Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 - Ad Hoc Tree Committee AgendaCity of Newport Beach Parks, Beaches ft 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 PBftR 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 • To: Debra Allen, Chair Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission City of Newport Beach From: Robert A. Pastore 638 Cameo Highlands Drive Corona del Mar Subject: Comments on the agenda for your meeting on October 7'" Date: October 5, 2003 Cc: Kathy Young, Tess Lier, Cameo G -1 Policy Review Committee Cameo Board of Directors City Council Dear Commissioners, I am a resident of Cameo Highlands which part of the Cameo Community Association. I am not an official association representative in this matter but I would like to add my comments based on my experience with the City when I was architectural committee chairman in the 1980's. I have appeared at several of your meetings, several council meetings and have addressed two missives to you regarding this topic. I will add to those comments by addressing the queries by the City Council submitted to you for review and action. 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? • In those areas represented by a legally established homeowners association, the wishes of the members as expressed to the association officers and relayed to the City should be the guiding principle in tree trimming, removal and reforestation for City trees within the community association perimeter. As pointed out in my appearances before you, there are 142 community associations in this city and I recommend that the Commission initiate a study to determine if they are legally established and what areas of the city are so represented by constructing a map /chart showing the boundaries of the various entities. The Commission and ultimately the Council should them give high regard to the wishes of community associations with respect to city property within the boundaries of a particular association. In the particular case of Cameo, which just passed its fortieth birthday, the entire association is probably in need of removal and reforestation. The removal and reforestation should be guided by the desires of the association as the primary principle coupled with the approved city tree list for tree replacement. Should the City have two tree policies: one for view and one for non -view? How would you define a 'View Community"? As the former chair of Cameo's Architectural Committee and responsible for developing view impairment guidelines and also having been on the receiving end of lawsuits over views — including one that went to conclusion at Orange County's Superior Court - I can relate that it is almost impossible to define view. "View" is in the eye of the beholder. I can say with some degree of certainty however that the area's real estate agents routinely define view for us. Real estate ads flaunt "ocean view, "'White -water views," "blue water view," 'View of city lights," "vistas " •"panorama, " etc. I have never seen an ad that touted a view of trees. Homes with a view command a higher price which is ultimately reflected in higher property taxes. Therefore it is incumbent upon all parties to insure that devaluation doesn't occur because of degradation of views. The City, for its part, has attempted to define view. City policy G -3 states: "B. Views. "View" means a range of sight including pleasing vistas or prospects or scenes. Views include, but w are not limited to, the sight of geologic features, bays, oceans, skylines, bridges and parks." Note the absence of any reference of a view of trees. Using this as a definition of "view," one can accurately state then that the vast majority of the Cameo Community Association is a "view" community. The City should be bound by the same constraints as any Cameo homeowner with respect to their foliage within our boundaries. Article V, Section 2 of Cameo's Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions stipulates: "Landscaping Approval. No trees, bushes, shrubs, or plants shall be maintained upon any Lot which, without clipping or pruning thereof, in the reasonable opinion of the Architectural Committee, unduly impede or detract from the view of any Lot. The Architectural Committee shall have the right to require any Member to remove, trim, top or prune any tree, bush, shrub or plant which, in the reasonable opinion of the Architectural Committee, impedes or detracts from the view of any Lot." So to answer the latter part of the question, yes, their should be two view policies — one for those areas represented by a legally established homeowners association and one for those not so represented. Should all tree removals require replacement with a 36" box tree? is this realistic given space constraints and availability? Council Policy G -6 Maintenance And Planting Of Parkway Trees already addresses the issue of container size: "3. Trees shall be a minimum container size of 36" box, unless market availability necessitates the planting of 24 "boxed specimens" This policy is bolstered by City Ordinance which states: Section 13.09.010 Parkway Trees Required. • "The parkway tree shall be at least a thirty -six inch (36 ") box of the type, variety and /or species......" This requirement, however, can be extremely costly. As previously stated, Cameo is long overdue for reforestation. I would venture to guess that there are more than 600 trees in Cameo. Our association president, appearing before a City Council meeting during a G -1 review, expressed this economic concern . My recommendation would be to leave the size of the box out of G -1 and refer to policy G-6. Change G -6 by adding after "market availability" and before `necessitates, the following - "or size of the project as determined by the City Manager..." Lastly, legally established homeowners associations, working in close harmony with the City's Urban Forester and General Services Department will result in all parties being satisfied with the state of City trees located within the boundaries of the community. • - City Tree Policies Page 1 of 4 0 Niederhaus, Dave From: John Lindgren [falcon62 @adelphia.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 12:03 PM To: debraeallen@yahoo.com Subject: City Tree Policies Ms Allen, I was planning to attend tonight's meeting and speak in behalf of the Cameo Association but my wife reminded me that today is my birthday and a dinner was planned. As a result, I will have to send this email with the answers to the questions that have been asked regarding the revisions to the City tree policy. A member of our association, Mr. Pastore, provided me a copy of his answers to your questions and I need to • point out that his opinions do not necessarily reflect the positions of the Cameo Association. There are two major issues that Cameo would like to see resolved. 1. Being able to have our City trees trimmed to roof height to protect views 2. If a tree can no longer be trimmed for height or if it is causing sidewalk /utility problems, we need an affordable way to reforest (24 inch box tree) and a fast, uncomplicated method to have the tree replaced. The following paragraphs are Cameo's answers to the • questions that were asked. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 949 -721 -1475 or falcon62@adelphia.net. 10/07/2003 City Tree Policies Page 2 of 4 Regards, John Lindgren President Cameo Association 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? This is a pretty high level for approving the removal of a tree. Perhaps the Director of General Services should be the approval authority and the City Manager the appeal authority. Anyone objecting to a tree removal should be given 10 days to file an appeal to the City Manager. b. Should the City have two tree policies: one for view and one for non - view? How would you define a View Community? Cameo is not opposed to having a split policy but we think the exceptions that are included in the proposed changes to the G -1 are sufficient to protect our interests. A view community could be defined as a legally formed association of homeowners whose CC &Rs make provisions for protecting homeowner views and a . significant number of lots (over 50 %) have views. 10/07/2003 'City Tree Policies Page 3 of 4 c. Should all tree removals require replacement with a 36in box tree? is Absolutely not. In Cameo, the parkways are only 36 inches wide and contain sewer, electrical, gas, water and cable. We would be willing to participate in reforestation if the cost per tree was reasonable. The cost of a 36 in tree was given as $750 and a 24 in tree as $250. The policy should allow a 24 in box tree to be planted in restricted areas such as parkways. Is this realistic given space constraints and availability? NO! See above. 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? Since Cameo does not have any special trees and is not likely to have any in the future, we don't feel that we can take a position as an association on this question. It would seem that this should be the responsibility of the Urban Forrester. 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. 0 Cameo would be against this if it meant that the 10/07/2003 0 0 ' City Tree Policies Page 4 of 4 process for removing and replacing a tree would get bogged down in some bureaucratic process of maintaining diversity of tree species and sustainable urban forests. I think that the above language is impossible to define and would result in needless arguments about what is appropriate diversity and what a stable and sustainable urban forest really means. 10/07/2003 Message Page 1 of 2 Niederhaus, Dave • From: Craig, Teri Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 10:28 AM To: 'W. E. Mitchell'; Craig, Teri; iris; Bromberg, Steven Cc: Niederhaus, Dave; Knight, Marie; Lomeli, Marcy; Conway, John; Debra Allen (Business Fax) Subject: RE: G -1 response Thank you for your comments - I will forward them to the Committee Members. Teri Craig, Admin Assistant Recreation & Senior Services Department 949 - 644 -3158 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: W. E. Mitchell [mailto:wemitchell @cox.net] Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 6:40 PM To: TCraig @city.newport- beach.ca.us; iris; dandee @earthlink.net Subject: G -1 response The following reflects my responses to those issues to be discussed as outlined in the agenda below. City of Newport Beach Parks, Beaches a 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: yes • b. Should the City have two tree policies: one for view and one for non - view? No How would you define a "View Community"? c. Should all tree removals require replacement with a 36' box tree? No 10/07/2003 Message Page 2 of 2 R. Is this realistic given space constraints and availability? No • 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? Should be the decision of the Urban Forester 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. No 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 W. E. Mitchell, Board Member at Large Harbor View Hills Community Association 2711 Harbor View Dr. • Corona del Mar, CA. 92625 October n U 10/07/2003 Message Pagel off 2 Niederhaus, Dave • From: Craig, Teri Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 7:14 AM To: 'Steve Rizzone' Cc: Knight, Marie; Niederhaus, Dave Subject: RE: Oct. 7 G -1 Meeting 0 Thanks for your comments, I will be glad to forward them along to the Committee. Teri Craig, Admin Assistant Recreation & Senior Services Department 949 - 644 -3158 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Steve Rizzone [mailto:steve @rizzone.net] Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2003 4:30 PM To: dandee @earthlink.net; TCraig @city.newport- beach.ca.us Cc: iris Subject: Oct. 7 G -1 Meeting Please note my suggested responses to the following agenda items: Thank you for your consideration Stephen R. Rizzone 1101 Ebbtide Road Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Member - Harbor View Home Owners Association, Board of Directors City of Newport Beach Parks, Beaches a Recreation Commission Ad Hoc Tree Committee Tuesdav, October 7. 2003 - 5Dm City Council Chambers AGENDA • 1. Call to Order - Chair Allen 10/06/2003 w Message Page 2 of 2 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? yes b. Should the City have two tree policies: one for view and one for non - view? NO How would you define a "View Community'? c. Should all tree removals require replacement with a 36" box tree? No Is this realistic given space constraints and availability? No 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? Should be the decision of the Urban Forester • 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 PBFtR Commission shall find that approval of the request will not adversely impact • the overall inventory, diversity and age of the City's Urban Forest. No 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 10/06/2003 - -- ,'' ``.i_ Y ourr•99w �ssockahkc1n RYq)6y0 bD6,4.__ dYo2 5c�a�bieezw e.,CD1f 51"A5 aaL+o 1--b -- ` awi n, oc. Sao - 40 a e7 Sea -u� +4 0 _b +4f !X5 -71 9- 99t) t ./ ya -Fy F3