w aRi a R N E p N R U d .E O > L R E O m E d O i R O O O O ° ° _ 0 m O O O y d 00 B 0 D y 9 E G N 0 O C L O N N o o p o a $ O ° ° ' No d 5 > > } O O O O E E O O L Q U0 0 2 o_'o H¢ 2a ¢a¢n a �a a °o¢ °¢da-°o y 0 O O O O O ° 0 0 0 O Fl O Z O Y Y Q m C O w 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 9 d' p C N CI N N N m UJ O C m N N N U1 O C N d O Y O O O Y Y Y 0 x 0o die a ¢ ` m r'n w N mmm M N M 01 N V N V N N M p d N N N N d N OJ N N OJ N OJ N N N N C` C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C = J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J 2 M M M M M [h M V V (O V ti(d C6 <N N N N N Ul UI N N UJ N N QI N N N N N J d a s a a a a a a a a a a a a a a N O C O R > p c R O p 0 co 00 L ° O C E N C C R E n o m c o ` N E i Q m i o O O> O d LL ° E OF E m ° m N o c o o ° '`V N d R @ R rE n o m a m y m m m ° O M O O ° ` O a O ° U N O N LL C Q N M V N GO O] O N M �o o — m m m c 6 a` to 'N 0 a a �5 E 0 U R ry 3 R "p C O O N O a c o c � a U os o9 C) U O O O U OON R O O a dU O O On d R d O_ d O_ iq Q- y Q 4 m Z Q Q m `o. Z Q c a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a a s Y Y Y Y Y Y Y m Q M m 0 'O a a s a a o a a 0 x m N N ¢ N N a R R N m aR0 N M M_ U •O N r N N M N C CN d d N d N Gl c C c C C C C J C J J J J J J J R N R d d R Gl d N J a a s d a s a a � d N LL R ry Q a'2 = 3 E U m c O Q R c N �' lei C ¢¢ c o U o 0 0 aci L 14 m 0 v m o c c L C � aCi o d m W o c "o E 0 o m w a w a`