HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 - Tree Removal Appeal - Jim Erickson - 620 Orchid AvenueU
Agenda Item No. V — q
January 5, 1999
To: Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission
From: General Services Director
Subject: Tree Rein oval Appeal
Recommendations
Deny the removal request of one Blue Gum (Eucalyptus globulus) parkway street tree at
620 'Orchid Avenue
or
Approve the reforestation of one Blue Gum (Eucalyptus globulus) parkway street tree at
620 Orchid Avenue at the resident's expense.
• Background
Mr. and Mrs. Jim Erickson requested the removal of one parkway street tree adjacent to
their residence by a letter dated November 16, 1998 (Attachment A). The tree is actually
located on Fourth Avenue. Subsequently, I sent the attached letter dated November 19,
1998 (Attachment B) to Mr. and Mrs. Erickson denying their tree removal request and the
recourse procedure to appeal the decision. The Erickson made a verbal request to have
their request reviewed by the Commission.
Discussion
The Urban Forester and the Park Superintendent reviewed the request on site in
December using the Tree Inspection and Tree Appraisal Report (Attachment C) prepared
by the Urban Forester. He noted curb and gutter damage that was reported to the Field
Services Division of the General Services Department for repairing. Root pruning to
accommodate the curb and gutter replacement would be considered at the time of the
proposed repairs. Staff does not feel that there is significant property damage to warrant
tree removal nor that any foundation damage can be attributed to the tree without an
excavation of the areas between the tree and the home and the interior floor damage.
• The Erickson's have filed a claim with the City Risk Manager's office regarding damage
to their residence by the City street tree. Mr. Effertz, the City Claims Administrator, has
a--7
. offered to settle the claim per the attached correspondence (Attachment D) for damage to
their residence, but the Ericksons will not accept the settlement unless the parkway tree is
removed (Attachment E).
Additionally, the City Attorney's Office, per the attached memorandum (Attachment F)
to the City Urban Forester, is recommending that the tree be removed. The City Claims
Administrator and the Deputy City Attorney are basing their decision for removal of the
tree and the settlement offer on an independent arborist's report (Attachment G). Staff
does not agree with the assumption by the arborist that the foundation cracks can be
attributed to root expansion. The age of the foundation (60+ years), geological factors,
and area drainage may all be factors in the damage.
Earlier this year, the Commission approved a reforestation plan to replace the Eucalyptus
street trees on 4th Avenue on an as needed basis with the newly designated Hong Kong
Orchid tree. While the tree being considered for removal does not meet the removal
criteria of the Council policy, it will eventually be replaced by the City in a reforestation
project that will start in 1999 and continue into the year 2000. Unfortunately, there are
not adequate funds to reforest all of the trees this fiscal year, so priority will be given to
those trees which fail an ongoing testing procedure for internal rot. The tree adjacent to
the Erickson's was recently bore tested and passed the test.
Staff met with the Ericksons on December 17, 1998 to explain our position on the tree
removal. We proposed that the Ericksons proceed with their foundation repairs and if
there is clear evidence of root damage upon excavation, the City will extend our
settlement offer and remove and replace the tree at City expense. If there is no
foundation damage caused by the tree, the City could offer the opportunity to the
Ericksons of undertaking -the cost of the reforestation of the tree at their expense at a cost
not to exceed $700 ($500 removal, $200 replacement). The replacement tree would be a
24" boxed Hong Kong Orchid.
Staff have proposed two recommendations regarding the tree removal request for the
Commission's review.
Mr. and Mrs. Erickson have received' a copy of this report and a notice of the January 5
Commission meeting.
Very respectfully,
David E. Niederhaus
• DEN/MGL /pw
EE
• Attachments:
A. Mr. and Mrs. Erickson's letter dated November 16, 1998
B. •General Services Director's letter dated November 19, 1998
C. Tree Inspection Report and Tree Appraisal Report
D. Richard J. Effertz' letter dated October 8,1998
E. Mr,and Mrs. Erickson's letter dated October 14,1998'
F. Deputy City Attorney's Memorandum dated December 8, 1998
G. Mr. Mahoney's letter dated September 10, 1998
9
0
• Jim & Wendy Erickson
620 Orchid Ave.''Corona del Mar; CA: 92625
94g =718 -9210 rAFC4=tVtMp
Nov 1 9 1998
u5 PARKS /TRE=ES
November 16, 1998
Parks Conuiussion
3300 Newport Blvd.
PO Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA. 92658 -1768
FAX: 949 - 644 -3155
Re: Request to be placed on agenda for December 1, 1998 meeting.
Dear Sir,
• We are currently involved in a claim wherein a city tree has damaged our home. The city's
independent consultant feels the city's tree roots hi a caused damage.. I was willing to settle
the matter with the city if the tree was removed, however, •Mr. Conway does not want to
remove the tree unless the tree is diseased. We plan to sell our house in 1999 and under the
disclosure laws will have to inform potential buyers of the problem with the tree. Obviously,
a tree causing damage to the house will severely impact our ability to sell our home. It is my
understanding the Parks Commission is responsible for determining the future of the tree in
question.
I would appreciate being added to your agenda at your December 1, 1998 meeting.
you f ur assi
O
Jim &Wendy Erickson
�J
PL-eL
•f
0
n
LJ
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
P.O. BOX 1766, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658.8915
November 19, 1998
Mr. and Mrs. Jim Erickson
620 Orchid Avenue
Corona del Mar, California 92625
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Erickson,
This letter is in response to your correspondence dated November 16, 1998 regarding
your request to remove a City parkway street tree adjacent to your residence. Staff will
prepare an agenda report for the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission meeting of
January 5, 1999. Due to lack of staff and availability of information regarding the tree,
we cannot complete the report in time for the December 1, 1998 Commission meeting.
Please provide any documentation to me relative to the property damage that you
mentioned in your letter no latter.than December 10, 1998. Additionally, if you have any
questions please contact Marcelino Lomeli, Park and Trees Maintenance Superintendent
at 644 -3069.
Sincerely,
David E. Niederhaus, Director
General Services Department
DEN/MGL /pw
Cc: Mayor Protem O'Neil
Councilmember Thomson
Acting City Manager
Park, Beaches, and Recreation Commission
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
,31
• CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
TREE INSPECTION REPORT
Name: Mr. and Mrs. Jim Erickson
Address: 620 Orchid Avenue
Phone Number: N/A
Request: Remove one Eucalyptus tree causing damage to the property foundation and
interior floor.
Botanical Name: Eucalyptus globulus
Common Name: Blue Gum
Designated Street Tree: Bauhinia blakeana (Hong Kong Orchid)
Estimated Tree Value: 33" DBH x 1 trees = 855.3, 40% species value, Total Value =
• $5911.83 (see'attached appraisal report)
Damage: Maintenance records indicate last trimming was completed in February
1998.
Parkway: Concrete Brick Turf Other
Comments: A field inspection determined the tree was healthy, however with apparent
curb and gutter damage which has been reported to the General Services Department
Field Services Division for scheduled repairs and root pruning. Additionally, the tree was
inspected on site to determine if any decay was evident inside the tree. A resistograph
instrument was used to verify any decay, by inserting a small rod into the tree at various
depths within the tree trunk. The measurements were taken at 16 ", 24" and 48" above the
ground and no decay was present.
Inspected by: � is ate: December 7, 1998
Recommendation- Retain tree, trim and root prune tree as required to accommodate
curb and gutter re sc duled.
Reviewed by: Date: December 9, 1998
•
as
0
a
LU
m am
al
• a
W
z
LL
O
mi
MEM-1
`r \1
u
F-
z
LU
L7.
a
W
O
w
v
W
J
W
z
LU
0
¢'E
U d'
O
CL
N
N 0
N p
� d
9 �
Q �
m
J
Q
IL
IL
w
W
LU
OR CR
7
J
T T
T T
a
CI m
>
U� Lo
z
o U)
c 0
N
T F
_
0)
U¢a
J
OU
OD
L6
J
z
Oy
~ N
og
o
W
co
DU
co
tl:
U
W z
N O
W g Q
CL J
o
V
h
N
U U U
0
w
N
m
J
m >
N
H
m
2
go
U
IL
LU z
LU
N
cq
2 Q
Ln
Lo
Z1 �U
U W
!A
co
Q
F p
U)
W'
1 N T
a :3 = N
LU
Co 0 �*
IL
U)
o m
m m
d
33
Riviera A
(714) 833 -3611
•
October 8, 1998
Jim & Wendy Erickson
620 Orchid Avenue
Corona del Mar, CA 92625
Re: Insured:
Claim No.:
Dear Jim & Wendy Erickson:
FAX (714) 833 -2967
City of Newport Beach
98- 0305 -00
CA LIC
Enclosed, you will find, a copy, of Mike Mahoney's assessment of the eucalyptus
damage to your property located at 620 Orchid Avenue. I believe Mr. Mahoney is in
error when he speaks of 620 1/2 Orchid, he means 620.
Also enclosed is the City's release. Pending your review and signature, the City will
• send you a check for $4,125 for the tree root damage caused to your slab and brick
pavers in your home.
If all meets your approval, please sign the release and return to us. We will request a
check from the City. If it does not meet with your approval, please contact the
undersigned.
Very truly yours,
Z�� W4
Richard J. Effertz, RPA
Claims Administrator
tj
Enclosures: Release and report
Mel=
•
(( 7
Mailing Address: P. 0. Box 1827 Costa Mesa, California 92628 -1827
2424 S. E. Bristol Avenue, Suite 320 Newport Beach, California 92660
S�
0
Jim & Wendy Erickson
620 Orchid Ave. Corona del Mar, CA. 92625
949 - 718 -9210
October 14,1998
Richard J. Effertz, RPA
Riviera Adjusters
P.O. Box 1827
Costa Mesa, CA 92628 -1827
Re: Claim #: 98. 0305.00
Dear Richard,
Thank you very much for your letter of October 8, 1998. Wendy and I have decided to sell
. the 620 house in 1999. After consulting with our realtor, we must disclose all past and
potential problems. Naturally, we are very concerned about the slab damage. While the
money offer is adequate to cover the repair costs to date, we are concerned about future
damage and liability to the new buyer due to the existing tree. Bottom line is we do not want
to make the slab repairs unless the tree is removed..
We would like to conclude this matter as soon as possible for our future sale of the- property.
Please advise if John Conway would be willing to remove this tree so we could conclude this
matter.
& Wendy
0
35
L -C 1 ; ;;;')I
• CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
n
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
December 8, 1998
TO: John Conway, General Services
FROM: Daniel K. Ohl, Deputy City Attorney
RE: 620 Orchid, Corona Del Mar (Erickson)
I would assume that this matter is on track for the hearing before the Parks,
Beaches & Recreation Committee in January of 1999. It would be my position, based on
the information provided, that the tree should be removed as it represents a liability not
only to the property owner but to potential users of the surrounding area. It would be
• greatly appreciated if that information could be communicated to the committee either in
your report or in a separate report that I am willing to prepare. Please let me know your
preference.
DA IEL K, OHL
Deputy City Attorney
DKO:da
F: \Cat\ Shared\ CodeEnforce\ ErfcksonWiemo\JClanuaryreport.doc
•
h
Michael T. Mahoney - Independent Consultant
• SPECIALIST IN ARBORICULTURE AND URBAN FORESTRY
425 30"' STREET #2S • NEwmRT BF,ACH, CAI.IFOu.0 92GG3. 949/673 -5199 • FAx: 949/673 -57 97
September 10, 1998
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
% RIVIERA ADJUSTERS
Richard J. Effertz
P.O. Box 1827
Costa Mesa, CA 92628 -1827
FAX: 833 -2967
Re: Assessment of Eucalyptus, 620'/2 Orchid Avenue
Dear Mr. Effertz,
This letter represents my brief report to you on the results of my inspection of damage
to the foundation at 620'/2 Orchid Avenue in Corona Del Mar. We met at the site on
• Tuesday, September 1, 1998, to review the cracked foundation inside the James and
Wendy Erickson residence and to analyze the impact an adjacent street tree might be
having on the damage. While at the site I looked at the configuration and character of
the cracks, considered the location and proximity of the eucalyptus street tree, and
inspected roots in the turf area at that location. I am of the opinion that the tree roots
have interacted,with conditions at the site, resulting in damage to the residence
foundation.
As I explained, the large old street tree has produced a tremendous quantity of roots.
These are in two basic patterns: terminally in the form of very tiny herbaceous
absorbing roots, and laterally in the form of larger woody transport roots. The short-
lived herbaceous absorbing roots develop according to annual growth cycles and are
renewed, approximately each year. These roots are located in the soil where the right
amount of wetness and oxygen are found, including under the pavement where
moisture collects due to condensation. The longer -lived woody roots serve to move
moisture and nutrients from the soil environment up and into the tree and to deliver
sugars and other substances from the canopy down to roots, providing for growth and
energy storage. The woody roots grow in girth, akin to the woody .branches above
ground, and they tend to stabilize once the tree is mature. These roots are found in a
horozontally radial pattern from the base of the tree, usually extending no deeper than
a zone from the top of the soil down into the soil to a depth of 2 or 3 feet. However, a
network of these transport roots might go out horizontally for a hundred feet or more!
RECEIVED
sEP 2 1 1998
uivieru Adjusters
S7
0
•
•
Assessment of Eucalyptus, 620'/2 Orchid Avenue
September 10, 1998 page 2
Experience has shown that structures can be engineered adequately to avoid damage
by infiltrating tree roots. Damage is typical when pavement is thin and un- reinforced.
When reinforcing steel is used in pavement construction, typically #3 rebar (or greater)
in foundations and steel mesh in sidewalks, the leverage capacity of tree roots is
greatly diminished. Because tree roots are organic, they tend to accommodate
obstacles by modifying their growth. The result is less upheaval and cracking; a
moderate impact.
The Erickson's foundation was constructed about 60 years ago. It is unlikely that
reinforcement was used and it is possible that other structural problems may be
exacerbating the,predicament. During the course of my previous study of the
eucalyptus street trees I noticed that ground water is modified by 4`h Street, the
perpendicular cross street. Across 4'h the ground slopes up undulating away from the
Erickson property (and their neighbors on the southwest side of 4'h ) and rising to the
northeast. This grade change acts as an interrupting element which may have resulted
in geological turmoil below. It would be necessary to consult with soil science
professionals to determine if other factors are at work here, and to what degree they
may have impacted the conditions.
As noted, the adjacent eucalyptus tree is quite mature and lateral root development has
slowed. The canopy is being maintained such that foliage is not allowed to grow very
thick, ari intenseregime. This treatment tends to slow development even farther and
root growth will also be reduced. I would discourage wholesale removal of roots in the
vicinity of the broken foundation (or anywhere in the vicinity of these-trees). A better
course of action - both for the health of the tree and for the longevity of new pavement -
would be to carefully prune away offending roots while leaving any non - offending roots
in place. The new pavement should be adequately engineered to accommodate root
activity. This will require inclusion of reinforcing hardware in the foundation material.
I hope the information contained here and the discussion we had in the field on
September 15` is useful in your administration of this claim.- I remain available to further
discuss these and other related matters at your cohvenience. Thank you for the
opportunity to assist with this project.
Sincerely,
141;4z"4a�
Michael T. Mahoney, Registered Consulting Arborist
C
rr
ofC�
.A. o�SG /��.
0
SCA Cr
1�
y
'Yl0. ,5�
M