HomeMy WebLinkAbout31 - Tree Removal - 2327 Arbutus AvenueCity Council Agenda
Item No. 31
April 12, 1999
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: General Services Director
SUBJECT: Tree Removal
Alternatives
Retain the City parkway street tree located at 2327 Arbutus Avenue.
or
Waive the restrictions of Council Policy G- I and grant removal approval based on the
level of public and private damages.
• History
Mr. James M. Parker, the property owner at 2327 Arbutus Avenue, requested the tree
removal of one parkway street tree located adjacent to his residence and the replacement
of the tree in a nearby area. Staff denied the request for removal and Mr. Parker appealed
the decision to the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission on March 2, 1999. The
Commission also denied the appeal to remove the Ficus tree at the March Commission
meeting. The Commission concurred with staff's assessment that the level of public or
private damage failed to justify the removal of a mature tree. The attached PB &R
Commission agenda item contains all of the pertinent correspondence and reports
(Attachment A).
Mr. Parker is appealing the Commission's decision per Council Policy G -1 as evidenced
by his letter dated March 11, 1999 (Attachments B and C). His primary grounds for
removal are that the tree is in close proximity to the sewer and water lines, and the
amount of public and private damage to the hardscape adjacent to the tree.
Discussion
• The Urban Forester and Park and Trees Maintenance Superintendent inspected the tree on
site in December. Subsequently the Urban Forester completed a Tree Inspection and Tree
Appraisal Report (Attachment A). He noted the tree was healthy with no apparent •
property damage and that two other nearby trees, which are located on private property,
could possibly be the cause of sewer damage. The tree has an estimated value of
$3,518.20.
Hardscape damage attributed to the tree consists of cracks of the sidewalk, curb, and
gutter. The original sidewalk has been replaced once with raised areas ground down as
needed. The curb and gutter adjacent to the tree is original as well, but does need to be
replaced. Because the tree has not caused "repeated damage" as required by Council
policy as one of the criteria for removal, staff could not recommend removal of the tree to
the PB & R Commission.
Staff has provided two alternatives should the Council decide to waive the removal
criteria of the G -1 policy. A photo display of the tree and the surrounding area will be
provided at the City Council meeting.
Very respectfully,
David E. Niederhaus
DEN/MGL /pw
Attachments
A. March 2, 1999 Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission Agenda
with enclosures.
B. City Council Policy G -1 (Retention or Removal of City Trees)
C. Mr. Parker's letter dated March 11, 1999.
LJ
7
•
PB &R Commission Agenda
Item No. V -1 I.
March 21 1999
TO: Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission
FROM: General Services Director
SUBJECT: Tree Removal Appeal
Recommendations
Deny the removal request of one Brazilian Pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) parkway
street tree at 2327 Arbutus Street.
Background
• Mr. James M. Parker requested the removal of one parkway street tree located adjacent to
his residence, by letter dated November 7, 1998 (Attachment A). The Urban Forester and
Park and Trees Maintenance Superintendent reviewed the request on site in December.
Subsequently the Urban Forester completed a Tree Inspection and Tree Appraisal Report
(Attachment B). He noted the tree was healthy with no apparent property damage and
that two other trees which were nearby and located on private property, could possibly be
the cause of sewer damage.
Discussion
The Urban Forester's letter dated December 28, 1998 (Attachment C) to Mr. Parker
denied his tree removal request and advised of his option to appeal the decision. Mr.
Parker's letter dated January 4, 1999 (Attachment D) requested an appeal to the PB &R
Commission. The General Services Director's response letter dated January 26, 1999
(Attachment E) informed Mr. Parker of the pending Commission meeting and that staff
would prepare his appeal for inclusion on the agenda.
Mr. Parker has received a copy of this report and a notice of the March 2 Commission
meeting.
Very respectfully,
David E. Niederhaus
DEN /MGL /pw
Attachments
A. Mr. Parker's letter dated November 7, 1998
B. Tree Inspection and Tree Appraisal Reports
C. Urban Forester's letter dated December 28, 1998
D. Mr. Parker's letter dated January 4, 1999
E. General Services Director's letter dated January 26, 1999
F. Mr. Parker's letter dated FebrUary 1, 1999
�J
\J
•
0
•
11
TELEPHONE: (949) 720.9971
The City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Attn: Office of the City Manager
Re: Tree Removal
Gentlemen:
JAMES M. PARKER
ATTORNEY AT LAW
POST OFFICE BOX 9107
NEWPORT BEACH. CAWFORNIA 92618
November 7, 1998
Rr__C,F.f\/1-D
11011 16 1998
FAX: (949) 640 -6860
My wife Marie and I reside in Eastbluff, at 2327 Arbutus. We have lived there for twenty
seven years and, when we first moved in, we didn't much care for the City's Brazilian
Pepper tree planted in the parkway because of prior bad experiences with that type of tree
but, it was relatively small so we didn't complain. Twenty seven years later the tree is about
forty feet tall and has a trunk diameter of about two feet ! It's enormous !
Besides the fact that it is a dirty tree, shedding pepper pods virtually year round, preventing
the parking of cars under it and discoloring the sidewalk, it has caused us a lot of expense
due to its roots creeping into our sewer lines from time -to -time. We have spent a lot of
money with Roto- Rooter over the years and your Building Department has visited us several
times, checking on the City's liability. In fact, on one occasion, the City dug up our parkway
and installed a sewer clean -out at no expense to us.
In the last few years, your tree's roots have raised the gutter in the street in front of our
house so that drain water now collects there. It is unsightly and, a nuisance.
We have a small, decorative brick wall on the inside side of the sidewalk that we have
replaced twice due to both the roots from your tree and, some roots from our tree. A few
years ago, the City replaced the entire sidewalk in front of our house due to the uplifting of
it by the trees' roots. Your people came out last year and ground down the raised portions of
the sidewalk due to the roots from the Brazilian Pepper. In short, your tree is a real pain ! I
want you to remove it.
More significantly for both of us, is the potential for personal injury to pedestrians who
5
99
City of Newport Beach •
November 7, 1998
Page two
might easily trip over the uneven sidewalk. This risk must be the City's alone now that you
have been advised of this problem.
We have recently trimmed some of our trees and completely removed another. The contrast
with your tree's size is now even more dramatic. Please advise us of the schedule for the tree
removal.
Sincerely,
VWil!'d�
JAMES M. PARKER
parker.genkity.Itl
•
Gil
•
CITY Or NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
TREE INSPECTION REPORT
Name: Mr. James M. Parker
Address: 2327 Arbutus Street
Phone Number: 720 -9931
Request: Remove Brazilian Pepper tree due to property damage.
Botanical Name: Schinus terebinthifolius
Common Name: Brazilian pepper
Designated Street Tree: Magnolia grandiflora
Estimated Tree Value: Total Value = $3,518.08 (see attached appraisal report)
Damage: Maintenance records indicate last trimming was completed summer 1998.
Parkway: Concrete Brick Turf Other
X
Comments: A field inspection determined tree was healthy. Additionally, sewer
damage as a result of the City tree and its location could not be confirmed since adjacent
to the sewer lateral on private property were 2 Picus trees that could be the cause of the
reported damage.
Inspected by:
Reco
Reviewed by:U�,,/,'
J wmU tly� t/
tree.
—Date: December 22, 1998
&t./_
Date: December 22, 1998
-
5_G
1
U
Q
W
m
H
a.
W
z
LL
0
F-
0
H
z
W
F-
w
Q
a.
W
0
W
U
'W^
V/
J
W
z
W
0
N
N
N E
N
Q m
r- n_
N �
N C
N 0
` o
a
w
v�
Q w
v
m
w
I
W,
i
A
7
7
P.
w
n
7
a
W
CN CN
J
00 00
Q
� �
i
n n
t9 t9
z
0_
O w
F
o
c6
LO
UJ
p U
col
'i
ov
J
z
O
F
g-
m
cn
zJ
U U
ono
w
U
z
O
o
N
cn
W Q
r
V
U
o
116
W u-
�
tH
a v�
v� 4
J
U
U W
0
n
QJ
oo
m >
ID
m
z
c
cw
W
W (n
00
J U
a
w
a:
=cno
(n
LO
N
_
U
0 F
z
o W U
ci U
U
Y w
z
7�
a
~ 0
co
N �
o
O N
(/I
W
d
j O N N
U
E 1E
av
m a
N
Q) F
11
0
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658.8915
December 28, 1998
Mr. James M. Parker
Post Office Box 9107
Newport Beach, California 92658
Dear Mr. Parker,
Your request for the removal of a City Brazilimr Pepper (Schinus lerebinthifolills)
parkway street tree located at 2327 Arbutus Street has been reviewed and cxamrincd oil
site. The field inspection determined that the tree is healthy with no apparent properly
damage evident. However, in order to further evaluate your request; please provide the
with topics of any sewer repairs that you may have incurred dnc to the City tree. Aller I
receive this information I will complete the tree removal evaluation and will inform you
of illy decision.
Additionally, I have asked the City Public Works Department to confirm any sewer
lateral repairs that they may have completed recently at you address clue to City tree
roots.
Please contact me at 644 -3083 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
John Conway
Urban Forester
JC /pW
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
TELEPHONE: (949) 770.9971
The City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
JAMES M. PARKER
ATTORNEY AT LAW
POST OFFICE BOX 9107
NEWPORT REACH. CALIFORNIA 92358
January 4, 1999
Attn: Mr. John Conway, Urban Forester
Re: Tree Removal
Dear Mr. Conway:
This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of December 28, 1998 copPrlvipe the City's
Brazilian Pepper tree growing in the parkway in front of our home it X327 Arbutus in.
rastbluff.
It's difficult for me to fathom the comment in your letter that there is "...no apparent
property damage evident." Didn't you, my wife and I stand together during your on -site visit
and each observe the large crack in the concrete curb next to where the tree is located, the
raised concrete gutter where water now ponds and the two places in the sidewalk that had to
be ground down by City workers in order to avoid a hazard to pedestrians all due to the
roots of the tree ? Didn't you spray paint the area of the curb that had to be replaced after
the City removed the tree and, didn't you give me Lanny Kelbo's name and number so that I
could call him to replace the curb and gutter ? Didn't you spray an arrow on the curb
indicating the place where a replacement tree was to be planted? Are we referring to the
same tree?
According to City Policy G -1 a copy of which was supplied to rLi., by Davd Niederhaus in his
letter of November 25, 1998, if a City tree damages sidewalks or curbs, or if it interferes
with street or sidewalk drainage and, if a private property owner requests the removal of the
trce, a trce inspcction report is to be prepared by you as the City's Urban Forester to
detcrmine if the tree meets the criteria for removal and, if it does, the City is to remove it
after a notification procedure. I believe all of the above has been satisfied except for your
suggestion that there is "...no apparent property damage evident."
I am enclosing a copy of a bill from Roto Rooter dated July 10, 1998 indicating "main line"
problems. It was during that visit by Roto Rooter that City employees were present and
0
/ X10
CE's
0
City of Newport Beach
January 4, 1999
Page two
volunteered to testify that it was the tree that was causing the problems.
Please start the notification procedure as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
JAMES M. PARKER
r�
U
cc: Dave Niederhaus
parker.pnkiry.10
V3
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CO. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 -8915
January 26, 1999
Mr. Jamcs M. Parkcr
Post Officc Box 9107
Ncwport Beach, California 92658
Dear Mr. Parkcr,
I am in receipt of copies of your sewer repair bills that allegedly resulted fi-om
damage caused by the City's parkway street tree adjacent to your residence. An
onsitc inspection was made by myself accompanied by the Park and Trces
Maintenance Superintendent and the Urban Forester regarding your request to
remove the offending City Brazilian Pcpper (Schinus lcrcbinlhifolius) parkway
street tree located at 2327 Arbutus Strect.
It has been determined that the tree is healthy and that there is no apparent
property damage evident. Additionally, it appears the probable cause of your past
sewer lateral obstructions were from the two Ficus trees on your property.
Your recourse in this matter includes an appeal of Staffs decision to retain the tree
to the Parks, Bcachcs and Recreation Commission. If you wish to do so, please
scud a letter to me at Post Office Box 1768, Ncwport Bcach, California 92658-
8915, for inclusion on a fi turc Commission agenda.
Plcasc contact Marcclino G. Lomcli, Park and Trccs Maintenance Superintendent
at 644 -3069 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
David E. Nicdcrhaus, Director
Gcncl.al Services Department
DEN /MG L /pw
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
I
0
E
•
.. _ . _ _ . 11 .. _ 1 1 ; 1 1 l i L-W.I IL 1 .. UI' 1 I l L
James M. Parker
• Attorney At Law
POST OFFICG BOX 9107 NEWPORT BFACIk CALIFORNIA 926SI .9107
Phone(949)710 -9911 Fa %(949)604660E•Mi3impuklawr_awI
February 1, 1999
City of Newport Beach
Post Office Box 1768 4t-nt- 1trr, n
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 rr.
F, 6' 41,999
Attn: David Niederhaus. Director, General Services Department t3Cr„L�1, ,`
v`1 a,1V�4
Dear Mr. Niederhaus:
'Ms is in response to your Idler of January 26, 1999 rejecting my request that a Brazilian Pepper
tree owned by the City, be removed from the parkway in front of my home at 2327 Arbutus. l
wish to appeal your decision to the City's Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission. Please
place this appeal on the Commission's agenda at the earliest lime.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
JAMS 4. PARKER
V
parker generallcity Itrl
TOTFL F.01 \ J
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 street trees arc an important part of the character and charm of certain
communities and regular care, trimming, maintenance and programmed
replacement arc necessary to preserve this charm while protecting public and
private properly.
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 arc identified on
Attachment I, and shall hereinafter be referred to as Special Trees. Trees within
these categories shall be established, mapped, recorded and maintained by the
Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission ( "Commission ").
Special Trees shall be retained, unless there arc exceptional problems 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 ti-cc(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.
During normal sidewalk, curb, and street repair activity requiring root pruning, all
st.cps will be taken to retain Special Trees. if tree roots arc to be pruned in
association with hardscapc 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 root arc to be pruned, one side should be pruned a year in advance of the
other side.
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: •
Attachment A
1 ,�
G -1
1. The City tree has had a history of damaging public or private sewers,
. water mains, roadways, sidewalks, curbs, walls, fences, or foundations
based on City records or other competent and reliable authority despite
specific treatment by the City to alleviate repeated damage.
2. The City tree has had a repeated history of interfering with street or
sidewalk drainage, despite specific treatment by the City to alleviate
repeated damage.
3. The City tree is dead, diseased, or dying.
4. The trcc(s) must comply with the critcria for reforestation as
contained in the Reforestation of City Trees section of this policy.
5. The trcc(s) have been requested to be removed in conjunction with a
City Council - approved neighborhood or community association
beautification program.
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 with the Gcncral
Services Director.
After receipt of the application a tree inspection rcport shall be prepared by the
City's Urban Forester (Attachment 2) to determine if the trcc(s) meets the criteria
outlined above for consideration for removal. Simultaneously, a notice shall be
provided to the affected property owner and the owners immediately adjacent to
the applicant's property, and the appropriate community association if applicable.
The Urban Forester shall determine whether in his /hcr judgment additional specific
treatment can be initiated to retain the tree. If a trec(s) is to be removed, the trcc(s)
will be marked at least 30 days prior to the removal with a while X (using
temporary paint) and posted with a sign notifying the public that they have the
right of appeal. The sign shall also note a staff contact. Once a.rccommcndation 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 Activities Report, except for those trees categorized in
paragraph 3 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
2 ��j
G -1
General Services Director to the Commission, and if the appeal cannot be resolved
at the Commission level, then the final resolution will be determined at the City •
Council level. The Commission and Council, 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 trcc(s).
Au appeal to the Council regarding a Commission tree decision must be received
by the General Services Department no later than 14 calendar days following the
date of the Commission decision. The General Services Department will delay
any tree removals until the appeal period has expired or until the Council has acted
upon the appeal.
REFORESTATION OF CITY TREES
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 create
significant problems in curb, gutter, sidewalk or underground utilities. hr certain
neighborhoods, mature 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.
Today, arborists have developed lists of tree species which arc able to grow in
restricted parkway areas without causing significant future problems to curb,
gutter, sidewalk, utilities or views. The concept of systematically replacing mature
trees which arc creating hardscapc and /or view problems and cannot be properly
trimmed, pruned or modified to alleviate the problems they create, or those which
arc reaching their full life and arc declining in health, is referred to as reforestation.
As a City which understands the importance of trees and the beauty it brings 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. 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-
G. Furthermore, no person shall tamper with replacement trees in violation of
Section 13.08.040 of the Municipal Code.
Individuals or parties desiring to reforest City trees in their respective area, nray
submit 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 trees proposed for removal and
3 U
G -1
replacement, street addresses, block numbers, or other geographical
• information.
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 tell or more
homes in any given area of the City. As an alternative, areas
represented by a legally established community association
empowered with CC & R's, may submit resolution of the Board of
Directors formally requesting reforestation with a statement that all
members of the community association have been officially notified
and given an appropriate opportunity to respond before the Board
voted on the request.
C. A written agreement by the petitioning sponsor 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.
. d. The replacement tree must be the designated street tree as
prescribed by City Council Policy G -G or the organization must
request and have approval from the Commission of the designation of
a different tree species.
C. 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 24" box trees.
In the event that the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission does not approve
the reforestation request, the applicant has the option to appeal the proposal to the
City Council. The applicant shall have ten calendar days to appeal the decision of
the Commission, by letter, to the General Services Director. The General Services
Director shall submit the appeal to the City Council for review within 30 days of
receipt of the appeal
TREE TRIMMING STANDARDS /SUPPLGMCNTALTRIMMING
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 Aboriculture (ISA).
4
\1
G -1
The City will Consider, and as a general rule approve, requests to trim certain trees
pure liegncntly ur to lrini trees consistent with practices applied prior to the
adoption of ISA standards (to enhance public and private views, preserve required
sighUdistancc standards, or other public pnrposcs) which arc submillcd by affected
residents or the board of a Icgally cslablishcd community association and the
rcgncst is accompanied by a completed "Supplemental Trcc Trinnning Form" and
full payncnt for any costs of trimming.
The Gcncral Services Director shall establish procedures to implement the
supplemental trimming provisions of this Policy. An approval nest be obtained
from a Icgally cslablishcd association by the rcqucstor in areas wilh an active
homeowners' association.
Notc: (Attaclmncnt I — Preservation of Spccial'1'rccs)
(Attachment 2 —Trcc Inspection Rcport)
Adopted — May 9, 1966
Amcndcd — Angnsl 14, 1967
Amcndcd — Novcnbcr 9, 1976
Amcndcd — Novcnibcr 12, 1985
Amcndcd — Novcnibcr 28, 1988
Amcndcd — Angnsl 10,1998
Amcndcd — March Id, 1994
Amcndcd —April 11, 1994
Amcndcd — February 26, 1996
Amcndcd — July 14, 1997
Amcndcd (Administratively) — Nov.
24, 1997
5
•
u
is
MI
•
PRESERVATION OF SPECIAL TREES
G -1
LANDMARK
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 (Prank Tallman)
Pinus radiata
No. City Hall grounds (Billy Covert)
Picus 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)
Peninsula Park
Ravenea rivularis
(Don Perdue)
Grant Howald Park
Metrosideros excelsus
1 (Pete Munro)
2 (Mark Munro)
Attachment 1
\\
DEDICATED
TREES (contd.) Veterans Park
(Rosemary Rae Hill Hansen)
Mariners Park
(N. Beach Sunrise Rotary Club)
(Christopher & Marisha Thomposn)
(Meghan & Camielle Thompson)
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
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
Attachment 1
Lagenstroemia
indica faueri
Stenocarpus
sinuatus
Pinus eldarica
Pinus eldarica
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
(Baycrest) Eucalyptus citriodora
Eucalyptus citriodora
Eucalyptus citriodora
Eucalyptus citriodora
Eucalyptus citriodora
Eucalyptus citriodora
G -1
U
is
2 is
CITY OF NENNI 'ORT 13LAC11
• GENERAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
TREE INSPECTION REPORT
Namc
Address
I'honc Numbcr
Request
Botanical Namc
Common Namc
Designated Strcct Trcc
Gstinmtcd Trcc Value
Damagc
Parkway: Concrete Brick 'Turf Othcr
Conuncnls
Inspected by
Rcconuncndation
Reviewed by
Datc
Datc
G -1
Attachment 2 ��
CITY COUNCIL POLICY G -1
Supplemental Tree Trimming Procedures
Applicants, per the policy, have the option to have City trees, in their parkway, trimmed
by incurring the costs of such services per the following procedures:
1. A request letter and completed "Supplemental Tree Trimming Form" must
be submitted to the Urban Forester by the property owner or the board of a legally
established community association specifying the number of City trees to be
trimmed and the location of each tree by address. The cost of supplemental tree
trimming will be $39 for each tree. Additionally, a check made payable to the
City of Newport Beach must be included in the letter.
2. After the tree trimming request has been verified by a site visit, the trimming
will be scheduled by the Urban Forester, normally within 60 days. The Urban
Forester will group multiple requests in a geographic area prior to scheduling
supplemental tree trimming. A pre -trim meeting will be scheduled on site by staff
and the City tree trimming contractor with an association board representative to
ensure detailed directions are given to the City contractor. Pre -trim meetings will •
not be scheduled for individual tree trimming requests not related to an
association request. However, tree trimming instructions may be sumbitted on the
attached form.
3. Supplemental tree trimming shall be in accordance with the standards of the
International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) or with standards applied to a
particular area—prior to the adoption of the ISA standards in the City. These
standards may include practices to enhance public and private views as necessary.
4. All supplemental trimming will be performed by the City tree trimming
contractor, West Coast Arborists, with the supervision of the Urban Forester.
Attachment B
0
d
SUPPLEMENTAL TREE TRIMMING FORM
APPLICANT
Community Association or Individual:
Date:
Please fill in the information requested below and return this form to the attention
of John Conway, Urban Forester, City of Newport Beach, General Services
Department, 3300 Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915, with a check(s) payable
to the City of Newport Beach in the amount of $39.00 per tree. If the applicant
resides in a community with an active homeowners' association, an approval from
the association must be received as well.
Property Owners Name, Address, Phone:
Address where tree(s) is /are located:
If the tree(s) requested for trimming is not located in front of property owner's
address, acknowledge notice given to the property owner closest to the tree by
initialing: Yes No
Trimming Instructions:
Community Association Approval:
Number of trees to be trimmed:
Amount enclosed:
Date received by the City:
Note: The City will notify the property owner of the date of trimming, however, a
• specific time of day cannot be set.
Attachment C ��
James M. Parker
Attorney At Law
POST OFFICE BOX 9107 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92658 -9107
Phone (949) 720 -9931 Fax (949) 640 -6860 E -Mail ccpwklaw@aol
March 11, 1999
City of Newport Beach
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Attn: Mr. David E. Niederhaus, Director, General Services Department
Re: Appeal of P,B & R ruling on tree removal
Dear Mr. Niederhaus:
;'�s-CEiVE�
'99 MR 12 A 9 :29
Ci F1;=. Jr T'1`' C11Y i._PR.
Cli 0; :1 ':Y'?OPT ;FgCN
--flrrn
MAR 12 1999
Gttr�R4L ti,-
I wish to appeal to the City Council the ruling of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission •
of May 2, 1998 having to do with my request that a city tree be removed from the parkway in
front of my home at 2327 Arbutus. I understand that the hearing on this appeal can be heard by
the Council during its meeting oon Aril 12, 1999. That date is acceptable to me.
I want to make it clear that I am not only not opposed to a tree in the parkway but, I want the
one removed to be replaced in a more suitable location in the parkway.( i.e.further from the water
line and from the sewer clean-out, both of which are too close to the existing tree.). Further, I am
willing to pay the diffemtial in cost for the installation of a tree more mature than those usually
replaced by the City.
Thank you.
Date
Copies Sent
Mayor
/0 Council Member
Manager
cc: Mr. Gary Adams ❑ Attorney
parker 6enera[Vree lenal Gl
�❑
Sincerely,
JAMES M. PARKER
c
t. 5r9
• 1. � � 1. 2129
I I" ati 2A/H I 2131 � I 52S I 31
\�A 2125 1 I k
q N N
idJ^ 'P 2110 � 22JJ
.00 N ,�P 11J2 Y 2jJ5 1 533 _ r
/J) ; 535 FONTUN A..
�'V 1py I I 559
Nl MB .P nsd , OlK I i 5(J 366 1
pt
.l LOS } � I ' •'n r-- � — .I. �' 36.
362 l
009d,n T 9 .M ' 0
2I `tilt
ao '� , 2py �• a r ;
5 �I I ImT1i ' () J N 1 2,, .- m j �
J WO( 1 506 I 1
IJ I I —fG Oq I U u
A
._ _- b-99NbS•-
-•l9'9 a y 3 -'-ter
1 I 1,
O
r
1
II
I
i
1
I
I
I I 111 •
55.
I
- - - -IL — -
UR
.. .. rT -- A•XT b
I�
v'Ot:
Ott
Ott
WWI
Dort 11 •�—. —•� 1.ttt 1 vttt Yttt art tctt �f /t
1 1//
11
fI
1 N a N
1 0 o G
A
O V A
N
a
APPEAL FROM A PARKS,
BEACHES & RECREATION
COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF AN
APPLICATION FOR REMOVAL OF
A CITY TREE AT 2327 ARBUTUS
0
APPELLANTS: JAMES AND MARIE PARKER
a�
•
To the City Council of the City of Newport Beach:
Re: APPEAL OF DEi`;IAL BY THE PARKS, BEACHES AND RECREATION
COMMISSION OFA REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF A CITY TREE IN THE PARKWAY AT
1327 ARBUTUS
Dear Members of the City Council:
My wife Marie. and I are the owners of the Eastbluff residence located at 2327 Arbutus. We
have owned and lived in our home since 1972.
On November 7, 1993. 1 wrote to the City requesting that the Brazilian Pepper tree owned by the
Cite and located in the parkway in front of our home be removed. The City Urban Forester
visited us and inspected the tree. He marked the area of the curb and gutter to be replaced and
painted an arrow on the curb to indicate where a replacement tree was to be located. We then
received a letter from City Staff denying our request because as the Staff wrote, the tree was
healthy and there was no apparent property damage. We appealed this decision to the Parks,
Beaches and Recreation Commission and. after a hearing on March 2, 1999, the Commission
voted 4 to 3 in support of the Staffs recommendation that the tree remain where it is. We have .
now appealed that decision to you, the City Council.
The written City Policy on 'Retention or Removal of City Trees" identifies four categories of
trees in the city: the trees in Eastbluff fall into the 'other city trees "category. The policy calls for
the retention of such trees unless removal is necessary for ONE of the following reasons;
1. The tree has a history of damaging public or PRIVATE SEWERS... SIDEWALKS,
CURBS... based on City records OR OTHER COMPETENT AND RELIABLE
AUTHORITY despite SPECIFIC TREATMENT by the City to alleviate repeated
damage: or
2. The tree has a REPEATED HISTORY of interfering with STREET OR SIDEWALK
DRAINAGE despite specific treatment by the City to alleviate repeated damage.
We believe that these two criteria have been satisfied in our case.
I have taken a number ofpictures of the problem which are attached to this appeal. You will note
that the tree has cause a deep crack in the curb and gutter ( see Figures 5, 6 and 7 ) , causing
displacement of the curbing which has resulted in the ponding of run -off water in front of our
home (see Figures 2 , 5, 6 and 7). You will also see that the City has caused two different areas in
the sidewalk in front of our home and, in front of the tree in question, to be ground down in order
to avoid injury to passing pedestrians (Figures 3 and 4). In addition, we have had
aq
Roto Rooter out countless time to clean out roots that have intruded into our sewer pipes. On
one of the Roto Rooter visits, a City street maintenance crew came out to view and analyze the
root invasion problem. They observed that the sewer line entering our home from the street, was
located within a few feet of the City's tree (see Figure 2) and so, according to what they told us,
they installed a clean -out in the parkway ( again, see Figure 2) to facilitate future Roto Rooter
clean outs. It has been used several times since.
Staff has requested that we produce records of the Roto Rooter visits. We searched our files and
could only find one bill from a July 10, 1998 visit which was sent to City Staff. We then
contacted Roto Rooter to obtain copies of past bills but were advised us that the company had
been sold and its old records lost or destroyed.
You should also note that water enters our home from the street just inches from the tree ( see
Figure 2). This is contrary to existing codes.
To get a sense of the threat this tree offers, look at Figures 10 and 11 which are views of a
nei- ahbor's Brazilian Pepper much smaller than ours, and the damage it has caused to the
adjoining concrete in the parkway.
We do not dery Staff's assertion that the tree is healthy; on the contrary, its health is the
problem! Staff also contends that the test for property damage is that damage cannot be
remediated or the damage has not caused monetary losses on a frequent ( defined as every three
. months) basis. Further; Staff speculates that one of the Ficus trees located on our property may
have caused the curb and gutter cracking. There are only two Ficus trees anywhere nearby; one is
12 feet from the curb, the other is 18 feet from the curb. The City tree in question is inches from
the curb and the cracks are immediatly in front of it.
We are not opposed to parkway trees. We welcome a replacement tree and are willing to pay a
reasonable differential cost for a replacement tree that is more mature than the ones being
installed presently by the City.
We respectfully request that the City Council order the removal and replacement of this tree.
Sincerely,
pnkcr genenl'chy Inter 1
k
Figure 1: This is the TREE ! It's in front of our home.
•
E
•
ID
•
Figure 2: This is a view of the curb and parkway directly in
front of our entry gates. Note the "S" and "W" imprinted into
the concrete curb, the water shut off vault just inches from
the TREE and, the sewer clean out installed by the City at no
cost to us.
5�
✓ � i
Raw
Figure 3: DAMAGE. This shows one of the areas of the sidewa,
in front of our entry gates that the city ground down to avo*
pedestrian tripping.
Figure 4: DAMAGE. This is the second area of sidewalk grinding
in front of our home. 2
Figure 5: M%L -AGE. This is a view of the crack in the curbing directly in front
of the TREE. Note the curb displacement due to the crack and water
ponding in the gutter.
u
Figure 6: DAiNIAGE. A closer look.
Figure 7: DAMAGE. The closest look yet. This is a serious crack.
0
•
Z�
11
L J
PJ
Figure S: This is a view taken from the street a couple
Of doors south of our home looking south at the absence
of large, parkway trees in front of our neighbors' homes. Note
the white van at the right.
Figure 9: This is a view from the south, looking toward
our home. See the white van on the left, behind two other
cars. No large trees.
Figure 10: DAMAGE. This is a Brazilian Pepper tree like ours, in front
of a neiehbors house on the same side of the street as our home.
It's trunk is much smaller in diameter than ours and look what
it has done to the concrete slab in the parkway.
Figure 11. DAMAGE. Another view of our neighbor's tree. Ours is next.
0
•
1]
-�U
J
rv,o�_'
i
�j �
ll✓ ...
:.� is � '.
`,r��
J