Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout22 - City Tree Ordinances and PoliciesCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 22 February 25, 2003 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: City Manager's Office Homer Bludau, City Manager 644 -3000, hbludau @city.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Potential Revisions to City Tree Ordinances and Policies ISSUES: 1. What issues should be addressed in any potential revision to the City's ordinances and policies regarding City trees? 2. Should a committee be established to work on revisions and, if so, how should it be constituted? RECOMMENDATION: Provide direction to staff regarding issues to be addressed and the establishment of a committee. DISCUSSION: Background: Balboa Arbor Society Settlement Agreement In December, 2002 the City Council approved a settlement agreement with the Balboa Arbor Society (BAS) that included the City's agreement to consider appointing a committee to conduct a systematic review of City Council Policy G -1 and ordinances with respect to the preservation and removal of City trees. We agreed to bring the item to the Council for discussion by the second meeting in February 2003. The agreement retains the City Council's full discretion over how they may or may not amend City policies and ordinances. However, we did agree that any committee that was appointed would include members of the public and could include an invitation to members of BAS residing in the City to apply for appointment to the committee. The City Attorney has Potential Revisions to City Tree Ordinances and Policies February 25, 2003 Page 2 also offered the BAS attorney the opportunity to submit to the Council BAS' concerns about the existing trees policies and ordinances. Existing Ordinance and Policy Provisions The City's existing policies and regulations regarding City trees are found in a number of documents, as outlined below. Municipal Code Chapter 13.08 (Plantings) Official tree list, tampering, prohibited activities Chapter 13.09 (Parkway Trees) City tree planting requirements related to private improvements City Council Policies 1. G -1 (Retention and Removal of City Trees) Special trees, removal process, reforestation, trimming standards, supplemental trimming 2. G -3 (Preservation of Views) Excessive plant growth obstructing views 3. G -6 (Maintenance and Planting of Parkway Trees) Designated Street Tree List, planting standards and specifications, root barrier requirements 4. L -2 (Driveway Approaches) Tree removals related to private driveway construction 5. L -6 (Private Encroachments in Public Right -of -Way) Tree removals and replanting Analysis: Staff has reviewed the ordinances and policies listed above, and suggests that the City Council consider the issues discussed below in a review of the City's ordinances and policies regarding City trees. The discussion of each issue includes a description of the issue and how an existing ordinance or policy addresses or does not address it. Potential Revisions to City Tree Ordinances and Policies February 25, 2003 Page 3 General Policy Issues Should Newport Beach have an overriding policy regarding its City trees? No such policy is written anywhere now, and the development of one could guide efforts to revise the Municipal Code and City Council Policies. The absence of such a policy may contribute to some of the inconsistencies between existing regulations that staff has identified. Should there be a process and criteria to designate "special trees ?" City Council Policy G -1 states that, "It is the City's policy to retain City trees categorized as landmark, dedicated, or neighborhood trees, which contribute to and give character to an entire neighborhood." Specific trees in these categories are listed by location in an attachment to Policy G -1. However, there are no criteria or definitions of the "special tree" status or the three categories of special trees beyond this one sentence in the policy. Therefore, it is difficult to know why certain trees are on the list, and therefore what would be the consequences of losing these trees. To what extent should the City protect "special trees" and other trees? The statement in Policy G -1 quoted above indicates that the City should retain "special trees." However, the policy does not make provision for balancing the value of trees against City costs and liabilities, except to allow the City Manager to approve removal of a "special tree" that is considered hazardous or other trees to resolve claims or safety issues. Is it the City's policy to retain some trees at any cost? Is it appropriate for the City Manager to have the authority to remove a hazardous "special tree" or any other trees? What process should the City follow in considering the removal of "special trees" and other trees? Policy G -1 covers this issue to some extent, but the process is not clear. For example, the General Services Director is required to prepare a report identifying and implementing specific treatment to retain "special trees" before they are considered for removal, and then to report to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission if the treatment is unsuccessful. However, the policy does not provide guidance on how to use these reports, such as finding that no treatment that would save the trees is available or financially feasible, or that other City goals may outweigh the value of "special trees" in some situations. This policy also gives the City Manager the authority to remove even a "special tree" if it is hazardous. While it may be necessary for the City Manager to be able to make decisions quickly to protect public safety, perhaps the policy should provide more Potential Revisions to City Tree Ordinances and Policies February 25, 2003 Page 4 guidance, such as defining "hazardous" or adding a claims threshold. It is interesting that Policy G -1 provides more guidance in determining what is hazardous for other trees than for "special trees." Because this policy lacks a hierarchical organization, it is not clear if the criteria given for other trees could also be used for "special trees." Tile organization of this policy also results in a lack of clarity regarding whether the notification and appeal procedures apply to both "special' and other trees. What should be the replacement standard when City trees are removed? One section of Policy G -1 provides that "The City will endeavor to replace all trees removed...," and that replacement trees will be a minimum of 24" boxed size. It is unclear whether this applies to replacement for both "special' and other trees. In addition, this standard appears to be inconsistent with the reforestation section of Policy G -1, Policy G -6 and Chapter 13.09, all of which require 36" boxed size for parkway trees. The reforestation section is also clear on a one - for -one replacement standard. Finally, a standard that describes the size of the tree rather than its container may serve the City better. What should be the City's policy on "reforestation ?" Policy G -1 defines reforestation and provides a process for it. However, the policy leaves a number of questions unanswered. • Does the City wish to encourage reforestation or to allow it only under certain circumstances? • Is there a difference between reforestation and a "beautification program" provided for in another section of Policy G -1? • Can reforestation be initiated by the City, or only by the private sector? • Do the reforestation provisions apply to "special trees?" How should the City balance between the protection of City trees and views? City Council Policies G -1 and G -3 provide that the City will consider supplemental trimming of City trees to enhance both public and private views (at private expense in the case of private views). Exceptions are "special trees" and trees that enhance the overall beauty of the area. There is no guidance in determining what trees "enhance the overall beauty of the area" or who has the authority to make such a determination. Policy G -1 also provides that reforestation shall be considered if supplemental trimming has occurred more than twice in a year because of potential injury to the tree(s). Can the City's tree ordinances and polices be consolidated to make them easier to find and follow, and to help ensure consistency? Potential Revisions to City Tree Ordinances and Policies February 25, 2003 Page 5 The ordinances and policies listed in the Background section of this report were adopted at various times between 1962 and 2001, and likely were drafted to address issues in different operational areas as they arose. Staff believes the City can do a betterjob of protecting and managing our urban forest if our policies and regulations are consistent, integrated and easy to locate. Private Development Issues What should be the process for removal of City trees to accommodate private development? City Council Polices G -1, L -2 and L -6 address tree removal in an inconsistent manner. While Policy G -1 requires a process that includes a tree inspection report, satisfying criteria for removal, public notice, notification to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission and a thirty -day waiting period, Policy L -2 allows the General Services Director to approve removal of a street tree if required by construction of a private driveway, and L -6 requires an encroachment permit or agreement. Because there is no cross reference among the policies, staff's practice for many years has been to follow only the L -2 and L -6 process in a driveway construction situation. When this came to my attention recently, I directed staff to follow the G -1 procedures for the removal of all City street trees. If the City Council wishes to provide a more streamlined process for private construction (Staff believes this will encourage compliance and discourage illegal tree removals.), this should be clear in our regulations. Regardless of the process, staff suggests that consideration be given to the following: • More rigorous review process for larger developments than for individual single - family houses. • Requirement for a licensed survey that shows the exact location of all trees (City and private) on a proposed development site. • Requirement to locate driveways to avoid City street trees when possible. • Requirements to protect City trees during construction. • Stronger enforcement of tree preservation requirements, including higher penalties for damaging or removing City trees without approval. Process As noted earlier, staff suggests some consolidation of the City's ordinances and policies regarding City trees. There may still be a need for some issues to be covered in ordinance and some, perhaps more detailed issues, in policy. This decision will need to be made during the process of reviewing existing policies and regulations. Potential Revisions to City Tree Ordinances and Policies February 25, 2003 Page 6 The management of City trees is a sensitive community issue, and staff understands that reviewing the City's policies and regulations in this regard will require input from various constituencies, including those interested in protecting trees, those interested in protecting views, the development community, and the City commissions involved in reviewing and acting on tree questions (Parks, Beaches and Recreation and possibly Planning). If the City Council wishes to undertake a comprehensive review of tree policies and regulations, the City Manager suggests that an ad hoc committee be formed to assist with this review. In order to begin the development review process, the City Manager suggests that the Mayor appoint 3 Council Members who will serve on the Tree Policy Review Committee, and that these 3 members meet in order to formulate a recommendation to the City Council as to the make -up and number of members the Tree Policy Review Committee will have. Environmental Review: Undertaking a review of policies and regulations is not a project as defined by CEQA. The future adoption of ordinances or policies may require environmental review. Submitted by: Homer Bludad City Manager HARBOR VIEW HILLS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION P.O. BOX 54 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 "RECEIVEDAFTERA END PRINTED:" M d- o February 20, 2003 City Council of Newport Beach Mayor Steven Bromberg 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mayor Bromberg and Council members, We the residents of Harbor View Hills are very concerned about the City's plan to revise the tree policy. Of particular concern is the part of the policy that will inquire into the "balance" between the protection of City trees and the protection of resident's views. The issue is complicated because if the City's trees are not trimmed to roof heights in our view neighborhoods, they could impair our ability to enforce our governing documents. This issue was the subject of negotiations and legal opinions from all sides for almost two (2) years just a few years ago. We do not want to be forced to incur legal costs again to protect our CC &Rs. If you plan to establish an ad hoc committee to review the tree policy we respectfully request that you consider appointing a Board member of our Association. Sincerely, Iris Kimmel President cc: Board of Directors Architectural Committee members