HomeMy WebLinkAboutSS2 - G-1 Policy ReviewCITY 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@- 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
August 26, 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. stF;keeat 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).
Maior Policy Changes
o 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)
• Adding definitions to the three categories of Special Trees (Landmark,
Dedicated, and Neighborhood Trees) (Page 1, lines 26 -33)
• Council authority to remove Special Trees associated with a Council approved
beautification project (Page 2, lines 18 -20)
• 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
• Further definition of All Other Tree category (Page 3, lines 37 -38)
• Reduced requirements and time frames for removal of All Other hazardous trees
(page 4, lines 27 -33)
• 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)
o Facilitate tree removals related to building and demolition projects by designating
approval authority to General Services Director (Page 9, lines 22 -30)
a Permitting periodic tree trimming with an emphasis on height reduction (Page 9,
lines 38 -41)
a 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 ".
Summary
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:
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 provide 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 preventing
9 public and private property damage.
10
1 1 The City 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 on by Attachment 1, and shall
20 hereinafter be referred to as Special Trees. Trees within these categories shall be
21 identified established, mapped, recorded and administered by staff for the Parks,
22 Beaches & Recreation Commission ( "Commission "). The Commission shall have the
23 authority to designate all Special Trees, as well as the authority to remove treed from
24 the Special Tree 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 organizations.
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 Tree Us 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 Us the City must
1
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 -- t t approve-' 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 S12ecial 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 shall be in=stalled 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 Special Trees may be considered for removal in conjunction with a Citv Council
19 approved beautification project utilizing the Removal of City Trees procedures noted in
20 a subsequent section of the Police.
21
22 PROBLEM TREES
23
24 A Problem Tree is defined as a tree that by virtue of its species causes excessive
25 hardscape or utility damage due to its excessive root system. The following trees are
26 defined as Problem Trees:
27
28 o Ficus nitida (Indian Laurel Fig)
29 o Ficus rubiginosa (Rusty Leaf Fig)
30 o Ficus benjamina (Weeping Fig)
31 0 Ervthrina caffra (Kaffirboom Coral Tree)
32 o Fraxinus uhdei (Shamel Ash)
33 o Cupaniopsis anacardioides (Carrotwoodj
34 o Liquidambar stvraciflua (American Sweet Gum)
35 o Schinus terebinthifolius (Brazilian Pepper)
36
37 Problem Trees shall not be designated as parkway trees on the Designated Street Tree
38 List.
39
40 Problem Trees that are not designated Special Trees may be removed for the following
41 reasons:
FA
Attachment A
August 1, 2003
Draft G -1
2 A.
The City ree 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 roots and
causes significant
6
documented private property damage
(greater than $500)
shall be sufficient
7
criterion for tree removal.
8
9 B. The Citv tree has had repeated history of significant interference with street or
10 sidewalk drainage, despite specific 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 Trees may be osed for removal by either staff or private property owners.
18 The 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
20 approval of the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission. In removals under
21 Sections A & B above, no more than one of three parkway trees in a continuous row
22 inav be removed in a three year period without a hearing before the Commission.
23 Replacement trees of a 24 -inch box sire 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 Problem Tree. Either
26 party has the right to appeal the removal to the Parks and Trees Maintenance
27 Superintendent within 10 days of notification. The Park and Trees 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 Lyie Lwhich is the sole
33 responsibility of the applicant.
34
35 ALL OTHER CITY TREES
36
37 A City 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
1
2
3
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
37
38
39
40
Attachment A
August 1, 2003
Draft G -1
A. The City tree has had a prey�repeated history (<efineR -as�-
occurrences � ha , 48 _«. lh 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
e .} eifie t,eat•rcnt by the City ,. lle ,. repeated damage. Water or
sewer stoppage that results from tree roots and causes significant documented
public or private property damage (greater than $500) shall be sufficient criterion
for tree removal. Regular •'r ° -*^ or pipe clearing shall Bot contshtate sue
damage, ner shall damage atti-ibuted to a failure 0", --ertv owner to
perform such prev
B. The City tree has had a repeated history (defined twe or more oEEar-renEes
within an 18 mondv-pefio4) of significant interference with street or sidewalk
drainage, despite . pee'iiirtrea4rrii.,, t by the City to alleviate repeated damage.
C. The City tree is dead, diseased, dying, or hazardous, and presents a 5I9mfK_aRt
liability to the City. A dead tree is one that has been assessed by the Urban
Forester and found to have deceased. 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. After assessment, the Urban Forester will
expeditiously convey his written findings and recommendations to the Risk
Manager for evaluation. If the Risk Manager agrees with the Urban Forester
findings to remove a tree, the hazardous tree will be removed without further
delay. In the case of imminent tree failure, the Parks and Trees Maintenance
Superintendent or the Urban Forester shall have the authority to direct the
removal of a hazardous tree.
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 General Services Director, City
Attorney, Risk Manager or the Traffic Engineer, shall have the authority to
F1
1
2
3
4
5
b
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
37
38
39
40
41
Attachment A
August 1, 2003
Draft G -1
remove individual Problem or All Other Trees frees to resolve claims or safety
issues.
REMOVAL OF CITY TREES
The initiation to remove (Special or All Other)any City treed may be made by the staff
of the General Services Departmen , and/or Public Works Departments a legally
established community association, or a private property owner by making application
to the General Services Director, utilizing the City tree removal form. The provisions
and procedures of this Section of the Policy do not apply to the Problem Tree nor
Reforestation tree removal processes, which are described in other sections of this
Policy. Special Trees may be considered for removal under the provisions of this
Section provided a special report by the General Services Director is provided to the
Commission detailing the necessity of removal and any specific previous treatment of
the tree.
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 a€feete
adjacent property owner (if not the applicant), the private property owners
immediately adjacent to the applicant's property, and the appropriate community
association if applicable, (not applicable to the emergency removal of hazardous trees
•vitht-ees under Item C above nor to trees that meet the criteria of Item E in the
preceding All Other City Trees section). The Urban Forester shall determine whether in
his /her judgment additional specific treatment can be initiated to retain the tree
provided the costs are reasonable. 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 Trees Maintenance Superintendent to the
General Services Director and the General Services Director or designee concurs, then
the applicant, the adjoining owners, private property owners on either side of the street
within 500' in each direction of the tree location and the —a legally established
community association, if applicable, shall be notified of the decision to remove or
retain the tree within 30 days of the proposed removal. A legally established
community association is responsible for notification of all association members
pursuant to their established procedure. The General Services Director, or his a
designee, shall prepare a staff report for a regularly scheduled PB &R Commission
meeting of all trees recommended for removal —using '
Report, except for those trees categorized in Paragraph C. (dead, diseased, or dying
treesl or Paragraph E (claims and safety issues) in the preceding section on All Other
5
19
Attachment A
August 1, 2003
Draft G -1
1 City Trees. Only Aan applicant, an adjoining property owner, or any interestek4 r
2 a legally established community association, the Cite Manager, 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
6 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 436" 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 removal and replacement of Special
18 or All Other Tree(s) will be the sole responsibility of the City, unless an applicant
19 voluntarily pays for a new tree(s).
20
21 REFORESTATION OF CITY TREES
22
23 The concept of systematically replacing Problem or All Other Trees which are creating
24 hardscape and /or view problems and cannot be properly trimmed, pruned or modified
25 to alleviate the problemjs� they create, or those which have reached their full life, and
26 are declining in health, or are sim ?fly the wrong sl?ecies of trees for the planted location
27 is referred to as reforestation. The Urban Forester shall make a finding for the latter
28 category of inappropriate tree species for a specific location. His determination maL
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. h+-Within the geographical 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 wrong species of tree
37 was planted originally and simply does not conform to the current treescape or
38 represents 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
M
Lt
Attachment A
August 1, 2003
Draft G -1
views. The Citv Street Tree Desiffnation List, which specifies a species for each Ci
2 street reflects an effort by the City to 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
b 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 should will expeditiously endeavor to replace them trees with the appropriate
9 designated City tree. Reforestation u ?° ' ^ . ed -. nests utilizing the
10 .
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
20 applies to individual and group requests.
21
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.
iP `lei hood —is
25 defin ed for t Policy s yen ^ e 14fames ; of area 26 4- te-Cit The petition content must be approved and dated by City staff prior to
27 distribution by the petitioner. The staff- approved petition must be distributed
28 by the petitioner to a maximum of 30 private property owners (up to 15
29 contiguous private property owners on both sides of the street uz, to 500' in
30 either direction -from the location of the proposed reforestation). Signatures by
31 non - property owners are not acceptable for petition purposes. All petition
32 signatures shall be verified by staff for property owner status of the
33 person(s) signing ling the petition. As an alternative to the above requirements, areas
34 represented by a legally established community association empowered ^,:,w CC-
35 mss, 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
rd
1
2
3
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
37
38
39
40
Attachment A
August 1, 2003
Draft G -1
empowered with r- Corn'., must petition for reforestation through their respective
association.
C. Individual private property owners not residing within a CC & R based legally
established 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 a maximum of 30 private property ox nlers
(up to 15 contiguous private properties on bot11 sides of the sheet up to 500' in
either direction from the Vocation of the proposed reforestation site) in-eW er
etea !l Run. —O - '.:eqatK";- s+t —as well as the endorsement of the
appropriate homeowners' association, if applicable. The petition content must be
approved and dated by staff prior to distribution. All petition signatures shall be
verified by City staff for private property owner status of the person(s) signing
the etp ition.
D. A written agreement must be submitted to the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation
Commission by the petitioning sponsor (individual private property ownerLs) or
group) to pay 100% of the costs of the removal and replacement of the public
tree(sl 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 for a tree species other than
the designated street tree. 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 24" 36"
boxed trees, unless the parkway space will cil}= -not accommodate a 24" boxed
tree or a tree cannot be planted due. to olantina restrictions contained in Council
Policy G -6. If there is not room for the replacement tree(s) wifliin -at a specific site
as prescribed by City Council Policy G -6, then the replacement tree(s) shall be
planted in apublic area in the same neighborhood at the option of the petitioner.
This section applies to individual or group requests.
G. Reforestation requests must be completed and submitted in a timely manner by
thepetitioner. Petitions that are dated more than 90 days in arrears from date
W
Attachment A
August 1, 2003
Draft G -1
1 stamped by staff before distribution will not be forwarded to the PB &R
2 Commission for consideration.
3
4 The decision of the Commission on reforestation requests will be considered final unless
5 called up by at least one Councilmember or the City Manager.
6
7 TREE MAINTENANCE
8
9 The City shall require the proper care and watering of replacement trees by the
10 reforestation petitioner to ensure their proper growth and development as outlined in
11 City Council Policy G -6. Furthermore, no person shall tamper with replacement City
12 trees in violation of Section 13.08.040 of the Municipal Code. Further, the City will
13 endeavor to fund the care of the Urban Forest to the highest level possible through the
14 efficient use of regular tree trimming, root pruning_, root barrier and pesticide
15 programs.
16
17 ENCROACHMENT AND DEMOLITION PERMITS
18
19 All encroachment permits (permits for private property development which are has
20 proposed to encroached upon the City right of way) or demolition permits that involve
21 the removal or replacement of City treed must be specifically noticed by the property
22 owner to City staff prior to the building and /or demolition permit process whenever
23 possible. The proposed construction plans must indicate preservation of existing City
24 trees wherever possible (exempt: dead, dying, or in an advanced state of decline). If the
25 proposed development, as deemed by the General Services Director, requires the
26 removal of City trees, the property owner must may submit a .„ tree removal
27 request to the General Services Director, aad -shall pay all related tree removal and
28 replacement costs (one for one replacement)° indicated in � ^ ° graph° and
29 meet all Provisions of Council Policies L -2 and L -6 and Citv Ordnances 13.08 and 13.09.
30 Approval or disapproval of all tree-removal/replacement requests associated with
31 encroachment and demolition permits will be the responsibility of the General Services
32 Director or a designee.
33
34 TREE TRIMMING STANDARDS/ SUPPLEMENTAL TRIMMING
35
36 The City Council has adopted tree trimming cycles for trees of different ages and
37 species. The eurren t Tree trimming cycles and trimming standards shall represent the
38 maximum feasible frequency and extent of triFAming given current fiscal conditions.
39 Except as provided in this -the Supplemental Trimming Section below, trimming shall be
40 in accordance with the standards of the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA). In
41 those communities with a legally established community association, t�eriodical tree
W
Attachment A
August 1, 2003
Draft G -1
1 trimming with an emphasis on height reduction will be considered bv the City Urban
2 Forester upon written request by the association.
3
4 SUPPLEMENTAL TREE TRIMMING
5
6 The City will consider, and as a general rule approve, requests to trim certain trees
7 more frequently or to trim trees consistent with practices applied prior to the adoption
8 of ISA standards (to enhance public and private views, preserve required
9 sight/ distance standards, or other public purposes) which are submitted by affected
10 e� ents private property owners or the board of a legally established community
11 association and the request is accompanied by a completed "Supplemental Tree
12 Trimming Form" and full payment for the requested tree trimming. However, since
13 these practices often require 'topping' or possibl e see disfiguring of a tree(sl and are
14 often aesthetically displeasing and injurious to a tree, reforestation shall only be
15 considered once when supplemental tree trimming is impractical or infeasible as
16 determined by the Urban Forester. this raetke has eecurred more than tiviee • i hin .,
17 ene year period.
18 The General Services Director shall establish procedures to implement the supplemental
19 trimming provisions of this Policy. An approval must be obtained from a legally
20 established association by the requestor of supplemental tree trimming in areas with an
21 active homeowners' association if the requested trimming is to be undertaken within
22 the association area.
23
24
25
26 [Attachment 1- Preservation ef Special Trees]
27 [Attachment 2- Tree Inspection Report]
28
29 Adopted - May 9,1966 Amended - April 11, 1994
30 Amended - August 14,1967 Amended - February 26,1996
31 Amended - November 9,1976 Amended - July 14,1997
32 Amended - November 12,1985 Amended (Administratively) -
33 Amended - November 28,1988 November 24, 1997
34 Amended - March 14,1994 Amended - August 10, 1998
35 Amended - February 22, 2000
36 Formerly I -9
10
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.
A
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
1. 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. Committee 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.)
� rEW PORT
O
d.
C7 <i c00.N�'
TO: AdHoc Tree Committee
PB &R Commission
FROM: General Services Director
Attachment C
Agenda Item No. 2,
April 10, 2003
SUBJECT: Review of Primary City Tree Policy (G -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 Removals /Replantings
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, shrubs, 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 E. Niederhaus
Attachments: (A) City Policy G -1 (Retention and Removal of City Trees)
(B) Tree Removals/Replantings Summary
(C) City Ordinance 13.08 (Planting)
2i
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 proposed root pruning shall be assessed by the Urban Forester.
1
�4
Attachment C
G1
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 applicants 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 removal(s) 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.
K,
�f
Attachment C
G -1
( r.
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
_4.
Attachment C
G-1
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 G6. 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
r�;
[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
7
V
PRESERVATION OF SPECIAL TREES
L 4_n
Attachment C
G1
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
Gan Vandersloot)
Qean Watt)
Peninsula Park
Ravenea rivularis
(Don Perdue)
Grant Howald Park
Metrosideros excelsus
1 (Pete Munro)
2 (Mark Munro)
Attachment 1
1.
Attachment C
a.
G-1
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 agrifoha j
(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
Gean & 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
a.
Attachment C
G -1
TREES Parkway in Shorecliffs
Erythrina caffra
Marguerite Avenue
Phoenix canariensis
Goldenrod Avenue
Washington robusta
Dover Drive (Mariners to Irvine)
Eucalyptus globulus
15th Street (Newport Heights)
Eucalyptus cladocalyx
Irvine Avenue Median
Eucalyptus globulus
Holiday between Irvine & Tustin
Eucalyptus globulus
Along Avon Avenue
Eucalyptus globulus
Via Lido Bridge
Eucalyptus globulus
Marine Avenue (Balboa Island)
Eucalyptus rudis
Seaview Avenue (Corona del Mar)
Pinus radiata
Poppy Avenue (Corona del Mar)
Eucalyptus rudis
Heliotrope Avenue (Corona del Mar)
Pinus radiata
Candlestick Lane, etc. (Baycrest)
Eucalyptus citriodora
Commodore
Eucalyptus citriodora
Starlight
Eucalyptus citriodora
Glenwood
Eucalyptus citriodora
Candlestick
Eucalyptus citriodora
Sandalwood
Eucalyptus citriodora
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 3
53
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
Date
Reviewed by Date
Attachment 2
Attachment C
G-1
1
?14
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 8 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. ReDort from Assistant Citv Attornev 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 frees 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 frees 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 frees 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 if 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 @
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 during 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 CC @R'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
S-
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.
l 1
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.
��6
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
.bu
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.)
R9 003rapr 03Wb Hm Trtt Commin= Agcn& dm
Y�
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\Agendallo4A.doc
q--L,
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 ATTORNEYIPBR. ACTION
M.-ORREMENE1091W
2720 Bayside Reauested $7.735.00 Pending City Attomey[Public Works Review
509 Acacia
330 LaJolla Dr
430 Redlands Ave
1856 Port Charles PI
2222 Holiday Rd
Requested $4,265
Requested $4,777
Requested $390.80
Requested $3,400.00
Collected $700
Collected $3,815
Collected $1,400
Collected $195
Collected $3,400
Marcelino G. Lomeli Prcparcd by Gencral Services Dcpanmcni
April 16,2003
�D
2515 Lighthouse Lane
Requested
$1,074
Collected 5I,074
2516 Holly. Lane
Requested
$4,676
Collected S400
* :7A
2500 Ocean Blvd
Requested
$16,000
Collected $5,000
221 Milford Lane
Requested
$750
Collected $250
3%r
W.0 W
-.R 1W
321 Snug Harbor Road
Requested
$1,313
Collected $500
735 Cameo Highlands
Requested
$2,127
Collected $1,200
1217 E. Balboa 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 $195
b4
—IgLgAII,
1830 Port Tiffin Place
Requested
$1,954
Collected $1,000
519 Femleaf Ave
Requested
$1,000
Collected $1,000
3807 Inlet Isle
Requested
$396
Collected $195
Total
$57,309.80
Total $22,664.00
Marcelino G. Lomeli Prcparcd by Gencral Services Dcpanmcni
April 16,2003
�D
a o
u t
f
C7< /F00.d�'
TO:
FROM:
Ad Hoc Tree Committee
PB &R Commission
General Services Director
SUBJECT: City Tree Replacement Policies and Practices
Recommendation
None, background information only.
Background
Attachment D
c0
'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.
q4
Attachment D
G -6 Policy - 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 arid113.09.020 (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
4S
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, pr9perty 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
4w
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
y1
Attachment D
rEW �Rr
u r
a
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.
4l
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)
4h
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 Trimming
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 -I 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 -I 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.
9
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
C2
a
TO: Ad Hoc Committee
PB &R Commission
FROM: General Services Director
SUBJECT: Council Policy G -1 Amendments
Recommendation
Review Council Policy G -I amendments as proposed by staff.
Background
Attachment D
Agenda Item No. 4.d.
April 24, 2003
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 -I 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.
Staffs 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 I
• 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 -I (Proposed changes)
L \USERS\GSV\MLmde \2003\apr03 \G•IAmendm is AD Hoc Conmli a Agenda Rem 4AW
C2
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 It 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
Policy.
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
'� J
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
J~
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 HOA'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
15 `h meeting.
Ad Hoc Tree Committee
April 24, 2003
Page 4
ADJOURNMENT - 8:45pm
Submitted by:
Teri Craig, Admin Assistant
Attachment D
Clo
J
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission
AD Hoc Tree Committee
Thursday, ME 15, 2003 — 7:00- 9:OOPM
City Council Chambers
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
AGENDA
Attachment E
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).
1:\ USERS \GSVMLinde=a W3 \may2003ataffmpes agcnav DH« Trtn Committee Agmd ay do
C')
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 li 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 regardinc the consolidation, evaluation, and
staff recommendations for the various suggested chances, 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.
',-6
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 line 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 regardine 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 l3
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
LP
AD Hoc Tree Committee AgendaMay15.htm Attachment F
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
i Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission
F00.N�P AD Hoc Tree Committee
Tuesday, June 3, 2003 — 7:00- 9:00PM
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
J urisdiction of the Ad Hoc Committee. Comments are limited to 2 minutes per
person.
3. Minutes of the meetings._ of May 15, 2003. _W..aive reading of sub ject. minutes
approve as Written, and order filed.
4. 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_.
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.city.newport- beach. ca. us /TreeCo=ittecAgendas /AGENDA ° /`20JUNE %203... 08/18/2003
i o�
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 8 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 L
u
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.
!,3
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 look 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
0
AD Hoc Tree Committee Agenda July 15.htm
PUBLIC INFORMATION
Attachment G
The City of Newport Beach Parks, Beaches &
Recreation Commission Ad Hoc Tree Committee
meeting scheduled for Thursday, July 10 has been
RESCHEDULED to Tuesday July 15, _2003, _ 7_ -99 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. of the meeting of June 3. 20_0.3,_ Waive madine of subject minutes
approve as written, and order. filed.
4.. _Report s/Discussion re arding:
• 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: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /TreeCommittecAgendas /AGENDA %20JULY %201... 08/18/2003
F
Attachment G ) --ern 4
7lIS103
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
TO: G -1 Policy, Tree Committee Members
FROM: Robin L. Clauson, Assistant City Attorney
Daniel K. Ohl, Deputy City Attorney 00
RE: Projected Loss of Trees under !P
Proposed Amendments to G -1 Policy
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
L;1
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
iAy,
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
V
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)
F:\users\cat\shared\TreeComm\memo\PropLossTreeRpt.doe
Rev: 07 -10 -03
PRESERVATION OF SPECIAL TREES
LANDMARK
Attachment G
G-1
TREES Balboa Library -
Eucalyptusglobulus - 3
Balboa Library
Phoenix canariensis - s
West Jetty (near Historical Marker)
Phoenix canariensis - to
Dover Drive at Westcliff
Liquidambar styraciflua - z.
400 block Poinsettia
Eucalyptus corynocalyx- 1
Ocean Blvd. Corona del Mar
Phoenix canariensis -
Westcliff & Dover (Groves)
Eucalyptus globulus - N7
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- �9
City Hall grounds (Walter Knott)
Pinus halepensis
City Hall grounds
> z
(Calif. Bicentennial)
Pinus halepensis ,
Las Arenas Park (Ed Healy)
Melaleuca linarifolia -�
Mariners Park (Isy Pease)
Pinus halepensis - s
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 - I
Cliff Drive Park
Quercus agnfolia -
(Gary Lovell)
Begonia Park
Prunus cerasifera -
(Cheryl Bailey.Ringwald)
Castaways Park
Quercus agr�lia - a
Can Vandersloot)
Cean 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 - +
(Bob Henry)
Cliff Drive Park
Quercus agrifolia - r
(Dr. Jan Vandersloot)
7
DEDICATED
TREES (contd.)
NEIGHBORHOOD
TREES
Attachment G
G -1
Veterans Park - Lagenstroemia indica faueri - I
(Rosemary Rae Hill Hansen)
Mariners Park Stenocarpus sinuatus -
(N. Beach Sunrise Rotary Club)
(Christopher & Marisha Thompoon) Pinus eldarica
(Meghan 8r Camielle Thompson) Pinus eldarica
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
Attachment 1
0
Erythrina ca&a - '2 ., lo, 17
Phoenix canariensis - 10 "
Washington robusta - /'10
Eucalyptus globulus - 3
Eucalyptus cladocalyx - ">'
Eucalyptus globulus - 130
Eucalyptus globulus -
Eucalyptus globulus - B
Eucalyptus globulus - Z"
Eucalyptus rudis - iZ
Pinus radiata - '+ s
Eucalyptus rudis - /Of
Pinus radiata - 30
Eucalyptus citriodora - �o
Eucalyptus citriodora - 2--
Eucalyptus citriodora - 12-
Eucalyptus citriodora - "
Eucalyptus difHodOsa _ o-
Eucalyptus citriodora - 3
City of Newport Beach
Street Tree Inventory Overview
91W,* 2003
Total number of tree sites. collected (including
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
1816%
19 -24
1,448
4.2%
25-30
810
2.4%
>24
337
1.00/0
34,129 100.0%
"wk
L Ly
HEIGHT in feet
COUNT
PERCENT
—
4,442
13.0%
1 -15
8,600
25.2%
16 -30
11,339
33.2%
31-45
5,631
16.5%
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
-
232---.--0.70/o.
F,;(;� Q-or- -D—ec-li-n— in-g - — �_—
__- - --•
8 8
0.3%
Overhead Spacing
6
0.0%
Poorly Structured
12
0.00/0
Seedling or Volunteer
22
0.1%
K pacing Criteria
6
0.0%
tump
98
0.3%
34,129 100.0%
Attachment G
34,129
76
449
DBH Frequency
11-24 i -; 124 _�-
4% 2% 1%
-11
36%
HEIGHT Frequency
man >60 ___.
16-30
34%
Recommended Removals
Sp,cing Criperla �� '
Seelfn0 w Vq�nlmr -
o.a6e.e swrwry Q _
Dircued w D—V.l ,
0 20 40 6D so 1W in
Attachment G
TREE REMOVAL/PLANTING /RATIO SUMMARY
FY 2002 -2003
Regular Removal
Reforestation Approved
Emergency Removals
Total
Claim Related Removals
25
2
2
Since FY 14
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
Attachment G
ITree Trimming Areas
r.% 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
Attachment G
'id
n
j; v T-7
-----------
47
1Y,
/Y
City of Newport Beach
Undesirable Species - DBH Frequency
June 2003
CARROTW OOD
3 V- o
,13 -18
172'
CARROTWOO2
_
%600
19 -24
11!
CARROTWOOD
/0,433
!25 -3— 0
11
INDIAN LAUREL FIG
gy2
0 -6
y 45
'INDIAN LAUREL FIG
3yoo
17-12
1541
INDIAN LAUREL FIG
74 /o
;13 -1
1161
!INDIAN LAUREL FIG
13 C'e0
19 -24
208
!INDIAN LAUREL FIG
�� EGG
25 -30
128
iINDIAN LAUREL FIG
KAFFIRBOOM CORAL TREE
�,go
y 4u
'` >30
0 -6
26
121
KAFFIRBOOM CORAL TREE
}39A
i7 -12
36ii
KAFFIRBOOM CORAL TREE
s 3y8
;13 -18
61'
IKKAAFFIRBOOM CORAL TREE
q S17
-24
32
IKAFFIRBOOM CORAL TREE
`119
(y B 8b
'25 -30
3
IKAFFIRBOOM CORAL TREE
1 S g-7
1>30
I 47
RUSTY LEAF FIG
g4 i
10 -6
17S
I RUSTY LEAF FIG
3 y0 °
;7 -12
599
1RUSTY LEAF FIG
14If
;13.18
360
RUSTY LEAF FIG
13,1400
;19.24
30
RUSTY LEAF FIG
AI 31,6
1325 -30
6
SHAMELASH
�� !
40 -6
3
SHAMELASH
900
17 -12
20
;SHAMELASH
ggao
1313 -18
22
•SHAMELASH
4860
119 -24
25
(SHAMELASH
10 33
;25 -30
13
;SHAMELASH
11, 310
; >30
14
WEEPING FIG
5,90
0 -6
67
WEEPING FIG
7? 46
137 -12
221!
WEEPING FIG
WEEPING FIG
S3�9
1r
;13 -18
19 -24
58
1 3
7142
Attachment G
l9 D,,/ 0 d
'15-217w%
1389'!87
610 31-4
7�Qeo
1 � 433
2fr7•Sfsd o
2.717 -d y8
sfi448o
7045-q`l
5- go ssy
7iA173-
goBodd
1-, 7 9-f 6
110
(38 %)-9
/S-47Sd
aassl
i
0
City of Newport Beach
Undesirable Species - DBH Frequency - Street Trees Only
June 2003
COMMON
OBN
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
645
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
KAFFIRSOOM CORAL TREE
25-30
38
KAFFIRBOOM CORAL TREE
7 -12
28
KAFFIRSOOM 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
13-16
I 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
13-18
49
WEEPING FIG
7 -12
177
6545
Attachment G
I
t
78
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 li 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
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.
-]t
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.
,�L
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
ROLL CALL
Commissioners
Present: Allen, Skoro, Tobin
Staff: Marie Knight, Recreation i3 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.
<A 1
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 PBBR 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.
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.
(2z
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.
8. ADJOURNMENT - 9:45pm
Submitted by:
Teri Craig, Admin Assistant
Attachment H
TREE REMOVAUPLANTINGIRATIO SUMMARY
Year-.
, :�. _, y.Ttse Re Vale ,.. ;
. LTree
Tree ,
Tre6- Rertiovai to
Type
1# af Treea=
RieoGals
° :
Tree 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
AS
W
ui
V
J
LPL
W
Z
W
I-= 'r.-
Z
W
U
�L n
Q �U
W o
o U
a�
F—,
O
ct
O
O
.O
O
b�4
0
.y
a
L
L
V
0
.y
� U
� o oj
� o
o •�
V) of
03 U U
� U U
V)
03 `n �' O
cn I
U U
U U
0 0
ap ap
03 r4
U U
•� U
b �
h
,A
o
U �
U �
U �
o
U
U �
� A
0 o
A
r
♦ 1
V
mi
�.
O
CL
O
V
N
O
L
IL
> c
O O
E E
� O
Q
Q
c �
O U)
c c
a� c�
O �
� C
O �
C
v, E
- E
_0
C �
U)
cn C
O .O
O cn
o
i O
a� U
c o
� C �
U) C
O c E
cu E
E �-
vi
C
A
U
O
.c
O
c�
U
L
C
O
M
i
U
Z
I
CD-
cn
O
cn
cn
c�
U
L
(n d Q
a
L
F
V
Cl)
a)
N
f'—
O
O
L
O
Z
C
cu
a)
cu
U_
()
Y
L
cu
cu
J
U)
cu
a)
N
O
a)
cu
U
N
cu
U)
a)
F—
U
a)
Q..
a)
N
U)
L
.j
a)
U
C
cu
U
C
cu
U
w
C N
O
cu 0
_N
C cu
CB
CY O
L
O L-
L— O
C
U)
O
cu
N
cu
U)
N
a)
E _(U
L
a)
E
N EO
U) U
cu
(n �
a)
C �
N
L Q)
cn °
U M
cn O O
N E
L
E (v
(D
:5 a) cn
Q
Q (D a)
c
cr N
L L
N
O L a)
(D I"�
(6 C
O (6
(D
a) U Q
�= U)
N N
N N a)
a) =3
C
=3 L
N
(U U)
N
(u Q
(6 "-
O _
(D i
co O �
U
U U C
Q >
O
CY
U Qj 0
75 CO
D
N N E
E
CU O
a) ca U
m �
U) 06
a
a)
a)
F-"
0
U
C
.E
O
U
O
U
D
O
O
CB
L
U)
(D
N
U
E
cn
a)
a)
N
()
U)
L
L-
`
i
O
Q)
CB
O
f-
i
O
L
L
U
a)
O
y
L
v
�"_
O
U)
CD
a)
�C
-o
>
CU CY
m
a
cu
N
cu
U)
N
a)
E _(U
L
a)
E
N EO
U) U
cu
(n �
a)
C �
N
L Q)
cn °
U M
cn O O
N E
L
E (v
(D
:5 a) cn
Q
Q (D a)
c
cr N
L L
N
O L a)
(D I"�
(6 C
O (6
(D
a) U Q
�= U)
N N
N N a)
a) =3
C
=3 L
N
(U U)
N
(u Q
(6 "-
O _
(D i
co O �
U
U U C
Q >
O
CY
U Qj 0
75 CO
D
N N E
E
CU O
a) ca U
m �
U) 06
a
a)
a)
F-"
0
U
C
.E
O
U
O
U
D
O
N ^W
W
L
N•
•
•
cn
I
cu
U
a)
a)
a)
—0
X
N
N
Q)
N
a)
N
L
O
J C O
Q
,
nEn`�
W
W
L
-a
7
� El -0
I -0
WE
p
E
a)
cu
J
a)
a)
—0
=
'O
N
C
a)
Lo
cn
J C O
Q
�
>
WE
p
E
a)
cu
J
a)
a)
C,
jL O
cn
J C O
Q
cn //-a�)
L
C L
U CB
L
Q) N
�I L-
I-- u— U t—) ' —
CB �
7 CO
c c a i
W U � cj
cn
a)
cu
cu
C-
cn
cn
a)
N
I— J
Q)
aD m
0
(D
/
% \
m e
R� E
cu
E � 2
$ :3 c
_
/
�
\
f
�
E
E
_0
�
@
cu
�
m
®
�
E
O
�
V
cu
.7
o
U)
�
_0
�
CD
/
E
CY
�-
e
0
/
o
O
/
�
o
/
o
�
\
?
�
E
E
o
e
—
�
o
�
% \
m e
R� E
cu
E � 2
$ :3 c
c
q
r-
2
cu
R
e
_0
m
0
�
.�
°
_ CY @
(n E
0 7
o:
"e
!E R
- m
% 6
R
/ /
-0
_
/
u
\
f
E
E
_0
\
@
cu
�
'n
cl
ƒ
o
2
R
e
/
E
E
/
�
o
/
o
c
q
r-
2
cu
R
e
_0
m
0
�
.�
°
_ CY @
(n E
0 7
o:
"e
!E R
- m
% 6
R
/ /
-0
/ 2
/
u
f
o E
E
_0
_0
L-
cu
e
'n
cl
ƒ
o
c
q
r-
2
cu
R
e
_0
m
0
�
.�
°
_ CY @
(n E
0 7
o:
"e
!E R
- m
% 6
R
/ /
-0
a) 2 Z cu
E . \
A\ 0 � =
/ \ ( cu L
A E 2 U
$ � � CD �
U- , "-
% >
p
� cu
L-
o
= 0
o =
"Fa E
0
�
� >
k /
m ®
c
c E
/ k
E m /
® = �
o / /
E
- E
R �
C R
E e
� $
7 \
o �
0-
/ 2
2 I
I
0 o
o E
E
E 0
ca c
_0 ®
® c
cl
U- , "-
% >
p
� cu
L-
o
= 0
o =
"Fa E
0
�
� >
k /
m ®
c
c E
/ k
E m /
® = �
o / /
E
- E
R �
C R
E e
� $
7 \
o �
0-
L-
0
cu
L
()
a)
/O >
Cu
C
L
'L
o-
_0
N
_ O
n
0
O n
L N
CL -e
cn
a)
a)
L-
1
`
V
CB
L- N LO
L
Z
cu
a)
a)
L-
0
C
O
a) _
O O
> U
OC N
C L
n.
m
V
cu
>
0
L-
LD
N
N
E
O
U
cn
a)
cu
a)
L
U
a)
O
E
a)
L
cn
O
U
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Q
% $ (D \ b U) 0 E
2 0 ® \ /
� 2 E = 2 0 2
•� 7 Q :3 c 2.eR
(D
m � _
(D / k 2
@O > @_
— -0 / ® % E
EQ \� 70
®2 (n E ? > —
C) CD k � � _/ \
\ o /� \ _ ° 2
� �
E 2 2 cn m X 3 2
(D F CD @ � 2 ( 2
> 70
_> 70 - 2 / _ k D
mU o\0o 0 D —
Ua2
Q 0 (D
Q n
/ 0 �� ® 2 2 =
�(n o m R= m 2/
� 7 E 2
� +0- �_ @ o a
� � Fn 0 c ƒ 2 �
E \ $ ƒ o ® / � = 2
•� \ (D M � co ƒ 2
�(� c -0 m %/ / (n %2k
p ' 75 % �.2_ cu _� _�� /�
/ U � 2 Q ¢ :2
E /'% \ ƒ - �
c (D F- E ° CLY) F- m F- ° !
< , ,
-U
C
>%
Cv
'o
U
CB
C
C
O
•O
L
O
Cv
N
(n
Q
U
cu
Cv
CB
L
O
�
Cv
�
N
�
U
�
CB
O
>
B
CE
CB
i
CB
U
CB
N
p
L
O
S
o
Cv
Cv
(D
O
o�
�w
Q)
Aui
W
cy)
U
N
_U
LM
c
�
-0
cu
(D_
L
0
cu
(D
(DO
N
N
C
O
Q
(n
E
�
�
O
O
E
CM
E
CS
O
U
L
L
cu
Cy
Cv
C)
(D
CU
_0
Q
Q
CO)
L
N
CU
a�
U
C
N
-O
0
?:P;
cu
CB
Cv
U_
>+
p
`�
U
c
Cv
O
0-
O
L
O
C
i
ML
CB
a)
-
Q
C
CB
�
�
i
1�—
�
�
O
�
�
O
E
�
�
>-% c 2
�
=
c .%
cu §
® 7
= ƒ
0- R G
Q o n
M ( \
\ @ /
3: c
CU \ 0
Q /
\ � @
-0 10,
% D
? __ _0
2 e 2
E � E
U) % = _
/ K E
(D E cr S
/ @ e
0
> 7
° cn E k
L- U)
U) � /
v
.(D
,%
% 2 ' _� v CU CD
2 c /
3 \ " k \ o
's n -0 = g § 0
CD, 75 — / + = > � o @ (D
n \ e _
Q E 0 � 0
m E @ 2
-0 o E= 2 iE � k E
$
(D (D \� -0 -= 0 -/
- @ b U- o 2 o n= Q o
> o c n g m @
E b 2 E/ \ 9 m
@ % Cn o O co / /
/ , Q
$ (
: $
$ o
o
(D :
@
/
%
/ 2
2 2
2 '
n
'
§ /
/ /
/
(D 2
2 }
} k
k U
U
2 E
E C
0 2
C-6 0
> S
S
2
\ �
� 7
2 /
7 0
0
Of 2
/
$ o
n E
E
o n
E o
o e
e e
e
g @
@
_
\m =
= C
CO C
CU
(D (
(n _
� m
m
_0 �
0 @
@
2 /
/ \
\ 7
7 .
./ 2
2
_ $
$ �
� o
o 0
@—
ƒ c
c .
n —
—
>
./ n
a� >L
1 (D
E (D >1 -� 'O O
E (D CB L N m
Q M F=
O = > _ — O
-O O
Q) O E 4 U O j
Qi �v0 �tU N
m =3 N
m L O � .
.. O c N `O
aD CU
U > _ 'O
C) O N
O C6
0 CD L N a =3 >
N N D N O O 'a c6
N a) M
i U _N N m O
Qi O i> a N =3 U O O �.— N
L N
C �
' m "- -0 Q N
O O U N
a) Q
Q O (D $ L (� m Q)
U
Q O -� U!
51 a) (� C N
O T C (D Q O Q
�� O > UU CUU— �0
c6 .N � o Q L
N O U O C7
C cU� o L O m c�
cn O t
Q) to ,� = N """' L -0 .--
"�- E U -� a) c
Q a) m a)
n c E N m— to
Q p -N u) S
>, o � U a� ,�' U c
>, o2S = U a)
0 E o
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
O
�
O
�
�
�
�
�
�
O
�
�
�
1.
y E
�Sk
$I 2 /
±k%
=3
0 0 cn
0-kk
0
L)
0
70
0
3
0
0
/
U)
E
0
2
\
«
o
J
cu
@
cu
\
/
0
n
CL
2
?
@
c
�
e
n
c
E
o
Q
n
®
—
0
c
CL
E
_
—0
cu
®
m
E
0
o
,o
Q
°
k
(D
E
m
E
G
�
a
@
CL
@
Q
®•-
CM
E
0
"
=
m
m
\
c
�_
�_
0
CL
/
m
%
c
O
0
(10
C
?
Q
%
Q
2
,
\
$
0
_0
o
m
'
@
E
/
CY
Q
CL
/
%2p
�
o
2
.t
b
/
�__
g
m
�
g
o
(D
/
f
U
cam
C-
0
)
�A
CY)
CL
o
—
cu
.5
3:
CL
E
0)
-a
"ƒ
A
@
%
.2
/
(D
p
o
0
(D
2
(D
—cu
/
_
=
%
cu
n
o
�
k
o
®
\
Q
0
_C)
CL
-0
/
(D
Cu
Q
E
k
�
k
(D
E
E
R
0
—
_
�
/
E
-0
U
%
1.
y E
�Sk
$I 2 /
±k%
=3
0 0 cn
0-kk
0
L)
0
70
0
3
0
0
/
U)
E
0
2
\
«
o
J
2
7
n
2
2
E
n
c
7
n
=
0
k
E
cn
a)
k
CM
E
CD-
o
=
m
$
E
/
m
/
,
\
$
�
E
n
o
0
c
E
/
c
%2p
�
.t
.
g
m
�
g
e
cam
C-
0
)
�A
CD
2�
CO
7?
%
/
@
2
2
0
D
Q
=
0
=
n
o
�
k
E
\
0
CL
o
@
CL
k
_
k
(D
E
E
R
.0
U)
/
k
o
=
$
�o�v2
=
Q
°
_
°
_
?
L)
p
0
,
�
.=
1.
y E
�Sk
$I 2 /
±k%
=3
0 0 cn
0-kk
0
L)
0
70
0
3
0
0
/
U)
E
0
2
\
«
W
V
L
L.i.
cu
'0
E
[n
CB
E
C
O
_ CB
U
O
N
N
CB
C
CB
C
O
C
L
Cv
O
(v
Q
O
L
Q
(v
cu
L
Q
CB [n
- N
-� Cv
4-
O
0
U)
C
O
C)
Ca
U) (V
(n C6 =3
=3 = E
E O o
rz
U CO
Q
a�
1s^�
U
Cv
0
CC
C
O >
U �
U L
C6
O U
C �
_ c
cv E
N
N Cn
E c�
CV c 'O
O
NE Cv
(D
Q (6 N
E
L L
v> O cn
E cn
W
Q
L t3
m
E N n
Cn
CO
0
a
cn
c
Cu
Cu
O
CL
O
U
N
.. cu
L
nCn
L
H
L
^O`
W
^`�
Q
^«``
CL
CY)
C
C
CB
O
-0
O
cu
C
E
(ll
=
• —
CY)
N
Q
-a
N
-0
Q
iv
06
—
m
O
..
CB
N
O
O
?9:
_0
N A
0
Q
CL
U
CO
U
0
Cv
I
cu
L
L
Cv
Cv
U
-°
Cn
. -
Cv
Z3
cu
O
N
O
E
E
c
Cv
L
..
Cv
o
(D
Cj
c
m
N
u?
E
a
°
O
U
O
C)
L)
CB
-0
C
O
Cv
c
U
L
O
n
O
�
Q
CC
C
U
Cv
0
CC
C
O >
U �
U L
C6
O U
C �
_ c
cv E
N
N Cn
E c�
CV c 'O
O
NE Cv
(D
Q (6 N
E
L L
v> O cn
E cn
W
Q
L t3
m
E N n
Cn
CO
0
W
V
t
W
L
O
a)
c N
L p
L
i
L
Q
U
N L
Q p
OO LL
cv
N �
L
'j
0
O O
rt�
� U O
� U
N
N C U
N 4—N—
C L
O p >+
C�, U
N � I
E
L
A0
Ii
a
O
E
in
E
V
O
L
W
t� L
O O
W
U S
(6 'O
nQ O
W L
L O
L L
O Q
> (6
O N
N
L
N
> O
O L
c a)
c
O
U
N
^L` 0
W Q
^O -0
W
-0 U
_0 O
C �
cv
-0 U)
N . U
E o
� Q
U
U
C
O O
°'_ E
Q U �
>
O
1'
C
L J
U
(6 O
U
cv O
ca
d
U
C �
(6 =3
o U
m o
c
- _O
CY
=
O
E
C
Q cJ
r
o
"-
U
v
co
"
=
U
U
p
0
E
c
C
C
m
O
O
O
L
I
.E
E
.LM
LM
-0
-�5
o
=
U
CB
N
N
�
O
0
N
U)
�
`v
L
_
�
U
�
O
C
4
O
U
O
N
o
0-
.�
(D
U)
L
70
L
4-
L
70
_W
U
M
U)
U
�
�
X
U
L
c
E
m
72
^`
Q
^`
Q
O
m
(D
v ��/)
(n
CU
L
^
5
\/
(D
vi
L
U
_0
C
m
U
E
0
O
fn
O
U
=
-=
F
Q
(
U
Q
U
0
aD
aD
C
O
s
EE
n
N
m
c
c�
_0
z�
c
�
c�
O
.�
cn
m
Cv
E
CD
c
N
Cv
z�
_
0
�
E
i
E
(' a
Q
(V
Cv
Cv
rtL-+
(D
.�
�\
2
w
E
L
Q
N
U
N
(j
O
O
N
Cv
Cn
Cn
Cv
(D
>
N
N
Q
Q
(
-0
N
M
Q
o
O
N
Cv
U
N
Q
U
C
—
N
=
CB
�?
CV
L
C
a
c 5
(D
�
H
E
0
co
0-
O
O
cn
cn
E
cn
=3
=3
cn
�
O
U
�
O
O
U
U
Ca
O
U
0
'i,
08/25/2003 11:45 FROM JHP/OAP TO 6445020 P.01
�8u.«P "RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA
53 3 8 -a b 3_
Gentlemen,
We are writing regarding the potential revisions to our City's 6 -1 Policy,
First, we would like to express our appreciation for the hard work and dillgence exhibited by 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 lift 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 /maintain/increase investment by tax paying enterprises and
homeowners alike. We do not take these issues lightly; we wish to make clear our needs and
desire$.
Any 6 -1 Policy changes should serve the citizens of Newport Beach by,
1, Maintaining and enhancing the unique and much - Sought -often 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 all relative codes /laws /regulations regarding view
maintenance/preservation and reforestation
S. Minimizing the bureaucracy, red tape, expense and delays associated with the processes
homeowners must follow when requesting solutions 6 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 Beach.
Respectfully(�,
John 6 Olivia Poole
2613 Pebble Drive
Corona del Mar, CA 92625 -1405
TOTAL P.01
RUG -25 -2003 14:16 9?% P.01
Page 1 of 1
Fisher, Cathy
From:
Laura Curran [Iccurran @hotmail.com]
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.
1 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.
1 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 //nrdlink cnm /cod es /newnorth/ DATA /Title l3 /08 /030.htm1 8/26/2003
Section 13.09.010 Parkway 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.bi)cnet.com/ codes / newportb /_DATA/Title_13 /09 /010.htm] 8/26/2003
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE
THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE ( "Agreement "), is entered into on
and effective as of December Y, 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."
RECITALS
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 sec.), 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-from 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.
1
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.
2.2. 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 Petitioner's
attorneys' fees and costs for the litigation of the Action, in the form of a check
made payable to the law firm of Van Blarcom, Leiboid, 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 Iaw..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 ail 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 ( "BVIP''), (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.
4
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 Qudicial,
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 (judicial, 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
5
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:
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
C
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.
11.10 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.
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,
"BAS"
an Unincorporated Association
a Municipal Corporation
Byl (;4L Z_3�_ By: //f ;�
Homer . udau, City Manager / Jan Vandersloot, Vice - President
.: 0, ,
o'
ATTEST:
CI FO RNA
�( LaVonne Harkless, City Clerk
Linda Grant, President
"VAN BLARCOM, LEIBOLD,
MCCLENDON & MANN"
Stephen M. Miles,
Attorneys for BAS
D AS TO FORM:
H. Burnham, City Attorney
F: \users\ cat \s h a red \d a \pleadings \B al bo aArborWAg\ 121202.do c
1:3