Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSS2 - G-1 Policy ReviewCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Study Session Item No. SS2 September 9, 2003 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: General Services Department David E. Niederhaus, Director, 949 - 644 -3055 dniederhaus @city.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: G -1 Policy Review ISSUE: Does the City Council want to consider the revisions to the existing G -1 Policy (Retention or Removal of City Trees) recommended by the Ad Hoc Tree Committee at a future City Council meeting? RECOMMENDATIONS: Provide staff with direction after considering proposed G -1 Policy revisions, Ad Hoc Tree Committee recommendations, additional staff reports, and public comments. DISCUSSION: Background: The G -1 Policy Review staff report of August 26 provides the background and history of the City G -1 policy. (Attachment A) At the Study Session of August 26, Council questioned staff on a variety of issues, following a staff PowerPoint presentation on the proposed changes to the G -1. In addition, Ms. Debra Allen, Chairperson of the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission and the Ad Hoc Tree Committee briefed the Council on the Committee's recommendations for changes to the G -1 policy. A copy of the minutes of the August 26 Study Session are attached (Attachment B). A substantial amount of public input was heard at the Study Session, but because several people in the audience did not have time to comment, the Council continued the matter to a September study session. G -1 Policy Review September 9, 2003 Page 2 Staff has responded to Council interests by providing additional information regarding the proposed revisions as well as various statistics. Current Policy Analysis The City urban forest consists of almost 40,000 trees valued in excess of $70M. The City budget to care for trees is currently $551 K. The current budget does not include previous fiscal year funding ($50K) to address ficus tree damage problem. The forest is actively managed by the Parks and Trees Maintenance Superintendent as well as an Urban Forester. The City manages the forest through a series of policies that regulate the retention, removal, and planting of trees. The most prominent of the policies is the G -1 Policy. As it is currently written, the G -1 Policy which was adopted in April 23, 2000, prohibits removal of trees without considerable process and review. The current policy is considered very conservative in regards to tree removals. Almost all tree removals are opposed by some residents. Only 29 trees were removed by the City in the past fiscal year compared with 487 trees planted. The majority of tree removals were due to settlement of tree root damage claims. Since FY 1999 -2000, which coincides with the adoption of the current G -1 policy, the City has been planting trees at a 9 to 1 ratio to tree removals. In essence, the City forest is growing at a rapid pace while the tree budget has not kept pace. Infrastructure Damage and Costs to Repair Problem trees have continued to cause considerable damage throughout the City. Currently there are 6,500 separate locations that have been ramped with asphalt and await hardscape repairs. The average damage per sidewalk location is 80 square feet, which equals 520,000 square feet of sidewalk in Newport Beach. Eighty percent of the 6,500 locations were damaged by tree roots; that equals 416,000 square feet of sidewalk damage alone. Using current private contractor bid costs per square foot this equates to $2.5 million to repair tree root damage. This is a significant increase from the level of deferred maintenance of 253,120 square feet ten years ago. In addition, there are 3,000 curb and gutter locations that need repairs estimated at an additional cost of $1.5 million. On average, 22% of the trees in the City inventory cause frequent (every 3 -5 years) repair to sidewalks, curbs, and gutters. There is presently a one year response time to resident's hardscape repair requests, most of which are the result of problem tree root damage. The number of complaints about hardscape repairs has increased 58% in the past 10 years. An analysis of the latest bids for contractor hardscape repairs shows the cost to root prune trees has escalated rapidly with knowledgeable contractors charging $100 to $265 per tree location. G -1 Policy Review September 9, 2003 Page 3 General Liability Claims Staff has prepared the attached tree damage claim report related to property damage by tree roots (Attachment C). What is significant about the report is the growth in amounts paid per incident (largest claim at $575K) and the doubling of the number of claims per year (15 -30) in a 5 year period. The number of claims filed for street tree damage to hardscape and underground utilities is rapidly escalating as the City continues to retain problem trees at significant cost under the current G -1 policy. City Costs Associated with Tree Root Damage The total annual cost associated with tree root damage is estimated to be in excess of $13M. A breakdown of the costs is as follows: ` Ficus Tree Remedial Programs $50,000 Sidewalk, Curb, and Gutter Repairs (City Crews) $633,712 Sidewalk, Curb, and Gutter Repairs (Private Contractor) $153,000 Underground Utilities $476,000 Total $1,312,712 'Not currently funded in the current fiscal year In early 2002, as a result of a number of staff presentations on the cost and liability created by City parkway Ficus trees, Council authorized a three pronged program including annual tree trimming, root pruning, and root barrier installation and authorized an expenditure of $50K to fund the program. Under this program the majority of large parkway Ficus trees were trimmed, a root pruning program was established, and root barriers were installed in the past fiscal year. The purpose of the program was to reduce tree root damage while preserving large Ficus trees. As noted above, this program is not funded in the current fiscal year. This past fiscal year, City concrete crews spent 80% of their time repairing hardscape damage due to tree roots. Their work is supplemented by a private contractor. City utility crews spend a significant portion of their time clearing City sewers of tree roots using large vacuum trucks and two men crews. In addition, they manage a sewer lateral cleanout program, a camera inspector van and operator to locate tree root blockages, and a root deterrent program using a herbicide foam. As a matter of information, private tree root damage to City sewers is repaired at City cost. G -1 Policy Review September 9, 2003 Page 4 View Protection The current G -1 and G -3 Policies provide a limited degree of protection for public and private views. However, neither policy, either in its current form or the draft G -1 Policy, fully protects private property owner views obstructed by City trees. Rather a balance is struck between alternative tree trimming methods funded by private property owners and homeowner's associations and preserving our older trees as they continually grow taller. Should the proposed changes to G -1 be approved, City trees will still protected by a stringent reforestation review process that includes the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission and in some cases the Council. An example of tree preservation priority over view concerns is the old, large stand of eucalyptus City trees along 4`h Avenue in Corona del Mar. These trees are the oldest trees in the City with some in excess of 60 years of age. The proposed G -1 Policy does provide for more flexibility in tree trimming standards and reduced costs for view communities in that two Supplemental Trimmings are not mandatory before a reforestation request can be submitted. Comparison — Current and Proposed G 1 Policies One of the Council requests was for a comparison of the current and proposed G -1 Policies. To better understand the reasoning supporting the changes to the G -1 Policy, a matrix has been prepared that compares how the current and proposed policies might affect City or residents' tree requests (Attachment D). Tree Ordinances The matter of considering revisions to either of the two current City ordinances (13.08 and 13.09) was a second BAS issue that was briefly addressed at the August 26 Study Session. Ms. Allen, Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Tree Committee, noted the Committee's recommendation that the ordinances were adequate for City use and required no revisions. Staff, including the City Attorney staff, agree with that finding. Environmental Review: See Environmental Analysis section of Attachment A. Funding Availability: Not applicable. G -1 Policy Review September 9, 2003 Page 5 Summary The proposed G -1 Policy provides for a more flexible decentralized administration of the urban forest while still retaining adequate oversight of our most valuable natural resources. Street trees will remain the dominant street feature, but will be managed in a responsible more economical manner if the revised policy is approved. Prepared by: David E. Niederhaus General Services Director Submitted by: Homer L. Blu u City Manager Attachments: (A) City Council Study Session Agenda Item dated August 26, 2003 (B) Minutes of Council Study Session of August 26, 2003 (C) City General Liability Claims (Tree /Tree Root Property Damage dated September 2003 (D) Comparison of Current and Proposed G -1 Policies CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Study Session Item No. SS2 August 26, 2003 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: General Services Department David E. Niederhaus, Director, 949 - 644 -3055 dniederhaus a@city.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: G -1 Policy Review ISSUE: Does the City Council want to consider the revisions to the existing G -1 Policy (Retention or Removal of City Trees) recommended by the Ad Hoc Tree Committee at a future City Council meeting? RECOMMENDATION: Provide staff with direction after considering G -1 Policy revisions, Ad Hoc Tree Committee recommendations, and public comments. (The draft policy provided by the Committee is listed as Attachment A.) DISCUSSION: Background: On December 12, 2002 the City and Balboa Arbor Society (BAS) entered into an agreement to settle a lawsuit BAS filed over the removal of 23 City ficus trees on Main Street in Balboa Village (Settlement Agreement). Paragraph 6 of the Settlement Agreement provided for the City to commence a process for the "systematic review" of the City's G -1 Policy, The City also agreed to consider the adoption of a city tree ordinance that would make removal of trees the City identifies as protected trees a violation of the City Municipal Code. The agreement did not restrict the City Council's discretion to "determine the appropriate means for addressing the City's tree policies, regulations, and ordinances." The whole of paragraph 6 of the Settlement Agreement is attached to this report (see Attachment B). 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. PB &R G -1 Policy Review August 26, 2003 Page 2 Chairperson, Debra Allen, was appointed chairperson of the Committee by Council action and was directed to appoint two PB &R Commissioners to the Committee. Ms. Allen subsequently appointed Commissioners Val Skoro and Tom Tobin to the Ad Hoc Tree Committee. Staff was directed by the Committee to prepare initial reports on the G -1 Policy and Ordinance 13.08 (Tree Plantings) for the first Ad Hoc Tree Committee Meeting of April 10. A substantial amount of public input was also received at the initial meeting. The Commissioners particularly asked for any input from the Balboa Arbor Society (BAS) representatives. Copies of the agenda, staff reports, and minutes are attached (Attachment C). 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. Chair Allen invited BAS input for the.Committee meeting of May 15. Copies of the agenda, staff reports, and minutes are attached (Attachment D). 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 the G -1 Policy and Chapter 13.08 (Tree Ordinance). Copies of the agenda, staff reports, and minutes are attached (Attachment E). 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. Copies of the agenda, staff reports, and minutes are attached (Attachment F). The fifth and final meeting of the Ad Hoc Tree Committee was held on July 15. Staff provided six additional changes to the G -1 Policy along with various minor other changes. After a lengthy discussion and public comments, all changes were approved by the Committee as well as several Committee changes. Copies of the agendas, staff reports, and minutes are attached (Attachment G). At their final meeting on July 15, the Committee unanimously approved the following recommendations to Council: G -1 Policy Review August26,2003 Page 3 a) To approve the draft Council Policy G -1 with changes contained in the staff matrix as well as the restoration of the original word "protecting" into line 8, page 1. b) To modify the reforestation petition requirements to include up to a maximum of 30 private property owners (15 contiguous properties on both sides of the street up to 500 feet in either direction from the location of the proposed reforestation). c) City Tree Ordinances are adequate for City needs. City Urban Forest Prior to 1995, the City urban forest, which was composed of approximately 20,000 trees, was managed by a tree supervisor who supervised 13 City tree trimmers. Tree requests were handled on an informal basis and service was considered good. In 1995, when the tree maintenance function was privatized at a significant cost savings, the City opted to have the urban forest managed by a certified arborist, with a classification of Urban Forester. Since that time the urban forest has prospered not only due to the skills and knowledge of the Urban Forester, but also due to the extensive knowledge of the Parks and Tree Maintenance Superintendent and a very professional, certified tree contractor. The urban forest has steadily grown in the past years as tree replacements have vastly outnumbered tree removals by a 9 to 1 ratio. (See Attachment H Tree Removal /Planting Ratio Summary 1992 -2002) The forest numbered some 27,000 at the end of 2002 just before an inventory and audit of all City trees was undertaken. Our tree contractor not only located and plotted all City trees over the past 6 months, but also appraised each tree based on species, condition, and size. While the final results of the inventory are not compiled, the City has well over 30,000 trees. During the recent field audit of the Newport Coast open space area, between 6,000 and 8,000 additional City trees were counted, bringing the grand total to close to 40,000 trees. Revision Process The public review process was rather lengthy with 5 public meetings that were well attended with numerous public comments received and documented. Staff received 41 items of correspondence during the protracted review process. Each recommendation, whether oral or written, was analyzed and eventually voted on by the Ad Hoc Tree Committee. The initial direction by the Council at the March 25 Study Session meeting was to direct a systematic review of the G -1 Policy. It became clear by the second meeting of the Ad Hoc Tree Committee that it would be necessary to make meaningful revisions to the G -1 Policy Review August 26, 2003 Page 4 tree policy if it was to be an effective urban forest management tool so the City's urban forest continues to grow in a manner that protects property and considers view impact. The G -1 Policy has been subject to two major reviews in the past 3 years. Each time, the lessons learned using the Policy have been incorporated into the document. The attached draft document would provide a strong urban forest management tool that would permit greater flexibility and staff authority to address the public's concerns on tree management, direct the major tree removal requests to the PB &R Commission, facilitate the building permit review schedule, and address the past difficulties in administering tree requests in a timely, fair manner. A copy of the final draft of the G -1 Policy is attached. Policy Revisions Policy revisions have been made in the standard manner, i.e. strikeout or line through for deletion and underlining for additions. Pages have been numbered and line numbers added to facilitate the location of changes. As noted earlier, major and minor revisions were approved by Ad Hoc Committee. An example of a minor revision would be the addition of "tree trimming standards" on page 1, line 4 of the draft policy. An example of a major change would be the new "Problem Trees" section of the draft policy (Pages 2 -3, lines 22 -33). Major Policy Changes u Granting authority to the PB &R Commission to designate or remove tree(s) from the lists of Special Tree types (Page 1, lines 22 -24) o Adding definitions to the three categories of Special Trees (Landmark, Dedicated, and Neighborhood Trees) (Page 1, lines 26 -33) o Council authority to remove Special Trees associated with a Council approved beautification project (Page 2, lines 18 -20) o Addition of Problem Tree section (Page 2, lines 22 -41; Page 3, lines 2 -33) • Three categories of removal categories; hardscape or utility damage, drainage interference, or view impediment • Limit of 250 problem tree removals per year with no more than 1 in 3 trees in a row in a parkway removed • Removal authority designated to Urban Forester • Tree replacement, if appropriate, to be 24" boxed size • Cost of removal of Problem Trees under view category would be responsibility of requestor o Further definition of All Other Tree category (Page 3, lines 37 -38) o Reduced requirements and time frames for removal of All Other hazardous trees (page 4, lines 27 -33) o Clarification of tree removal process (Page 5, lines 6 -15) G -1 Policy Review August 26, 2003 Page 5 o Limiting appeal authority as related to the General Services Director's decision not to remove a tree (Page 5, lines 1 -2) o Increasing size of replacement All Other Trees from 24" to 36" (Page 6, lines 16- 19) o Adding third category (view impediment) to reforestation tree removal criteria (Page 6, lines 26 -29) o Defining and limiting conditions of reforestation petitions (Page 7, lines 28 -35 and Page 8, lines 6 -13) o Downsizing size of replacement trees for reforestation from 36" to 24" (Page 8, lines 30 -33) o City commitment to maintain urban forest to highest possible level commensurate with available funding (page 9, lines 10 -13) u Facilitate tree removals related to building and demolition projects by designating approval authority to General Services Director (Page 9, lines 22 -30) u Permitting periodic tree trimming with an emphasis on height reduction (Page 9, lines 38 -41) o Authority to Urban Forester to determine if Supplemental Trimming is impractical or infeasible before reforestation (Page 10, lines 11 -15) Review of Tree Ordinances There are two City tree ordinances, 13.08 (Planting) and 13.09 (Parkway Trees). The former provides for jurisdiction and control over the planting, maintenance, and removal of trees, shrubs, and plants in public areas. The latter ordinance prescribes the requirement to plant parkway trees to an owner or developer of a project which would result in an increase of more than 50% of the original size of the structure. Ordinance 13.08 was reviewed by the City Attorney's staff for possible revision during the policy review process. Based upon the information provided, the Committee determined that past enforcement efforts indicated that Chapter 13.08 protections were sufficient and effective to deal with illegal tree removals. No changes were recommended by staff and the Ad Hoc Tree Committee endorsed the recommendation. Draft Policy Analysis The G -1 Policy, as proposed, provides for a more decentralized management of the urban forest. It would permit the PB &R Commission to designate and delete Special Trees, as well as to make decisions on Special and All Other Tree removals and reforestation requests in a public forum. The General Services Director, Parks and Trees Superintendent, and the Urban Forester would be permitted to make Problem Tree removal decisions and handle G -1 Policy Review August 26, 2003 Page 6 appeals. The limit of 250 Problem Tree removals per year proposed in the draft policy is comparable to the level of Problem Tree removals prior to 1997. Additional Problem Trees could be removed with PB &R Commission approval. Various procedural changes have been incorporated in the draft policy that would clarify or identify processes, or procedures, or conditions. Reforestation is a significant issue in the City where views are highly held. View communities have requested more latitude in replacing tall or overgrown trees that cannot be trimmed aesthetically. Proposed revisions to the Reforestation section of the policy and the addition of a Problem Tree section of the draft policy accomplishes this goal while still promoting a stable, healthy urban forest. Another important change is decentralizing the non - Special Tree removal authority as related to the building permit process. Prior to March 1, 2003, the General Services Director had authority granted by Council Policy L -6 to approve tree removals requested through the use of demolition or encroachment permits. Requests were routinely reviewed in a one to two week period. The current G -1 Policy requires such requests to be cycled through the PB &R Commission as reforestation requests, adding several months to the building permit review process. Finally, the Urban Forester would be allowed under the draft policy to assess and decide if supplemental tree trimming (at a tree requestor expense) was "impractical or infeasible ". Summa The G -1 Policy review has spanned a period of five months including five public review meetings. Staff has attempted to address any and all written and oral comments that have been provided. We are confidant that tree removal and replacement issues have been thoroughly evaluated not just by staff and the Ad Hoc Tree Committee, but by numerous interested parties as well. Staff concurs with the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Tree Committee and recommends that an environmental analysis be made of draft revisions of the G -1 Policy to identify any and all effects on the urban forest before final Council approval of the proposed policy. Environmental Analysis: At the July 15, 2003 Ad Hoc Committee meeting the Assistant City Attorney presented a report that analyzed potential tree loss that could result from the proposed G -1 Policy revisions. The report was prepared in consultation with the City Urban Forester. The report was not intended as an environmental review, only to put proposed revisions into context of the actual potential for tree removals, assuming all procedures are followed and all approvals are obtained. The report is included in Attachment G. G -1 Policy Review August 26, 2003 Page 7 If the City Council wishes staff to proceed with the recommended revisions to the G -1 Policy, staff will arrange for an environmental analysis of the revisions that complies with the requirements of CEQA. Once the CEQA analysis is completed the environmental document and the draft G -1 Policy can be brought back to the City Council for consideration and adoption. Prepared by: L Jere ammond, Management Assistant Submitted by: David E. Niederhaus, Director Attachments: (A) Revised G -1 Policy dated August 1 (B) Excerpt from Settlement Agreement Between City & Balboa Arborist Society (C) Agenda, Reports & Minutes of Ad Hoc Tree Committee (April 10) (D) Agenda, Reports, & Minutes of Ad Hoc Tree Committee (April 24) (E) Agenda and Minutes of Ad Hoc Tree Committee (May 15) (F) Agenda and Minutes of Ad Hoc Tree Committee (June 3) (G) Agenda, Reports, & Minutes of Ad Hoc Tree Committee (July 15) (H) Tree removal /replacement statistics (1992 -2002) Attachment A August 1, 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 hrovidc environmental benefits as well. Regular care, trimming, root pruning, 7 maintenance, and programmed replacement are necessary to preserve this charm while 8 at the same time protecting views consistent with Council Policy G -3 and presenting 9 public and private property dames. 10 1 1 The Citv 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 an by Attachment 1, and shall 20 hereinafter be referred to as Special Trees. Trees within these categories shall be 21 identified cgfRblishci, mapped, recorded and administered by staff for the Parks, 22 Beaches & Recreation Commission ( "Commission "). Fhe Commission shall have the 23 authority to designate all Special 'Trees as well as the authority to remove tree(s) 24 the Special "free listing =. 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 specific individuals 30 or ork,inizati.ons_ 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 any removal of a Special TreeUs, 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, the City must I Attachment A August 1, 2003 Draft G -1 1 comply with the noticing provisions of the Removal of City Trees section set forth in 2 this Policy, unless a tree Special Tree is considered hazardous that necessitates an 3 emergency removal. Any such removal must be recommended by the General Services 4 Director and the Risk Manager and approved by requife th .p.,_„,,..' of the City 5 Manager. 6 7 During normal sidewalk, curb, and street repair activity requiring root pruning, all 8 steps shall be taken to retain Special Trees. If tree roots are to be pruned in association 9 with sidewalk, curb, and gutter improvements, sufficient timing in advance must be 10 planned to ensure that pruning will not destabilize or kill the tree. If both sides of a 1 1 Special ecial Tree's roots are to be pruned, one side should be pruned 6 months to a year in 12 advance of the other side depending upon the species and other related factors. If root 13 pruning methods are not practical and /or critical to the health of the tree, then alternate 14 or special hardscape improvements should be considered -hall be installed by the City 15 in order to retain the tree providing that costs are reasonable. All proposed root 16 pruning or other tree treatment shall be assessed and approved by the Urban Forester. 17 18 S;t>ec:ial Prees.,_may be considere_¢ for removal in coniunction v�.}th a Cite Council 19 a t rayed beautification project uti.liim the Rentova} of C._ity I tees pr cedures noted in 20 a subsequent section of* the Policy. - 21 22 PROBLEM TRI:FS 24 A Problem Tree is defined as a tree that by virtue of its species causes excessive 25 Itardsca e or utility damage due to its excessive root sy�stem._17te folio ing trees are 26 Alined as or Trees: - 28 0 FiCU6 nitida Indian laurel F 29 Ficusrubiginosa Rusty Leat Fi> 30 o Ficus ben'antina Weepink* Fig* 31 O Frythrina catfra Kaffirboont Coral Tree} 32 Fraxinus uhdei Shameel Ash) - 33 Cu . anio sis anacardioides (Carrot:wooeU 34 Li(juidambar styraciflua American Sey u _cet Gm 35 Sclt_inus _1)cp er 36 37 Problem Trees shall not be designated as parkway trees on the Designated Street Tree 38 List. 39 40 Problem .(gees that are not designated Special 71'eesmavie removed for the foltmvin„ 41 reason: Attachment A August 1, 2003 Draft G -1 2 A. The Citv tree has had a repeated history of damaging public or private sewers 3 water mains, roadways, sidewalks, curbs, walls, fences, underground utilities, or 4 foundations based on Citv records or other competent and reliable authority. 5 Water or sewer stoppage that results from tree routs and causes significant 6 documented private roperty damat >e (greater than $500) shat) be sufficient 7 criterion. for tree removal. 9 B. the Citv tree has had repeated history of significant interference_ with street or 10 sidewalk drainage,_(lispite specitic treatment by the City to alleviate repeated 11 damage. 12 13 C. The City tree has created, in the opinion of the Urban Forester, a view 14 impediment that cannot be resolved by normal nor alternative tree trimming 15 procedures. 16 17 Problem `Drees may lie proposed for removal by either staff or private property owners. 18 This authority to remove Problem Trees rests with the Urban Forester. No more than 19 250 Problem Trees may be removed per year by staff under this criteria without special ')0 approval of the Parks Beaches, and Recreation Commission. In removals under _1 Sections _A & B above, no more than one of three parkway trees in a continuous row 22 mae be removed in a three year period without a hearing before the Commission. 23 Rrplaccmrn_t_ trees of a 21 -inch box size may be planted if funding permits. Staff are 24 responsible for notifying the adjacent property owner and the legally established 25 homeowners association, if applicable, of the intent to remove a Probl.tm Free. Either 26 party has the right to appeal the removal to the Parks and Trees Nlaintenalice 27 Superintendent within 10 days of notification. `L'he Park and Trues Maintenance 28 Superintendent may refer the matter to the General Services Director if necessary. The 29 decision of the General Services Director will be final. The Urban Forester shall report 30 the removal of Problem Trees on a monthly basis to the Commission. The cost to 31 remove and replace Problem Trees will be the sole responsibility of the City based on 32 availability of funding, with the exception of Category C (view), which is the sole. 33 Lospo sibilitTof the. ap ilicanl_ 34 35 ALL OTHER CITY TREES 36 37 A Citv tree which is not designated as a Special or Problem Tree is designated as an All 38 Other Tree. It is the City's policy to retain All Other City Trees unless removal is 39 necessary for one of the following reasons: 40 Attachment A August 1, 2003 Draft G -1 1 A. The City tree has had a t>,YoveFt and-- repeated history {tlefit�e� s is =t - 2 2 of damaging public or private sewers, 3 water mains, roadways, sidewalks, curbs, walls, fences, underground utilities, or 4 foundations based on City records or other competent and reliable authority 5 Water or 6 sewer stoppage that results from tree roots and causes significant tkkumervtet4 7 public or private property damage (greater than $500) shall be sufficient criterion 8 for tree removal. I�e�ular— #phi +� +r- }pile- elect +gig sI( -I r�tt-- r�nsttate tael3 9 darr�a± e- uora11 c#ama- �tribu4erl t� -... fir l�rt I ?� t€�e -pre peetvk-ner tEa 10 11 per#arne Buell -I reveaEirt�m� a ; e: 12 B. The City tree has had a repeated history (elefi -ne 1 -ate titi r -n� :re tic -a +rent -e 13 wi4ii n of significant interference with street or sidewalk 14 drainage desk ..specif-ic.t- Featmer�ym - the - C=ity- to- iITkv+ate..rryatatc�l 15 16 C. The City tree is dead, diseased, dying, or hazardous, and presents a 4ignifieaf+t 17 liability to the City. A dead tree is one that has been assessed by the Urban 18 Forester and found to have deceased. Diseased trees are defined as those trees 19 that cannot be cured by current arboricultural methods, are in an advanced state 20 of decline, and have no prospect of recovery. Dying trees are those that have no 21 prospect of recovery. Hazardous trees are defined as those that are defective, 22 have a potential to fail, and would cause damage to persons and property upon 23 failure. The Urban Forester will perform a hazard assessment whenever a tree is 24 identified as hazardous. The assessment will identify: structural defects of the 25 tree, parts of the tree most likely to fail, targets where imminent personal injury 26 or property damage may result with tree failure, and procedures or actions 27 necessary to abate the hazard. After assessment, the Urban Forester will 28 expeditiously convey his written findings and recommendations to the Risk 29 Manager for evaluation. If the Risk Manager agrees with the Urban Forester 30 findings to remove a tree, the hazardous tree will be removed without further 31 delay. In the case of imminent tree failure, the Parks and Trees Maintenance 32 Superintendent or the Urban Forester shall have the authority to direct the 33 removal of a hazardous tree. 34 35 D. The tree(s) have been requested to be removed in conjunction with a City 36 Council - approved City, commercial, neighborhood, or community association 37 beautification program. 38 39 E. The City Manager, upon the advice of the General Services Director, Citv 40 Attorney, Risk Manager or the Traffic Engineer, shall have the authority to 4 Attachment A August 1, 2003 Draft G -1 1 remove individual Problem or All Other Trees trees to resolve claims or safety 2 issues. 3 4 REMOVAL OF CITY TREES 5 6 The initiation to remove (Special or All Othe r)am— City tree( may be made by the staff 7 of the General Services Depa amen , and/or Public Works Departments, a legally 8 established community association, or a private property owner by making application 9 to the General Services Director, utilizing the City tree removal form.I_he provisions 10 and - roeedures of this Section of the Policy do not apply to the Problem `Free nor 11 Reforestation tree removal_ processes, which are - described in other sections of this 12 Policv. Special Trees may be considered for removal under the provisions of this 13 Section provided a special report by the General Services Director is provided to the 14 Commission detailing the necessity of removal and any pecific previous treatment of 15 the tree. 16 17 After receipt of the application, a Tree Inspection Report shall be prepared by the City's 18 Urban Forester (Attachment 2) to determine if the tree(s) meets the criteria outlined in 19 the above All Other City Trees section for consideration for removal. Simultaneously, ')0 the Urban Forester shall provide a notice of the proposed tree removal to the affected I adjacent property owner (if not the applicant), the private property owners 22 immediately adjacent to the applicant's property, and the appropriate community 23 association if applicable, (not applicable to the emergency removal of hazardous trees 24 With trees under Item C above. nor to trees that meet the criteria of Item E in the 25 preceding All Other City Trees section).. The Urban Forester shall determine whether in 26 his /her judgment additional specific treatment can be initiated to retain the tree 27 provided the costs are reasonable If a tree(s) is to be removed, the tree(s) will be posted 28 at least 30 days prior to the removal with a sign notifying the public that they have the 29 right of appeal. The sign shall also note a staff contact. Once a recommendation is 30 made by the Urban Forester and the Park and Trees :: \igint _ii.. I-!0! Superintendent to the 31 General Services Director and the General Services Director or designee concurs, then 32 the applicant, the adjoining owners, prig. its pr( _p rtv,: owners c1n uthc side of the strCet 33 within 500' in each _direction of the tree location and the - -a 1c gall c stablished 34 community association, if applicable, shall be notified of the decision to remove or 35 retain the tree within 30 days of the proposed removal. A legally established] 36 community association is responsible for notification of all association members 37 JjUrsuant to their established .pYUCCLIure. The General Services Director, or his a 38 designee, shallepare a staff report for a regularly scheduled PB &R Commission 39 meeting of all trees reconi nended for removal -rug 4ig -the - +vi iF H -A< -t t -itieti 40 Rely >r , except for those trees categorized in Paragraph C. (dead, diseased, or dying ' 1 treesj or Paragraph E (claims and safety issues) in the preceding section on All Other 5 Attachment A August 1, 2003 Draft G -1 1 City Trees. Only Aan applicant, an adjoining property owner, H} att� ittteres #ed } ?troy 2 as lflv established communit` association, the Citv Mana&; ,r, a_PB&R Commissioner, 3 or a Councilmember may appeal the decision of the General Services Director not to 4 remove a tree to the Commission. The Commission, in considering any appeal, shall 5 determine whether the removal meets the criteria outlined in this Policy, as well as any b unique factors which may be pertinent to the removal or retention of tree(s). The 7 decision of the Commission will be considered final unless called up by at least one 8 Councilmember or the City Manager. 9 10 The General Services Department will delay any tree removal(s) for at least 14 calendar 11 days following the date of the Commission decision in order to allow time for a 12 Councilmember or the City Manager to call the item. 13 14 The City will endeavor to replace all trees removed in accordance with the All Other 15 City Trees removal criteria on a one for one basis. Replacement trees will be a 16 minimum of a 2-P36" boxed size. if 36" boxed trees are not available, then a minimum_ 17 of a 24" boxed tree_ will be planted. The full costs of removallind re placement of S -)ecial 18 or All Other Tree(s) will be the sole responsibility of the Cite,_ i.inles <an applicant 19 volunt irilti pav> f r a new trectsZ 20 21 REFORESTATION OF CITY TREES 22 23 The concept of systematically replacing Problem or All Other'Frees which are creating 24 hardscape and /or view problems and cannot be properly trimmed, pruned or modified 25 to alleviate the problemUs they create, or those which have reached their full life, and 26 are declining in health, or are siin elf �wron �ies of trees for the planted location 27 is referred to as reforestation. The Urban Forester shall make a finding fur the latter 28 category of inappropriate tree species for a specific location. His determination maybe 29 appealed to the General Services Director whose decision will be final. 30 31 It is recognized and acknowledged that City trees were planted many years ago and in 32 some cases were planted with specific species that when fully mature cause damage to 33 curb, gutter, sidewalk or underground utilities. h3 Within the ge(Li.a hital boundaries 34 of certain view neighborhoods, City street trees may encroach into blue water views 35 from public and private property depending on the length of time since the trees were 36 last trimmed, or the age and height of the trees. In other cases, the kvrom species of tree 37 was planted originally and simply dies not conform to the rent trcescapc or 38 r rt,cnts a safety hazard. . 39 40 Arborists continue to develop lists of tree species which will grow in restricted parkway 41 areas without causing significant damage to curb, gutter, sidewalk, utilities or loss of 6 Attachment A August 1, 2003 Draft G -1 views. The City Street Tree Designation List, which specifies a species for each City 2 street reflects an offort by the City o prescribe appropriate tree species that will not 3 cause future problems. 4 5 As a City which understands the importance of trees and the Beauty they bring to a 6 community, the City desires to continually improve the urban forest through 7 reforestation. In areas where City trees have been removed through City initiation, the 8 City ;hRi ld will e>-f4ed-iti- erlsly— endeavor to replace therm trees with the appropriate 9 designated City tree. Reforestation may, also be initiated by residents utilizing the 10 precess eutlined below. 11 12 Individual private property owners, as well as legally established community 13 associations, may apply for single or multiple tree reforestation in their respective area 14 by submitting a request to the General Services Director for consideration by the 15 Commission that meets the following requirements: 16 17 A. The proposed area must have clearly defined contiguous geographical 18 boundaries that include the tree(s) proposed for removal and replacement, street 19 address(es), block number(s), or other geographical information. This section ')0 applies to individual and group requests. 1 22 B. Residential communities, neighborhoods or business organizations who apply 23 for reforestation must submit a petition signed by a minimum of 60% of the 24 property owners within the area defined for reforestation. k- neiyhlx- rI3 x{ is 25 r #e €i1 e I- €e- r- tllE:- ptt}pE3s r)€ -this policy as, ..ten - or -rnore homes - in-any . -iven- area of 26 The petition content must be approved arn3 Matz j by City staff prior to 27 distribution by the ptetitioner.._The stuff - approved votition roust bid distributed 28 by the. petitioner to a Ilia \it ium o ,0 ri ate '1 [��CI "�'. �'N lle' S U'� ti) 1 29 contiguous 11'1Vdte property Owlle.l "ti 0I1 LRIt }l tiideti of ;iii t'i': Ut? lCi �00, in 30 either direction -from the location of the proposed. reforc,;t,w(,n; Si- natures by 31 11011- property owners are not acceptable for petition purposes. All petition 32 signatures shall be verified by City staff for property owner status of the 33 person(s) signing link„ the. petition. As an alternative t0 areas 34 represented by a legally established community association e^,poweFed with th Cc- 35 £R's, may submit a resolution of the Board of Directors formally requesting a 36 reforestation with a statement that all members of the community association 37 having their residential views affected, have been officially notified and given an 38 appropriate opportunity to respond before the Board voted on the request. 39 Individual private property owners living within a legally established 40 community association area_ with mandatory ,association membership 7 Attachment A August 1, 2003 Draft G -1 1 empowered witli C- C -9Fn'^ must petition for reforestation through their respective 2 association. 3 4 C. Individual private property owners not residing within a C4;; &n based legally 5 established community association area may submit individual requests for 6 single or multiple tree reforestation. The applicant must submit a petition signed 7 by a minimum of 60% of the-residents a maximum „ f 10 private property owners 8 tup.__It t contq u„u5_private properties on hoth sides the strict up_ to -50O in 9 - - -- either (11 Octi,n 11,ulll _f)tie location of,tlu.kiopos 1 refon5tation Site.) 10 Iir: c'ty(an'—l'1''i:1ItT tit: ' - - #t lkat i:`.4 {lti >#—.SI t4'—'aS well as the endorsement of the 11 appropriate homeowners' association, if applicable. J. petition content must be. 12 approved and dated by staff prior to distribution. All petition signatures shall be 13 verified br City for private_ operty owner status of the pe#son(s) signing 14 the ll-ctition. 15 16 D. A written agreement must be submitted to the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation 17 Commission by the petitioning sponsor (individual private property owner(s) or 18 group) to pay 100% of the costs of the removal and replacement of the public 19 tree(- in advance of any removal activity. The actual removal and replanting 20 will be coordinated by the General Services Department. The total costs shall 21 include only the contractor's removal and replacement costs and be paid in 22 advance of any removal actions. 23 24 E. The replacement tree(s) for reforestation shall be the Designated Street Tree(s) as 25 prescribed by City Council Policy G -6, or the organization must request and 26 obtain approval from the Commission of the designation of a different tree 27 species prior to submitting any reforestation request for a tree species other than 28 the designated street tree. This section applies to individual or group requests. 29 30 F. There shall be a minimum of a one - for -one replacement of all trees removed in 31 reforestation projects. Replacement trees shall be a minimum size of 24" 36" 32 boxed trees, unless the parkway space will oflI'- -not accommodate a 24" boxed 33 tree or a tree cannot be acited du,, to I,intin restrictions cont.iined in Council - ._.- ....... - -I ................:..:�_ -..... k? ....... -' -- .- .........- .._.. -- .- . -..... -- -- ..._... 34 P�,�Licc G -o� If there is not room for the replacement trees) w-ithiR -at a specific site 35 as prescribed by City Council Policy G -6, then the replacement treeW shall be 36 planted in a public area in the same neighborhood at the option of the petitioner. 37 This section applies to individual or group requests. 38 39 G. Refon-estatitm requests must be completed and submitted in a timrly manner bt 40 the petitioner. Petitions that are dated more than 90 days in arrears from date 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 -1 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Attachment A August 1, 2003 Draft G -1 stamped by staff before distribution will not be forwarded to the 1'B&R Commission for consideration. The decision of the Commission on reforestation requests will be considered final unless called up by at least one Councilmember or the City Manager. TREE MAINTENANCE The City shall require the proper care and watering of replacement trees by the reforestation petitioner to ensure their proper growth and development as outlined in City Council Policy G -6. Furthermore, no person shall tamper with fep aeem^rit CCty trees in violation of Section 13.08.040 of the Municipal Code. Further, the Cite will endeavor to fund the care of the. Urban Forest to the hij,hust level ,ossible throu4 >h thi° efficient use of reeular tree trim i ninv, root orunirw, root barrier and pesticide rot *rums. ENCROACHMENT AND DEMOLITION PERMITS All encroachment permits (permits for private property development which are has proposed to encroache4 upon the City right of way) or demolition permits that involve the removal or replacement of City trees must be specifically noticed by the property owner to City staff prior to the building and /or demolition permit process whenever possible. The proposed construction plans must indicate preservation of existing City trees wherever possible (exempt: dead, dying, or in an advanced state of decline). if the proposed development, as deemed by the General Services Director, requires the removal of City trees, the property owner must may submit a raft. -)restatie R tree removal request to the General Services Director, and —shall pay all related tree removal and replacement costs (one for uni replaccmcnt)as- trnel4catel -i the }�} v- ietrs- }?araL;ir�phs anil meet alt provisions of Council Policies 1, -2 and I, 6 and Citv Ordnances - 13.08 and 13.09. Approval or disapproval of all tree removal /rcpaccmernt requests associated with encroachment and demolition permits will be the responsibility of the General Services Director or a clesignee. TREE TRIMMING STANDARDS /cr mnr n rn r r n r l�1MA4fPdO The City Council has adopted tree trimming cycles for trees of different ages and species. T cui:ren Tree trimming cycles and trimming standards shall represent the maximum feasible frequency anei e Sent a €— triffltr}in'- given current fiscal conditions. Except as provided in this -the SLIP I)lem ental'1'rimmiiig- Section_below, trimming shall be in accordance with the standards of the International Society of Arboriculture (1SA).111 those communities with a lel,allv _ established _community association, periodical_trev of 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Attachment A August 1, 2003 Draft G -1 tr'immitw with an eml2hasis on height reduction will be considered _Liv the Citv Urban Forestcr a .on %Written rcc uest by the association. SUPPLEMENTAL TREE TRIMMING The City will consider, and as a general rule approve, requests to trim certain trees more frequently or to trim trees consistent with practices applied prior to the adoption of ISA standards (to enhance public and private views, preserve required sight /distance standards, or other public purposes) which are submitted by affected residents f i' t ate property owners or the board of a legally established community association and the request is accompanied by a completed "Supplemental Tree Trimming Form" and full payment for the requested tree trimming. However, since these practices often require 'topping' or possible severe disfiguring of a trees and are often aesthetically displeasing and injurious to a tree, reforestation shall only be considered once -whcn supplemental tree trimming-is impractical or infeasible as dutcri -ninCd by Hu: Urban Forester. this-praetiee kts- oceurred more than tiviee within �r- perted- 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 I- PrPse.v on o 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 Attachment B Excerpt from Settlement Agreement between City and Balboa Arbor Society dated December 12, 2002 6. City Tree Ordinance. On or before the February 25, 2003, regularly scheduled City Council meeting, and following appropriate public notice, City staff shall bring to the City Council for approval, a recommendation to appoint a committee to commence a public process for the systematic review of the City's G -1 Policy with respect to the preservation and removal of trees within the City. The City Council shall also request the committee to consider and make recommendation for approval a binding Tree Ordinance. The City shall give serious consideration to forming for this purpose a committee that includes public members, and if it opts to do so, members of BAS residing in the City will be invited to apply for appointment to the committee. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be deemed to restrict the discretion of the City Council to determine the appropriate means for addressing the City's tree policies, regulations, and ordinances. BAS and the City recognize and agree that the City, as a municipal entity, may enact, repeal, amend or otherwise alter its policies and ordinances consistent with the powers and authorities granted to the City by law. Nonetheless, the City and BAS are in agreement that a Tree Ordinance would be a potentially salutary provision, and the City commits by this Agreement to undertake a review of its existing G -1 Policy and to consider in a timely manner the adoption of a city Tree Ordinance that would make removal of trees the City identifies as protected trees a violation of the City Municipal Code. Attachment C CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission AD Hoc Tree Committee Thursday, April 10, 2003— 7 -9PM City Council Chambers 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach AGENDA Call to Order — Chair Allen 2. Reports: a. Report from the Assistant City Attorney regarding the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement with the Balboa Arbor Society that are relevant to the duties and responsibilities of the Committee. (7:00 p.m. to 7:10 p.m.) b. Report from the General Services Director regarding Council Policy G -1 and Chapter 13.08 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. (7:10 p.m. to 7:20 p.m.) 3. Introductory Comments by Chair Allen. (7:20 p.m. to 7:25 p.m.) 4. Conurittec Member discussion of the scope of the review to be conducted by the Committee and the general areas or specific issues each Member would like to be considered. (7:25 p.m. to 7:40 p.m.) 5. 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. (7:40 p.m. to 8:50 p.m.). 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 6. 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. (8:40 p.m. to 8:50 p.m.) 7. Committee direction to staff regarding the items on the next agenda. (8:50 p.m. to 9:00) 8. Adjourn to the meeting of April 24, 2003. (9:00 p.m.) Attachment G .F `n'or rl General Services. Department Agenda Itcm No. April 10, 2003 TO: AdHoc Tree Committee PB &R Commission FROM: General Services Director SUBJECT: Review of Primary City Tree Police (C -1) and Tree Ordinance (13.08) Recommendation None, background information only. BACKGROUND G -1 Policy The City has managed the removal and replacement of City trees primarily with City Policy G -1 (Retention and Removal of City Trees). A copy is attached. The G -1 Policy originated in May 1966 and has been amended seven times. The last major revision was February 22, 2000 after a study of over 18 months that included much public input. Since that revision, tree removals have diminished markedly, both those approved by the PB &R Commission and those illegally removed by residents. By the same token, tree replacements have soared resulting in a growing urban forest that numbers over 33,000. A tree inventory was recently completed, which will probably result in the addition of another 1,500 trees to the inventory. The G -1 Policy is possibly one of the more misunderstood Council policies because it must be read and interpreted carefully section by section, was meant to address and apply to all types of tree removals and situations, and was the product of a variety of compromises between competing tree interest groups in the final revisions. With that said, it has worked reasonably well during the past three years. Since the last major revision in 2000, which introduced "reforestation" to the solutions available to resolve Attachment C tree requests and problems, only 95 trees were removed while 1,360 trees were planted. Illegal tree removals have also declined as noted by the attached Tree Rem oval s /Rcpl anti ngs Summary. As mentioned earlier, the G -1 Policy is not as easy to understand as it could be with minor modifications. Staff has compiled a list of minor improvements to the Policy as issues or problems have arisen with the tree removal process. We are prepared to share those findings at a future meeting of the Tree Committee. Municipal Code 13.08 (Planting) This Ordinance applies to the planting, maintenance, and removal of trees, shnibs, and plants in all public areas. It provides for the removal and relocation of plants (including trees) "as determined by the City Council to be necessary or convenient for public travel or in the interest of public health, safety, or general welfare." Anyone illegally removing a City tree is cited by the provisions of this ordinance. The Ordinance is also required as a condition of being named Tree City USA. Staff has no recommended changes to Ordinance 13.08 at this time. A copy of the Ordinance is attached. Very respectfully, David P. Niederhaus Attachments: (A) City Policy G -1 (Retention and Removal of City Trees) (B) Tree Removal s /Rcpl anti ngs Summary (C) City Ordinance 13.08 (Planting) Attachment C G -1 RETENTION OR REMOVAL OF CITY TREES The purpose of this policy is to establish definitive standards for the retention, removal, maintenance, reforestation, and supplemental trimming of City trees. City trees are an important part of the character and charm of the entire City. Regular care, trimming, maintenance and programmed replacement are necessary to preserve this charm while at the same time protecting public and private property. SPECIAL CITY TREES 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. Landmark, dedicated, and neighborhood trees are identified on Attachment 1, and shall hereinafter be referred to as Special Trees. Trees within these categories shall be established, mapped, recorded and administered by the Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission ( "Commission "). Special Trees shall be retained, unless there are overriding problems, such as death, disease, or the creation of a hazardous situation, which require their removal. Prior to consideration for removal of Special Trees, the General Services Director, or designee, shall prepare a report identifying and implementing specific treatment to retain the tree(s). If specific treatment is unsuccessful in retaining a tree(s) then a full report shall be made to the Commission before any further action considering removal is taken. Prior to any removal of Special Trees, the City must comply with the noticing provisions of the Removal of City Trees section set forth in this Policy, unless a tree is considered hazardous that necessitates an emergency removal. Any such removal requires the approval of the City Manager. During normal sidewalk, curb, and street repair activity requiring root pruning, all steps shall be taken to retain Special Trees. If tree roots are to be pruned in association with sidewalk, curb, and gutter improvements, sufficient timing in advance must be planned to ensure that pruning will not destabilize or kill the tree. If both sides of a tree's roots are to be pruned, one side should be pruned 6 months to a year in advance of the other side depending upon the species and other related factors. If root pruning methods are not practical and /or critical to the health of the tree, then alternate or special hardscape improvements shall be installed by the City in order to retain the tree. All pr6posed root pruning shall be assessed by the Urban Forester. 1 Attachment C G -1 C ALL OTHER CITY TREES It is the City's policy to retain all other City trees unless removal is necessary for one of the following reasons: A. The City tree has had a proven and repeated history (defined as two or more occurrences within an 18 -month period) of damaging public or private sewers, water mains, roadways, sidewalks, curbs, walls, fences, underground utilities, or foundations based on City records or other competent and reliable authority despite specific treatment by the City to alleviate repeated damage. Water or sewer stoppage that results from tree roots and causes significant documented private property damage (greater than $500) shall be sufficient criterion for tree removal. Regular drain or pipe clearing shall not constitute such damage, nor shall damage attributed to a failure by the property owner to perform such preventive maintenance. B. The City tree has had a repeated history (defined as two or more occurrences within an 18 -month period) of significant interference with street or sidewalk drainage, despite specific treatment by the City to alleviate repeated damage. I C. The City tree is dead, diseased, dying, or hazardous, and presents a significant liability to the City. Diseased trees are defined as those trees that cannot be cured by current arboricultural methods, are in an advanced state of decline, and have no prospect of recovery. Dying trees are those that have no prospect of recovery. Hazardous trees are defined as those that are defective, have a potential to fail, and would cause damage to persons and property upon failure. The Urban Forester will perform a hazard assessment whenever a tree is identified as hazardous. The assessment will identify: structural defects of the tree, parts of the tree most likely to fail, targets where imminent personal injury or property damage may result with tree failure, and procedures or actions necessary to abate the hazard. D. The tree(s) have been requested to be removed in conjunction with a City Council- approved City, commercial, neighborhood, or community association beautification program. E. 'The City Manager, upon the advice of the Risk Manager or Traffic Engineer, shall have the authority to remove trees to resolve claims or safety issues. 2 Attachment C G -1 REMOVAL OF CITY TREES The initiation to remove any City tree may be made by the General Services Department, Public Works Department, a legally established community association, or a private property owner by making application to the General Services Director. After receipt of the application a tree inspection report shall be prepared by the City's Urban Forester (Attachment 2) to determine if the tree(s) meets the criteria outlined in the above All Other City Trees section for consideration for removal. Simultaneously, the Urban Forester shall provide a notice of the proposed tree removal to the affected property owner, the owners immediately adjacent to the applicant's property, and the appropriate community association if applicable, (not applicable to the emergency removal of hazardous trees with trees under Item C above). The Urban Forester shall determine whether in his /her judgment additional specific treatment can be initiated to retain the tree. If a tree(s) is to be removed, the tree(s) will be posted at least 30 days prior to the removal with a sign notifying the public that they have the right of appeal. The sign shall also note a staff contact. Once a recommendation is made by the Urban Forester and the Park and Tree Superintendent to the General Services Director and the General Services Director or designee concurs, then the applicant, the adjoining owners, and the community association, if applicable, shall be notified of the decision to remove or retain the tree within 30 days of the proposed removal. The General Services Director, or his designee, shall report at a regularly scheduled PB &R Commission meeting of all trees recommended for removal using the Trees Division Activities Report, except for those trees categorized in Paragraph C in the preceding section on All Other City Trees. An applicant, an adjoining property owner, or any interested party may appeal the decision of the General Services Director to the Commission. The Commission, in considering any appeal, shall determine whether the removal meets the criteria outlined in this Policy, as well as any unique factors which may be pertinent to the removal or retention of tree(s). The decision of the Commission will be considered final unless called up by at least one Councilmember or the City Manager. The General Services Department will delay any tree removals) for at least 14 calendar days following the date of the Commission decision in order to allow time for a Councilmember or the City Manager to call the item. The City will endeavor to replace all trees removed in accordance with the All Other City Trees removal criteria. Replacement trees will be a minimum of a 24" boxed size. 3 Attachment C G -1 REFORESTATION OF CITY TREES The concept of systematically replacing trees which are creating hardscape and /or view problems and cannot be properly trimmed, pruned or modified to alleviate the problems they create, or those which have reached their full life and are declining in health, is referred to as reforestation. It is recognized and acknowledged that City trees were planted many years ago and in some cases were planted with specific species that when fully mature cause damage to curb, gutter, sidewalk or underground utilities. In certain neighborhoods, City street trees may encroach into blue water views from public and private property depending on the length of time since the trees were last trimmed, or the age and height of the trees. Arborists continue to develop lists of tree species which will grow in restricted parkway areas without causing significant damage to curb, gutter, sidewalk, utilities or views. As a City which understands the importance of trees and the beauty they bring to a community, the City desires to continually improve the urban forest through reforestation. In areas where City trees have been removed through City initiation, the City should expeditiously replace them with the appropriate designated City tree. Reforestation may also be initiated by residents utilizing the process outlined below. Individual private property owners, as well as community associations, may apply for single or multiple tree reforestation in their respective area by submitting a request to the General Services Director for consideration by the Commission that meets the following requirements: A. The proposed area must have clearly defined contiguous boundaries that include the tree(s) proposed for removal and replacement, street address(es), block number(s), or other geographical information. This section applies to individual and group requests. B. Residential communities, neighborhoods or business organizations must submit a petition signed by a minimum of 60% of the property owners within the area defined for reforestation. A neighborhood is defined for the purposes of this policy as ten or, more homes in any given area of the City. As an alternative, 4 Attachment C G -1 areas represented by a legally established community association empowered with CC &R's, may submit a resolution of the Board of Directors formally requesting a reforestation with a statement that all members of the community association having their residential views affected, have been officially notified and given an appropriate opportunity to respond before the Board voted on the request. Individual private property owners living within a legally established community association area empowered with CC &R's must petition for reforestation through their respective association. C. Individual private property owners not residing within a CC &R based community association area may submit individual requests for single or multiple tree reforestation. The applicant must submit a petition signed by a minimum of 60% of the residents within a one block distance in either direction from the reforestation site as well as the endorsement of the appropriate homeowners' association, if aplicable. D. A written agreement must be submitted by the petitioning sponsor (individual private property owners or group) to pay 100% of the costs of the removal and replacement of the public trees in advance of any removal activity. The actual removal and replanting will be coordinated by the General Services Department. The total costs shall include only the contractor's removal and replacement costs and be paid in advance of any removal actions. E. The replacement tree(s) for reforestation shall be the designated street tree(s) as prescribed by City Council Policy G -6, or the organization must request and obtain approval from the Commission of the designation of a different tree species prior to submitting any reforestation request. This section applies to individual or group requests. F. There shall be a minimum of a one - for -one replacement of all trees removed in reforestation projects. Replacement trees shall be a minimum size of 36" boxed trees, unless the parkway space will only accommodate a 24" boxed tree. If there is not room for the replacement tree within a specific site as prescribed by City Council Policy G-6, then the replacement tree shall be planted in the same neighborhood. This section applies to individual or group requests. The decision of the Commission on reforestation requests will be considered final unless called up by at least one Councilmember or the City Manager. 5 Attachment C G -1 I The City shall require the proper care and watering of replacement trees to ensure their proper growth and development as outlined in City Council Policy G -6. Furthermore, no person shall tamper with replacement trees in violation of Section 13.08.040 of the Municipal Code. All encroachment permits (permits for private property development which has encroached upon the City right of way) that involve the removal or replacement of City trees must be specifically noticed by the property owner to City staff prior to the building and /or demo permit process whenever possible. The proposed construction plans must indicate preservation of existing City trees wherever possible (exempt: dead, dying, or in an advanced state of decline). If the proposed development, as deemed by the General Services Director, requires removal of City trees, the property owner may submit a reforestation request and shall pay all related removal and replacement costs as indicated in the previous paragraphs. TREE TRIMMING STANDARDS /SUPPLEMENTAL TRIMMING The City Council has adopted tree trimming cycles for trees of different ages and species. The current tree trimming cycles and trimming standards represent the maximum feasible frequency and extent of trimming given current fiscal conditions. Except as provided in this Section, trimming shall be in accordance with the standards of the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA). The City will consider, and as a general rule approve, requests to trim certain trees more frequently or to trim trees consistent with practices applied prior to the adoption of ISA standards (to enhance public and private views, preserve required sight /distance standards, or other public purposes) which are submitted by affected residents or the board of a legally established community association and the request is accompanied by a completed "Supplemental Tree Trimming Form' and full payment. However, since these practices often require 'topping' or severe disfiguring of a tree and are often aesthetically displeasing and injurious to a tree, reforestation shall be considered once this practice has occurred more than twice within 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 in areas with an active homeowners' association. 6 [Attachment 1- Preservation of 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 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 Attachment C G1 VA PRESERVATION OF SPECIAL TREES W1 �01M Attachment C G-1 TREES Balboa Library Eucalyptus globulus Balboa Library Phoenix canariensis West Jetty (near Historical Marker) Phoenix canariensis Dover Drive at Westcliff Liquidambar styraciflua 400 block Poinsettia Eucalyptus corynocalyx Ocean Blvd. Corona del Mar Phoneix canariensis Westcliff & Dover (Groves) Eucalyptus globulus Main Street (between East Bay Ficus nitida Ave. and Balboa Blvd.) DEDICATED TREES No. Mariners Park (Marcie Schrouder) Pinus radiata Mariners Park (Frank Tallman) Pinus radiata No. City Hall grounds (Billy Covert) Ficus benjamina City Hall grounds (Walter Knott) Pinus halepensis City Hall grounds (Calif. Bicentennial) Pinus halepensis Las Arenas Park (Ed Healy) Melaleuca linarifolia Mariners Park (Isy Pease) Pinus halepensis 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 (Jan Vandersloot) (jean Watt) Peninsula Park Ravenea rivularis (Don Perdue) Grant Howald Park Metrosideros excelsus 1 (Pete Munro) 2 (Mark Munro) Attachment 1 Attachment C G -1 r DEDICATED Bob Henry Park Ficus Rubiginosa TREES (contd.) (Bob Henry) Cliff Drive Park Quercus agrifolia (Dr. Jan Vandersloot) Veterans Park Lagenstroemia (Rosemary Rae Hill Hansen) indica faueri Mariners Park Stenocarpus (N. Beach Sunrise Rotary Club) sinuatus (Christopher & Marisha Thompson) Pinus eldarica (Meghan & Camielle Thompson) Pinus eldarica West Newport Park Spathodea campanulata (Brownie Girl Scout Troop 2072) Buffalo Hills Park Stenocarpus sinuatus (N. Beach Sunrise Rotary Club) Castaways Park Quercus agrifolia (Nancy & Jack Skinner) (Bob & Susan Caustin) Bayside Park Pyrus calleryana (Newport- Irvine Rotary Club) Castaways Park Quercus agrifolia (Eva Victoria Najera) Begonia Park Bauhinia blakeana (Dr. Leo V. Turgeon) L Street Park Cassis leptophylla (Tim Van Ostenbridge) Castaways Park Platanus racemosa (John D. Woodruff) Grant Howald Park Cassis leptophylla (Jean & Coalson Morris) Old School Park Cassis leptophylla (Jean & Coalson Morris) Mariners Park Bauhinia variegata (Sierra Beth) Cliff Drive Park Cassis leptophylla (Frances P. Hemenway) Grant Howard Park Hymenosporum flavum (Skipper Mark Howes) Attachment 1 2 NEIGHBORHOOD TREES 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 Amended - April 23, 2002 Attachment 1 Attachment C G -1 Erythrina caffra Phoenix canariensis Washington robusta Eucalyptus globulus Eucalyptus cladocalyx Eucalyptus globulus Eucalyptus globulus Eucalyptus globulus Eucalyptus globulus Eucalyptus rudis Pinus radiata Eucalyptus rudis Pinus radiata Eucalyptus citriodora Eucalyptus citriodora Eucalyptus citriodora Eucalyptus citriodora Eucalyptus citriodora Eucalyptus citriodora 3 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT TREE INSPECTION REPORT Name Address Phone Number Request Botanical Name Common Name Designated Street Tree Estimated Tree Value Damage Parkway: Concrete Brick _Turf _Other Comments Inspected by Recommendation Reviewed Date Date Attachment C G1 Attachment 2 1 Attachment C CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Ad Hoc Tree Committee of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission April 10, 2003- 7pm 1. Called to order at 7pm ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Allen, Skoro, Tobin Staff: Marie Knight, Recreation ft Senior Services Director David Niederhaus, General Services Director Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney John Conway, Urban Forester Teri Craig, Administrative Assistant Public Present: Barry Allen Alan Beek Jane Brown, SCE Linda Grant (BAS) Virginia Herberts Tess Lier (Cameo Shores HOA) Diane Meyer (Harbor View Hills HOA) John Orr Larry Porter Mark Tamura (Harbor View Hills HOA) Jan Vandersloot (BAS /SPON) 2. REPORTS a. Report from Assistant City Attorney regarding the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement with the Balboa Arbor Society that are relevant to the duties and responsibilities of the Committee Assistant City Attorney Clauson read the following memo from City Attorney Burnham into the minutes: TO: Debra Allen; Val Skoro; Tom Tobin FROM: Robert Burnham RE: Balboa Arbor Society Settlement Agreement Ad Hoc Committee Duties DATE: April 9, 2003 As you know, the City of Newport Beach and the Balboa Arbor Society (BAS) were involved in litigation regarding the removal of the Ficus trees on Main Street in Balboa. This litigation was resolved pursuant to a Settlement Agreement that, among other things, obligates the City to "appoint a committee to commence a public process for the systematic review of the City's G -1 Policy with respect to the preservation and removal of trees within the City." The City also committed to "consider in a timely manner the adoption of a city Tree Ordinance that would make removal of trees the city identifies as protected trees a violation of the City Municipal Code. On March 11, 2003, the City Council decided that the committee identified in the Settlement Agreement should consist of three members of, and selected by, the Parks Beaches & Recreation Commission. The Settlement Agreement does not define relevant terms but we believe the Committee would conduct a "systematic review' (and comply with the request of the City Council) if it evaluated Attachment C Ad Hoc Tree Committee April 10, 2003 Page 2 each major element of Council Policy G -1, received input from all interested parties, discussed each element in light of comments from staff and the public and forwarded recommendations to the City Council. The Committee should also receive public and staff input regarding the adoption of a city tree ordinance and make a recommendation as to whether the City Council should consider amendments of the existing ordinance or consider the adoption of a new ordinance. We encourage the Committee to consider the initial meeting as a fact - finding session that will, hopefully, allow interested parties such as BAS to clearly articulate the specific changes to G -1 and the components of an a tree ordinance that they believe are in the best interests of the City of Newport Beach. b. Report from General Services Director regarding Council Policy G -1 and Chapter 13.08 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code Director Niederhaus introduced Urban Forester John Conway and noted that Parks Et Trees Superintendent Marcelino Lomeli was unable to make the meeting because of a family emergency but would be attending the next meeting. Director Niederhaus reviewed Council Policy G -1, Municipal Code Ordinance 13.08, tree removals from the last 10 years, and noted that the City of Newport Beach will be recognized as a Tree City USA for the 13`h consecutive year and presented a special growth award at the Council meeting on April 22. 3. Introductory Comments by Chair Allen Chair Allen introduced herself and stated that meetings had been also scheduled for April 24 and May 15 of the Ad Hoc Committee. The Committee will hear the public as they voice their concerns regarding tree policies and will give direction to staff. After the Committee has heard from the public and concluded their deliberations, they will present their findings to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission and will forward a report to the City Council. 4. Committee Member Discussion Commissioner Skoro stated that he had been part of the previous 18 -month discussion of the G-1 Policy and hoped that it would not take that long this time. He noted that the G -1 could be improved and hoped that everyone would listen, so that recommendations could be made and move forward. Commission Tobin stated that he has an open mind and willing to hear all issues. 5. Public Testimony regarding the General Area of Specific Issues the Committee should consider durine its review Larry Porter stated that there seems to be problems with enforcement of the G -1 Policy and that it could be enforced more easily if it was an ordinance. He noted that he does not want to see another Main Street Ficus fiasco. Barry Allen stated that views are extremely important to homeowners and the homeowners association CCEtR's. He stated that the G -1 Policy has worked well in the past and would be concerned with changes. He stated that the tree trimming does not always work with the sporadic growth of trees and that by planting such small trees as replacements that homeowners will experience removal problems in the future. Mr. Allen stated that if the Balboa Arbor Society (BAS) has a problem Attachment C Ad Hoc Tree Committee April 10, 2003 Page 3 with the G -1 Policy then they should submit what changes they feel should be made and the Committee and the public could start from there. John Orr thanked Urban Forester John Conway for his professionalism and expertise. He stated that he echo's Mr. Allen's comments. He reinforced the fact that views are extremely important for the homeowners, the association but also for property values. Tess Lier from Cameo Highlands stated that she also worked on the G-1 Policy and that a good compromise was reached for a view City. She stated that she appreciates the trim cycle. She asked that BAS or Dr. Vandersloot submit their suggestions for change of the policy. She stated that the G-1 is there to protect the trees and views. Alan Beek commented that the City's replacement numbers of tree removals is much too high. He noted his surprise that the trimming cycle was ok with the last witness. He stated that there really is no protection of the private view and that once a tree is named special it becomes a "holy" tree. Mr. Beek stated that taking out 42 trees and planting 487 is just too high. He stated that the City should worry more about the poor homeowners than the trees. Jan Vandersloot, BAS /SPON stated that the City should have public members on the committee and it was a condition of the settlement with BAS. He stated that BAS does not want to change anything in the G-1 Policy having to do with views. The major concern is reforestation. He stated that when a tree is reforested it should not be replaced with a toothpick of a tree. Chair Allen asked Mr. Vandersloot's thoughts on tree trimming for views. Mr. Vandersloot stated that trees should be trimmed in accordance with the International Society of Arboriculture standards; trees should not always be topped off. He also noted that trees should become part of a view for residents. Mr. Vandersloot asked for more time. Chair Allen stated if there was more time after everyone else had spoke he would be allowed more time. Virginia Herberts stated that she was part of the committee that first applied for the City to become Tree City USA. She also stated that the Special Tree List began when she was part of the Commission and that they started this list as a response to the community when a specific tree lent a certain kind of ambience to the neighborhood. She also noted that some trees that are planted do not respond well to the Newport Beach climate and suggested that more study be done before a tree is selected. Mark Truman thanked the Commission for the G -1 Policy. He stated that he lives in a view community and that he does not want someone to tell him what his view should be. Lynn Miller, BAS stated that the G-1 Policy was not observed in the removal of the Main Street Ficus trees. She stated that those ficus trees were "Special" and should never have been removed. Chair Allen asked Ms. Miller if she believes that the problem with the G -1 is that the rules are not always followed. Ms. Miller stated yes. Attachment C Ad Hoc Tree Committee April 10, 2003 Page 4 Linda Grant, BAS, stated that Mr. Porter had just handed her a card displaying the Main Street ficus trees and that it just makes her want to cry. She stated that we need an ordinance to protect City trees. She stated that she believes in trees. She stated that John Conway should be on the Ad Hoc Committee. She stated that our town has been destroyed. She stated that she sued the City because she had to. She stated that she is not going away and that the City will need to get used to that. • Diane Meyer commented that it would be helpful to know just exactly what BAS wants. She stated that she loves trees, views and John Conway. She stated that a reforested tree should not be replanted if it is going to cause a problem with views. She suggested that more funds are needed for more frequent trimmings. • Bill Simons stated that he lives in Jasmine Creek which does not have City trees adjacent to the community but he appreciates the G -1 Policy as it protects their views and that all associations should adhere to the view policy. Discussion ensued regarding the settlement. Assistant City Attorney Clauson stated that the City won at the Superior Court level but it was appealed; a settlement was reached rather than continuing with the lawsuit. Jan Vandersloot began to discuss the BAS lawsuit Ms. Clauson stated that instead of rehashing the settlement, why doesn't the BAS put in writing what they feel should be changed. Mr. Vandersloot comments are as follows: - City needs a more effective Tree Care Ordinance that deals with retention and removal so that enforcement can be done - There should be better mitigation of tree values and functions. - City should review Costa Mesa's 3 to 1 tree replacement policy for possible adoption. - G -1 needs better reforestation criteria (he brought up the Singleton's letters that were never answered); should only be done when there is repeated damage - Too much trimming defaces the tree. - Better maintenance procedures are needed before removals are done (maintenance suggestions for the Main Street trees by a three arborist were ignored) - Special City Trees should be protected forever and never removed for any reason. City needs to establish a Tree Committee as the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission do not necessarily always like trees. He again commented that the City should not be receiving the Tree City USA award. He noted that BAS members would like to be part of the Tree Committee. Attachment C Ad Hoc Tree Committee April 10, 2003 Page 5 Chair Allen stated that this committee has waited for 6 weeks for the BAS to put their comments in writing and suggested that the Committee would like to see it earlier rather than later. 6. Public Comments on Non - Agenda Items Virginia Herberts stated that she has concerns about Council Policy G -6 — Maintenance and Planting of Parkway Trees as she believes that tree maintenance should not have been privatized. She noted that City trees would have a better chance if they were cared for by people that care about them and planted in the correct manner. Alan Beek noted that he believes that little trees are far more interesting than big trees. Barry Allen asked the Commission how the City of Newport Beach had been selected as Tree City USA. Director Niederhaus stated that the City applies for the tree award and has been designated on an annual basis with the approval of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission. Linda Grant stated that trees make this City better. She again stated that she sued the City to save the trees. She noted that she is tired of people badgering her and the committee because of their love for their trees. She stated that she is aware that the Council has made jokes of them but the bottom line is she and the Balboa Arbor Society are not going away. John Orr asked what are the benefits of being know as Tree City USA. Director Niederhaus stated that roadway signage is provided with a plaque and a flag that is flown. The distinction of Tree City USA is not so much an award as it fosters urban forest care and growth. Jan Vandersloot stated that he supports the City being Tree City USA and reminded people that don't like trees that they were initially planted to help rid cities of smog. He commented that Newport Beach should not be a City of pygmy trees. Tess Lier asked what is being done for the Eucalyptus trees on Balboa Boulevard near Main Street. Urban Forester John Conway stated that those trees were being treated for lerps and that injections should cure the problem. 7. Committee Direction to Staff Chair Allen stated that she has learned from the public that John Conway does a wonderful job and that most of the problems with the G-1 policy are enforcement concerns and not the language. Chair Allen stated that the enforcement issue is basically because of the Main Street Removals and believes that it was an isolated incident. She asked staff to confer with the City of Costa Mesa regarding their 3 to 1 replacement policy. She also stated that this Committee is not ready to discuss Special Trees and does not believe that is a item that should be discussed by this Committee. Attachment C Ad Hoc Tree Committee April 10, 2003 Page 6 Chair Allen asked staff to return with a staff report on how well the City mitigates the maintenance of trees re: their health; and a report from staff regarding any issues or concerns they may have with the G -1 policy. Director Niederhaus commented that the Council had augmented the tree maintenance budget in FY 2002/03 for funding of tree root barriers, root pruning and annual trimmings. Commissioner Skoro stated that he also would like to see a written statement from the Balboa Arbor Society outlining their concerns and would like staff to review the monetary aspects of more care and tree trimmings but reminded the public that the City does not have an infinite source of money and like all things money is an issue. Commissioner Tobin stated that he also would like to see something in writing from the Balboa Arbor Society, ADJOURNMENT - 8 :45pm Submitted by: Teri Craig, Admin Assistant CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission AD Hoc Tree Committee Thursday, April 24, 2003 — 7:00- 9:OOPM City Council Chambers 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach AGENDA Attachment D 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 2 minutes per person. 3. Minutes of the meeting of April 10, 2003. Waive reading of subject minutes, approve as written, and order filed. 4. Reports: a. Report from the Deputy City Attorney regarding the history of illegal tree removals and the applicability of Ordinance 13.08. b. Report from the General Services Director regarding current tree replacement policies and an update on the City of Costa Mesa tree replacement program. C. Report from the General Services Director regarding increased tree maintenance activities including annual trimming and root pruning, and root barrier programs. d. Report from the General Services Director regarding staff suggested changes to the G -1 Policy. 5. 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. 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 6. Committee direction to staff regarding the items for the next agenda. 7. Adjourn to the meeting of May 8, 2003. (9:00 p.m.) 11 -00113''1,11 0 AU Hai Lae Agrnda dot Attachment D CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY TO: AD Hoc Tree Committee and PB &R Commission FROM: Daniel K. Ohl, Deputy City Attorney SUBJECT: Thursday, April 24, 2003 Agenda Item No. 4A, Illegal Tree Removal DATE: April 18, 2003 The City Attorney's Office has worked in conjunction with the General Services Department when City trees are illegally removed. We have used Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 13.08.040 as the basis for recovery. That Section provides: "No person shall trim, cut down, damage, remove, destroy any tree growing upon any public park, beach or playground, or the grounds of any public building, or a public street right -of -way, without written permission of the City Manager." In the past, if an amicable resolution could not be reached with the property owner, subject to approval of the General Services Department, our office would institute a lawsuit in Superior Court. Unfortunately, the Courts were less than receptive to our efforts and restricted our ability to recover damages to the cost of replacement as opposed to the value of what was taken. Because of that reception, our office no longer pursues complaints in Superior Court. Instead, we now gather additional information, use digital photographs provided by General Services, make reference to digital orthotic overheads through GIS and obtain a detailed breakdown of the value of the tree which was illegally removed. We have meetings with the homeowners, thoroughly explain the process and attempt to amicably resolve the matter. If we are unable to reach a resolution, we now proceed to Small Claims Court. Our office prepares a brief for the Court, cites relevant authorities, assembles and marks the documents upon which we rely and we meet and confer with the General Services Department before their appearance in Small Claims Court. We have found a greater success in doing this and it is a much more efficient use of our time and resources. We did submit one illegal removal case to the Orange County District Attorneys' Office for prosecution. After several months, the District Attorney's Office, somewhat reluctantly, prosecuted the matter, The Court accepted a No Contest plea, but no fine or penalty was imposed. The Court did not order restitution either. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have. Daniel K. Ohl, Deputy City Attorney F:\ users \cat \shared \da \TreeComm \memo\Ag endallo4A.doc Attachment D April 16, 2003 TO: General Services Director FROM: Park and Tree Superintendent SUBJECT: Illegal Tree Removals Listing ADDRESS STAFF ACTION/ TREE VALUE CITY ATTORNEY/PBR ACTION 2720 Bayside Requested $7,735.00 Pending City Attomey&hlic Works Review 509 Acacia Requested $2,294 Collected $700 330 LaJolla Dr Requested $4,265 Collected 53,815 430 Redlands Ave Requested $4,777 Collected $1,400 1856 Port Charles PI Requested $390.80 Collected $195 2222 Holiday Rd Requested $3,400.00 Collected $3,400 KyY 000 . 2515 Lighthouse Lane Requested $1,074 Collected $1,074 2516 Holly Lane RcqLlc.,ted $4,676 Collected $400 2500 Ocean Blvd Requested $16,000 Collected 55.000 221 Kidford Lane Requested $750 Collected 5250 321 Snug I larbor Road Requested $1,313 Collected $500 735 Cameo Highlands Requested 52,127 Collected $1,200 1217 1,. Balbon Blvd Requested $1,300 Collected $585 1737 Antigua Way Requested $9,394 Collected $1,170 2406 Windward Lane Requested $1,809 Collected $585 1706 Port Sterling Requested $390 Collected 5195 995 1930 Port Tiffin Place Requested 51,954 Collected 51,000 519 Femleaf Ave Requested $1,000 Collected $1,000 3807 Inlet Isle Requested $396 Collected $125 Total $57,309.80 Total $22,664.00 Marcelino G. Lomeli Prepared by General Services Departmeni April 16. 2003 o� � a. ��[/F00.N�' TO: FROM: SUBJECT L i + I i Itr i 1ri _ =m i_ri_i; Ad Hoc Tree Committee PB &R Commission General Services Director City Tree Replacement Policies and Practices Recommendation None, background information only. Background Attachment D 10!A 'Agenda Item No. 4.b. April 24, 2003 Staff was requested by the Ad Hoc Tree Committee to provide an overview of the City's tree replacement policies and practices at the April 10, 2003 meeting. In addition, the Committee asked staff to obtain more information regarding the City of Costa Mesa tree replacement practices and policies. The City of Newport Beach tree replacement practices and policies differ depending upon the policy and ordinance. Typically, the tree replacement ratio is 1:1, requiring the replacement tree to a 36" box tree. The following is a brief overview of each policy and ordinance that determine City tree replacement: G -1 Policy (Retention and Removal of City Trees) The G -1 Policy determines the tree replacement size based upon the tree removal category, therefore, the planting criteria differ within the Policy. The All Other City Trees removal category requires a 24" box tree replacement, 1:1. The Reforestation removal category requires a 36" box tree replacement unless the parkway space will only accommodate a 24" box tree, and a one for one replacement. Staff has recommended retaining the replacement size and number for All Other Tree removals to a 24" box tree, one for one replacement. Staff is recommending changing the replacement size from a single 36" box tree to a 24" box tree on a 2:1 ratio for reforestation requests in a subsequent staff report in the current agenda. Attachment D G -6 Po "(Maintenance and Planting of Parkway Trees) This Policy applies to the maintenance and planting of parkway trees, although, the standards and specifications for planting parkway trees actually apply to the planting of all City trees. Under this Policy, trees shall be a minimum- container size of 36" box, unless market availability necessitates the planting of 24" boxed specimens with the number of trees planted determined by the planting criteria. Prior to January 24, 1994, all tree replacements were 15- gallon container size. However, due to the increased Council and public interest in the beautification of City parkways, staff recommended an increase in tree container size to 24" box minimum. Additionally, this Policy was amended July 23, 2002 to further increase the tree container size to 36" box minimum when possible. Staff has experienced, however, that many of the required tree species designated for a particular street are not available in the 36" box container size. Additionally, budget limits, site restrictions, and adaptability prohibit the planting of a 36" box size tree. Staff is inclined to recommend the return to a 24" box tree replacement for the G -6 Policy. A copy of the G -6 Policy is attached. Municipal Code 13.09.010 and 13.09.020 (Parkway Trees Required) The attached ordinances apply to the required parkway tree planting whenever a person constructs a new building or causes an increase in the original floor space of 50% of its original size. As a result of a dramatic increase in new building construction, both the City Attorney's Office and the General Service Department requested that the City Council amend and/or modify the language of these ordinances. The modifications, which were approved by the City Council in July 2002, provided additional tree planting as a result of new building construction. The property owner is required to provide for one 36" box tree or for the cost of planting a tree elsewhere when tree planting is impractical at the abutting parkway. The Planning, Building, Public Works and General Services Departments enforce these ordinances as part of the property development process. Property owners are prohibited from occupancy until this ordinance requirement has been met. A property owner or contractor must apply for an encroachment permit for the planting of a new tree and if applicable a demolition permit for a tree removal. The G -1 Policy dictates that a reforestation request be submitted as well, which if staff recommendations are accepted, will result in the planting of 24" boxed trees on a 2:1 ratio. L -6 (Private Encroachments in Public Rights-of-Way) This Policy describes categories of private encroachments and improvements within the City Right of Ways that require a permit and review by various City Departments. Tree planting is only briefly mentioned, requiring the public to obtain an encroachment permit and approval from the Public Works Department and the General Services Department Attachment D (Copy of L -6 Policy attached). A request for the removal and replacement of a City tree usually requires an encroachment permit (replacement tree), .a demolition permit (tree removal), and a reforestation request. This process is cumbersome and staff is recommending the exclusion of a reforestation request in the development process. In the past staff have approved tree removals on an infrequent basis outside the auspices of the G -1 Policy. Other City Tree Replacement Policies/Practices The City of Costa Mesa has a 3 to 1 tree planting /tree removal ratio for specific tree removal categories. Trees listed as Nuisance Trees (Shamel Ash, Ficus, Carrotwood, and Brazilian Pepper) are subject to the 3:1 tree replacement ratio. The property owner requesting the removal of a Nuisance tree must pay a reforestation fee of $277.50 plus the cost of the tree removal. The reforestation fee includes the cost to plant one 24" box tree and two 15- gallon trees. If the affected property does not have adequate space for the trees, the trees are planted elsewhere. The City of Costa Mesa has four tree removal categories; sewer, nuisance, property development, and others. Established criteria for each category determines the tree removal process and tree placement ratio as follows: Sewer — Not subject to Parks, Recreation, and Facility Community Review. 2:1 tree replacement ratio, 15 gallon Nuisance — Not subject to Parks, Recreation, and Facility Community Review 3:1 tree replacement ratio, 1 -24 box tree, 2 -15 gallon Property Development — Not subject to Parks, Recreation, and Facility Community Review. 3:1 tree replacement ratio, 1 -24 box tree, 2 -15 gallon Others — Subject to Parks, Recreation, and Facility Community Review and approval. 2:1 tree replacement ratio, 15 gallon The City of Costa Mesa conveys authority for tree removal to their Public Services Director.. The following is an overview of tree replacement and practices of all adjacent cities: City Tree Replacement Ratio Size City of Costa Mesa 3:1 and varies 1 -24" box, 2 -15 gallon City ofHuntington Beach 1:1 1 -15 gallon City of Irvine 1.1 1 -15 gallon City of Laguna Beach 1:1 1 -15 gallon In summary, the staff has provided the background of City and adjacent municipalities' policies and procedures related to tree replacement and recommends that any changes to Attachment D the above noted policies and ordinances reduce the minimum container size to 24 ", but increase the quantity of trees replaced to a minimum of 2 for 1. for reforestation requests. Other tree replacements should be on a one for one basis. Very respectfully, David E. Niederhaus Attachments: (A) City Policy G -6 (B) Municipal Codes 13.09.010 and 13.09.020 (C) L -6 Attachment D a C�4vpnY�r Agenda Item No. 4.c. April 24, 2003 TO: Ad Hoc Tree Committee PB &R Commission FROM: General Services Director SUBJECT: Tree Maintenance, Annual Trimming, Root Pruning and Root Barrier Programs Recommendation None, background information only. Background The proper management of an Urban Forest requires a multitude of tree maintenance practices that protect existing trees from disease, insects, decay, urban abuse, property development, and deliberate acts of vandalism. As noted in the Council G -1 Policy, regular care, trimming, maintenance, and programmed replacement are necessary to preserve the urban forest and meet the needs of an expanding and ever changing urban development. The General Services Department, Street Tree Division is responsible for the maintenance and care of over 33,000 trees with an estimated asset value of $70 million. The Tree Division is staffed by an Urban Forester and a Tree Maintenance Service Technician and has a current budget of $717,000. A complete inventory of all City trees is being completed that will include location, species, and value. The goal of the City is to trim all City trees within three years. In addition, planting, removal, inspection, response to fallen limbs and hazardous situations, and specialized services are performed. Specialized services such as root pruning, root barrier installation, and microinjection of fertilizers and pesticides are specific treatments utilized by staff to retain trees before tree removal is considered. Additionally, during normal sidewalk, curb, and street repair activity, root pruning, and root barrier installations are implemented,unless root pruning methods are not practical or safe. Attachment D The following is a brief history and progress achieved in implementing the various tree maintenance programs: 1. Root Pruning Projects Many of the trees throughout Newport Beach have reached maturity and provide a unique charm and character for specific streets and neighborhoods. Unfortunately, a large majority of these mature trees were planted years ago within small confined parkways and under, or near utility conducts (sewer, water, electrical, etc.). This situation has generated sometimes overwhelming reaction from residents who submit claims against the City for property damage and incurred costs because of intrusive tree roots. As a result, General Services Department staff has been working extensively with the City Risk Manager and the Deputy City Attorney, to resolve these claims and seek alternate maintenance practices to retain the tree when possible. Tree removal is considered the last resort to resolve a claim and mitigate intrusive tree roots. The following paragraphs describe specific root pruning projects: A. Clay Street —Irvine Avenue to St. Andrews Avenue At the request of General Services Department staff Council allocated $19,500 during Fiscal Year 2001 -2002 to mitigate intrusive roots from the 21 Indian Laurel Fig trees (Ficus Nitida `microcarpa'), which had caused extensive public and private property damage, sidewalk repairs, and trip hazards within this one block section. Additionally, the adjacent residents and the local Councilperson expressed a desire to retain the trees at any cost. A combined joint effort by General Services Department staff (tree and concrete crews), West Coast Arborists, Inc., and TruGreen LandCare Company undertook an extensive parkway renovation project in August 2001. This included tree trimming, root pruning, root barrier installation, as well as sidewalk repairs, and sod and plant installation on both public and private property. The trees were retained, intrusive roots were removed, and the adjacent properties were protected and repaired as needed. The community was highly pleased with this effort and to date tree roots have not caused noticeable damage. The total cost of the renovation and improvements for the Clay Street project was $60,000. B. Citywide Root Pruning City Council allocated $50,000 in the current fiscal year for Citywide root pruning projects, primarily, as a result of the successful project on Clay Street and in an effort to reduce damage to private property as indicated by the increase in tree claims against the City. This project has been highly successful in claim resolution and in the retention of mature trees. Some related costs: Tree Trimming — 673 Ficus Trees - $26,247 (Required before root pruning) Parkway Renovation — (30 sites) - $23,753 (Included root pruning and root barrier installation) Attachment D 2. Tree Maintenance Programs Although tree health, view concerns, and aesthetics are tree maintenance considerations within the City Urban Forestry Program, mitigating hazardous situations and protecting public /private property are also the primary functions within our tree maintenance program. In addition to the City programmed tree trimming the Urban Forester directs annual tree trimming and supplemental tree trimming, mitigates hazardous tree situations (broken limbs, decayed branches, traffic obstructions, etc.), addresses view concerns, and processes reforestation requests. a. Annual Trimmine In addition to the programmed tree trimming (trimming by grid or block trimming), 4,300 selected trees (primarily Mexican Fan Palms, Coral, Ficus, and Eucalyptus, etc.) are scheduled for annual trimming each year beginning in September and continuing through February. The above noted species of trees are prone to storm damage and by trimming these selected trees each year prior to the arrival of the winter storms and Santana winds, tree failures and fallen limbs are reduced to a minimum. Annual tree trimming reduces tree service requests and allows the retention of numerous mature trees. The public response has been very positive as a result of this program. The City Risk Manager has indicated a significant reduction in claims against the City as a result of storm related damage since this program has begun. b. Supplemental Tree Trimming The G -1 Policy established the Supplemental Tree Trimming Program as an alternative to the City periodical tree trimming schedule 2000. The current tree trimming cycles represent the minimum feasible frequency (3+ years) and extent of trimming given fiscal conditions. However, an individual or an established community association can request more frequent trimming of certain trees if they incur the full cost. The General Services Director has established procedures to implement the supplemental tree trimming provisions of this Policy. This includes the submittal of a request and remittance of a check for $39 per tree. Once received, the Urban Forester will schedule the request within 60 days of submittal. To date, communities such as Eastbluff, Broadmoor, Harbor View Hills, Harbor View Hills South, and Spyglass Hills have extensively utilized this program. This has been an extremely successful program to address view and aesthetic concerns since many trees have rapid growth and require more frequent trimming then the current tree trimming cycle allows. This program also has reduced the number of requests for tree removal. The G -1 Policy requires that Supplemental Tree Trimming be utilized at least twice within a one year period at the expense of the requestor before reforestation is requested. Attachment D Supplemental funding by the City Council for the combined programs of annual tree trimming, supplemental tree trimming, root pruning, and the installation of root barriers have greatly reduced the number of annual tree trimming requests and number and value of tree claims. Very respectfully, David E. Niederhaus Attachment D Agenda Item No. 4.d. April 24, 2003 TO: Ad Hoc Committee PB &R Commission FROM: General Services Director SUBJECT: Council Policy C -1 Amendments Recommendation Review Council Policy G -1 amendments as proposed by staff. Background The G -1 Policy (Retention and Removal of City Trees) originated in May 1966 and has been amended seven times. The last major revision was February 22, 2000, which was approved by the Council after a study of over 18 months that included much public input. During the past 3+ years since the G -1 Policy was last amended, various scenarios or difficulties have arisen with the understanding or interpretation of the Policy. Staff has compiled a record of the various problem areas or suggestions to improve the Policy. Staff's goals in providing the recommended changes to the Policy are to make the Policy easier to understand, clarify removal and reforestation procedures, and increase the tree planting ratio for removed trees. The majority of the changes are self explanatory and have been formatted in the City manner, i.e. an item to be deleted is lined out and an item to be added is underlined. A copy of the amended Policy is attached for your review. Some of the major changes or highlights include: • Definitions such as for the categories of Special Trees • Clarification of tree removal and reforestation procedures • Increase in tree replacement for reforestation to 2 x 1 • Decrease in size of replacement trees from 36" box to 24" box size Staff is prepared to address any of the recommended changes in detail. Very respectfully, David E. Niederhaus Attachment: (A) Council Policy G -1 (Proposed changes) I ^. USERS 'GSNMLindcman\2003rapr03\G-I Amcndmenm AD Hx C.,n,, eAgenda Ikm 4.dm Attachment D CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Ad Hoc Tree Committee of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission April 24, 2003- 7pm 1. Called to order at 7pm ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Allen, Skoro, Tobin Staff: Marie Knight, Recreation ft Senior Services Director David Niederhaus, General Services Director Dan Ohl, Deputy City Attorney John Conway, Urban Forester Teri Craig, Administrative Assistant Public Present: Barry Allen Alan Beek Linda Grant (BAS) Virginia Herberts Yvonne Houseels Iris Kimmel (HVH) Tess Lier (Cameo Shores HOA) Diane Meyer (Harbor View Hills HOA) Mark Truman Jan Vandersloot (BAS /SPON) 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON - AGENDA ITEMS - None. 3. MINUTES - APRIL 10, 2003 Continued to next meeting of May 15, 2003. 4. REPORTS a. Report from Deputy City Attorney regarding history of illegal tree removals and the applicability of Ordinance 13.08 Deputy City Attorney Ohl commented on the history of prosecuting illegal tree removals with the court system as well as pursuing them through the small claims court process. b. Report from General Services Director regarding current tree replacement policies and an update on the City of Costa Mesa tree replacement program Director Niederhaus reviewed the Costa Mesa policy as noted in the staff report. Urban Forester Conway reviewed the survey of the cities of Irvine, Costa Mesa, Laguna Beach and Huntington Beach. c. Report from General Services Director regarding increased tree maintenance activities including annual trimming and root pruning and root barrier programs. Director Niederhaus reviewed current budget and policy for the annual trimming, root pruning and root barriers. d. Report from General Services Director regarding staff suggested changes to the G -1 Potic . Director Niederhaus reviewed the staff report with the Committee. He stated that even with tree removals that many more trees have been planted than removed. Some Attachment D Ad Hoc Tree Committee April 24, 2003 Page 2 of the reasons for removals have been because of the wrong species being planted years ago. 5. Public Testimony regarding the General Area of Specific Issues the Committee should consider during its review Linda Grant thanked Director Niederhaus and Urban Forrester John Conway for their education and stated that she would like to give her time to Jan Vandersloot. Jan Vandersloot distributed a memo and commented that changes made by staff to the G -1 Policy were not too bad, but that a Tree Ordinance is needed to enforce the policy and to have more certainty to what will happen to a tree. He commented on the Costa Mesa 3 to 1 replacement policy of two 24" boxed and one 15' box tree is certainly better than one 36" tree, since that size tree is so hard to find. He asked the Committee to remember that a small tree should not reforest a large canopy tree. He stated that the Costa Mesa replacement policy is much more effective. Mr. Vandersloot also commented that the notices for removal should be at eye level when affixed to the tree. Mr. Conway stated that they have had to move the notices higher as people remove them on a frequent basis. Jan Vandersloot also noted that special treatments to a tree must be done before a Special Tree is ever removed. Commissioner Skoro asked if Mr. Vandersloot's memo was a consensus from the 50 members of the Balboa Arbor Society. Mr. Vandersloot stated that the BAS had not had a meeting yet and that the memo was actually his personal comments. Barry Allen stated that views are the most important issue to any homeowners with a view. Any tree that blocks a view should be removed without discussion. He commented that Newport Beach is a view city and not a tree city. The policy should make it easier for homeowners to remove trees, this would cut down on funds used by the City. Chair Allen asked Mr. Allen to put his comments in writing and submit them to Teri Craig, which he agreed to do. Virginia Herberts stated that she totally disagrees with Mr. Allen and reminded the Committee that trees actually enhance views. Kathy Young, Cameo Shores Association, stated that the tree policy we have would be more appropriate for eastern cities not for Newport Beach. When people think of Newport Beach they think of views of the water, not trees. She commented that most of the trees planted in the City are not natural. She recommended that nothing over 8 feet be planted. The City should encourage views of the ocean as trees do not benefit from this environment. She commented that this is not a tree city and that the committee should rethink the whole reason to even have a tree policy. Tess Lier also commented that Newport Beach is not a tree city but a view city. Land values are based on ocean views not tree views. She also questioned the wisdom of replacing one tree with 2 or 3 when the replacement is being done because of a problem. She commented that planting two 24" box trees is just ridiculous. Ms. Lier stated that the City should allow the immediate areas to decide what they want. Neighborhood association's should be the ones that Attachment D Ad Hoc Tree Committee April 24, 2003 Page 3 determine what should and should not be planted. She also noted that the homeowner should be considered not the tree. Diane Meyer, Harbor View Hills South, stated that she represents a view community. She stated that Laguna Beach and Huntington Beach have a one to one replacement policy with using a 15 gallon replacement tree. She commented that it is not always practical to replace a tree. She also stated that these decisions should be left up to the homeowners association. The homeowner should want the tree if they are going to be responsible for it. She stated that there should be a different set of tree rules for view communities. Iris Kimmel, Harbor View Hills Homeowners Association commented that the homeowners association should control the trimming cycle. She commented that they would not presume to select the type of trees to be planted, but should be allowed to know when trimming is needed. She commented that the City can't come into our community and tell us what we want. She commented that the Association would bear the cost for supplemental tree trimming. Yvonne Houssels, stated that she is speaking for 150 homes that are concerned about views. She stated that if we are going to have a tree ordinance then a view ordinance is necessary. . She stated that staff should look at the tree ordinances of Palos Verdes and Laguna Beach. She commented that trees must be pruned when they obstruct views. Allen Beek reminded the Committee that the City seal does not include trees, only water and sails. He commented that people should be able to decide if they even want a tree planted in their parkway. He stated that public views must be protected. Mark Truman, Harbor View Hills, commented that he has a view property and why should he be forced to take care of trees that he does not even want. Jan Vandersloot stated that he has nothing against the view communities but that types of trees should be considered before planting them. He commented that the City has made the decision that they value trees. He commented that it is intriguing to think that HCA's might be responsible for supplemental trimming thus some of the costs could be shifted from the City. He stated that some of the problems with the G -1 is that Roto Rooter costs should not be considered damage as it is just normal wear and tear on sewer lines. He stated that the appeals process should be reviewed and that the City should have more trees, as trees add value to the overall look of the City. Tess Lier stated that the G-1 Policy is not being undermined if there are only 2 -4 illegal removals a year. Views must be protected. Stringent rules cause more problems. 6. Public Comments on Non - Agenda Items None 7. Committee Direction to Staff Chair Allen stated asked staff to categorize the comments presented tonight into a report for the next meeting on May 15, 2003. The Committee requested that the BAS submit to the Committee their formal response outlining their concerns and issues with the current G1 policy by May 6, 2003 in order to provide the Committee sufficient time to review their comments prior to the May 1 5`h meeting. Attachment D Ad Hoc Tree Committee April 24, 2003 Page 4 ADJOURNMENT - 8:45pm Submitted by: Teri Craig, Admin Assistant Attachment E ar w >o s:?? CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH c . Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission AD Hoc Tree Committee Thursday, May 15, 2003 — 7:00- 9:OOPM City Council Chambers 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach 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 2 minutes per person. 3. Minutes of the meetings of April 10, and April 24, 2003. Waive reading of subject minutes, approve as written, and order filed. 4. Reports: a. Report from the General Services Director regarding the consolidation, evaluation, and staff recommendations for the various suggested changes, additions, or deletions to the G -1 Policy. b. Report from the General Services Director regarding revisions to staff suggested changes to the G -1 Policy. 5.. 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. 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 6. Committee direction to staff regarding preparation of the final report on the G -1 Policy and Ordinance 13.08 to the PB &R Commission. 7. Adjourn to the PB &R Commission meeting of June 4, 2003 (9PM). I'.HSFRswn% %. >11 21.W uffTcpmt.ag<ndaf AD Hnc Tlul fu- 11IM'c AgcndeM. Joc Attachment E CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Ad Hoc Tree Committee of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission May 15, 2003- 7pm 1. Called to order at 7pm ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Allen, Skoro, Tobin Staff: Marie Knight, Recreation ft Senior Services Director David Niederhaus, General Services Director Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney Dan Ohl, Deputy City Attorney John Conway, Urban Forester Teri Craig, Administrative Assistant 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON - AGENDA ITEMS - Linda Grant stated that she lived on Fernando Road and stated that she had been offended at the way Director Knight had made fun of her at the Youth in Government Day and that the BAS attorney would be speaking on their behalf this evening. 3. MINUTES - APRIL 10, 2003 ft APRIL 24, 2003 Kathy Young stated that her comments from the April 24 minutes should have stated the trees were not native to the area. Yvonne Houssells noted that the minutes stated she was representing 150 homes; it should state 450 homes in her Association and thousands of homes with views. Jan Vandersloot, BAS, stated that some of his comments had not been recorded accurately. Commissioner Skoro stated that as he recalled the minutes did reflect his comments accurately. Motion by Commissioner Tobin to approve the minutes of April 10, 2003 and April 24, 2003 as amended. Motion carried by acclamation. 4. REPORTS a. Report from General Services Director regarding the consolidation, evaluation. and staff recommendations for the various suggested changes, additions, or deletions to the G -1 Policy. Director Niederhaus stated that at the end of the report was a matrix that included recommendations from the public, staff and committee that had been received prior to the meeting and in time to include in the matrix. b. Report from General Services Director regarding current tree replacement policies and an update on the City of Costa Mesa tree replacement program Director Niederhaus noted the G-1 Policy had been revised with strikeouts for deletion and underlines for additions and that staff had tried to be open minded and fair. Chair Allen stated that it was her intention at this time to review the policy and take a straw vote at the end of each page on the revisions made by staff. Attachment E Ad Hoc Tree Committee April 24, 2003 Page 2 A straw vote was taken to proceed. Commissioner Skoro asked if the City of Costa Mesa had a policy just for ficus trees. Urban Forester Conway stated that the City of Costa Mesa had a Tree Nuisance Policy where the City could remove the following trees without Commission approval: Brazilian Pepper Ficus Nitida Ash • Carrot Wood Commissioner Allen moved to adopt all revisions on page 1 up to tine 37. Allen Beek stated that the Commission was not working in compliance with the set agenda. Discussion ensued regarding the Agenda and the procedure on how the Commission would like to proceed. Assistant City Attorney Clauson stated that after reviewing the agenda that it does not appear that a straw vote is called out for on the agenda. Chair Allen asked if they could move to item 6 and then take Public Testimony after that. Discussion ensued regarding the public need to testify on the March 12 draft before a straw vote is done. After discussion it was decided to proceed with the public testimony. 5. 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 are not verbatim due to a technical malfunction. Tess Lier stated that she is opposed to a 2 for 1 tree replacement, as there are so many trees in the City and reminded the Committee that Newport Beach is a view city - not a tree city. She recommended that the Committee consider the homeowner association desires. Allan Beek thanked staff for keeping the 24' box versus the 36' box tree in the Policy and asked what exactly is a City tree. Chair Allen stated that at this time the Committee would not be reviewing the Designated Tree List but would leave that for the entire Commission at a later time. Barry Allen commented that root pruning should only be done on special trees and went on to comment about specific sentences in the Policy regarding that. Jan Vandersloot asked if any kind of environmental impact report would be done and was concerned about the public's right to appeal decisions. Steven Wiles, General Counsel for WYSE USE Front and BAS commented on the terms of the BAS agreement and that he did not see that the City was making an effort at getting a Tree Ordinance that would make the policies enforceable. He stated that this was built into the settlement agreement. He commented that Special City Trees should never be reforested. Anne Balderston displayed a picture of people sitting on a bench at Begonia Ft Pacific viewing the bay and peninsula under their favorite tree — The Keyhole Attachment E Ad Hoc Tree Committee April 24, 2003 Page 3 Tree. She stated that this tree is a Special Tree and believes that it should never be removed and asked if it is a special tree can she believe that it will never be removed. She also commented that people should respect everyone's opinion. Yvonne Houssells gave a copy of view ordinances from Rancho Palos Verdes, Tiburon and Laguna Beach to Mr. Niederhaus and stated again that if there is a Tree Ordinance then there must be a View Ordinance. Linda Grant commented on her view of the importance of trees. 6. Committee Direction to Staff Chair Allen asked staff to format the agenda for the next meeting so that the Committee would be able to go through the policy and do a straw vote on recommendations, hear public testimony and then a final vote on the entire policy. 7. Consideration of Additional Tree Committee Meeting. Discussion ensued regarding possible dates for the next meeting. Chair Allen asked staff to view the City calendar and confirm the next meeting for June 12 at 7pm. The public was reminded that if they want to submit information to the Committee for consideration in this process that it would need to be turned in to Teri Craig at the Recreation Services office by Tuesday, May 27, 2003. 8. ADJOURNMENT - 9:10pm Submitted by: Teri Craig, Admin Assistant AD Hoc Tree Committee AgendaMay15.htm Attachment F ! ° CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission -P AD Hoc Tree Committee F00.N Tuesday, June 3, 2003 — 7:00- 9.:OOPM City Council Chambers 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach 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 2 minutes per person. 3. ..._. Minutes of -the meetings of. .... May 1.5, 2003... Waive reading of subject.minutes, approve as written, and filed, 4. Report from the Gene ral_.Services. Director regarding-the consolidation, evaluation, and staff.. recommendations for the various suggested changes, ..additions, or deletions to the G_l. Policy. 5. Committee discussion of draft G -1 Policy and straw vote on staff recommendations. Committee discussion of Tree Ordinance and Chapter 13.08. 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. 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 7. Committee discussion and direction to staff regarding a new Tree Ordinance. 8. Committee discussion and if desired, final action on recommendations to draft G -1 Policy for City Council consideration. 9. Adjourn http: / /WWW.CitV.Dewport- beach. ca. us /TreeConunitteeAgendas /AGENDA ; o20jLfNE °'0203... 08/18/2003 Attachment F CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 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 ft 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 - MAY 15, 2003 Motion by Commissioner Skoro to approve the minutes of May 15, 2003 as amended. Motion carried by acclamation. 4. Report from General Services Director regarding the consolidation, evaluation, and staff recommendations for the various suggested changes, 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 Attachment F 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 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. 6. 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. Attachment F 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 took 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 possible 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 AD Hoc Tree Committee Agenda July 15.htm Attachment G 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, July15, 2003.7 -9p__m at the General Services Training Room, 592 Superior Avenue, Newport Beach, CA 92663. 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 2 minutes per person. 3,. Minutes of the meeting. of June_ 3,_ 2003. Waive reading. of subject minutes, approve as written, . and order tile. d. 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. http: / /),N �ww.city.newport- beach. ca. us /TreeConunitteeAgendas /AGENDA` 4,20JIJLY9. 0201... 08/18 /2003 Attachment G i-I-em 4 7Jisl03 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY TO: G -1 Policy, Tree Committee Members EW Pp FROM: Robin L. Clauson, Assistant City Attorney 0--� O�� Daniel K. Ohl, Deputy City Attorney VID RE: Projected Loss of Trees under U Proposed Amendments to G -1 Policy FOa'% 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. REMOVAUREPLANTING: 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. Attachment G 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. COSTS: 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 $700.00 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 Attachment G 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 Attachment G 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 Attachment G 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) R \users \cat\ shared\ TreeComm \memo\RropLossTreeRpt.doc Rev: 07 -10 -03 PRESERVATION OF SPECIAL TREES LANDMARK Attachment G G-1 TREES Balboa Library Eucalyptus globulus - ? Balboa Library Phoenix canariensis - s West Jetty (near Historical Marker) Phoenix canariensis - to Dover Drive at Westcliff Liquidambar styraciflua - a_ 400 block Poinsettia Eucalyptus corynocalyx- Ocean Blvd. Corona del Mar Phoneix canariensis - r. Westcliff & Dover (Groves) Eucalyptus globulus - I U7 Main Street (between East Bay Ficus nitida - i Ave. and Balboa Blvd.) DEDICATED TREES No. Mariners Park (Marcie Schrouder) Pinus radiata Mariners Park (Frank Tallman) Pinus radiata No. City Hall grounds (Billy Covert) Ficus benjamina- ap City Hall grounds (Walter Knott) City Hall grounds Pinus halepensis > z (Calif. Bicentennial) Pinus halepensis Las Arenas Park (Ed Healy) Melaleuca (inarifolia -� Mariners Park (Isy Pease) Pinus halepensis - s- City Hail grounds (U.S. Bicentennial Freedom Tree) Harpephyllum caffrum - Buffalo Hills Park (Bahia Community Earth Day Celebration) Erythrina caf�a - Peninsula Park (Gray Lunde Memorial Tree) Chamaerops humiiis - Cliff Drive Park Quercus agrifolia - (Gary Lovell) Begonia Park Prunus cerasifera - (Cheryl Bailey Ringw•ald) Castaways Park Quercus agrifolia - Can Vandersloot) (Jean Watt) Peninsula Park Ravenea rivularis - i (Don Perdue) Grant Howald Park Metrosideros excelsus - z 1 (Pete Munro) 2 (Mark Munro) Bob Henry Park Ficus Rubiginosa - r (Bob .Henry) Cliff Drive Park Quercus agrifolia - (Dr. Jan Vandersloot) DEDICATED TREES (contd.) NEIGHBORHOOD TREES Attachment G. G -1 Veterans Park - Lagenstroemia indica faueri - 1 (Rosemary Rae Hill Hansen) Mariners Park Stenocarpus sinuatus - I (N. Beach Sunrise Rotary Club) (Christopher & Marisha Thomposn) 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 Holidav 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 - Febn:a,y 22, 2000 Attachment 1 8 Erythrina caffra - 10, lv w 9 Phoenix canariensis _ 10 Washington robusta - l'10 Eucalyptus globules - 3 Eucalyptus cladocalyx - Eucalyptus globulus - 130 Eucalyptus globulus - ' Eucalyptus globulus - a Eucalyptus globulus - Eucalyptus rudis - iz Pinus radiata - Eucalyptus rudis - /0 1 Pinus radiata - 30 Eucalyptus citriodora - Zo Eucalyptus citriodora — a-- Eucalyptus citriodora — 1 2— Eucalyptus citriodora Eucalyptus citriodora — o Eucalyptus citriodora — 3 City of Newport Beach Street Tree Inventory Overview 'My 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 4.2% 25'30 810 2.4% >24 337 1.0% 34, 129 100.0% HEIGHT in feet COUNT PERCENT - - -- 41442 13.0% 1 -15 8,600 25.2% 16 30 11,339 33.2% 31-45 5,631 16.50/ 46-60 2,480 7.3% >60 1,637 4.8% 34,129 100.0% RECOMMENDED MAINTENANCE COUNT PERCENT GRID PRUNING 29,553 86.6% TREE PLANTING 3,980 11.7% None 364 1.1% REMOVALS 0.7% _ ___________2.32 Diseased or Declining 88 0.3% Overhead Spacing 6 0.0% Poorly Structured 12 0.0% Seedling or Volunteer 22 0.1% ,pacing Criteria 6 0.0% .hump 98 U.3% 34,129 100.0% Attachment G 34,129 76 449 DBH Frequency ar.t. cow X24 .. 4qt ]at rat rat 7 -u 36% HEIGHT Frequency >60 46 -60 3640 34% Recommended Removals 5e kpgu VWuntc r a.me,a sp,<u.y n�a..rd o< °�r6ot,y O $O b 60 9° SOJ 120 Attachment G TREE REMOVAL/PLANTING /RATIO SUMMARY :emaua e e a ree.P�a�tng�afi FY 2002 -2003 Regular Removal Reforestation Approved Emergency Removals Total Claim Related Removals 25 2 2 1Since FY 199 207 trees have been removed. 1,879 trees have been planted 29 1 487 13 A 9:1 ratio FY 2001 -2002 Regular Removals Reforestation Approved Total 10 2 9 trees have been planted for every 1 tree removed. 12 1 540 FY 2000 -2001 Regular Removals Reforestation Approved Total 41 2 43 4 333 FY 1999 -2000 Regular Removals Reforestation Removals (CdM) Emergency /Storm Emergency /City Manager Emergency Total 21 89 4 7 2 G -1 Revised 123 2 519 FY 1.998 -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 Attachment G 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 7/ Attachment G A IV Apt 7/ Attachment G City of Newport Beach Undesirable Species - DBH Frequency June 2003 :COMMON ,DBH !COUNT ;AMERICAN SWEETGUM {� 0 -6 .AMERICAN SWEETGUM d 3yoo 7 -12 'AMERICAN SWEETGUM 7 LL16 13 -18 I :AMERICAN SWEETGUM 3.600 19 -24 ;AMERICAN SWEETGUM G6 25 -30 1 'BRAZILIAN PEPPER _ _ 540 _ '0 -6 i ;BRAZILIAN PEPPER '7 -12 ! BRAZILIAN PEPPER S g 13 -18 ;BRAZILIAN PEPPER 9 5"F7 19-24 BRAZILIAN PEPPER _ - _ /488 -__ 25 -30 i 'BRAZILIAN PEPPER s. 76 >30 1 CARROTWOOD dal 0 -6 CARROTWOOD I'too' 7 -12 t_ CA_RROTWOOD_____ -0 .13 -18 i CARROTWOOD ___3_87 (Qoo 19 -24 CARROTWOOD p 6i3 __ 25 -30 INDIAN LAUREL FIG 0-6 _ INDIAN LAUREL FIG 3y0o :7 -12 ;INDIAN LAUREL FIGJ -7 (.,[o 13 -18 INDIAN LAUREL FIG 3 :,ao 19 -24 ! INDIAN LAUREL FIG 25 -30 INDIAN LAUREL FIG KAFFIRBOOM CORAL TREE ��r;,go _ -_ 1 4u . >30 0 -6 'KAFFIRBOOM CORAL TREE X380 7 -12 KAFFIRBOOM CORAL TREE s 3,/R 13 -18 IKAFFIRBOOM CORAL TREE �gSt7 i19 -24 1 KAFFIRBOOM CORAL TREE 25 -30 KAFFIRBOOM CORAL TREE -L s g ; y ' >30 RUSTY LEAF FIG yd 1 0 RUSTY LEAF FIG 7 -12 RUSTY LEAF FIG -Z6 0- -: 13 -18 ;- RUSTY LEAF FIG 13 t,00 19 -24 1 RUSTY LEAF FIG �l,0 25 -30 `SHAMELASH 0 -6 t :SHAMELASH � ?oo 7 -12 1 ;SHAMELASH ;SHAMELASH 680 _51e;-113-18 19 -24 1 ;SHAMELASH - - - - -- - -- - I?c7`3 -3 .25 -30 1 -- ;SHAMEL ASH >30 WEEPING FIG ;WEEPING FIG A3�f0 -12 1 WEEPING FIG :WEEPING FIG _7 y /8 asn 13 -18 19 -24 1 Attachment G 14 /q0 , /0� 21 gSZ3o 1521 146; 138ggS7 , 41 G1 3z4 7! 435: 1116; 172' 11 7'i4eo 1!1U 33 45: 154, 116: 208 890 ° 128: �7n a o yB 26 Sfi948° 12': 36 61; 32' 3o' S5_gq 391 SS° ss 47 i 7d6t7i- 30i c/o 8000 6j I-�.3s66 M ► 25 170000 _ 13 f3S��9 14'. /SP ?bo AAA WAR ;1 ] 3i 2-Ss�_l 7142 City of Newport Beach Undesirable Species - DBH Frequency- Street Trees Only Junes 90(1:3 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 >30 7 CARROTWOOD 0 -6 343 CARROTWOOD 13-18 165 CARROTWOOD 19-24 11 CARROTWOOD 25-30 1 CARROTWOOD 7 -12 1052 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 >30 26 KAFFIRBOOM CORAL TREE 0 -6 8 KAFFIRBOOM CORAL TREE 13-18 43 KAFFIRBOOM CORAL TREE 19 -24 27 KAFFIRBOOM CORAL TREE 25-30 38 KAFFIR1300M CORAL TREE 7 -12 28 KAFFIRBOOM CORAL TREE >30 40 RUSTY LEAF FIG 0-6 165 RUSTY LEAF FIG 13-18 330 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 >30 12 WEEPING FIG 0-6 59 WEEPING FIG 1118 49 WEEPING FIG 7 -12 177 1 6545 Attachment G Attachment G CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Ad Hoc Tree Committee of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission July 15, 2003- 7pm 1. Called to order at 7:10pm ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Allen, Skoro, Tobin Staff: Marie Knight, Recreation Et 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 - None 3. MINUTES - JUNE 3 2003 Motion by Commissioner Skoro to approve the minutes of June 3, 2003. Motion carried by acclamation. Jan Vandersloot asked that the minutes be corrected to reflect that his letter to the committee recommending changes to the G -1 Policy had been approved by the Balboa Arbor Society. Director Knight commented that at the time of the last meeting those changes had not actually been approved by BAS but had been days later. 4. REPORTS /DISCUSSION REGARDING: • Regarding toss of tree impacts of proposed revisions to the G -1 Policy • Regarding City Tree Ordinance 13.08 Assistant City Attorney Clauson stated staff does not propose that an EIR be done since once the City tree inventory is done it will be noted that almost double the trees have been planted then removed. 5. Report regarding further revisions to the draft G -1 Policy. Committee discussion of draft G -1 Policy Discussion ensued by committee regarding line items on the matrix provided by Director Niederhaus. 6. Public Testimony regarding the General Area 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. • Jim Wharton commented on ficus trees in the parkways and that most trees become significant after 2 -5 years of growth. • Barry Allen recommended changes on pages 3, 9 and 10. Attachment G Ad Hoc Tree Committee July 15, 2003 Page 2 • Jan Vandersloot stated that he opposes all of Mr. Allen's recommendations but is particularly opposed to the entire section of "PROBLEM TREES" and commented that if trees were removed in that fashion then it could cause a huge environmental impact. • Christine Carr commented on the size that 36" trees will be in 5 -10 years and recommended that 24" boxed be used. • Cathy Young stated that she supports the recommendations of Barry Allen. • Elaine Linhoff stated that she supports that unless the City is not able to find trees of that size that all trees planted should be at least a 36" box. • Virginia Herberts stated that the problem tree section should be in the G -1 Policy. • Tess Lier commented that she supports the problem tree section. • Bill Mitchell stated that he has been a victim of problem ficus trees and stated that the section should remain. Deputy City Attorney stated that the City does not have a policy that protects private views. • Iris Kimmel, President, HVHCA stated that she has been pleased with the experience of the Tree Committee and recommended approval of the revised G -1 Policy • Bob Pastfdorf, Cameo Community Association stated that he has been impressed with the Committee, recommended that 24" box trees be the size for replacement trees. • Allen Beek stated that all tree removals should go to PB &R and if needed to City Council for appeal. He also commented that the Policy should state that it preserves views. Director Niederhaus stated that the G -3 Policy comments on views. • Linda Grant, BAS stated that she is scared to death of all the people in the room and stated that if trees are removed like Main Street then the City will suffer major environmental impact. She also commented that staff should never have the authority to remove a tree. • Iryne Black commented on the possibility of environmental impacts. • Curtis Herberts commented on the cost of watering new trees and the water shortage. • Diane Meyer stated that problem trees have been planted in the past and that there must be a way to correct that for homeowners. • Laura Curran stated that she would like a streamlined definition of exactly what a block is; what the specified time is for staff to respond back once a reforestation request has been submitted; recommended that native trees be planted that are more specific to this region when planting replacement trees. Discussion ensued regarding definition of a block for obtaining signatures for a reforestation request. Chair Allen recommended that a block be defined as follows that signatures should be obtained from homes within 500 feet in either direction or 15 homes on each side and not to exceed 30 contiguous home; whichever is less. • Jan Vandersloot stated a block should be 500 ft from the tree in all directions. Deputy City Attorney Clauson stated that she too believes it should be 500 feet. • Jim Wharton suggestion using a post card instead of a petition. • Yvonne Houssels read a letter from HVHS HOA to the Committee. • Linn Miller stated that the goal of the BAS is to preserve trees and to see the City enforce the rules of the G -1 Policy. Discussion ensued regarding specific paragraphs of the revised G -1 Policy. Attachment G CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Ad Hoc Tree Committee of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission July 15, 2003- 7pm SUMMARY MINUTES 1. Called to order at 7:10pm RnII CAI Commissioners Present: Allen, Skoro, Tobin Staff: Marie Knight, Recreation ft 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 - None 3. MINUTES - JUNE 3, 2003 Motion by Commissioner Skoro to approve the minutes of June 3, 2003. Motion carried by acclamation. Jan Vandersloot asked that the minutes be corrected to reflect that his letter to the committee recommending changes to the G -1 Policy had been approved by the Balboa Arbor Society. Director Knight commented that at the time of the last meeting those changes had not actually been approved by BAS but had been days later. 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 Discussion ensued by committee regarding line items on the matrix provided by Director Niederhaus. 6. Public Testimony regarding the General Area 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. • Jim Wharton commented on ficus trees in the parkways and that most trees become a significant problem after 2 -5 years of growth. • Barry Allen recommended changes on pages 3, 9 and 10. • Jan Vandersloot stated that he opposes all of Mr. Allen's recommendations but is particularly opposed to the entire section of "PROBLEM TREES" and commented that if trees were removed in that fashion then it could cause a huge environmental impact. • Christine Carr commented on the size that 36" trees will be in 5 -10 years and recommended that 24" boxed tree be used. Attachment G Ad Hoc Tree Committee July 15, 2003 Page 2 • Cathy Young stated that she supports the recommendations of Barry Allen. • Elaine Linhoff stated that she supports that unless the City is not able to find trees of that size that all trees planted should be at least a 36" box. • Virginia Herberts stated that the problem tree section should be in the G -1 Policy. • Tess Lier commented that she supports the problem tree section. • Bill Mitchell stated that he has been a victim of problem ficus trees and stated that the section should remain. Deputy City Attorney stated that the City does not have a policy that protects private views. • Iris Kimmel, President, HVHCA stated that she has been pleased with the experience of the Tree Committee and recommended approval of the revised G -1 Policy • Bob Pastfdorf, Cameo Community Association stated that he has been impressed with the Committee, recommended that 24" box trees be the size for replacement trees. • Allen Beek stated that all tree removals should go to PB &R and if needed to City Council for appeal. He also commented that the Policy should state that it preserves views, Director Niederhaus stated that the G -3 Policy comments on views. • Linda Grant, BAS stated that she is scared to death of atl the people in the room and stated that if trees are removed like Main Street then the City will suffer major environmental impact. She also commented that staff should never have the authority to remove a tree. • Iryne Black commented on the possibility of environmental impacts. • Curtis Herberts commented on the cost of watering new trees and the water shortage. • Diane Meyer stated that problem trees have been planted in the past and that there must be a way to correct that for homeowners. • Laura Curran stated that she would like a streamlined definition of exactly what a block is; what the specified time is for staff to respond back once a reforestation request has been submitted; recommended that native trees be planted that are more specific to this region when planting replacement trees. Discussion ensued regarding definition of a block for obtaining signatures for a reforestation request. Chair Allen recommended that a block be defined as follows that signatures should be obtained from homes within 500 feet in either direction or 15 homes on each side and not to exceed 30 contiguous home; whichever is less. • Jan Vandersloot stated a block should be 500 ft from the tree in all directions. Deputy City Attorney Clauson stated that she too believes it should be 500 feet. • Jim Wharton suggestion using a post card instead of a petition. • Yvonne Houssels read a letter from HVHS HOA to the Committee. • Linn Miller stated that the goal of the BAS is to preserve trees and to see the City enforce the rules of the G -1 Policy. Discussion ensued regarding specific paragraphs of the revised G -1 Policy. Commissioner Skoro stated that he would prefer that 36" boxed trees be used in all instances as replacement trees. Discussion ensued regarding sizes that that staff is able to obtain. 7. Committee discussion, revisions if desired, and straw votes and or final recommendations to City Council on draft G -1 Policy and City Tree Ordinance 13.08. Attachment G Ad Hoc Tree Committee July 15, 2003 Page 3 Motion by Chair Allen: 1. To approve the draft Council Policy G -1 with changes contained in the staff matrix as well as the restoration of the original word "protecting' into line 8, page 1; 2. To modify the reforestation petition requirements to include up to a maximum of 30 private property owners (15 contiguous properties on both sides of the street up to 500 feet in either direction from the location of the proposed reforestation. 3. That City Tree Ordinances were adequate for City needs. Motion carried by acclamation. Chair Allen asked the minutes to reflect that she has been the Chair of the Ad Hoc Tree Committee since March 2003 and has reviewed all staff reports and memos from the City Attorney. She commented that she believed that based upon the miniscule amount of trees that could be removed with the new policy that there is no need for an environmental analysis to be done. B. ADJOURNMENT - 9:45pm Submitted by: Teri Craig, Admin Assistant Attachment H TREE REMOVAUPLANTINGIRATIO SUMMARY Year I Tree Removals 111legal Tree ITree plantings ITree Removal to Type I# of Trees IRemovals I ITree Planting Ratio. FY 2002 -2003 Regular Removal Reforestation Approved Emergency Removals Total Claim Related Removals 25 2 2 Since FY 1999 207 trees have been removed. 1,879 trees have been planted 29 1 487 13 A 9:1 ratio FY 2001 -2002 Regular Removals Reforestation Approved Total 10 2 9 trees have been planted for every 1 tree removed. 12 1 540 FY 2000 -2001 Regular Removals Reforestation Approved Total 41 2 43 4 333 FY 1999 -2000 Regular Removals Reforestation Removals (CdM) Emergency /Storm Emergency /City Manager Emergency Total 21 89 4 7 2 G -1 Revised 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 W V uj J NQ L.L. W Z W CD F Z W F. U Q U W o 0 U a� E—� O O O .o rx �O b4 Kok 0 L L 0 b M O 0 OJ ° o c O U rd � � o � � O O � � O U � U � U a� � o � o � o U � O o U o � U U � U O � O O � o � o o � � U U � O b U � � I cl� 0 U 0 b�A M N ti U a� U 0 U w ti 0 z a� 0 Im a� a� a� 0 0 .o a� o C7 a „ a V 21 O CL ■rte+ V U O L a co > c O a� E E c � c c a) co U L co C co L cn E "2 E Co c .O (o 0) O � O O Co C c E co E � E .L C t6 LIE a� �L O co U O ..0 4- O O _U ..Q Z3 Q O co U A O ..0 N � N .CU E N N a) -0 O (n d Q cu cu L V ME V) O N ca U cn O O F - F O (D .L cn � O O 0-0) � cm's c c c- cn O O p C O (D O •— c cn ca cn cn cn cn Z O O ca -2 CY � U) N cn d ca � c6 � ca U O O � U C i U cn ca O =3 ca c ' CU U C L > cl 27 co L O i O E O U O , � O O Q cu U •N L U) cn E o w- F w-+ U o U > O �C 'C _ ai /� / w-+ � 1- � L O L w- = � U C V) CB V) J O N N CB V) O "a ca N U � O O Q CB U O Cc E O > ca CL c U) J V, C C n O O V) O • � wN L. n O i � Q � C L d LLO aIN O C � E N O V) U cB N � � O � ca Y n � LLUJ ca en U cn o 0 . = :t =f C ca U cn O O F - F O (D .L cn Q O O_ 0-0) cm's c c c- cn O cn p C O (D O •— c cn ca cn cn cn cn O O O ca -2 CY C) U) N cn d ca � c6 CU O O O U C i cn ca O =3 ca c ' CU U C L > cl 27 co L O i O E O U O , O O Q cu U O L U) cn E w- F w-+ U o U U > O o _ ai /� / w-+ � 1- U � L Yl Ln W L w- = � U L L a� U X O N O N CB U N O IF� U cn N O O O C O O 3 N CY u' cy U U N c CY LL a� ca co U O O cz O — O � a co cn Q � -Q a o I- 0 i O V i E AO CL a� L 'D L n � D 2 c CO E m Ne a� U C � U c � c 'c c _ O N E O � U N U N � 1� KM Q� ^0 W Q E QD .j E E TRIP; c ca c aD CD O LO C � O_ E O L O O > Q� > O cB 'Q Q I- v Q� QO ^` E W TT ♦U L O L 'N O N •N E O O N L U O cB -� O O O ca �_ o E • 2 a� ° E Q� 1� C O E OS N O ^L I..L E :3 O E N V N O (D L ca Cy ca :3 �- - cy m ca C/) a� o E CY N O O Y ca U) :3 N a M no 70 L N O in L w N CD m O O CB ?� UCi N L Ef} m N Q) L OL a) CY, O N E O �- E O ^L L.L • Ne a� U C � U c � c 'c c _ O N E O � U N U N � 1� KM Q� ^0 W Q E QD .j E E TRIP; c ca c aD CD O LO C � O_ E O L O O > Q� > O cB 'Q Q I- v Q� QO ^` E W TT ♦U L O L 'N O N •N E O O N L U O cB -� O O O ca �_ o E • 2 a� ° E Q� 1� C O E OS N O ^L I..L L E O L CL � �' a� E Q Q m a� > N o a� � �C) O O CD � � N N � C O Q > N Z p O •_� E o N > E O O E 0 O TD N U O .V O O O O cx O _ > N ~ m � c O E c .N _o a) m a� Z5 1 0 -a rml L P.- L L O Q I' Qi Q) 0 0 O O C (D N CD CU a) E a) C) cz cz • — C U) L y C N cz (6 ._ cu =3 CB _ ) 0 U � �' Cll 'O ' � • � O O � O _ N N • N Cll Cll ) O 0 O CB L- 7)0 E Q � L O L "J Cll -_ cn (6 > CU a) U) U '� O L m = U N C L O F- 0 O� Q O O _O cam � �� 0 O �U O U) y= CB L O � fl •O 0 :3 _ L.L. U =3 Cll Cll O Cll >, cn cu > N 0 N ca 3:: N n 'N L - L U dj Cll O Cll N — Q - :D L — — L Cll O = — '0 '0 0 �' fn ) C cu 0 m L fn Cll O v– cn C U) Cll Cll '0 O Cll Q>+MO CB N cn Q O L Lo N ' CB cQ L CL) Cll C CQ N CB L L a) w- CM 0 ID CD- L) Q 0 0 U '0 (D U U (ll Q .� CJ) L CC M r C � (Q �i CQ H O - H N H U Q V L L r•1 CU o : E .o O 0 o N O o � � U � i EO j E � L � C — O O O N U N 00 O L +� C O O CD O W cl) E CD o <) U o i O (1) (D O .ca �� 0 F-5 • ' — O C O Q O E C)- " E C3) cr O U i c O (1) CD O cB O O)7–> O cz U N o m cB O ca U >, — �' j o`~ U c-0 0- M a) `O ca -0 I— Q m cn W L O w/ >, ca ca � cB .� N A �, cB C a� E a� ^Q- O If W Y Q O O O O_ ca U O > Q � nn� L � � 0 L -O O A 0 U 0 O O) � � N (� E O' O U E O O N L O ca cz N O C O O 0 L Im a W 0 0 C 0 0 a� ca 0O cn U Q C cn N cu cu O U j E O O CY m c6 U CY a) cu cu a� = C O o cu O Eoy2�S Qi cu > O a If O C O Q O T -O > `*O cn O cu O E o CD M O i a L Q- Uai L U cn cn fl.. a o cQ U) O cu w- o n o cn O o O _n O Q. O L cz O O O O CD- cn w=+ Q- o> cz o fl o o ca CU cn (D O CU - c6 cz E L cz 'O 0 •U > O U (U N Q- > O cn 3: L L •cn 0 Q O Q CU -O cu c O O ..aL > 0 c c6 O " ) >- cz O E i U) O� - (D CU -0 C u) CC..) C/) (6 � cz L 'L C O c6 (6 (D O U— O 0 L O U` (D > O L cn U -0 lO^ vJ n C (D ZD O H Q O cn c=z C W I I EI cz � � i � � � O � � O � � � G \ I o � � m E I 0 _ � 'a e e k 0 � � E 0 E � � \ c 0 E @ o.% _ C) (D C) / 0 D / m / = (D ® o C/) m ® 'Q E � � o \ c @ . g > Fn E 0 C- .\ E 0 U E � / / E E /� U e ( 0 (n _ ƒ / �, _@ � � i � � � O � � O � � � G \ I o � � m E I 0 _ � 'a e e k 0 � � E 0 E � � \ c 0 E @ o.% _ C) (D C) / 0 D / m / = (D ® o C/) m ® 'Q E � � o \ c @ . g > Fn E 0 C- .\ E 0 U E � 0 a / o _ e : e \ \ !E = 6 .\ E :cn \ 0 0 E Fu > c 00 2. = E m = e > m \ 0 / _ ± $ CM .g / 'a e m E E j \ : 0 = o� \ C q 0 O D C $ 2 m A ° o E / -M 6 ' E / m c _ 0 � � \ U-) \ o U D 0 f' o 0 P o 0 a A� W L V O .O L _O N� N L O U O cu MO W L C O O O E `n cu c O U O O cn Q •U ccu u cz ! cz C O U E O N E1 .� 6 U LO (D N cn N 3: L O J N L o N cu O (D O CB U U fl O ca y �- Q' •L Vi a) cn •L L -�_ L CB Q cu cn N 0 L « U Q CQ Fn Q) O O > O C - o cn cn E ca O o 0 — _ cn U W n W N L 0 cn y. 0-0 O O O C Q Q- 0 U ; N E N E c ) O - Z - a� u) O O O N N � Q) CB cm o a) C _O —� U U U) O c C O O E" -Q (D 0 (D O p.• O O O CD m e O O N C ca L i n cn a) cn ca �° ° L O7 c_ o >, N �O a� a� a� ._ a� m a ca cu Z3 CB a) O Q O L O > O Q) (D cn a) E a >� O C L L Q =3 E (6 C C D " CB = C LLL U Q 'O O d is -� U aD aD cn Q L () Fn E U o `� a� O a) O N L C Cn U cB _n � 0- O ' >, CB E Q) 'O O L c/) U ca c in L O U O cu MO W L C O O O E `n cu c O U O O cn Q f� V W L V O f� f� L ca N J, cB C O •U O N N ca c ca O C L Q) O J, If O Q O Q a) Q Fz = N :2 O c - L O CD U) ca a E `c � 4 U) ( w u � = E E O q m w ca v (D a ca fa Q M � O E a N cn cu cu m U U) (D c � E .� O (D E cn 0 O' — {.- • • N N N O N CD CB ca ca O U_ O N N L O O O O Q U C CB D 0-0 O cB cB E Q) •� C �% N L W W •� O O � a) Q CO � -Q cn • — C O E E O c y ' (D L `*- E o a) 0 c c N E O U M O U CB O CB C O O = z o L U E U L O O Q) •O CD — Q L cu cu m U U) (D c � E .� O (D E cn 0 O' — {.- • • N N N O N CD CB •5 W L 0 c �L Q� Q� L U L Q� CL 2 ca- W 0 L Q 0 cr L U L Q� 0 W ^n W L LL ^n W L W W U Q Q� L 0 r. cn cn O Q. cn i c) i i O O p L O U- cu L i O cu U) U O _. •� -0 a O C U cu U L O >+ cu E L U aD ^L' W O O E 0 CD E m ♦0 V W 1 — L O O C O) O � E U 5 �_ CB � ♦1 O L L O L •� O Q > O N a� U > o O L > O � O � A L � � Q Q � U � O C � ca N 2 U E CB N C OO O O � � Q U � K.; ca O L CU L Ev c ca O U O 0 cn O U c6 C O U O cn O O OK c ca co J cu N J cn (D_ U O U) E C ca U) U) O U ww cn L �L L L O (6 C O AW C O O c E L :Q U) cu .S � � U N N � O CO L cu <) O cu � � O O U O N � � � o cr U) O u Q� cu CZ U) U � � X O ca c E cu cz O - U o- (U6 0 cz N Q co co W0 CZ L U E L U '� F- Q 0- o 1 U cn c.) L O (6 C O AW C O O c E L :Q U) cu .S E E 'i i ma W E co -° 3 cu cu cu o U) cu cu c N � � -° Cr E E gy) N (D p a) N C a� c (cu 0 E D CD-'= (n U0.. Q) Q E N O 0 cn > N 6 Q) > (D ) •L L L Q L Q) 0 U () .Q — C Q O U) >+ U cn 0.. U — cn cu 4 (B -- C `= a) L (D U H (D � E E cn cn T CB -+- j 0 -+- j 0 U 0 Al u cn 0 cn E =3 E 0 cn U C) _ V U U =3 � � U �- U T CB -+- j 0 -+- j 0 U 0 Al u 08/25/2003 11:43 FROM JHPIOAP TO 6443020 P.01 fi., (, M1-" 1VED AF 017�\ff_: *(,. s s a 3 -a e- Gentlemen, We are writing regardin5 the potential revisions to our City's 6 -1 Policy. First, we would like to. express our appreciation for the hard work and dFllge i exhibit'id't` the Council, the Committees and staff with regard to potential revisions to the 6.1 Policy. We appreciate the ability to participate in the process and thank all for the opportunity to air and have heard- our concerns, opinions and recommendations. The 6.1 Policy issue is central to the quality of lifa we ail enjoy as citizens of Newport Beach. Additionally, the 6-1 Policy is pivotal to the financial health of our City as it directly influences personal and City real property values. The resultant flow -down effects of G -1 clearly impact upon our ability to capture /maintairn/increase investment by tax paying enterprises and homeowners alike. We do not take these issues lightly, we wish to make clear our needs and desires. Any 6 -1 Policy changes should serve the citizens of Newport Beach by, 1, Maintaining and enhancing the unique and much - sought -after lifestyle we all enjoy 2. Responding to the needs of the citizens of Newport Beach 3. Acting to preserve and protect all private and public views 4. Actively enforcing ail relative codes /laws /regulations regarding view maintenance/preservation and ref orestatlon S. Minimizing the bureaucracy, red tape, expense and delays associated with the processes homeowners must follow when requesting solutions d help with view /reforestation/tree trimming problems, In closing, we ask that you heed these expressions of concern from your constituents. We implore you to act wisely: to function an the behalf of and to the benefit of your fellow residents and citizens of Newport Reach, Respectfulllly, LtTC37/ - John d Olivia Poole 2815 Pebble CHvs Corona del Mar, CA 92625 -1405 TOTAL P.01 RUG -25 -2003 14:16 97% P.01 Pa'-'c 1 of 1 Fisher, Cathy From: Laura Curran [Iccurran @hotmail.com] .�4 Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 11:19 AM To: Niederhaus, Dave; Conway, John Subject: August 12 Work Session for G1 Comment Mr. Conway: Would you please forward the following comment to the City Council for the August 12 study session on the G1 policy. I live at 437 Dahlia and have attended the last 2 meetings on the G1 tree policy. These are my comments on the results. 1. Much constructive work has been done by the City team and the Committee. 2. However, in the last hearing the signature policy for reforestation was adopted with the requirement that a homeowner collect up signatures in an area up to 500 feet on either side, from a survey area of up to 60 homes. This is an overly strenous requirement, i.e. the number of homes which must sign a petition, since it does not impact each neighborhood equally, due to the differences in lot sizes. This means that a homeowner in Cameo Shores would have to survey from a much smaller area for example than a CdM homeowner. 3. The signature requirement should be revised to a notification requirement, similar to the process used to notify neighbors of new buildings. I am out of town and cannot attend the work session tomorrow so I am forwarding this info per email. Thank you, Laura C. Curran 714 382 5244 437 Dahlia Avenue Newport Beach, CA 08/26/2003 ,Section 13.08.030 Removal or Relocation of Plants by City. Page 1 of 1 Section 13.08.030 Removal or Relocation of Plants by City. The City may relocate or remove any tree, shrub, plant, structure or surfacing material in any public street right -of -way as determined by the City Council to be necessary or convenient for public travel or in the interest of public health, safety or general welfare. (Ord. 1634 § 1 (part), 1975: Ord. 1015 (part), 1962: 1949 Code § 7303) Section 13.08.040 Tampering with Planting Prohibited. Page 1 of 1 ection 13.08.040 Tampering with Planting Prohibited. No person shall trim, cut down, damage, remove, or destroy any tree growing upon any public park, beach or playground, or the grounds of any public building, or a public street right -of -way, without written permission of the City Manager. No person shall damage, disfigure, or destroy any seat, trellis, or other facility located thereon. No person shall cut, damage, remove or destroy any shrub, plant or flower growing in any public park, beach or playground, or the grounds of any public building, or on any street right -of- way except in the parkway adjoining the property of which such person is the occupant or owner. (Ord. 1634 § 1 (part) 1975: Ord. 1015 (part) , 1962: 1949 Code § 7304) Section 13.08.060 Owners of Premises Required to Trim Branches. Page 1 of 1 Section 13.08.060 Owners of Premises Required to Trim Branches. The occupant in charge or, if there is no such occupant, the owner of every lot or parcel of land shall trim the branches of any tree, shrub, or plant on his property, and shall trim all shrubs and plants in the parkway adjacent to his property, so that same shall not encroach upon the sidewalk or street in such manner as to impede or interfere with traffic thereon or obstruct the passage of light from any streetlight to the street or sidewalk. The City shall trim and prune all trees located in the public street right -of -way. (Ord. 1634 § 1 (part), 1975: Ord. 1015 (part), 1962: 1949 Code § 7306) hrtn'//ordlink com /codes /newnor-tb/ DATA /Title 13/08/030.html 8/26/2003 Section 13.09.0 10 Partway Trees Required. Section 13.09.010 Parkway Trees Required. Page 1 of 1 Any person who constructs a new building, who causes a building to be moved onto vacant land, or who causes an increase in the original floor area of an existing main building by more than fifty (50) percent of its original size, shall be responsible for planting trees in the parkway abutting the building site in accordance with City rules, regulations and policies. The parkway tree shall be at least a thirty -six inch (36 ") box of the type, variety and /or species determined by the City in accordance with the City Street Tree Designation List. If the City determines that because of the location, terrain or condition of the property that required tree planting is impractical at the abutting parkway, the City shall plant the thirty -six inch (36 ") box tree at a location designated by the City. (Ord. 2002 -13 § 1, 2002: Ord. 1338 § 1 (part), 1970) Section 13.09.020 Costs. Section 13.09.020 Costs. Page 1 of 1 The property owner shall be responsible for all costs associated with the purchase and planting of the tree(s) as required by this chapter. (Ord. 2002 -13 § 2 (part), 2002: Ord. 1338 § 1 (part), 1970) Section 13.09.040 Waiver Procedure. Section 13.09.040 Waiver Procedure. Page 1 of 1 Upon written application, the City Manager, or such other City official as he may designate to act for him, may grant a waiver from all or part of the requirements set forth in Section 13.09.010, if he determines that because of the location, terrain or condition of the property or the surrounding properties, the required tree planting is determined to be unnecessary or impractical. (Ord. 1338 § 1 (part), 1970) http://www.bpenet.com/codes/newportb/—DATA/Title-13/09/010.html 8/26/2003 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE ( "Agreement'), is .entered into on and effective as of December 1, 2002 by and between Petitioner, BALBOA ARBOR SOCIETY, an unincorporated association ( "BAS ") and the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a municipal corporation ( "City "). City and BAS are sometimes referred to herein individually as a "party" and collectively as "parties." 7:1111111iIF_1I&I This Agreement is entered into by the parties based upon the following facts, understandings and intentions of the parties: 1. On July 8, 2002, in Balboa Arbor Society v. City of Newport Beach Superior Court Case No. 02CCO0178 ( "the Action "), Petitioner BAS filed a petition for writ of mandate under the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA," Cal. Pub. Res. Code sections 21000 et seq.), alleging in pertinent part that the City's planned removal of 25 Ficus trees on Main Street in the Balboa Village, would violate CEQA and the City's G -1 Policy (regarding tree removals). 2. Subsequently, BAS sought an injunction to prevent the removal of the trees, and on August 27, 2002, the Superior Court issued a temporary restraining- order barring the City from taking action to remove the Ficus trees. On September 16, 2002, following additional briefing and hearing on the BAS motion for preliminary injunction, the Superior Court denied the motion. The Superior Court found, inter alia, that the City had approved the removal of the 25 Ficus trees as part of the Balboa Village Improvement Project ( "BVIP ") on August 14, 2001, and that Petitioner's CEQA claim was not timely filed within the 180 day CEQA statute of limitations period after that approval. 3. On September 18, 2002, the City commenced the removal of the Main Street Ficus trees. BAS filed an urgency petition for writ and a stay in the Court of Appeal that day, after most of the trees had been removed. The Court of Appeal issued an immediate stay to prevent the City fr6m any further action to remove the trees. The City had, at the point when it received notice of the stay order, removed 23 trees and removed branches from the two trees that remained standing. The City ceased all further removals, and the two trees remain in place, as do the roots and stumps of all the trees. 4. The Court of Appeal, after additional briefing, issued an order indicating that it would treat the BAS petition for writ as a notice of appeal and ordering the parties, by December 4, 2002, to submit a briefing schedule and a proposed modification of the Court of Appeal's stay that would permit the City, at a minimum, to address its public health and safety concerns regarding the trees that have been cut down. 5. By stipulation of the parties, the matter has not proceeded to trial in the Superior Court, as the parties have awaited the Court of Appeal's determination on the BAS petition for writ. 6. After discussions regarding a briefing schedule. and modification of the stay, the parties mutually concluded that settlement is the most efficient and practical way to resolve the matter at this point. Without any party admitting or denying the truthfulness of any of the allegations or claims raised between the parties, and without accepting any liability arising out of such claims, the parties to this Agreement now intend to settle the Action on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits of this Agreement, and for other good and valuable consideration, the parties hereby agree as follows.. = AGREEMENT 1. Purpose and Intent. It is the intent of the parties and the purpose of this Agreement, subject to the terms and conditions thereof, to fully and finally settle the Action. 2. Approval of Agreement. 2.1. BAS Execution of Agreement. BAS shall execute this Agreement and shall forward an original executed counterpart of this Agreement to the City at the address set forth in Section 10 below. BAS shall use good faith best efforts to forward its executed Agreement to the City by not later than close of business on December 11, 2002. 12. City Approval of Agreement. The Council shall meet in closed session to review this Agreement and, subject to its discretion and upon its approval thereof, the City Council shall authorize the City Manager to execute,this Agreement on behalf of the City and shall forward an original executed counterpart to BAS at the address set forth in Section 10 below. The City shall use good faith best- efforts to forward its executed Agreement to BAS by not later than December 12, 2002. In the event either party fails to approve and execute the Agreement as drafted, the Agreement shall be void and of no effect. 2.3 Effectiveness. This Agreement shall become effective upon execution by both Parties. 3. Dismissal of the Action. On December 13, 2002 BAS shall file and serve: (a) a dismissal with prejudice of the Action in the Superior Court and (b) a stipulation to the abandonment of the Appeal in the Court of Appeal. 4. Attorneys' Fees. Within three (3) business days of the filing by BAS of the dismissal of its petition and abandonment of its appeal, City shall convey to Stephen Miles, counsel for BAS, the sum of $56,000, in payment of Petitioners 2 attorneys' fees and costs for the litigation of the Action, in the form of a check made payable to the law firm of Van Biarcom, Leibold, McClendon & Mann. 5. Remaining Main Street Ficus Trees. With respect to the two Main Street Ficus trees that have not been cut down, the parties agree as follows. 5.1. Balboa Inn Tree. The City shall use good faith best efforts to preserve and maintain the remaining Main Street Ficus tree located in front of the Balboa Inn ( "the Balboa Inn tree "). Such good faith best efforts are anticipated to include root pruning, and construction of root barriers as necessary, to prevent further damage caused by the Ficus tree roots, watering as appropriate, trimming, and providing care and treatment as necessary to maintain the tree in good health and good and safe condition. The Balboa Inn tree shall be designated as a special memorial tree of the City and shall be afforded the greatest protection available under the existing °G =1 Council Policy and.any subsequently enacted tree ordinance. In the event such good faith best efforts fail to prevent the death or serious disease that will result in death of the Balboa Inn tree, and the tree must be removed, the City agrees that it will, at the discretion of the City Council, determine whether and how to replace the tree, or implement other reasonable mitigation for the loss of the tree. 5.2. Pharmacy Tree. The parties agree that the City, in its sole discretion, may remove the remaining Ficus tree located on the corner of Balboa and Main Street, in front of the Pharmacy ( "the Pharmacy tree "), and that the disposition of the tree, once removed, is entirely within the discretion of the City. 6. City Tree Ordinance. On or before the February 25, 2003, regularly scheduled City Council- meeting, and following appropriate public notice, City staff shall bring to the City Council for approval, a recommendation to appoint a committee to'commence a public process for the systematic review of the City's G -1 Policy with respect to the preservation and removal of trees within the City. The City Council shall also request the committee to consider and make recommendation for approval a binding Tree Ordinance. The City shall give serious consideration to forming for this purpose a committee that includes public members, and if it opts to do so, members of BAS residing in the City will be invited to apply for appointment to the committee. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be deemed to restrict.the discretion of the City Council to determine the appropriate means for addressing the City's tree policies, regulations, and ordinances. BAS and the City recognize and agree that the City, as a municipal entity, may enact, repeal, amend or otherwise alter. its policies and ordinances consistent with the powers and authorities granted to the City by law. %Nonetheless, the City and BAS are in agreement that a Tree Ordinance would be a potentially salutary provision, and the City commits by this Agreement to undertake a review of its existing G -1 Policy and to consider in a timely manner the adoption of a city Tree Ordinance that would make 3 removal of trees the City identifies as protected trees a violation of the City Municipal Code. 7. Release and Waiver. 7.1. Release of Claims by BAS. BAS hereby releases, acquits, and forever discharges City and its successors, assigns, departments, officials, employees, contractors, agents, representatives, and attorneys from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, obligations, and claims for damages, losses, costs, attorneys' fees and expenses of every kind and nature whatsoever (excepting only the attorneys' fees provided for in Section 4 of this Agreement), known or unknown, anticipated or unanticipated, fixed or contingent, which BAS may now have, or may hereafter claim to have, against the City as a result of things undertaken, done, or omitted to be done up to and including the date of this Agreement related to the subject matter of the Action, or in any way arising rising out of or in connection with: (a) the City's August 14, 2001 approval of the Balboa Village Improvement Project ( "BVV), (b) the implementation by the City of its approval of the BVIP, including but not limited to the approval of contracts, site preparation including ongoing tree removals, and construction activities, and (c) the commencement, prosecution or defense of the Action (collectively, "Released Claims "). 7.2. Release of Claims by City. City hereby releases, acquits, and forever discharges BAS and its successors, assigns, departments, officials, employees, contractors, agents, representatives, and attorneys from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, obligations, and claims for damages, losses, costs, attorneys' fees and expenses of every kind and nature whatsoever (excepting only the attorneys' fees provided for in Section 4 of this Agreement), known or unknown, anticipated or unanticipated, fixed or contingent, which City may now have, or may hereafter claim to have, against the BAS as a result of things undertaken, done, or omitted to be done up to and including the date of this Agreement related to the subject matter of the Action.. 7.3. Civil Code Waiver. The parties hereby waive the protections of California Civil Code section 1542 which provides as follows: A General Release does not extend to claims, which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his favor at the time of executing the Release which, if known to him, must have materially affected his settlement with the debtor. Each party represents that it understands and acknowledges the significance and consequences of such specific waiver of section 1542, and hereby assumes full responsibility for any injuries, damages, or losses, which it may incur by such waiver. F.1 7.4. Covenant Not to Sue. BAS covenants and agrees that, from and following dismissal of the Action pursuant to Section 3, it shall forever refrain from instituting, prosecuting, maintaining, financing, proceeding on, participating in, encouraging, supporting, or advising or recommending to be commenced or prosecuted, any lawsuit, action or proceeding (judicial, arbitration, or administrative) which arises out of, or is or maybe, in whole or in part, based upon, connected with or related to any Released Claims pursuant to Section 7.1. The parties acknowledge and agree that this Agreement is a complete defense to any lawsuit, action or proceeding which may be instituted by or on behalf of BAS at any time and in which any Released Claims are or may be asserted. 7.5. Agreement Not To Impede the BVIP. BAS agrees that it, and its agents, attorneys, officers, and members, will not challenge, impede, or contest, by or in connection any lawsuit, action or proceeding Qudicial, arbitration, or administrative) the-implementation, construction, or funding of the BVIP, or any activities of the City reasonably related to carrying out the BVIP; nor will they urge other persons to do so, or cooperate in any such efforts by other parties. 7.6. Non -BVIP Activity. Nothing in Section 7 prevents BAS or its members from commenting on, or bringing any action with respect to, the City's G -1 Policy and /or any future environmental documentation prepared by the City that is not related to implementation of the BVIP. 7.7 Complete Settlement. Subject to the provisions of this Agreement, this Agreement constitutes a fully binding and complete settlement between the parties. This Agreement includes binding contract rights and provisions. 7.8 No Admission.. The parties acknowledge and agree that this Agreement and all further documents and actions are made in compromise of disputed claims and do not constitute, and shall not be construed as, any admission of liability or responsibility of any kind. 8. Attorneys' Fees for Enforcement of Agreement. In any action or proceeding at law or in equity between any of the parties to enforce or interpret any provision of this Agreement, each party shall bear all of its own costs, including attorneys' and experts' fees. 9. Acknowledgments and Warranties. The parties acknowledge that they have been represented by independent legal counsel throughout the negotiations that culminated in the execution of this Agreement. The parties further acknowledge that they have been fully advised by their attorneys with respect to their rights and obligations under this Agreement and understand those rights and obligations. The parties also acknowledge that, prior to the execution of this G Agreement, they and their legal counsel have had an adequate opportunity to make whatever investigation and inquiries were deemed necessary or desirable with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement. 10. Notice. Any notice or other communications made pursuant to this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be delivered personally or mailed by certified mail to the parties addressed as follows: City of Newport Beach: 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA, 92658 City Manager with copy to: T Robert Burnham, City Attorney 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA, 92658 11. General Provisions. BAS: Stephen M. Miles, Esq. VAN BLARCOM, LEIBOLD, McCLENDON & MANN 23422 Mill Creek Drive Suite 105 Laguna Hills, CA, 92653 11.1 Entire Agreement. This Agreement, including all recitals and exhibits hereto, constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes any and all prior or contemporaneous understandings, negotiations, representations, promises and agreements, oral or written, by or between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. 11,.2 Amendment. The provisions of this Agreement may not be amended, modified, or otherwise changed or supplemented except by a writing signed by duly authorized representatives of all parties to this Agreement. 11.3 Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be construed and enforced pursuant to the laws of the State of California. 11.4 Interpretation. This Agreement shall be interpreted and construed in the manner best calculated to carry out its purpose of achieving a settlement of the Action. Section headings in this Agreement are for ease of reference only and shall not affect the meaning or interpretation of any provision of this Agreement. As used herein: (a) the singular shall include the plural (and vice versa) where the context so requires; (b) locative adverbs such as "herein," "hereto," "hereof' and "hereunder" shall refer to this Agreement in its entirety and not to any specific section or paragraph; (c) the terms "include," "including" and similar terms shall be construed as though followed immediately by the phrase "but not limited to "; and (d) "shall" is mandatory and "may" is permissive. The parties have jointly participated in the negotiation and drafting of this Agreement, and this R Agreement shall be construed fairly and equally as to the parties, without regard to any rules of construction relating to the party who drafted a particular provision of this Agreement. 11.5 Severability. If any term or provision of this Agreement is ever determined to be invalid or unenforceable for any reason, such term or provision shall be severed from this Agreement without affecting the validity or enforceability of the remainder of this Agreement. 11.6 Further Actions Necessary to Carry Out Agreement. Each of the parties agrees to execute and deliver all further documents and to take all further actions reasonably necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this Agreement. 11.7 Counting Days. All references in this Agreement to "days" shall mean calendar days unless- expressly referred to as "business days." If the day for performance of any obligation under this Agreement is a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the time for performance of that obligation shall be extended to the first following day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 11.8 Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence in this Agreement. 11.9 Duplicates and Counterparts; Facsimile Signatures. Agreement may be executed in duplicate originals, each of which shall be equally admissible in evidence. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, which when collectively executed by all of the parties shall constitute a single agreement. The parties shall be entitled to rely upon facsimile copies of the parties' signatures to this Agreement and any instrument executed in connection herewith. 11110 Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective affiliates, successors and assigns. a 11.11 Requisite Authority. The parties represent and warrant to each other that they have taken all requisite action to approve, authorize, execute and deliver this Agreement and that each person executing this Agreement on their behalf has all requisite power and authority to execute this Agreement and to bind the City, BAS and its members to the provisions of this Agreement. 11.12 Effectiveness. Notwithstanding any provision herein to the contrary; this Agreement shall not be effective unless and until it is executed by all parties. 7 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and BAS have executed this Agreement as of the reference date first above written. "City° CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a Municipal Corporation S�L, /� By: Homer B1udau, City Manager Tm F n. ATTEST: E„ C9C /FOAIft Af LaVonne Harkless, City Clerk "BAS" an Unincorporated Association / A j Jan Vandersloot, Vice - President B AY � i✓ . ,✓�Ju da Grant, President "VAN BLARCOM, LEIBOLD, MCCLENDON & MANN" By: Stephen M. Miles, Attorneys for BAS APPROVED AS TO FORM: H. Burnham, City Attorney F: \users \cat\s h a red \d a \pleadings \B al b o aArbor\Ag\ 121202.d o c I DRAFT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Minutes Study Session August 26, 2003 — 4:00 p.m. INDEX KULL I;ALL Present Heffernan, Ridgeway, Adams, Webb, Nichols, Mayor Bromberg Absent Proctor CURRENT BUSINESS 1. CLARIFICATION OF ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR. Council Member Heffernan requested that a drawing be provided prior to the evening meeting regarding the curb cut request for 428 Orchid Avenue, Item No. 9. 2. G-1 POLICY REVIEW. Council Policy G-1 (62) Using a PowerPoint presentation, General Services Director Niederhaus stated that on March 11, 2003, the City Council directed the Parks, Beaches & Recreation (PB &R) Commission to form an Ad Hoc Tree Committee. The committee held five public meetings from April 1 to July 15, 2003, and received over 250 suggested changes to Council Policy G-1, Retention or Removal of City Trees, and 42 written comments. The process resulted in a proposed revision to the G-1 policy, which had previously not been amended since the year 2000. General Services Director Niederhaus reported that the classification of the City's trees was changed to include special trees, problem trees and all other trees. He stated that there are 965 special trees in the City, and that they include landmark trees, dedicated trees and neighborhood trees. Definitions for each category were also added to the policy. He pointed out that another proposed change to the G-1 policy is to allow the PB &R Commission to designate and remove trees from the special tree listing. The City Council would also have the right to remove trees in conjunction with beautification projects. General Services Director Niederhaus stated that problem trees include eight specific species of trees, which have been identified as causing major problems. He noted that there are approximately 7,000 problem trees in the City, and it is proposed that problem trees not be designated as parkway trees on the designated street tree list. He stated that it is also proposed that problem trees that are not designated as special trees be removed if they are causing hardscape or repeated damage due to significant street or sidewalk damage. He explained that such problem trees are currently causing expensive damage to the City's infrastructure. Problem trees could also be removed for causing a view impediment. General Services Director Niederhaus stated that problem trees can be proposed for removal by staff, private property owners or businesses, and that the Urban Forester has the authority to approve their removal. He added that no more than 250 trees would be allowed to be removed annually. City Manager Bludau suggested that the removal of view impediment trees be by approval of the City Manager, Volume 56 - Page 345 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes August 26, 2003 INDEX trees be by approval of the City Manager. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway asked for a clarification on the number of problem trees in the City, General Services Director Niederhaus stated that there are 7,142 problem trees and of that, 6,545 are parkway trees and 708 are view impediment trees. General Services Director Niederhaus stated that the cost of removing a view impediment tree wou—Id be the responsibility of the applicant. Mayor Bromberg asked why a property owner who has damage to his property caused by a problem City tree would have to pay for the removal, General Services Director Niederhaus stated that money was not budgeted in the 2003 - 2004 fiscal year for reforestation of problem trees. Council Member Heffernan asked if the damage would be allowed to continue in such cases. General Services Director Niederhaus stated that funding is not available for regular reforestation, unless the request comes through as a claim and then the claim process is followed. Council Member Heffernan stated that it would make sense for the City to take the initiative to remove problem trees that are causing damage to private property and to include such situations in the budget. City Manager Bludau noted the provision in the proposed policy that places the responsibility of payment on the applicant for the removal of view impediment trees, but places the responsibility on the City for problem trees that cause damage to private property or the infrastructure. Continuing with the PowerPoint presentation, General Services Director Niederhaus stated that few changes were made to the policies for the all other trees classification, although it was clarified that all other trees are those not designated as special trees or problem trees. The process for the removal of special trees was also more clearly defined, and changes were made to the individuals that can appeal the decision not to remove a tree. General Services Director Niederhaus stated that the size of the replacement tree for all other trees was also increased. General Services Director Niederhaus stated that the policies for reforestation of City trees are often used by business associations or view communities. He stated that the policies were originally intended to handle problems with hardscape or view issues, but that it is being proposed to include trees that have reached their full life span, are in declining health or are the wrong species for a particular location. He stated that the petition process is also being revised to require pre-approval of petitions and who the petitions must be distributed to. The requirements for replacement trees is also proposed for amendment by reducing the size to the 24-inch boxed trees and requiring that it be done in a timely manner. In regard to encroachment and demolition permits, General Services Director Niederhaus stated that the proposal is to return the authority of requests for tree removals or replacements to the General Services Director rather than having them submitted to the PB &R Commission, which adds a greater period of time to the permit processing procedure. He stated that the tree trimming standards are also recommended for revision by allowing the Urban Forester to determine when supplemental tree trimming is impractical or infeasible. Volume 56 - Page 346 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes August 26, 2003 INDEX Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway noted that the proposed policy has not been submitted by the Ad Hoc Tree Committee to the PB &R Commission yet. General Services Director Niederhaus stated that the monthly meetings of the commission have included a report from the committee chairman. He added that the City Council did not request that the committee submit the proposed policy to the commission prior to it being reviewed by the City Council. Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway stated that the PB &R Commission should review the proposed policy and make a recommendation. City Manager Bludau added that the resolution established the Ad Hoc Tree Committee as a committee of the PB &R Commission and did not require them to report back to the full commission. Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway stated that he would respect their recommendation. Mayor Bromberg asked if the proposed policy would be sent out for environmental review. General Services Director Niederhaus stated that the environmental assessment will be handled by Assistant City Attorney Clauson. Assistant City Attorney Clauson stated that an environmental assessment has not been done, but that the City Attorney's office did attempt to quantify the potential tree loss under the proposed policy. She stated that if the proposed policy will be considered for adoption, an environmental assessment should be done. Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway stated that a policy change shouldn't require an environmental review. Assistant City Attorney Clauson stated that it would be considered discretionary approval under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and that given the potential tree loss, she couldn't find a basis for being exempt. Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway confirmed that if there's discretionary approval by the City for a change to the policy, the CEQA requirements would have to be complied with. Assistant City Attorney Clauson stated that Council Policy G-1 is being reviewed by the City at the current time as the result of a lawsuit settled in December of 2002, with the Balboa Arbor Society. As part of the settlement, the City agreed to review the policy and to also consider an ordinance for special tree protection. She stated that the committee determined that the current City ordinance sufficiently protects trees from being removed. Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway stated that he was involved in the negotiations with the Balboa Arbor Society and that there was never a promise that special trees would remain inviolate. Council Member Webb asked if an environmental assessment had ever been done on any of the Council policies. Assistant City Attorney Clauson stated that Council Policy G-1 is the only Council policy that deals with potential physical changes to the environment. She added that if the proposed changes are made to the policy and it results in a loss of trees, an environmental review should be done. Council Member Heffernan asked if a property owner who removes a City tree without approval would be responsible for reimbursing the City for the value of the tree, in addition to the replacement. General Services Director Niederhaus stated that property owners who perform illegal tree removals are held responsible for the full value of the tree. He noted that the number of illegal tree removals has gone down. Council Member Heffernan asked who Bays for a Volume 56 - Page 347 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes August 26, 2003 INDEX tree removals has gone down. Council Member Heffernan asked who pays for a tree that is damaged as the result of an accident. General Services Director Niederhaus stated that a procedure is in place through the Revenue Division to recover damages to trees and City property caused by accidents. Council Member Heffernan asked if the City would bear the risk if a tree is damaged during trimming by City crews since the City approved the trimming, or if the entity that requested the trimming be done would be responsible. General Services Director Niederhaus stated that West Coast Arborists would bear the risk. City Manager Bludau added that the entity that requested the trimming wouldn't be responsible for the quality of the work that is done on the trees. Council Member Heffernan stated that it would seem that the entity that made the request should have to indemnify the City for any damages that occur as a result of the request, since they are the ones benefiting from the trimming. Assistant City Attorney Clausen stated that it would be the responsibility of the requester if they used their own arborist, but the City doesn't allow this due to liability concerns. Debra Allen, Chair of the PB &R Commission and Chair of the Ad Hoc Tree Committee, stated that regarding the concern of the PB &R Commission reviewing the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Tree Committee, regular reports were provided to the commission. She noted, however, that a recommendation from the commission was not sought because the committee was established as an ad hoc committee of the City Council, which would make the City Council the proper body to make recommendations on the proposed policy. Ms. Allen stated that it's important to remember that the G-1 policy is just that, a policy, and not an ordinance. She stated that it's direction to staff about how to handle day to day problems with trees. She stated that the proposed policy is designed to make it easier for a tree to be removed that is causing damage. Ms. Allen provided copies of the existing City ordinances that address trees. She specifically referred to the provisions in Sections 13.08 and 13.09 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code ( City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes August 26, 2003 INDEX examples of how trees have been saved in the past by the actions of concerned individuals who have proven that particular trees did not need to be removed. She agreed with the proposal to give the authority to the PB &R Commission to designate special trees, but she disagreed that the commission should have the authority to remove trees from the special tree listing. Ms. Herberts also expressed her concern for including public views in the discretion to remove trees and giving the authority to the Urban Forester. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway agreed that the ultimate authority should be with the City Manager, and not with the General Services Director. He also felt that there should be a standard established for what constitutes view blockage. Mayor Bromberg asked if trees that are impeding views would be trimmed or removed. Firstly, Ms. Allen agreed that the ultimate decision maker should be the City Manager and in response to Mayor Bromberg's question, she stated that the proposed policy does not allow for one neighborhood to remove trees in another neighborhood because of view blockage. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway agreed that offsite tree removal should not be addressed in the G-1 policy. Elaine Linhoff requested that the Main Street ficus tree issue not be considered when looking at the G-1 policy. She stated that the existing policy was developed after many meetings with input from both those in support of removing trees for various reasons and those in support of retaining all trees. She stated that a compromise was reached and that the resulting policy has worked for three years. She didn't see the need to make any changes to it. She added that the Ad Hoc Tree Committee was biased in one direction and that the public meetings that were held didn't allow for adequate public input. Eleanor Lumsdon displayed a map of Corona Highlands, which showed the homes that are impacted by the eucalyptus trees on Coast Highway. She requested that her neighborhood be allowed to follow the procedures and have the trees replaced, but expressed her concern that the policy only allows for property owners within 500 feet to submit such requests. She stated that properties further from the trees are affected. Iryne Black stated that she was involved with the development of the existing G-1 policy and felt that it worked well until the Main Street issue. She expressed her concern for the proposed policy and the lack of standards in place for the 250 trees the General Services Director would be allowed to remove annually. She stated that there are many other factors to consider than just views. Ms. Black also expressed her concern that renters aren't included in the new procedures and that a 500-foot limit has been set on those that can file an appeal. Lastly, she disagreed that property values are affected by view impediment trees. Allan Beek, speaking on behalf of Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPON), stated that SPON recently voted in support of Dr. Jan Vandersloot's position that the proposed policy is detrimental and that the existing G-1 policy should remain and be enforced. Secondly, speaking on behalf of himself, Mr. Beek stated that he doesn't feel that the existing G-1 policy is working well. He stated that there is no procedure in place for the general public to initiate any corrective action to the views that have been taken away by trees. He stated that there is also no Volume 56 - Page 349 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes August 26, 2003 INDEX the views that have been taken away by trees. He stated that there is also no procedure in place to save trees on private property that enhance the community. Lastly, Mr. Beek expressed concern for the lack of standards regarding appeals. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway confirmed with Mr. Beek that his personal view differs from that of SPON's. Laura Curran agreed with the proposed standards for the reforestation petition process, but felt that a notification process should also be considered. She also encouraged the City Council to consider native trees as replacement trees. Christine Carr expressed her support of SPON's recommendation to retain the current G-1 policy. She also expressed her support of those that developed the existing policy. In regard to the proposals involving tree trimming, Ms. Carr expressed her concern for those in charge of the trimming and the damage that is being done to the trees. Iris Kimmel, President of Harbor View Hills Community Association, stated that the issue is about not planting more trees than can be maintained. She stated that tree maintenance includes thinning, trimming, and removing dead wood on the inside, and that if a tree is properly thinned and trimmed, it remains healthy and doesn't impede views. She stated that the policies should allow people to maintain reasonable views and reasonable tree heights, and that a lot of it has to do with planting the right trees in the right places. Ms. Kimmel requested that the City Council listen to what the majority of the citizens in Newport Beach have been saying and make a decision based on what the City can realistically deliver. Referring to a letter sent by the association to the City Council, she offered to answer any questions. Mayor Bromberg asked for a clarification from Ms, Kimmel regarding the location of the trees that the City refused to lower. Ms. Kimmel stated that they were City trees in the Harbor View Hills and Cameo communities. Urban Forester Conway stated that the City is limited on the amount of trimming that can be done reasonably and that the request would require that the trees be removed or defoliated completely. Bob Pastor stated that approximately twenty years ago, he worked with the City on trimming some trees in his neighborhood. He stated that the trees weren't lowered, they were just thinned, which didn't help with the view problem in the neighborhood, and that the community association ended up trimming the trees themselves. He encouraged the City Council to also review Council Policy G -3, Preservation of Views. Mr. Pastor noted that he currently has a tree that is blocking the view from his home. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway asked if the G-3 policy applies to private or public views. Assistant City Attorney Clausen stated that Council Policy G-3 does not protect views, but it does identify the importance of views, includes a policy to preserve and promote the aesthetic and environmental benefits of trees, and expresses the City's endeavor to maximize public and private view planes. Council Member Adams asked General Services Director Niederhaus to discuss an issue he mentioned earlier regarding Cameo Shores. General Services Director Niederhaus reported that several months ago, the City was conducting Volume 56 - Page 350 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes August 26, 2003 INDEX Director Niederhaus reported that several months ago, the City was conducting routine grid trimming in the area, and the residents asked them to stop and to trim the trees to the standard used in prior years. He stated that this type of trimming didn't follow the standards set by the National Arborists Society. The City worked with the residents and trimmed some of the trees, according to the G-1 policy, and asked for their opinions. He stated that the residents have since become actively involved with the review of the G-1 policy, and feel that they might be able to remove the trees due to view impediments. Council Member Adams asked if the proposed policy would allow the residents to petition for removal of the trees. General Services Director Niederhaus stated the he doesn't believe that the association can afford to do them all, but could possibly do it in phases. He added that they might also have two alternatives, one by means of the reforestation policy and one by the policy for problem trees. Lastly, he stated that the trees are too mature to trim down to 14 feet, as the residents have requested. In response to Council Member Adams' question, General Services Director Niederhaus stated that the residents would have the responsibility of paying for the work because it is being requested for view impediment and not hardscape damage. PUBLIC COMMENTS • Allan Beek requested that the El Morro trailer park issue be placed on the agenda of a future City Council meeting. He stated that the beaches in Newport Beach are overcrowded and it's time that the public had access to the public beach at El Morro. He stated that the residents of the trailer park are fighting the idea. Mayor Bromberg stated that he has spoken to the City Attorney about the issue and has requested that the item be placed on a future agenda. Mavor Pro Tern Ridgeway stated that El Morro is within the City of Laguna Beach's sphere of influence, and disagreed with the City of Newport Beach addressing the issue. Mayor Bromberg stated that he had the same concern. but it is public property handled by the State and anyone has the right to express opinions, even though the City would have no jurisdiction or authority to demand or expect anything beyond providing an opinion. Council Member Heffernan stated that El Morro is a beach facility with easy access and. if certain improvements are made, it could take some of the pressure off of Corona del Mar beach. He stated that it would be in the interest of the Newport Beach residents to promote the use of El Morro. • After a brief discussion by the City Council members, it was decided that the G-1 Policy Review would be continued to the Study Session of September 9, 2003. Council Member Adams encouraged residents and staff to 'share their stories and issues regarding the trees in the City. He noted that the information about Cameo Shores was enlightening and that he'd like to hear from others about their specific issues and concerns. Volume 56 - Page 351 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes August 26, 2003 Uouncil Member Webb requested that information be presented on what the City is doing to protect and maintain problem trees. He noted that he doesn't live in what is considered a view community and that the trees, themselves, are the views. Mayor Bromberg agreed that what may be appropriate for one neighborhood may not be appropriate for another. General Services Director Niederhaus stated that over a year ago, funds were provided in the budget for the City to begin annual trimming of ficus trees, a root pruning program and other services to retain problem trees. He stated that it has not resulted in the need to replace fewer sidewalks, and that he would present the Study Session report that addressed the issue to Council Member Webb. Council Member Heffernan requested that a ten-year summary of the claims submitted to the City for damages caused by trees also be included in the information provided to the City Council, and that it include the money that has been spent by the City to resolve them. Assistant City Attorney Clausen also suggested that the General Services Director provide information on the cost and location of sidewalk replacements and repairs that have been done as a result of tree damage. Council Member Heffernan agreed. Assistant City Attorney Clausen additionally noted the tree loss report that was included in the staff report, which identifies the trees that the Urban Forester has determined are problem trees. ADJOURNMENT — 5:45 p.m, The agenda for the Study Session was posted on August 20, 2003, at 3:00 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. City Clerk Recording Secretary Mayor Volume 56 - Page 352 INDEX N Q J U f- J_ m Q J J K W Z W 0 C m E C CL 0 cm ca L. cc CA m C E 4� Aj I i" ,„ N N N N N N N N N N m a a m m m m m m m m C j j C j O O@ O@ O@ O v E E v E v E v v o o E o v v N @ n N N E E E ° n E > > @ n nv n E@ E @ N a> c@> > c@> > E d Q U @@ c U n U U@ _o @ J 0] LL d m m d LL W LL W LL d L U c ❑ J U > > 0o- O N c I@ � W > Q O U Q @ N 3 N O m O O C 16 0 O, @ N N oc r = o C) 0 N N O O O N O N O O of O O O X 0 0 a EH N V3 = V3 fA V3 6 W Lo Ef3 fA V th V3 V3 fA fA I� N th ff3 � EH (D N (V I � ------------ W N J N M D D N c L E U C _ @ O L L @ N@ .D "D @ U N N @ O E LU ~ T�Q� == UU NF Q a3 c a3 E a3 a3 @ N N @@ C �r@ �N �� 01f �: ,3Q,U) N N N N N N N d N N d N C C) C C) C C) C C C) C C C L L E E E L L L L L L L L L L 0 o E o o E o o E o 0 o E o 0 0 C C N C C N C C N C C C N C C C M V M— V M I r — ( ( V M( V M U o U U Q E a = Q J m a N N m C TQ L O E U.0 T O O T .M � N@ C@ L@ O o O N W U) ID ED o �m:5�n ❑ovZOO� C L6 clM L Ef3 EH V3 V3 co V3 V3 V3 EH V3 rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn O O -= O O O - - =� N- N T O N N w � �N U �c ° C @ @� ❑ > a� Y ar0 O M c L 0 WED UNQw � L E >.N = U N0 O o E @ m O U❑ J O :E C) Z :E U)❑ :5 C� :5 :E C) :E C � d O E ° m m m m n c E m J � a s m N N a N N n E LU E N a c o c c c E.o > U c_ v U- > > U U U L U LL _o> _o Q LL d LL LL LL J LL d d' u _U LL LL W LL 0] U o U U Q E a = Q J m a N N m C TQ L O E U.0 T O O T .M � N@ C@ L@ O o O N W U) ID ED o �m:5�n ❑ovZOO� C L6 clM L Ef3 EH V3 V3 co V3 V3 V3 EH V3 rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn O O -= O O O - - =� N- N T O N N w � �N U �c ° C @ @� ❑ > a� Y ar0 O M c L 0 WED UNQw � L E >.N = U N0 O o E @ m O U❑ J O :E C) Z :E U)❑ :5 C� :5 :E C) :E C � d O E ° m m m m n c E m J � a s m N N a N C m C O E ° m m m o i 2 m N N C c) C C C> C C>> >>) C C> >> C C C> C C C C C C C>) C N L L N o O O O O O O O L L O O L L .0 N L L L L L L L N N L <p 0 o E o 0 o E o c E E E E E o o E E E E o 0 o E o 0 0 0 0 0 o E E o ¢ C C N C C C N C y N N N N N C C N N N N C C C N C C C C C C C N N C N N d N D_ C J J « « J 0 2 m d d d J J N NN J J J O J J Ol J@ L co N@ J J J J U U J U O J J m C- D U J U_ U_ U_ U_ N m U_ U_ U_ U_ U_ J J _U J- _U U U_ u W W W a a 0] LL W W W U W W U� W W Q W a W W W W W W W W W a W W W W W 0 Q N Uy M a Q >. I--W a Q U N 0] Q m m a w m Q Q > W N (D o M O a o (M D W (O D m rn lM D a O 0 m N s o O 0 N Q a N O Ez ¢ O O T> U) T C ED O O O E O Q Q O> O O W O m U o 0 O O a> m 0 0 Ua m W Q 0 U) 0. C) > W W m Z W W LU W O O O O O In (O O O O O r Op 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I� O In O O x 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O W O N r- M r V V (D co V O fA fA d3 fA N fA (A N3 fA O 00 V3 fA Vi fA fA fA (A fA fA fA H3 Efj fA m O — N \ — N - — — — N N '- - — — — — — — — - — M M V � � (D r N N C � N E M E O 0] ED M @ Ol E W 4 E a� >, (D cn E m o m m w @ v m Y o �' m m @� D a> Q p U '� N Jn m m J M KS N =M m m O L U KS ~ KS C m> C 0] U O °` J ED Q« N J d Y M N U m m <6 Q Z� >� O W M Qm nU Q ----- o N O C C L o N C C O o t N C C o o > > > ) O O O > > > > > "> O N > "O N > a L C � "O > N 'L C o � "O N > "O > N a C � O N N N O 0 0 0 0 0 O "O N 0 C C N-6 N C C N 6 E E C N C E N C E J C (3 O@ C J C D N N N N N 0 N 00 E J J J J J 00 @ J T T T T T J T w o o E J J p p J J J) J J J J J J U U U J J J J J L J U J U U U U U U U U U U J J J U U 0 U U U@ N U N J U W W iii ii iii iii iii i�wW W ii i�Ui�i.�ii U Q(�� W W C7 Q p U p U J U m ° ❑ ❑ >' W o U U d U o o❑ Q a. IQ .... m T C @ 1] O J@ T L 'C L@ U@ C C") N m `O @ = L Q 0 U) J 0 c m o .o ❑ o .o @ m a� m (o °� is o o °o c o c .o m o� m_, d c QO @ °-_ - Ec` Of m mc`Um > d w(3 oN U) > @ Lu U) c =(n (` m Q! (n O d U V= 0' � O) V 0' r m M W W U) = O of U) N O 2 W M (D N M N (D of O O O O — (n 0 0 0 0 0 M O O V V V O (0 M N O of (D O of of N O O N ( W O M r (0 (0 N N of M (D (D N O W (n N O) V V V (n V (n N V (n — N — — — N w W O of (n N O O O O) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 O O O O (n 0 (n W Co N M (D N N r M N L Ef3 C6 EH V3 (p H3 V3 (f3 Vi (f3 EA EA EA EA H3 H3 V3 (O m m 0 0 t- t- O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N O O O O O O O N N O O N N N N O O O O O O N N N O N O 22 0 M O X 66 2226 0 W (D (D — — — — — — — — — — — — N M M M M M M M V V (P (P (P (P (D (D O O N (� N N E E C C C K U o c o o U w o a� o Z ❑ a� L r D) v0 c o E J } m.o . @_ L J 0 "D m @ o U f @ J "D m ) 0 C7 'Fa C > � _ o ° @ N Y N 0 @@ E m J@ ( 3: O O t E O N (O J O X if C m @ U L0 L0 N@ L O C Q) L C L L U 0 C@ D U O D U C m � O E N N � Or d N � c E m � � a s m W y T a N O N a` C m � O E N m m m m a LL U m @ n � @ U) Bo a vi p a @ 3 @ T E p N N N O N .N N N N@ {� O. N m N N N C J J J J J J O Uj � Q 0.0 UU N W Um _ � IL � W W 0 0 LU LT LT J:�iLE2 JE W C7 Q N Q � } }0} J F- ❑ m U W 0 ❑ m 0 0 U JO ❑ K an d C C O C L Z` Cl) > Q J E @ m a Q @ Q' N N m O N U) 0 O@ y 0 Q U J O j j C Q �m � �U)�= O U),n U)d. �p U W W O O N �- M O (O d' O (O O O O O M N d' d' M I� O O Z W N N N �- M W d n N N N N N C C C C C>>>>>>> N > 0 M 0@ N 0 N N N O E E E E E o v v v o f d C t 0 0 L 0 L 0 L o E E E v v E E cLi cLi N cLi C m C C C C C N N N U1 N N N C N C N C N C C C C C C D (r LL U m @ n � @ U) Bo a vi p a @ 3 @ T E p N N N O N .N N N N@ {� O. N m N N N C J J J J J J O Uj � Q 0.0 UU N W Um _ � IL � W W 0 0 LU LT LT J:�iLE2 JE W C7 Q N Q � } }0} J F- ❑ m U W 0 ❑ m 0 0 U JO ❑ ❑ O E_ -o U ai c �'"� °� -p Q Q - an d C C O C L Z` Cl) > Q J E @ m a Q @ Q' N N m O N U) 0 O@ y 0 Q U J O j j C Q �m � �U)�= O U),n U)d. �p U W W O O N �- M O (O d' O (O O O O O M N d' d' M I� O O Z W N N N �- M W d d Vl 0 0 a` Y d L YI w d U N C O ` O � � O T n O ( C O O C O E O O UJ O fl� 0 O O M U O O O O o ,U 6 a` (D � O (D Q L n C E (6 UJ M cn n U) a ¢ 'p p (a . - -O O E = (n .�.` O U (n '(D m O_ v � o ' n (6 0 O CO °o ° E 3 0 m t6 (D O - .� Q `J n (6 : '� c> E (D M N (D O E (D C � M n O LL M (6 o 0 C~ O � C O p E E C O E O C 'O O T ^ (D E C O C 6- O _O 0 0 _0 CL > p O C O 01 O M U_ U (D a 'U d O m C (6 E ,N (6 (D UU`J M E CL (XS -p Y (7 (n O o- 3 E > U cr �_ m C O C -O (D - (p O O O O N (D d (6 C.i .0 J d d .2 ¢ n (6 d' > d' d d O d' ii:i w 0 O_ C (D a (5.o 'O c E _0 (6 'O (D C O O U r Cn UJ E (6 O 6 C O_ ..T. o p .c6 > E O O (D O E n .2 E � -- O-0 n U p C) E 6 O) (p E 'O ` 6 O -0 E O 5 _0 0 O C6 C (D U (D -L- O O CL 0 3 E Sao a(D 0— �c(D 0 'U .0 D O(D O U C O'er U O (D O ? p (D U O O O Y O O C n O� T O -o ca O E O O -o O _ T U d _ U O_ O a� E _ -p C o > (n V U m 6 O d O 'C ¢ N C (6 (` O N C (6 C O C U m � (� U o E � 0). m - ;� C 3 ` O' L CO U O O O O O O O U CL n p O O a o z C7 Q ¢ a U (D O Q O ° flr� 3 U N C O O � � T o O E O O O O fl� 0 O O O O U O O o E 6 a` (D � O n Q L n O cn cn > U) a ¢ 0 E p (U 'j C O � T E = C 3 `J O_ O _ O L X O T O `O 3 � .- '� O 3 0 0 w E� ° ca O_ O T > (IUJ C � c6 (U O f O) C_ O L �n C ,U O � C O o E O_ d� (n T O U E O_ (U U L E (U .E U � w . _ V- ._ O N C O) 3 M O a 30 - E � U o� .o V- T (D LO E C `J N `J UJ ( E O -O ° X (U (U J U U T O p E � .� � CU 'O ({j (U E C7 O b a O O (n ._ ° .0 U- O` W W C U o C d V' T O_ O� (U (D N c6 F E O C O U O d ` L C (U C O- (n C (n N E L "(n (U L 4= (U E m 'O N U O '� E (n (U .2 O U CL (U CL _ U U) m O_ a 3 p U Q U O Q w —O U CO C _00 .E O (n O C -0 (U 3 C O: ` L �O T 3 M O UO �O O C c6 U c6 (n = (6 `J p = U � c6 C w N E E 00 � O T.� U O 3 'O C L (U O_ (U O (n (U O d O (U ��' a U E E c a U a E E o U T -= C O O m O E M (U O) C '� O_ CL U == d 'U U C O) ° 3 (D a o E .0 O w W U F -� CL CL > -p o v E v v E O p -(D (n X N E U O `J `J (6 O) `J C � O O C = = `J � N .... p N (6 (U L .U.. O W N `J O CL O_ 2 (U E w C C .--� — d '� C C _ O_ 6 D (D U =° E T � � .Q ° (D .� E o� (D (' (D M a ` 3 a ° Q a Q E �� a Q -Q ° o o —° O (U ( O (U >� O (U (U `J C (U (6 (U (6 v ¢ a a s � z o M - w Of w w N E N N a C CT (U O O O) E C o> ° E E E E E M (U C C (U M O E ° Y > M M L > p- CY O U O O_ (U w (D (Y- C W Q CO SS �L THE NEWPORT BEACH URBAN FOREST By Homer Bludau City Manager September 9, 2003 Urban Forest • Consists of 40,000 City trees • Value — over $70,000,000 • Tree Inventory — location, type, height, trunk size 1 Cost to Maintain the Urban Forest FY 2003/04 • Annual Tree Trimming • Personnel, Chemicals, Misc. $495,000 $236,599 $731,599 Cost of Tree Damage to City Infrastructure in FY 2002/03 • Ficus tree remedial work $50,000 • Sidewalk, curb, gutter repair (City) $633,712 • Sidewalk, curb, gutter repair (private) $153,000 • Sewer, waterline repair $476,000 $1,312,712 `A Current Estimated City Infrastructure Damage Remaining to be Addressed • Sidewalk repair /replacement $2.5 million • Curb /gutter repairs $1.5 million $4 million Private Property Claims /Payments FY 2002/03 $61,594 FY 2001/02 $58,023 FY 2000/01 $62,766 FY 1999/2000 $184,278 FY 1998/99 $633,789 i FY 2002/03 Tree Costs • Maintenance $731,599 • Repairs $1,312,712 • Liability Claims $61,598 $2,105,909 • Future Repair Costs $4,000,000 Tree Removals & Plantings Trees Removed Trees Planted FY 2002 -03 52(23) 487 FY 2001 -02 12 540 FY 2000 -01 43 333 FY 1999 -2000 123 519 FY 1998 -99 26 310 FY 1997 -98 59 247 315 2,436 One removed for every 7.7 planted over last 6 years - removed less than 1 % of urban forest 11 Emerging Big Picture • The City spends over $2,000,000 annually on taking care of its urban forest. • Much of that money is spent on repairs that are temporary. We keep spending money on repairs caused by the same trees. • Our current G -1 Policy's removal provisions inhibit the City in spending its infrastructure repair money effectively because it is too restrictive in allowing problem trees to be removed. Emerging Big Picture • Our current G -1 Policy protects individual trees at the expense of good, sound, and economical management of our urban forest. A natural forest with 30,000+ trees is going to lose more trees (due to disease, age, insect infestation) than the City annually removes from its urban forest. The City's G -1 Policy needs to provide more balance in terms of the community's needs, balanced against the needs of the urban forest. G � "RECEIV D AFTER AGE D PRINTED:` iS5'� 9 7 03 Brown, Leilani From: Harkless, LaVonne Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 2:53 PM To: Brown, Leilani Subject: FW: Comment regarding G -1 Policy Please print and mark for distribution at today's Study Session. Thanks. - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Oborny, Shirley Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 2:52 PM To: Harkless, LaVonne Subject: Comment regarding G -1 Policy Ms. Margit Motto called to voice her opinion regarding the 6-1 Policy. She is very sorry that she will not be able to attend the City Council meeting tonight to voice her concerns in public. She is against the changes, especially the loss of the special City trees and the problem tree category, specifically the fact that trees won't be replaced when removed. She can be reached at 548 -1566. Shirley Oborny City Manager's Office City of Newport Beach 949 -644 -3002 949-644-3008(fox) 1 support for the New GI Policy cl - rl -J 7 Subject: Support for the New G -1 Policy Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 00:53:23 -0700 From: "George Parker" <f4u @cox.net> To: "Yvonne Houssels" <yrhoussels @earthlink.net>, "iris" <iryce @cox.net >, <gproctor@ juveniledefenders.com >, <nbcouncil @ranichols.info >, <garold_adams @hotmail.com >, <don2webb @earthlink.net >, <jhfs@aol.com >, <tridgeway @city.newport- beach.ca.us>, <dandee @earthlink.net> In support of the G -1 Policy with Changes, the following is submitted: Problem Trees. Is it not true that most all of the trees in Newport Beach are planted trees and are not indigenous to the city? Drive along the coast noting the undeveloped areas, such as Camp Pendleton, noting the fact that trees are not indigenous to California coastal lands. Grasses and bushes are indigenous, trees are not. The tree advocates are out of line when they contend that problem trees must be preserved in Newport Beach to ensure the needs of nature. Their efforts are misplaced, they should attack the developers of Irvine and protest the destruction of hundreds of acres of orange and citrus trees that have been replaced with thousands of houses and commercial buildings. Is it not true that the view of the ocean and harbor is a permanent entity that was here before the trees? is it not true that view has a much higher property value than trees? There is no comparison. Newport Beach is renown for its ocean and harbor, it is not renown for its trees. The view of the ocean and harbor is natural asset and much more valuable than a view of planted trees that obstruct view of the ocean and harbor. Is it not true that a planted tree that over years becomes too large for its location becomes a costly mistake and cannot have its value estimated by its size? A misplaced problem tree does not have the same value that the tree would have in a location where size is a benefit. Trees are not collectibles that can be sold to collect a possible value. Large trees in Newport Beach cannot be valued in the same way they would be valued in Irvine. Trees are beneficial to man and most view owners have trees on their property, attesting to that fact. However, trees in a view community can be an asset only if they are controlled and complement the view not obstruct it. Most all trees mature and increase in size and, in time, can become an obstruction of view if not controlled. Controlling means trimming or topping to control growth, however, in time trees can become so large they can only be controlled by removal and replaced by smaller or younger trees. The tree problem Newport Beach has is simply controlling trees in order to maintain an appreciation of the ocean and harbor. If you plant trees, they will obstruct the appreciation of that beauty if not controlled. Newport Beach does not have trouble with trees, it has trouble controlling the trees. The City of Newport Beach needs the care and protection provided by the G -1 Policy with the Changes. Respectfully submitted, George B. Parker, 3407 Seabreeze Lane, Corona del Mar (Email: f4u @cox.net) I of 2 9/9/2003 12:041 spa HARBOR VIEW HILLS SOUTH HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION August 26, 2003 Dear Mayor Bromberg and City Council Members: I and many other view association representatives are here today on behalf of thousands of homeowners. We are requesting that you continue to protect our City's most valuable asset, the views. We appreciate the time and diligence by the PB &R ad hoc committee and city staff in coming up with the suggested revisions to the G -1 Policy. A great deal of public input was given at each PB &R ad hoc committee meeting and all individuals were given an equal amount of time to speak. With a couple of minor changes to make the policy wording consistent (Please see the copy of our August 25 e-mail I have brought today)— Page 6, lines 16 -19 should state 24" box and Page 9 lines 40 -41 should state that the City Urban Forester should undertake the tree trimming necessary, not just consider it — we feel that the Policy as revised should be approved. However, we are very distressed that City staff has stated, "If the City Council wishes staff to proceed with the recommended revisions to the G -1 Policy, staff will arrange for an environmental analysis of the revisions that complies with the requirements of CEQA." We feel that the report prepared in consultation with John Conway, the Urban Forester, and presented by the Assistant City Attorney, Robin L. Clauson at the July 15, 2003 ad hoc committee hearing is more than sufficient. Following an in depth analysis of all types of city trees and locations it concluded by saying that under the worst case scenario with the new G -I Policy revisions, "The net result of the City's effort is a 60% increase in the size of the forest, while removals account for less than 1% of the inventory." Please see attachment G in your packet. We understand that the previous G -I Policies, in effect and amended over the years since 1966, have not required any environmental analysis. Why has this sudden new requirement for not 1, but 2 environmental reports been tacked on now? I cannot recall any mention of this at any of the PB &R ad hoc committee meetings I attended. It is time to move on. Another costly and unnecessary delay while yet another environmental analysis is completed cannot be justified. We must have an effective G -1 Policy in place so that the City Staff can continue to work with the residents and protect both our public and private views. Yvonne Houssels Chairperson, G -1 City Tree Policy Committee Harbor View Hills South HOA +uptnnm urc k, -, P0 [icy revmomj Subject: [Fwd: Cameo supports the G -1 policy revisions] Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 09:31:24 -0500 From: Yvonne Houssels <yrhoussels @earthlink.net> To: tridgeway @city.newport- beach.ca.us, dandee @earthlink.net, jhff@aol.com, don2webb @earthlink.net, garold_adams @hotmail.com, nbcouncil @ranichols.info, gproctor@juveniledefenders.com Subject: Cameo supports the G -1 policy revisions Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 17:53:01 -0700 From: Katharine Young <ksyoung @post.harvard.edu> To: dandee@earthlink.net CC: john Lindgren <fa1con62 @adelphia.net> Dear Mayor Bromberg, With a couple of minor changes, the Cameo and Harbor View South Homeowner Associations support and would like you to adopt the G -1 policy revisions that were so carefully undertaken by Ms. Allen and her committee. 1. I see that Mr. Niederhaus's staff recommends an environmental analysis of the revisions. Since Newport Beach in its natural condition has NO trees, and no native trees are at issue here, the concerns of the Balboa Arbor Society are clearly aesthetic. Street trees are NOT an environmental issue. Unless city lawyers advise to the contrary, we are firmly opposed to any delay in adopting these changed standards. G -1 policy changes in the past were never submitted to an environmental analysis. 2. In the final meeting of Ms. Allen's committee, it was agreed that replacement trees for reforestation should be in the 24" box size. Page 6, lines 16 -19 should state 24" box to be consistent. 3. The initial paragraph of Attachment A and the G -3 policy support the protection of views. So, on page 9, line 40 -41 and page 10 line 1 -2, when a legally- established community association requests in writing reduced tree heights, the City Urban Forester should undertake that height reduction, not just consider it. These proposed revisions are an improvement in reducing expense and bureaucratic impediments in our communities. We hope you will accept them. Kathy Young and Tess Lier, Cameo Association G -1 policy representatives Yvonne Houssels, Chairperson, G -1 City Tree Policy, Harbor View Hills South fl 8/26/2003 9:36 AM q.o 3 HARBOR VIEW HILLS SOUTH HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION August 27, 2003 Dear Mayor Bromberg and Council Members: I am Chairperson of the City G -1 Tree Policy Committee for Harbor View Hills South. Our association is comprised of 449 homes. My fellow committee members and I were very disappointed that we were unable to speak and state our support of the revised G -1 Policy at the study session yesterday. Indeed there were many representatives from other view associations, including Cameo Shores, Cameo Highlands, and Jasmine Creek who were also unable to speak due to time constraints. Following David Niederhaus' lengthy presentation of the changes to the G -I Policy and PB &R Chairperson Debra Allen's explanation of the procedures followed by the PB &R ad hoc committee, only %z hour was left for public comment. The Balboa Arborist Society members spoke first and received unrestricted time to present their views. Additionally, Council discussed many issues with staff during the public comment section. This time was not added back and left many in the audience unable to make their presentations. We sincerely hope this has not left the Council with the impression that there is not wide support for the newly revised G -I Policy. As view association representatives, we represent thousands of residents in the City of Newport Beach. Many of us attended all of the PB &R ad hoc tree committee hearings. At those meetings, we expressed our strong support for the need for updating the G -1 Policy. We believe that this newly revised G -I Policy has come a long way in making it possible for the view associations to work with staff and more easily and economically resolve problem tree and view issues. We look forward to attending the September 9 study session. You can be sure we will be fighting for an early spot at the podium this time! Sincerely, vonnsels Chairperson, City G -1 Policy Tree Policy Committee, Harbor View Hills South