The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About27 - G-1 Tree PolicyTO: FROM: alsenbage Mayor and City Council General Services Director City Council Agenda Agenda Item No. 27 February 22, 2000 SUBJECT: Revision of Council G -1 Tree Policy Recommendation Adopt the amendments to the attached G -1 Policy as recommended by the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission. Background On April 12, 1999, the City Council directed staff to review the G -1 Policy (Retention and Removal of City Trees) as a result of citizens complaints about the difficulty in administering the tree policy and obtaining approval for the removal and replacement of City trees. Staff prepared the attached report (Tree Policy Analysis) for the June 28, 1999 Council meeting. Subsequent Council direction was to proceed with a public review of the Policy to improve the workability of the Policy as well as provide solutions to tree problems. Staff prepared draft additions/deletions to the Policy, which were reviewed by the City Manager. Following this review, a series of three meetings were held with various individuals or interested groups to assess the Policy changes and accept public input and comments. The Tree Subcommittee of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission (PB &R) then reviewed the changes and the decision was made to place the revised draft Policy on the agenda for the December meeting of the Commission. The draft policy was removed from the regular agenda of the December 7, 1999 PB &R Commission meeting, but later reinstated as a special study session item. After a lengthy discussion and public review during the study session on December 7, the Chairperson of the Commission, Pat Beek, continued the matter to another study session. The policy was reviewed by the Commission at their regularly scheduled meeting of January 4, 2000 and continued to a second study session on January 13, 2000 when a number of minor revisions were made to the Policy. The Policy was reviewed by the PB &R Commission at their regularly scheduled meeting on February 2, 2000. After hearing more public testimony, the Commission approved the attached G -1 Policy in concept and directed staff to forward it to the Council for consideration. F:\ Users \GSV\Sbared\22feb00G- 1\22fcb00g -l.doc The amended policy was discussed in detail by the Council at a February 8, 2000 study session. Staff was directed to place the amended policy on the next Council agenda. Discussion The attached policy has been reviewed and discussed at numerous scheduled meetings involving either staff, various interested parties, or the PB &R Commission over the past 6 months. Four of the meetings (PB &R Commission) were for the purpose of public review and comments. Staff has noticed over 100 interested parties by letter on three occasions of the various opportunities for public comments on the revised policy. Only four City parkway trees have been removed during the past 6 months. Two of the trees, which were damaging private property, were removed at the direction of the City Manager. Two other trees, which were blocking a stop sign, were removed after an appeal was made by staff to the Council on February 8. Currently there are 69 pending tree removals that have accumulated since July 1999. The majority do not meet the current tree removal criteria of the G -1 Policy. However, if the proposed policy were approved, individual reforestation requests (removal and replacement of parkway trees at residents' expense), which many of the removal requests are, could be considered by the PB &R Commission on an individual basis. The large number of pending tree removals does not infer that there would be substantial numbers of mature trees removed using the reforestation criteria. Each request would be carefully considered by staff and the PB &R Commission to ensure that good judgment prevails and mature trees are retained whenever practical. The PB &R Commission is well aware of the significant responsibility of their decisions on reforestation requests, and that appeals to their decisions may only be made by Councilmembers or the City Manager. It is true that the proposed policy is more liberal on ordinary tree removals. However, all special City trees will still be retained using extraordinary measures, all replacement trees will be of the largest size possible to be planted in City parkways (36" boxed specimens), and all trees will be replaced on at least a one for one basis. The population of the City urban forest continues to grow and now numbers more than 30,000. All trees removed over the past 5 years have been replaced. A State tree grant five years ago resulted in the planting of an additional 500 City parkway trees. In addition, tree donations for City parks have become routine. As the City tree inventory and age and height of the City trees have increased, so have view issues due to tree height and liability issues due to tree age, disease, and small growth spaces. The proposed tree policy, while not perfect, attempts to balance the various factors to ensure a healthy urban forest that exists in harmony, whenever possible, with our residents and business owners. Very respectfully, David E. Niederhaus F:\ Users \GS V \Sbared\22feb00G -1 \22 feb00g -1. dot Attachments: (A) Proposed Council G -1 Policy (Retention or Removal of City Trees) (B) Council Agenda Item — June 28, 1999 (Tree Policy Analysis) F:\ Users \GS V' ShmdQ2feb00G- IU2feb00g -l.dw G -1 RETENTION OR REMOVAL OF CITY TREES The purpose of this policy is to establish definitive standards for the retention, removal, maintenance, reforestation, and supplemental trimming of City trees. City street--trees are an important part of the character and charm of Eertai ,.....,. nuriaties the entire C &. an4 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 maintained administered by the Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission ("Commission'). Special Trees shall be retained, unless. there are e xeer overriding problemsLsuch 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 will shall be taken to retain Special Trees. If tree roots are to be pruned in association with hardseage- 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 a yeff 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. it G -1 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 iffter€eFig with street or sidewalk drainage, despite specific treatment by the City to alleviate repeated damage. C. The City tree is dead, diseased, er- dying, or hazardous, and presents a si 'fgru icant 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. The tree(s) have been requested to be removed in conjunction with a City Council- approved Qy, commercial, neighborhood, or community association beautification program. 2 G -1 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. REMOVAL OF CITY TREES The initiation to remove any City tree may be made by the General Services Department, Public Works Department, a legally established community association, or a private property owner by making application with 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 awe shall be- provided a notice of the proposed tree removal to the affected property owner, and the owners immediately adjacent to the applicant's property, and the appropriate community association if applicable, (not applicable to the emergency removal of hazardous trees with trees under Item C above). The Urban Forester shall determine whether in his /her judgment additional specific treatment can be initiated to retain the tree. If a tree(s) is to be removed, the tree(s) will be marked posted at least 30 days prior to the removal with posted 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 -3-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 Commissiong and if the appeal �., t=the � .. i, a then n.,, c:rA atio n ,.t,..... i-lea ea��resolved � Lassie . .. �� at the City Cetineil level. 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 Citv Manager. An aigigeal to the r ouneil reeardine The General Services Department will delay any tree removals for at least 14 calendar days following the date of the 01 G -1 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. 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 create significant cause damage to curb, gutter, sidewalk or underground utilities. In certain neighborhoods, mature City street trees may encroach into blue water views from public and private property depending on the length of time since the trees were last trimmed, or the age and height of the trees. Ted , Arborists have developed continue to develop lists of tree species which a*e able to will grow in restricted parkway areas without causing significant €utere pr- eblems damage to curb, gutter, sidewalk, utilities or views. Y..,t. A.7 — r-....,....,.....,........ — .....,...,..... Y--- .....j — r-efer-estafien. As a City which understands the importance of trees and the beauty it-they brings to a community, the City desires to continually improve the urban forest through reforestation. In areas where City trees have been removed through City initiation, the City should expeditiously replace them with the appropriate designated City tree. Reforestation may also be initiated by residents utilizing the process outlined below. Individual private property owners, as well as community associations, may apply for single or multiple tree reforestation Individuals e. pa ties aes4ing to reforest City trees n G -1 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 treed proposed for removal and replacement, street addresses , block numbera 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, 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 applicable. 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 must shall be the designated street tree(sl 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. G -1 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 2-V 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. The City shall require the proper care and watering of replacement trees to ensure their proper growth and development as outlined in City Council Policy G -6. Furthermore, no person shall tamper with replacement trees in violation of Section 13.08.040 of the Municipal Code. All encroachment permits (permits for private property development which has encroached upon the City right of way) that involve the removal or replacement of City trees must be specifically noticed by the pro e�rty 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 reauest and shall pav 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 trirruning 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). 0 ..... .. _ _ .. ... \ Y.. ... \ The decision of the Commission on reforestation requests will be considered final unless called up by at least one Councilmember or the City Manager. The City shall require the proper care and watering of replacement trees to ensure their proper growth and development as outlined in City Council Policy G -6. Furthermore, no person shall tamper with replacement trees in violation of Section 13.08.040 of the Municipal Code. All encroachment permits (permits for private property development which has encroached upon the City right of way) that involve the removal or replacement of City trees must be specifically noticed by the pro e�rty 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 reauest and shall pav 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 trirruning 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). 0 G -1 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. [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 7 Amended - April 11, 1994 Amended - February 26,1996 Amended - July 14,1997 Amended (Administratively) - November 24,1997 Amended - August 10, 1998 PRESERVATION OF SPECIAL TREES LANDMARK TREES Balboa Library Eucalyptus globulus Balboa Library Phoenix canariensis West Jetty (near Historical Marker) Phoenix canariensis Dover Drive at Westchff 400 block Poinsettia Ocean Blvd. Corona del Mar Westcliff & Dover (Groves) Main Street (between East Bay Ave. and Balboa Blvd.) DEDICATED TREES No. Mariners Park (Marcie Schrouder) Mariners Park (Frank Tallman) No. City Hall grounds (Billy Covert) City Hall grounds (Walter Knott) City Hall grounds (Calif. Bicentennial) Las Arenas Park (Ed Healy) Mariners Park (Isy Pease) City Hall grounds (U.S. Bicentennial Freedom Tree) Buffalo Hills Park (Bahia Attachment 1 G -1 Liquidambar styraciflua Eucalyptus corynocalyx Phoneix canariensis Eucalyptus globulus Ficus nitida Pinus radiata Pinus radiata Ficus benjamina Pinus halepensis Pinus halepensis Melaleuca linarifolia Pinus halepensis Harpephyllum caffrum Community Earth Day Celebration) Erythrina caffra Peninsula Park (Gray Lunde Memorial Tree) Cliff Drive Park (Gary Lovell) Begonia Park (Cheryl Bailey Ringwald) Castaways Park (Jan Vandersloot) Peninsula Park (Don Perdue) Grant Howald Park 1 (Pete Munro) 2 (Mark Munro) Bob Henry Park (Bob Henry) Chamaerops humilis Quercus agrifolia Primus cerasifera Quercus agrifolia Ravenea rivularis Metrosideros excelsus Ficus Rubiginosa G -1 DEDICATED Cliff Drive Park Quercus agrifolia TREES (contd.) (Dr. Vandersloot) Phoenix canariensis Veterans Park Lagenstroemia (Rosemary Rae Hill Hansen) indica faueri Mariners Park Stenocarpus (N. Beach Sunrise Rotary Club) sinuatus (Christopher & Marisha Thomposn) Pinus eldarica (Meghan & Camielle Thompson) Pinus eldarica NEIGHBORHOOD 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 Attachment 1 2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT TREE INSPECTION REPORT Name Address Phone Number Request Botanical Name Common Name Designated Street Tree Estimated Tree Value Damage Parkway: Concrete Brick Turf Other Comments Inspected by Recommendation Reviewed by Attachment 2 Date Date G -1 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: General Services Director SUBJECT: Tree Policy Analysis Recommendation City Council Agenda Item No. 29 June 28, 1999 None. Report is for informational purposes and discussion only. Background The City has a large urban forest of over 28,000 trees. The forest is managed through the use of Council Policies G -1 (Retention and Removal of City Trees) and G -6 (Maintenance and Planting of Parkway Trees). Overall management of the urban forest has been assigned to the General Services Department with specific staffing and budgeting assigned to the Tree Maintenance Division. Currently, the Division is staffed by the Urban Forester, John Conway, who is a highly qualified and certified arborist. He is assisted by a Park/Tree Laborer. The current budget for the Tree Division is $595,494, which is primarily dedicated to funding tree care through the use of a private contractor. With the current funding level, the tree trimming cycle is three years, however, as the urban forest continues to grow, additional funding will be required to maintain this cycle. Numerous trees such as palm, coral, and ficus trees must be trimmed on an annual basis due to liability concerns. The City has been nationally recognized for the past eight years as Tree City USA and has received a Special Growth Award for the past four years. While Policies G -1 and G -6 are the main guidelines regarding the management of the urban forest, the former is the most controversial and the focus of this report. The City Council approved four minor changes to the G -1 Policy on August 10, 1998. A copy of the Council agenda item and Council Policy G -1 are attached. As a result of a number of tree issues, primarily related to the retention and removal of City trees, Council has directed an analysis of problem areas that have surfaced since the last major revision of the G -1 Policy in July 1997. Some of the Council interests that were identified are: (a) Can the Policy be improved? (b) What are some of the implementation problems encountered by staff with the revised policy? (c) Can "common sense" solutions still be made by staff with the current policy or is strict application of the Policy guidelines the only option? (d) Review the mechanism related to the G -1 Policy to resolve tree requests and identify problem areas. (e) What are some alternatives that could be initiated to improve overall tree service response? The Council requested only an informational report from the staff's viewpoint on tree matters and not any specific recommendations, policy revisions, nor non -staff input. Discussion Staff has identified the following implementation problems since the last maior revision of the G -1 Policy in July 1997: (a) The current policy leans heavily toward tree preservation even though a tree is in the latter stages of its life, is stunted or has overgrown its tree well, is damaging public or private property, and can be replaced with a large boxed tree, in some cases, at no expense to the City. An example of this type of tree request was studied by the Council in April with the homeowner appeal being returned for Council consideration at the June 28 meeting (Parker tree removal/replacement request, 2327 Arbutus). (b) A very small fraction of the community insists on the strict interpretation of the G -1 Policy as a means of tree preservation at any cost, forcing additional City expenses, liability, and consuming an inordinate amount of staff and Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commissioners' time. (c) Some groups of trees have been placed on the Special Tree list of the Policy for the sole purpose of preservation even though the trees are of no special interest to the City. Such a designation creates an awkward tree management situation, unnecessary additional expense to the City, and a high frustration level by adjacent property owners who expect equal treatment of their tree requests (Attachment 1, Council Policy G- 1, Neighborhood Trees). (d) Reforestation procedures for the City trees have been interpreted by staff to apply to neighborhood association areas versus individual resident's requests. This results in all individual tree removal requests automatically being judged by the more stringent Tree Removal procedures of the Policy. (e) Some wording of the Policy leaves staff without clear direction. An example would be whether "repeated damage" to public or private property by City trees equates to two, or more than two, incidents of hardscape damage before a tree may be removed. (f) Special Trees can't be removed even when endangering public /private property according to the current policy. The interval for root pruning of Special Trees could be lowered to six months from 12 months depending upon tree species. This would lessen the amount of public or private damage caused by tree roots. Tree Policy Analysis The G -1 Policy was written to provide specific tree maintenance procedures for staff, residents, and business owners. The Policy is divided into four distinct categories: Special City Trees, Removal of City Trees, Reforestation of City Trees, and Tree Trimming Standards/Supplemental Trimming. A number of provisions were added to the Policy in the final hour to appease specific interests and have resulted in creating, in staff's opinion, a lengthy process for tree removal requests that often frustrates residents and business owners. As the problem areas (a -f) noted earlier specify: the majority of the difficulties in managing the tree policy is related to tree removal requests by citizens or staff. The Reforestation and Tree Trimming Standard/Supplemental Trimming portions of the Policy have been adequate in resolving tree problems. An expansion of the authority of the Reforestation section to include single tree locations would significantly improve the staff's ability to solve tree requests. As noted earlier, the Tree Division is comprised of only two staff members. Collectively, they handle an average of 200 requests per month. Each request takes from 30 minutes to several days to resolve. A common complaint to my office is that tree requests are not handled in an expeditious manner. Modifications to the Policy or at least a less stringent interpretation of the Policy could resolve many of the delays. Tree Removal Process Council also indicated interest in the mechanism or manner that tree removal requests were handled. Staff has provided a City Tree Removal Process Flow Chart (Attachment C) to illustrate the steps involved in the process. A typical street tree removal request consumes a minimum of six staff hours through the level of an appeal to the Parks, Beaches, & Recreation Commission. Over 90% of all tree removals that are denied by staff are appealed to the Parks, Beaches, & Recreation Commission. The Commission attempts to resolve the removal disputes in an equitable, common sense manner, but is bound by tree advocates' insistence on the strict interpretation of the G -1 Policy. Almost all tree removals are opposed by tree advocates, who are particularly adamant when the PB &R Commission or staff attempts to mitigate tree disputes. Tree Trimming In 1993, the Tree Division was staffed by 11 employees and had a budget of $727,665. The cost to trim each City tree was calculated to be $89. The budgeted amount did not include the costs of purchasing and maintaining the tree trimmer truck fleet, which if the costs were included, would result in an estimated $900K annual tree budget. A staff study prepared at Council direction in October 1993, identified savings of $199K by privatizing the tree trimming function. Council then directed privatization of tree trimming, which occurred on January 1, 1994. The annual tree maintenance budget was subsequently decreased to $499,620. With the decreased level of funding, the tree trimming cycle was consequently lengthened from three years to 4.3 years and the public complaints on the service level (specifically the extension of the trim cycle) significantly increased. Staff requested an additional $100K in the FY 98 -99 budget in tree trimming funds to alleviate this problem. The Council subsequently approved this request and tree trimming interval complaints have decreased. As a separate step in alleviating tree trimming service levels, staff developed the Supplemental Tree Trimming Procedures in the G -1 Policy wherein a resident may pay $39 per tree to have a City parkway tree trimmed by the City tree contractor on a shorter interval than three years. While both additional funding and Supplemental Tree Trimming Procedures alleviated a significant amount of citizens' complaints, funding for the larger number of trees (22,000 in 1992, 28,000 in 1999) was never restored in a proportional amount from earlier years. The proposed FY 99 -00 Budget provides for $592K for tree maintenance as compared with $727K (estimated with equipment costs to be $900K) budgeted in 1992 when the urban forest consisted of 6,000 fewer trees. The end result has been a growing frustration level with the tree trimming service level and has led to an increased number of tree trimming and removal requests, or worse, illegal tree removals. Time that the Urban Forester would normally devote to tree removal requests has been consumed by tree trimming inquiries, requests, and major reforestation projects. Summary Staff opines that the current City G -1 Tree Policy, while not perfect, is an excellent framework to manage the urban forest. With some new minor changes in the Policy related to removal and reforestation of City trees and a common sense approach to the interpretation of the requirements; residents and business owners would be better served, controversies over individual tree problems resolved at staff level, response to requests improved, and overall City costs would be lowered. Staff could present those minor policy changes to the PB &R Commission at their next monthly meeting as the first step in a public review process before returning the matter to the Council. Of a more immediate nature would be the consideration of a FY 99 -00 Budget Check list item for $50K to 100K to address the tree maintenance service level problem. Very respectfully, David E. Niederhaus DEN /mhl Attachments: A. Council Policy G -1 B. City Council Agenda Item No. 22, dated August 10, 1998 C. City Tree Removal Process Flow Chart 09 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: &atSa Mayor and City Council General Services Director Revision of Council C -1 Tree Policy Recommendation None. Informational report for discussion purposes. City Council Agenda Study Session Item No. ? February 8, 2000 Background On April 12, 1999, the City Council directed staff to review the G -1 Policy (Retention and Removal of •City Trees) as a result of citizens complaints about the difficulty in administering the tree policy and obtaining approval for the removal and replacement of City trees. J Staff prepared the attached report (Tree Policy Analysis) for the June 28, 1999 Council meeting. Subsequent Council direction was to proceed with a public review of the Policy to improve the workability of the Policy as well as provide solutions to tree problems. Staff prepared draft additions /deletions to the Policy, which were reviewed by the City Manager. Following this review, a series of three meetings were held with various individuals or interested groups to assess the Policy changes and accept public input and comments. The Tree Subcommittee of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission (PB &R) then reviewed the changes and the decision was made to place the revised draft Policy on the agenda for the December meeting of the Commission. The draft policy was removed from the regular agenda of the December 7, 1999 PB &R Commission meeting, but later reinstated as a special study session item. After a lengthy discussion and public review during the study session on December 7, the Chairperson of the Commission, Pat Beek, continued the matter to another study session. The policy was reviewed by the Commission at their regularly scheduled meeting of January 4, 2000 and continued to a second study session on January 13, 2000 when a number of minor revisions were made to the Policy. FAUsen\G S V \Sb=d\G -1 _Feb8StudySessn1tem. doc The Policy was reviewed by the PB &R Commission at their regularly scheduled meeting on February • 8, 2000. After hearing more public testimony, the Commission approved the attached G -1 Policy in concept and directed staff to forward it to the Council for consideration. Discussion The attached policy has been reviewed and discussed at numerous scheduled meetings involving either staff, various interested parties, or the PB &R Commission over the past 6 months. Four of the meetings (PB &R Commission) were for the purpose of public review and comments. Staff has noticed over 100 interested parties by letter on three occasions of the various opportunities for public comments on the revised policy. Only two City parkway trees have been removed during the past 6 months. The two trees, which were damaging private property, were removed at the direction of the City Manager. Currently there are 68 pending tree removals that have accumulated since July 1999. The majority do not meet the current tree removal criteria of the G -1 Policy. However, if the proposed policy were approved, individual reforestation requests (removal and replacement of parkway trees at residents' expense), which many of the removal requests are, could be considered by the PB &R Commission on an individual basis. The large number of pending tree removals does not infer that there would be substantial numbers of mature trees removed using the reforestation criteria. Each request would be carefully considered by staff and the PB &R Commission to ensure that good judgment prevails and mature trees are retained • whenever practical. The PB &R Commission is well aware of the significant responsibility of their decisions on reforestation requests, and that appeals to their decisions may only be made by Councilmembers or the City Manager. It is true that the proposed policy is more liberal on ordinary tree removals. However, all special City trees will still be retained using extraordinary measures, all replacement trees will be of the largest size possible to be planted in City parkways (36" boxed specimens), and all trees will be replaced on at least a one for one basis. The population of the City urban forest continues to grow and now numbers more than 30,000. All trees removed over the past 5 years have been replaced. A State tree grant five years ago resulted in the planting of an additional 500 City parkway trees. In addition, tree donations for City parks have become routine. As the City tree inventory and age and height of the City trees have increased, so have view issues due to tree height and liability issues due to tree age, disease, and small growth spaces. The proposed tree policy, while not perfect, attempts to balance the various factors to ensure a healthy urban forest that exists in harmony, whenever possible, with our residents and business owners. Very respectfully, David E. Niederhaus F:\Usm\GSV\Sh..d\G -1 FebBStudySessnitem.doc • Attachments: (A) Proposed Council G -1 Policy (Retention or Removal of City Trees) • (B) Council Agenda Item — June 28, 1999 (Tree Policy Analysis) (C) PB &R Commission Agenda Item #13 of February 1, 2000 (D) Draft minutes of February 1, 2000 PB &R Commission Meeting • • F:\ Users \GSV\Sh.md\G- 1_Feb8SWdySe .Mn dne G1 • 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 steeet -trees are an important part of the character and charm of certain ....R.._..• Mies the entire Cam. an4 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 maintained administered by the Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission ( "Commission "). • Special Trees shall be retained, unless there are e*eeptienal- 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 will shall be taken to retain Special Trees. If tree roots are to be pruned in association with hff dse ape- 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 a year 6 months to a year in advance of the other side d_ pending 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 1 Attachment A r1 U • G -1 in order to retain the tree. All proposed root pruning shall be assessed by the Urban Forester. 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 no 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 per iod) of significant interference inte4er-ing with street or sidewalk drainage, despite specific treatment by the City to alleviate repeated damage. C. The City tree is dead, diseased, or-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. 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- tfee (s) roust eerngly with the enter.. r,._ reforestation a in w Re€erestatien of City Trees seefien of thds pokey, . The tree(s) have been requested to be removed in conjunction with a City Council- approved CM commercial, neighborhood, or community association beautification program. 2 G -1 0 E. The City_Manager, upon the advice of the Risk Manager, shall have the authority to remove trees for whatever reason to resolve claims against the City. 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 %4th 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 anozee shall le-provided a notice of the proposed tree removal to the affected property owner, arld the owners immediately adjacent to the applicant's property, and the appropriate community association if applicable, (not applicable to the emergency removal of hazardous trees with trees under Item C above). The Urban Forester shall determine whether in his /her judgment additional specific treatment can be initiated to retain the tree. If a tree(s) is to be removed, the tree(s) will be mar4ied • posted at least 30 days prior to the removal with posted 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 -3-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 Commissioner and if the appeal at the City Ceuneil level. The Commission after«, 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 Citv Manager. An aigoeal to the C,.•meil r-eeardine r1 3 • G -1 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. r The Citv 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 REFORESTATION OF CITY TREES The concept of systematically re 1p acing 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 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 problems i cause damage to curb, gutter, sidewalk or underground utilities. In certain neighborhoods, ff—e –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. 4'eday, Arborists have developed continue to develop lists of tree species which are able to will grow in restricted parkway areas without causing significant future problems damage to curb, gutter, sidewalk, utilities or views. The rencept of systemaficalW Fvhic�t ^ reaehingtheir full lice and are deelk:_g: health, c d to as ICLC]11sRi[201T As a City which understands the importance of trees and the beauty they brings to a community, the City desires to continually improve the urban forest through reforestation. In areas where City trees have been removed through City initiation, the City should expeditiously replace them with the appropriate designated City tree. Reforestation may also be initiated by residents utilizing the process outlined below. no persen shallgiper ' Y' ^ ^e^te t tFees in violation of Seetten !'0g 040 of ' e ....... uEit,ccr -cpac. - 4 G -1 • Individual 2rivate property owners, as well as community associations, may apply for single or multiple tree reforestation individuals or parties desiring te reforest City tfees 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 treed proposed for removal and replacement, street addresses" block number fs 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, 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 applicable. 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 treed for reforestation must shall be the designated street treeW 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 0 G -1 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 W 36" boxed trees, unless the parkway space will only accommodate a 24" boxed tree. 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. The City shall require the proper care and watering of replacement trees to ensure their proper growth and development as outlined in City Council Policy G -6. Furthermore, no person shall tamper with replacement trees in violation of Section 13.08.040 of the Municipal Code. All encroachment permits (permits for private property development which has encroached upon the City right of ways that involve the removal or replacement of CitX 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 vav 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 0 species. The current tree trimming cycles and trimming standards represent the maximum feasible frequency and extent of trimming given current fiscal conditions. 0 .. - -• - The decision of the Commission on reforestation requests will be considered final unless called up by at least one Councilmember or the City Manager. The City shall require the proper care and watering of replacement trees to ensure their proper growth and development as outlined in City Council Policy G -6. Furthermore, no person shall tamper with replacement trees in violation of Section 13.08.040 of the Municipal Code. All encroachment permits (permits for private property development which has encroached upon the City right of ways that involve the removal or replacement of CitX 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 vav 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 0 species. The current tree trimming cycles and trimming standards represent the maximum feasible frequency and extent of trimming given current fiscal conditions. 0 G -1 • 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. [Attachment 1- Preservation of Special Trees] [Attachment 2- Tree Inspection Report] Adopted - May 9,1966 Amended - April 11, 1994 Amended - August 14,1967 Amended - February 26,1996 Amended - November 9,1976 Amended - July 14,1997 Amended - November 12,1985 Amended (Administratively) - Amended - November 28,1988 November 24,1997 Amended - March 14,1994 Amended - August 10, 1998 Formerly I -9 7 0 PRESERVATION OF SPECIAL TREES G -1 LANDMARK Quercus agrifolia TREES Balboa Library Eucalyptus globulus Balboa Library Phoenix canariensis West Jetty (near Historical Marker) Phoenix canariensis Dover Drive at Westcliff Liquidambar styraciflua 400 block Poinsettia Eucalyptus corynocalyx Ocean Blvd. Corona del Mar Phoneix canariensis Westcliff & Dover (Groves) Eucalyptus globulus Main Street (between East Bay Ficus nitida Ave. and Balboa Blvd.) DEDICATED TREES No. Mariners Park (Marcie Schrouder) Pinus radiata Mariners Park (Frank Tallman) Pinus radiata No. City Hall grounds (Billy Covert) Ficus benjamina City Hall grounds (Walter Knott) Pinus halepensis City Hall grounds (Calif. Bicentennial) Pinus halepensis Las Arenas Park (Ed Healy) Melaleuca linarifolia Mariners Park (Isy Pease) Pinus halepensis City Hall grounds (U.S. Bicentennial Freedom Tree) Harpephyllum caffrum Buffalo Hills Park (Bahia Community Earth Day Celebration) Erythrina caffra Peninsula Park (Gray Lunde Memorial Tree) Chamaerops humilis Cliff Drive Park Quercus agrifolia (Gary Lovell) Begonia Park Prunus cerasifera (Cheryl Bailey Ringwald) Castaways Park Quercus agrifolia (Jan Vandersloot) Peninsula Park Ravenea rivularis (Don Perdue) Grant Howald Park Metrosideros excelsus 1 (Pete Munro) 2 (Mark Munro) Bob Henry Park Ficus Rubi ig nosa • (Bob Henry) Attachment 1 1 G -1 DEDICATED Cliff Drive Park Quercus agrifolia TREES (contd.) (Dr. Vandersl000 Phoenix canariensis Veterans Park Lagenstroemia (Rosemary Rae Hill Hansen) indica faueri Mariners Park Stenocarpus (N. Beach Sunrise Rotary Club) sinuatus (Christopher & Marisha Thomposn) Pinus eldarica (Meghan & Camielle Thompson) Pinus eldarica 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 Attachment 1 0 • • i CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT TREE INSPECTION REPORT Name Address Phone Number Request Botanical Name Common Name _ Designated Street Tree Estimated Tree Value Damage Parkway: Concrete Brick _Turf _Other _ Comments Inspected by Recommendation . Reviewed .ttachment 2 Date Date G -1 1 City Council Agenda • Item No. 29 June 28, 1999 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: General Services Director SUBJECT: Tree Policy Analysis Recommendation None. Report is for informational purposes and discussion only. Background The City has a large urban forest of over 28,000 trees. The forest is managed through the use of Council Policies G -1 (Retention and Removal of City Trees) and G -6 (Maintenance and Planting of Parkway Trees). Overall management of the urban forest has been assigned to the General Services Department with specific staffing and budgeting assigned to the Tree Maintenance Division. Currently, the Division is staffed by the Urban Forester, John Conway, who is a highly qualified and certified arborist. He is assisted by a Park/Tree Laborer. The current budget for the Tree Division is $595,494, which is primarily dedicated to funding tree care through the use of a private contractor. With the current funding level, the tree trimming cycle is three years, however, as the urban forest continues to grow, additional funding will be required to maintain this cycle. Numerous trees such as palm, coral, and ficus trees must be trimmed on an annual basis due to liability concerns. The City has been nationally recognized for the past eight years as Tree City USA and has received a Special Growth Award for the past four years. While Policies G -1 and G -6 are the main guidelines regarding the management of the urban forest, the former is the most controversial and the focus of this report. The City Council approved four minor changes to the G -1 Policy on August 10, 1998. A copy of the Council agenda item and Council Policy G -1 are attached. As a result of a number of tree issues, primarily related to the retention and • removal of City trees, Council has directed an analysis of problem areas that have surfaced since the last major revision of the G -1 Policy in July 1997. Attachment B Some of the Council interests that were identified are: (a) Can the Policy be improved? (b) What are some of the implementation problems encountered by staff with the revised policy? (c) Can "common sense" solutions still be made by staff with the current policy or is strict application of the Policy guidelines the only option? (d) Review the mechanism related to the G -1 Policy to resolve tree requests and identify problem areas. (e) What are some alternatives that could be initiated to improve overall tree service response? The Council requested only an informational report from the staff's viewpoint on tree matters and not any specific recommendations, policy revisions, nor non -staff input. Discussion Staff has identified the following implementation problems since the last maior revision of the G -1 Policy in July 1997: (a) The current policy leans heavily toward tree preservation even though a tree is in the latter stages of its life, is stunted or has overgrown its tree well, is damaging public or private property, and can be replaced with a large boxed tree, in some cases, at no expense to the City. An example • of this type of tree request was studied by the Council in April with the homeowner appeal being returned for Council consideration at the June 28 meeting (Parker tree removal/replacement request, 2327 Arbutus). (b) A very small fraction of the community insists on the strict interpretation of the G -1 Policy as a means of tree preservation at any cost, forcing additional City expenses, liability, and consuming an inordinate amount of staff and Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commissioners' time. (c) Some groups of trees have been placed on the Special Tree list of the Policy for the sole purpose of preservation even though the trees are of no special interest to the City. Such a designation creates an awkward tree management situation, unnecessary additional expense to the City, and a high frustration level by adjacent property owners who expect equal treatment of their tree requests (Attachment 1, Council Policy G- 1, Neighborhood Trees). (d) Reforestation procedures for the City trees have been interpreted by staff to apply to neighborhood association areas versus individual resident's requests. This results in all individual tree removal requests automatically being judged by the more stringent Tree Removal procedures of the Policy. (e) Some wording of the Policy leaves staff without clear direction. An • example would be whether "repeated damage" to public or private property by City trees equates to two, or more than two, incidents of hardscape damage before a tree may be removed. (f) Special Trees can't be removed even when endangering public /private • property according to the current policy. The interval for root pruning of Special Trees could be lowered to six months from 12 months depending upon tree species. This would lessen the amount of public or private damage caused by tree roots. Tree Policy Analysis The G -1 Policy was written to provide specific tree maintenance procedures for staff, residents, and business owners. The Policy is divided into four distinct categories: Special City Trees, Removal of City Trees, Reforestation of City Trees, and Tree Trimming Standards /Supplemental Trimming. A number of provisions were added to the Policy in the final hour to appease specific interests and have resulted in creating, in staff's opinion, a lengthy process for tree removal requests that often frustrates residents and business owners. As the problem areas (a -f) noted earlier specify: the majority of the difficulties in managing the tree policy is related to tree removal requests by citizens or staff. The Reforestation and Tree Trimming Standard/Supplemental Trimming portions of the Policy have been adequate in resolving tree problems. An expansion of the authority of the Reforestation section to include single tree locations would significantly improve the staffs ability to solve tree requests. • As noted earlier, the Tree Division is comprised of only two staff members. Collectively, they handle an average of 200 requests per month. Each request takes from 30 minutes to several days to resolve. A common complaint to my office is that tree requests are not handled in an expeditious manner. Modifications to the Policy or at least a less stringent interpretation of the Policy could resolve many of the delays. Tree Removal Process Council also indicated interest in the mechanism or manner that tree removal requests were handled. Staff has provided a City Tree Removal Process Flow Chart (Attachment C) to illustrate the steps involved in the process. A typical street tree removal request consumes a minimum of six staff hours through the level of an appeal to the Parks, Beaches, & Recreation Commission. Over 90% of all tree removals that are denied by staff are appealed to the Parks, Beaches, & Recreation Commission. The Commission attempts to resolve the removal disputes in an equitable, common sense manner, but is bound by tree advocates' insistence on the strict interpretation of the G -1 Policy. Almost all tree removals are opposed by tree advocates, who are particularly adamant when the PB &R Commission or staff attempts to mitigate tree disputes. Tree Trimming In 1993, the Tree Division was staffed by 11 employees and had a budget of $727,665. The cost to trim each City tree was calculated to be $89. The budgeted amount did not include the costs of purchasing and maintaining the tree trimmer truck fleet, which if the costs were included, would result in an estimated $900K annual tree budget. A staff study prepared at Council direction in October 1993, identified savings of $199K by privatizing the tree trimming function. Council then directed privatization of tree trimming, which occurred on January 1, 1994. The annual tree maintenance budget was subsequently decreased to $499,620. With the decreased level of funding, the tree trimming cycle was consequently lengthened from three years to 4.3 years and the public complaints on the service level (specifically the extension of the trim cycle) significantly increased. Staff requested an additional $100K in the FY 98 -99 budget in tree trimming funds to alleviate this problem. The Council subsequently approved this request and tree trimming interval complaints have decreased. As a separate step in alleviating tree trimming service levels, staff developed the • Supplemental Tree Trimming Procedures in the G -1 Policy wherein a resident may pay $39 per tree to have a City parkway tree trimmed by the City tree contractor on a shorter interval than three years. While both additional funding and Supplemental Tree Trimming Procedures alleviated a significant amount of citizens' complaints, funding for the larger number of trees (22,000 in 1992, 28,000 in 1999) was never restored in a proportional amount from earlier years. The proposed FY 99 -00 Budget provides for $592K for tree maintenance as compared with $727K (estimated with equipment costs to be $900K) budgeted in 1992 when the urban forest consisted of 6,000 fewer trees. The end result has been a growing frustration level with the tree trimming service level and has led to an increased number of tree trimming and removal requests, or worse, illegal tree removals. Time that the Urban Forester would normally devote to tree removal requests has been consumed by tree trimming inquiries, requests, and major reforestation projects. Summary Staff opines that the current City G -1 Tree Policy, while not perfect, is an excellent framework to manage the urban forest. With some new minor changes in the Policy related to removal and reforestation of City trees and a common sense approach to the interpretation of the requirements; residents and business owners would be better served, controversies over individual tree problems resolved at staff level, response to requests improved, and overall City costs would be lowered. Staff could present those minor policy changes to the PB &R Commission at their next monthly meeting as the first step in a public review process before returning the matter to the Council. • Of a more immediate nature would be the consideration of a FY 99 -00 Budget Check list item for $50K to 100K to address the tree maintenance service level problem. Very respectfully, David E. Niederhaus DEN /mhl Attachments: A. Council Policy G -1 B. City Council Agenda Item No. 22, dated August 10, 1998 C. City Tree Removal Process Flow Chart • G -1 RETENTION OR REMOVAL OF CITY TREES The purpose of this policy is to establish definitive standards for the retention, removal, maintenance, reforestation, and supplemental trimming of City trees. City street trees are an important part of the character and charm of certain communities and regular care, trimming, maintenance and programmed replacement are necessary to preserve this charm while 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 maintained by the Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission ( "Commission "). Special Trees shall be retained, unless there are exceptional problems which require their removal. Prior to consideration for removal of Special Trees, the General Services Director, or designee, shall prepare a report identifying and implementing specific treatment to retain the tree(s). If specific treatment is unsuccessful in retaining a 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. During normal sidewalk, curb, and street repair activity requiring root pruning, all steps will be taken to retain Special Trees. If tree roots are to be pruned in association with hardscape improvements, sufficient timing in advance must be planned to ensure that pruning will not destabilize or kill the tree. If both sides of a tree's root are to be pruned, one side should be pruned a year in advance of the other side. ALL OTHER CITY TREES It is the City's policy to retain all other City trees unless removal is necessary for one of the following reasons: l Attachment A G -1 A. The City tree has had a history of damaging public or private sewers, water mains, roadways, sidewalks, curbs, walls, fences, or foundations based on City records or other competent and reliable authority despite specific treatment by the City to alleviate repeated damage. B. The City tree has had a repeated history of interfering with street or sidewalk drainage, despite specific treatment by the City to alleviate repeated damage. C. The City tree is dead, diseased, or dying. D. The tree(s) must comply with the criteria for reforestation as contained in the Reforestation of City Trees section of this policy. E. The tree(s) have been requested to be removed in conjunction with a City Council- approved neighborhood or community association beautification program. REMOVAL OF CITY TREES The initiation to remove any City tree may be made by the General Services Department, Public Works Department, a legally established community association, or a private property owner by making application with the 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 above for consideration for removal. Simultaneously, a notice shall be provided to the affected property owner and the owners immediately adjacent to the applicant's property and the appropriate community association if applicable. The Urban Forester shall determine whether in his /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 marked at least 30 days prior to the removal with a white X (using temporary paint) and posted with a sign notifying the public that they have the right of appeal. The sign shall also note a staff contact. Once a 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 3 G -1 recommended for removal using the Trees Division Activities Report, except for those trees categorized in paragraph 3 in the preceding section on All Other City Trees. An applicant, an adjoining property owner, or any interested party may appeal the decision of the General Services Director to the Commission, and if the appeal cannot be resolved at the Commission level, then the final resolution will be determined at the City Council level. The Commission and Council, in considering any appeal, shall determine whether the removal meets the criteria outlined in this policy, as well as any unique factors which may be pertinent to the removal or retention of tree(s). An appeal to the Council regarding a Commission tree decision must be received by the General Services Department no later than 14 calendar days following the date of the Commission decision. The General Services Department will delay any tree removals until the appeal period has expired or until the Council has acted upon the appeal. REFORESTATION OF CITY TREES It is recognized and acknowledged that City trees were planted many years ago and in some cases were planted with specific species that when fully mature create significant .problems in curb, gutter, sidewalk or underground utilities. In certain neighborhoods, mature City street trees may encroach into blue water views from public and private property depending on the length of time since the trees were last trimmed. • Today, arborists have developed lists of tree species which are able to grow in restricted parkway areas without causing significant future problems to curb, gutter, sidewalk, utilities or views. The concept of systematically replacing mature trees which are creating hardscape and /or view problems and cannot be properly trimmed, pruned or modified to alleviate the problems they create, or those which are reaching their full life and are declining in health, is referred to as reforestation. As a City which understands the importance of trees and the beauty it brings to a community, the City desires to continually improve the urban forest through reforestation. In areas where City trees have been removed through City initiation, the City should expeditiously replace them with the appropriate designated City tree. Reforestation may also be initiated by residents utilizing the process outlined below. The City shall require the proper care and watering of replacement trees to ensure their proper growth and development as outlined in City Council Policy G -6. Furthermore, no person shall tamper with replacement trees in violation of Section 13.08.040 of the Municipal Code. 3 G -1 Individuals or parties desiring to reforest City trees in their respective area, may submit a request to the General Services Director for consideration by the Commission that meets the following requirements: A. The proposed area must have clearly defined contiguous boundaries that include the trees proposed for removal and replacement, street addresses, block numbers, or other geographical information. B. Residential communities, neighborhoods or business organizations must submit a petition signed by a minimum of 60% of the property owners within the area defined for reforestation. A neighborhood is defined for the purposes of this policy as ten or more homes in any given area of the City. As an alternative, areas represented by a legally established community association empowered with CC & R's, may submit a resolution of the Board of Directors formally requesting a reforestation with a statement that all members of the community association have been officially notified and given an appropriate opportunity to respond before the Board voted on the request. C. A written agreement by the petitioning sponsor to pay 100% of the costs of the • removal and replacement of the public trees in advance of any removal activity. The actual removal and replanting will be coordinated by the General Services Department. The total costs shall include only the contractor's removal and replacement costs and be paid in advance of any removal actions. D. The replacement tree must be the designated street tree as prescribed by City Council Policy G -6, or the organization must request and have approval from the Commission of the designation of a different tree species. E. There shall be a minimum of a one- for -one replacement of all trees removed in reforestation projects. Replacement trees shall be a minimum size of 24" box trees. In the event that the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission does not approve the reforestation request, the applicant has the option to appeal the proposal to the City Council. The applicant shall have ten (10) calendar days to appeal the decision of the Commission, by letter, to the General Services Director. The General Services Director shall submit the appeal to the City Council for review within thirty (30) days of receipt of the appeal. N G -1 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. 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. [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 C� Amended— April 11, 19 94 Amended — February 26,1996 Amended —July 14,1997 Amended (Administratively) — November 24,1997 Amended - August 10, 1998 u� PRESERVATION OF SPECIAL TREES LANDMARK TREES Balboa Library Eucalyptus globulus Balboa Library Phoenix canariensis West Jetty (near Historical Marker) Phoenix canariensis Dover Drive at Westcliff 400 block Poinsettia Ocean Blvd. Corona del Mar Westcliff & Dover (Groves) Main Street (between East Bay Ave. and Balboa Blvd.) DEDICATED TREES No. Mariners Park (Marcie Schrouder) Mariners Park (Frank Tallman) No. City Hall grounds (Billy Covert) City Hall grounds (Walter Knott) City Hall grounds (Calif. Bicentennial) Las Arenas Park (Ed Healy) Mariners Park (Isy Pease) City Hall grounds (U.S. Bicentennial Freedom Tree) Buffalo Hills Park (Bahia Community Earth Day Celebration) Peninsula Park Attachment 1 G -1 Liquidambar styraciflua Eucalyptus corynocalyx Phoneix canariensis Eucalyptus globulus Ficus nitida Pinus radiata Pinus radiata Ficus benjamina Pinus halepensis Pinus halepensis Melaleuca linarifolia Pinus halepensis Harpephyllum caffrum Erythrina caffra (Gray Lunde Memorial Tree) Chamaerops humilis Cliff Drive Park Quercus agrifolia (Gary Lovell) Begonia Park (Cheryl Bailey Ringwald) Castaways Park (Jan Vandersloot) Peninsula Park (Don Perdue) Grant Howald Park 1 (Pete Munro) 2 (Mark Munro) Prunus cerasifera Quercus agrifolia Ravenea rivularis Metrosideros excelsus • 0 0 Ll DEDICATED TREES (contd.) Veterans Park (Rosemary Rae Hill Hansen) Mariners Park (N. Beach Sunrise Rotary Club) (Christopher & Marisha Thomposn) (Meghan & Camielle Thompson) NEIGHBORHOOD Lagenstroemia indica faueri Stenocarpus sinuatus Pinus eldarica Pinus eldarica 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 • Attachment 1 G -1 2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT TREE INSPECTION REPORT Name Address Phone Number Request Botanical Name Common Name Designated Street Tree Estimated Tree Value Damage Parkway: Concrete Brick _Turf _Other Comments Inspected by Recommendation Reviewed Date Date G -1 , -0 Attachment 2 1 • City Council Agenda Item No. 22 August 10, 1998 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: General Services Director SUBJECT: Council Policy C -1 (Retention or Removal of City Trees) Recommendation Adopt the amendments to the attached G -1 Policy as recommended by the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission. History The G -1 Policy was originally adopted in 1966 as a means of providing procedures • related to the retention or removal of City trees. After a lengthy study during 1996 -97, that included extensive input from citizens, community associations, and environmental groups, the Policy was rewritten by staff, reviewed by the Commission, and approved by Council in July 1997. During the past several.months, staff, including the City Manager, have met with various concerned parties regarding the tree policy issues that have developed over the past year. Minor issues have been analyzed and resulted in the recommendation of minor changes to the Policy. Each issue that surfaced has been thoroughly researched by staff and resolved as appropriate. As required by City policy, changes were initially referred to the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission. The Commission appointed a Tree Committee comprised of Chairman Pat Beek and Commissioners Val Skoro and Tom Tobin who reviewed the attached Policy with staff on July 16 before directing staff to place it on the Commission agenda. On August 4, 1998 the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission, at their normal monthly meeting, reviewed the attached amendments, accepted public comments, and forwarded the attached amended Policy to Council for review and approval. The proposed Policy is annotated in the standard form: i.e. underlined items represent additions, and strikeouts represent deletions to the current Policy. Attachment B �J Discussion Two citizens' groups have provided their recommendations regarding this matter: one, a tree advocacy group led by Dr. Jan Vandersloot, and two, the Community Associations Alliance, a group of associations primarily interested in the reforestation policy and supplemental tree trimming procedures. Although not all of the citizens' groups recommendations were included in the final recommendation, each will be addressed in this report. Recommended Policy Changes The following policy changes were accepted by the Parks Beaches and Recreation Commission. Public comments concerning these changes were favorable at the Commission public hearing of August 4. Each. of the following recommendations are included in the attached amended Policy. Page 2: Removal of City Trees The changes recommended by Dr. Vandersloot would improve the public notice process. Staff concurs. • Page 3: Removal of City Trees Dr. Vandersloot recommends a fourteen -day appeal period before any tree removal approved by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission occurs. This could result in a minimum of forty -four to sixty days before a routine tree removal could be scheduled. Staff has no objections to lengthening the appeal process. Page 4: Reforestation of City Trees The reforestation applicant would have an appeal option to the Council if the Commission did not approve a reforestation request. Approval of this amendment would allow the applicant a second opportunity for approval. Staff concurs. Page S: Tree Trinuning Standards / Supplemental Trinuning The requirement for a completed trimming request and full payment in advance will ensure a more orderly process for staff. Additionally, an individual member of a community association must obtain an association endorsement for supplemental tree trimming when an association is active in community matters. The latter ensures that active associations are kept informed of individual member requests. Staff concurs. Further Public Comments Several recommendations of the general public were not approved by the Parks, Beaches • and Recreation Commission. These are explained in detail by reference to the page number of the attached Policy to ensure the Council is knowledgeable of all related Policy issues. rAI Removal of City Trees. Page 2. second paragraph Dr. Vandersloot has proposed that the notice of a proposed tree removal be revised to commence thirty days prior to a Commission meeting rather than as the current Policy language which allows the period to start from the date that the tree removal report is completed and a removal warning sign is placed on the tree. The Commissioners' reasoning in retaining the current policy language is that all proposed tree removals (except dead or diseased trees) are included in the regular Commission agenda report. Dr. Vandersloot may object to any staff tree removal recommendation at a Commission meeting. Further, a proposed amendment to the current policy would allow an additional fourteen days to appeal any Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission removal approval. Staff opines that the available time periods provide ample opportunity for Dr. Vandersloot to evaluate any proposed tree removals or appeal a removal request if he needs additional time for consideration. Reforestation of City Ti-ees, Page 4. paragraph b. Elaine Linhoff has proposed additional language to the last sentence of paragraph b as follows: • 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, areas represented by a legally established community association empowered with CC &R's may submit a resolution of the Board of Directors formally requesting reforestation with a dated copy of the notification sent to members and a list of members who received notification. Members must have been given an 'appropriate opportunity: to respond before the board voted on the request. Staff does not concur with the underlined recommendation in that sufficient evidence would be provided by an association board of directors under the guidelines of the proposed tree Policy. Appeal of Reforestation Approval. Page 4. Currently the Policy provides for an appeal by the applicant to the City Council if an applicant's request for reforestation is denied by the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission. The proposed amendment included in the recommendation provides for time limits for the appeal and the appeal process. Dr. Vandersloot proposes that any reforestation approved by the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission may be appealed by "any interested party" within fourteen calendar days of the Commission action. Reforestation applicants generally will be community associations that agree in their application to sponsor a reforestation project. Since reforestation requests are associated with a small community, wherein the parkway trees primarily affect the residents as applicants, and the applicants are funding the removal and replacement of each tree, the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission declined to expand appeal rights to "any interested party ". Their reasoning was that although City trees, which are owned by all residents, were being reforested, the matter was a community decision that directly affected only the applicants. Supplemental Tree Trimming Procedures The current Policy permits the development of supplementary tree trimming procedures by staff. Several changes have also been proposed for the current Procedures as a result of meetings with the Community Association Alliance. A draft of these Procedures, which are separate from the Policy and were prepared by the General Services Department Staff, is attached for your review. Council does not have to act on these changes. Approval of the various items by staff would improve the supplemental tree trimming service and facilitate staff work. Attachment C is a revised Supplemental Tree Trimming form that will facilitate better coordination of supplemental tree trimming. Neither Attachment B nor C are part of the G -1 Policy, but are authorized by the Policy for development by myself for management purposes. Staff has provided Attachments B and C to illustrate the steps being taken to improve supplemental tree trimming procedures. Summary Staff has carefully reviewed and consolidated appropriate tree policy changes with the various groups and individuals with the objective of improving the current Policy. Very respectfully, David E. Niederhaus DEN /me Attachments: (A) Proposed Council Policy G -1 (B) Draft Supplemental Tree Trimming Procedures (C) Supplemental Tree Trimming Form LI • k • G -1 RETENTION OR REMOVAL OF CITY TREES The purpose of this policy is to establish definitive standards for the retention, removal, maintenance, reforestation, and supplemental trimming of City trees. City street trees are an important part of the character and charm of certain communities and regular care, trimming, maintenance and programmed replacement are necessary to preserve this charm while 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 maintained by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission ( "Commission "). •Special Trees shall be retained, unless there are exceptional problems which require their removal. Prior to consideration for removal of Special Trees, the General Services Director, or designee, shall prepare a report identifying and implementing specific treatment to retain the tree(s). If specific treatment is unsuccessful in retaining a 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. • During normal sidewalk, curb, and street repair activity requiring root pruning, all steps will be taken to retain Special Trees. If tree roots are to be pruned in association with hardscape improvements, sufficient timing in advance must be planned to ensure that pruning will not destabilize or kill the tree. If both sides of a tree's root are to be pruned, one side should be pruned a year in advance of the other side. ALL OTHER CITY TREES It is the City's policy to retain all other City trees unless removal is necessary for one of the following reasons: Attachment A G -1 • 1. The City tree has had a history of damaging public or private sewers, water mains, roadways, sidewalks, curbs, walls, fences, or foundations based on City records or other competent and reliable authority despite specific treatment by the City to alleviate repeated damage. 2. The City tree has had a repeated history of interfering with street or sidewalk drainage, despite specific treatment by the City to alleviate repeated damage. 3. The City tree is dead, diseased, or dying. 4. The tree(s) must comply with the criteria for reforestation as contained in the Reforestation of City Trees section of this policy. 5. The tree(s) have been requested to be removed in conjunction with a City Council- approved neighborhood or community association beautification program. REMOVAL OF CITY TREES • The initiation to remove any City tree may be made by the General Services . Department, Public Works Department, a legally established community association, or a private property owner by making application with the 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 above for consideration for removal. Simultaneously, a notice shall be provided to the affected property owner and the owners immediately adjacent to the applicant's property, and the appropriate community association if applicable. The Urban Forester shall determine whether in his/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 marked at least 30 days prior to the removal with a white X (using temporari, paint) and posted with a sin notifying the public that they have the right rt of appeal. The sign shall also note a staff contact. _n er-der to notify—the ^••'i >Qblieat large. 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 3 in the preceding section on All Other City Trees. An applicant, an adjoining property 2 u G -1 owner, or any interested party may appeal the decision of the General Services Director to the Commission, and if the appeal cannot be resolved at the Commission level, then the final resolution will be determined at the City Council level. The Commission and Council, in considering any appeal, shall determine whether the removal meets the criteria outlined in this policy, as well as any unique factors which may be pertinent to the removal or retention of tree(s). An appeal to the Council regarding a Commission tree decision must be received by the General Services Department no later than 14 calendar days following the date of the Commission decision. The General Services Department will delay any tree removals until the appeal period has expired or until the Council has acted upon the appeal. REFORESTATION OF CITY TREES It is recognized and acknowledged that City trees were planted many years ago and in some cases were planted with specific species that when fully mature create significant problems in curb, gutter, sidewalk or underground utilities. In certain neighborhoods, mature City street trees may encroach into blue water views from • public and private property depending on the length of time since the trees were last trimmed. Today, arborists have developed lists of tree species which are able to grow in restricted parkway areas without causing significant future problems to curb, gutter, sidewalk, utilities or views. The concept of systematically replacing mature trees which are creating hardscape and/or view problems and cannot be properly trimmed, pruned or modified to alleviate the problems they create, or those which are reaching their full life and are declining in health, is referred to as reforestation. As a City which understands the importance of trees and the beauty it brings to a community, the City desires to continually improve the urban forest through reforestation. In areas where City trees have been removed through City initiation, the City should expeditiously replace them with the appropriate designated City tree. Reforestation may also be initiated by residents utilizing the process outlined below. The City shall require the proper care and watering of replacement trees to ensure their proper growth and development as outlined in City Council Policy G- 6. Furthermore, no person shall tamper with replacement trees in violation of Section 13.08.040 of the Municipal Code. Individuals or parties desiring to reforest City trees in their respective area, may submit a request to the General Services Director for consideration by the Commission that meets the following requirements: a. The proposed area must have clearly defined contiguous boundaries that include the trees proposed for removal and 3 n G -1 • replacement, street addresses, block numbers, or other geographical information. b. Residential communities, neighborhoods or business organizations must submit a petition signed by a minimum of 60% bf 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, areas represented by a legally established community association empowered with CC & R's, may submit resolution of the Board of Directors- formally requesting reforestation with a statement that all members of the community association have been officially notified and given an appropriate opportunity to respond before the Board voted on the request. C.. A written agreement by the petitioning sponsor to pay 100% of the costs of the removal and replacement of the public trees in advance of any removal activity. The actual removal and replanting will be coordinated by the General Services Department. The total costs shall include only the contractor's removal and replacement • costs and be paid in advance of any-removal actions. d. The replacement tree must be the designated street tree as prescribed by City Council Policy G -6 or the organization must request and have approval from the Commission of the designation of a different tree species. e. There shall be a minimum of a one - for -one replacement of all trees removed in reforestation projects. Replacement trees shall be a minimum size of 24" box trees. In the event that the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission does not approve the reforestation request, the applicant has the option to appeal the proposal to the City Council. The applicant shall have ten calendar days to appeal the decision of the Commission, by letter, to the General Services Director. The General Services Director shall submit the apneal to the City Council for review within 30 days of receipt of the areal 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 4 c6 N • The City Council has adopted tree trimming cycles for trees of different ages and species. The current tree trimming cycles and trimming standards represent the maximum feasible frequency and extent of trimming given current fiscal conditions. Except as provided in this Section, trimming shall be in accordance with the standards of the International Society of Aboriculture (ISA). 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 sightidistance 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 eemmitmeat te fidily reimburse the City for any costs of trimming. 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. • Note: (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 11 Amended —March 14, 1994 Amended — April 11, 1994 Amended — February 26, 1996 Amended —July 14, 1997 Amended (Administratively) — Nov. 24, 1997 5 a PRESERVATION OF SPECIAL TREES LANDMARK TREES Balboa Library Eucalyptus globulus Balboa Library Phoenix canariensis West Jetty (near Historical Marker) Phoenix canariensis Dover Drive at Westcliff Liquidambar styraciflua 400 block Poinsettia Eucalyptus corynocalyx Ocean Blvd. Corona del Mar Phoneix canariensis Westcliff & Dover (Groves) Eucalyptus globulus Main Street (between East Bay Ficus nitida Ave. and Balboa Blvd.) DEDICATED TREES No. Mariners Park (Marcie Schrouder) Pinus radiata Mariners Park (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 NEIGHBORHOOD 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 • Attachment I 110 G_1 i 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 f� i Eucalyptus citriodora Eucalyptus citriodora Eucalyptus citriodora Eucalyptus citriodora Eucalyptus citriodora Eucalyptus citriodora 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: Comments Inspected by Recommendation Reviewed by Concrete Brick Turf Other Date Date G -1 Attachment 2 i� u • 1- .' . t 0 CITY COUNCIL POLICY G -1 Supplemental Tree Trimming Procedures Applicants PrepeFty owners, per the policy, have the option to have City trees, in their parkway, trimmed by incurring the costs of such services per the following procedures: 1. A request letter and completed "Supplemental Tree Trimming Form" must be submitted to the Urban Forester by the property owner or the board of a legally established community association specifying the number of City trees to be trimmed and the location of each tree by address. The cost of supplemental tree trimming will be $39 for each tree. Additionally, a check made payable to the City of Newport Beach must be included in the letter. 2. After the tree trimming request has been verified by a site visit, the trimming will be scheduled by the Urban Forester, normally within 60 days. The Urban Forester will group multiple requests in a geographic area prior to scheduling • supplemental tree trimming. A pre -trim meeting will be scheduled on site by staff and the City tree trimming contractor with an association board representative to ensure detailed directions are given to the City contractor. Pre -trim meetings will not be scheduled for individual tree trimming requests 'not related to an association request. However, tree trimming instructions may be sumbitted on the attached fonn. Trimming be delayed tintil ,.. affi,.ient number of requests are r-eeeived. s 3. Supplemental tree trimming shall be in accordance with the standards of the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) or with standards applied to a particular area prior to the adoption of the ISA standards in the City. These standards may include practices to enhance public and private views as necessary. 4. All supplemental trimming will be performed by the City tree trimming contractor, West Coast Arborists, with the supervision of the Urban Forester. Attachment B SUPPLEMENTAL TREE TRIMMING FORM • APPLICANT COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION NAME: (Community Association or Individual) Date: Please fill in the information requested below and return this form to the attention of John Conway, Urban Forester, City of Newport Beach, General Services Department, 3300 Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915, with a check(s) payable to the City of Newport Beach in the amount of $39.00 per tree. If the applicant resides in a community with an active homeowners' association, an ender-semenf approval from the association must be received as well. Property Owners Name, Address, Phone: • Address where tree(s) is /are located: If the tree(s) requested for trimming is not located in front of property owner's address, acknowledge notice given to the property owner closest to the tree by initialing: Yes No Trimming Instructions: Community Association Approval: Number of trees to be trimmed: Amount enclosed: Date received by the City: Note: The City will notify the property owner of the date of trimmine, however, a specific time of day cannot be set. E Attachment C \� Newport Beach City Council 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 '98 AUG —5 ° 3 :41 Re: G -1 Policy OFFICE FOF THr CFI1TY CLnE�RK Dear Mayor Edwards and members otheify C ounotl: H August 5,1998 The G -1 Policy that was adopted about a year ago after much debate and compromises is coming before you again for minor changes. During the year, some deficiences have appeared that need to be corrected. General Services staff met with two groups who are interested in trees and Dave Niederhaus incorporated some suggestions (but not all) in his presentation to the PBR Commission. The Commission approved his draft without discussing changes that were presented at the PBR meeting. One change I propose is as follows: REFORESTATION b . .......... CC&R's, may submit resolution of the Board of Directors formally requesting reforestation with a dated copy of the nolifcation sent to members and a list of to whom the notification was sent. Members must have been given an appropriate opportunity to respond before the Board voted on the request. According to Yvonne Housels of Harbor View Homes, that kind of information was given to the General Services Dept. for the first reforestation project. I think if those directions were included in the policy it would make it easier for a group wanting to reforest, and also prevent any accusations after the fact wherein people might say they were not informed. Also, since (according to the City Attorney's office) any decision of the Commission can be appealed to the City Council, the last paragraph in section REFORESTATION should be deleted because it is redundant. If it is left in, then the right of any interested person to appeal should be included. Sincerely, Elaine Linhoff 1760 E. Ocean Blvd. Balboa CA 92661 Phone: 949-673-8037 • \% City Tree Removal Process Request Initiated by Staff or Other Partv Evaluation and Written Report Completed by Urban Forester Evaluation by Park and Tree Superintendent Removal Approved or Disapproved by the General Services Director If removal is disapproved..: (Note 1) If Requesting Party is Informed of Disapproval of Removal and Right to Appeal Party May Appeal to the I P, B, & R Commission If removal is disapproved by the P, B, & R Commission Party May Appeal to the City Council is approved... (Note 1) Tree is Removed Following 30 day Posting Period Removal May be Appealed by Any Interested Party to the 13,13, & R Commission If removal is approved by the P, B, & R Commission Party May Appeal to the City Council 18 0 Notes: 1. Notice sent to affected property owner, adjacent property owners, and community association (if applicable) 2. Above procedures in accordance with Council Policy G -1 • 3. Removal request may take 30 -90 days for approval under normal circumstances 4. The majority of removal approvals or disapprovals are appealed to the PB &R Commission Prepared by General Services Department Attachment C June 16, 1999 0 PB& R Commission Agenda Item No. 13 February 1, 2000 TO: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission FROM: General Services Director SUBJECT: Revision of Council G -1 Tree Policy Recommendation: Approve in concept the proposed additions and deletions to the Council G -1 Policy (Retention and Removal of City Trees) • Background: Agenda reports from the December 7, 1999, January 4, 2000 (special study session), and January 13, (special study session) are attached to provide the background on the revision process. Discussion: The current revised policy is attached for your review. Very respectfully, David E. Niederhaus DEN/kr Attachments : (A) Proposed G -1 Tree Policy dated January 14, 2000 (B) PB &R Commission Agenda Item 10 of December 7, 1999 (C) PB &R Commission Agenda Item SS -1 of January 4, 2000 (D) PB &R Commission Study Session Minutes of January 4, 2000 (E) PB &R Commission Study Session Minutes of January 13, 2000 Attachment C Revised Proposal - January 14, 2000 G -1 RETENTION OR REMOVAL OF CITY TREES The purpose of this policy is to establish definitive standards for the retention, removal, maintenance, reforestation, and supplemental trimming of City trees. City street -trees are an important part of the character and charm of eer-tain ea-----••-_:f:es the entire C4. and 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 maintained administered by the Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission ( "Commission "). Special Trees shall be retained, unless there are a,.__p6a ..J 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 will shall be taken to retain Special Trees. If tree roots are to be pruned in association with hardseape- sidewalk, curb, and ug tter 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 a year 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 • 1 • in order to retain the tree. All proposed root pruning shall be assessed by the Ur G -1 ban Forester. 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 inter-ferin g with street or sidewalk drainage, despite specific treatment by the City to alleviate repeated damage. C. The City tree is dead, diseased, er- 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 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. ■w�rs�ene�rra�etrs�t; e- The tree(s) have been requested to be removed in conjunction with a City Council- approved Cft, commercial, neighborhood, or community association beautification program. G -1 • E. The City Manager, upon the advice of the Risk Manager, shall have the authority to remove trees for whatever reason to resolve claims against the City. 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 w4th 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 a-Re= shall be- provided a notice of the proposed tree removal to the affected property owner, and the owners immediately adjacent to the applicant's property, and the appropriate community association if applicable, (not applicable to the emergency removal of hazardous trees with trees under Item C above). The Urban Forester shall determine whether in his /her judgment additional specific treatment can be initiated to retain the tree. If a tree(s) is to be removed, the tree(s) will be marked . posted at least 30 days prior to the removal with a - Mte v (using temper -ar . p" ^ ~a pested 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 -3-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, and the appeal at the City CeuReil level. The Commission eunc-il, 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. An appeal to the Geunei4 _ ar-d s a Ce::f :s.pie tree decision must be received by General Servires Departrnen than 14 ralpmiar- days feHowk-ig the date of the Copmussiep. decision. The Gen verdiecsv cPcrrcrrcCict iY- ixi- delay - any - Inc removals Caxm- a the - appeal rperiod has expired er 3 until the rauR l was acted upon the appear The General Services Department G -1 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 REFORESTATION OF CITY TREES The concept of systematically re 1p acing 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 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 ereate sigpdfie an�t problems i cause damage to curb, gutter, sidewalk or underground utilities. In certain neighborhoods, mattire 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. T-e a , Arborists have developed continue to develop lists of tree species which are able to will grow in restricted parkway areas without causing significant future preblepAs damage to curb, gutter, sidewalk, utilities or views. The concept of .._. ^_ ll —.b the 'a4l life and are de is referred te as- As a City which understands the importance of trees and the beauty it-they brings to a community, the City desires to continually improve the urban forest through reforestation. In areas where City trees have been removed through City initiation, the City should expeditiously replace them with the appropriate designated City tree. Reforestation may also be initiated by residents utilizing the process outlined below. no ger^en shallzamper sv:th — laeement trees '� in on of Section 13.08 .040 of ode. 4 G -1 • Individual private property owners as well as community associations, may pply 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 treeW proposed for removal and replacement, street addresseUs 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, 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 applicable. D. A written agreement must be submitted by the petitioning sponsor individual private property owners or rgroup) 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"sZ for reforestation must shall be the designated street tree(1 as prescribed by City Council Policy G -61 or the organization must request and obtain approval from the Commission of the designation of a different tree • G -1 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 24-' 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. The City shall require the proper care and waterin g of replacement trees to ensure their proper growth and development as outlined in City Council Policy G -6. Furthermore, no person shall tamper with replacement trees in violation of Section 13.08.040 of the Municipal Code. All encroachment permits (permits for private property development which has encroached upon the City right of way) that involve the removal or replacement of City trees must be specifically noticed by the property owner to City staff prior to the building and /or demo 12ermit 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 pav 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. Cel r. ■ Y_ ■ Epp-in M.Waler. The decision of the Commission on reforestation requests will be considered final unless called up by at least one Councilmember or the City Manager. The City shall require the proper care and waterin g of replacement trees to ensure their proper growth and development as outlined in City Council Policy G -6. Furthermore, no person shall tamper with replacement trees in violation of Section 13.08.040 of the Municipal Code. All encroachment permits (permits for private property development which has encroached upon the City right of way) that involve the removal or replacement of City trees must be specifically noticed by the property owner to City staff prior to the building and /or demo 12ermit 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 pav 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. Cel G -1 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. [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 FA Amended - April 11, 1994 Amended - February 26,1996 Amended - July 14,1997 Amended (Administratively) - November 24,1997 Amended - August 10, 1998 0 0 PB& R Commission Agenda Item No. December 7, 1999 TO: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission FROM: General Services Director SUBJECT: Revision of Council G -1 Tree Policy Recommendation: Approve in concept the proposed additions and deletions to the Council G -1 Policy (Retention and Removal of City Trees). Background: On April 12, 1999, the City Council directed staff to review the G -1 Policy (Retention and Removal of City Trees) as a result of citizens complaints about the difficulty in administering the tree policy and obtaining approval for the removal and replacement of City trees. • Staff prepared the attached report (Tree Policy Analysis) for the June 28, 1999 Council meeting. Subsequent Council direction was to proceed with a public review of the Policy to improve the workability of the Policy as well as provide solutions to tree problems. Staff prepared draft additions /deletions to the Policy which were reviewed by the City Manager. Following this review, a series of three meetings were held with various interested parties to assess the Policy changes and accept public input and comments. A final policy review by the staff and the City Manager resulted in the attached draft Policy. The Tree Subcommittee of the Commission then reviewed the changes and the decision was made to place the revised draft policy on the agenda for the December meeting of the Commission. Discussion: The majority of the changes are self explanatory, clarify the language of the original policy, or define procedures or time limits related to the retention or removal of City trees. • The definition developed for hazardous, diseased, or dying trees is a good example of the clarification of the wording (Page 3). The proposed Policy places the major emphasis on the decision of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for tree removal requests in that appeals to the Council of the Commission decision may only be proposed by the Council or City Manager (Page 3). The most significant change to the Policy is the application of the reforestation procedures to the replacement and removal of single trees. The current Policy was originally crafted to apply to community associations requests. The single tree reforestation modification should ease some of the current frustration felt by individual citizens who want only to address an individual tree problem, although in areas with legally established or CR &R based community associations, an endorsement from the association is required of the individual requesting tree removal (Page 4). A second significant change to the reforestation policy is the upgrading of the size of replacement trees from a 24" boxed specimen to a 36" boxed specimen. While this change will result in a doubling, or in some cases tripling of the cost of the replacement tree to, the applicant, it does ensure the planting of the most mature trees available in the City parkways (Page 5). The clarification of the use of Encroachment Permits as related to tree removals, addresses an ongoing problem for staff and relates this activity back to a reforestation process with the associated requirements (Page 6). • The limitations of two Supplemental Trimmings of trees in one year prior to the consideration of reforestation will ensure all adequate measures have been taken before removal of mature trees are considered (Page 6). A number of additions to the Dedicated Trees list are included in the proposed Policy. These additions represent trees planted over the past year (Attachment 1, Page 1). In summary, staff has attempted to draft changes to the Policy that would ensure the continued quality and size of the urban forest while addressing and facilitating the handling of individual or group tree removal or trimming requests. Very respectfully, S -A-� David E. Niederhaus DEN/kr Attachments : (A) Council Agenda Item June 28, 1999 (Tree Policy Analysis) (B) Proposed Council G -1 Policy (Retention and Removal of City Trees) I • PB& R Commission Agenda Item No. January 4, 2000 TO. FROM: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission General Services Director SUBJECT: Revision of Council G -1 Tree Policy Recommendation: Approve in concept the proposed additions and deletions to the Council G -1 Policy (Retention and Removal of City Trees). Background: The agenda item of the Commission of December 7, 1999 agenda provides the extensive history and revisions to the Policy (Attachment A). After a lengthy discussion and public review session on December 7, the Commission continued the matter to a future study session or regular meeting. This decision was partially based on the erroneous public testimony that the City Manager had no objections to a delay by the Commission of the consideration of the proposed changes to the tree policy. The City goal was and continues to be to forward the proposed policy to the City Council at the earliest date in order to resolve at least 41 pending tree removal requests that have accumulated since July 1999. Discussion. Staff has revised the proposed policy (Attachment B) as a result of Commission and public comments on December 7 as follows: Page One, Fourth Paragraph — "and/or injurious to the tree" has been changed to "and/or critical to the health of the tree." Pape Two ParaPage Two Para ah Add individual word: "Water or sewer stoppage that results from tree roots and causes significant documented private propeiU damage " Page Two Paragraph D Delete the following sentence: Any trees removed must comply with the criteria for reforestation as contained in the • Reforestation of City Trees section of this policy. Page Three First Paragranh Add to Paragraph E: The City Manager, upon the advice of the Risk Manager, shall have the authority to remove trees for whatever reason to resolve claims against the City. Page Three, Third Paragraph. Third Line Add underlined phrase: "- outlined above in the All Other Trees section for consideration for removal." Page Four, First Paragraph "The General Services Department will delay any tree removals for at least 14 calendar days following the date of the Commission decision in order —" Page Five, First Paragraph Add two words: "Individual yrivate property owners, as well as community associations, may -" Page Five, Paragraph A . Add the sentence: (Applies to individual and group requests). Page Five. Paragraph B Add the sentence: (This paragraph applies only to group requests and not those of an individual private property owner). Page Five, Paragraph D Add the underlined words: "A written agreement by the petitioning sponsor (individual private property owner or ou to pay -" Page Six, Paragraph E Add the sentence: (This section applies to individual and group requests) Page Six, Paragraph G Add the sentence: (This paragraph applies to individual and group requests) • • Page Six, Fourth Paragraph Delete entire paragraph xxr [ric- cvcixs - Page Six, Fifth Para rg anh Add the sentence: The decision of the Commission on reforestation requests will be considered final unless called up by at least one Councilmember or the City Manager. The above changes have been reviewed by the City Manager. Staff has noticed the intent to conduct another Commission public review of the policy changes to all interested parties. Very respectfully, David E. Niederhaus • DEN/kr Attachments: A) PB &R Commission Agenda Item 10 of December 7, 1999 B) Proposed G -1 Tree Policy City of Newport Beach Parks, Beaches. and Recreation Commission Special Study Session Minutes January 4, 2000 Meeting Convened at 8:OOPM By Chairman Beek Present: Beek, Franklin, Skoro, Pfaff, McFarland, Sinclair Absent: Tobin (Excused himself at 8:05PM) Staff: David E. Niederhaus, General Services Director Chair Beek. opened the meeting by explaining her knowledge of the history of the Council G -1 tree policy. Further she provided the Commission her revised version of the policy and explained why she felt changes were needed. Public Comments • Elaine Linhoff, Balboa Peninsula, noted four concerns about the current proposed policy: one, that Special Trees should be root pruned at one year intervals, two, objected to the phrase "having their residential views affected ", tree reforestation proposal should be two for one on tree replacement, and finally, tree appeals should be allowed by any interested party. Dr. Alden Kelly, Certified Arborist, volunteered to help rewrite the policy and •' "value" trees for the City. He opined that reforestation was actually the planting of trees and should not be related to tree removal. Dr. Vandersloot, Newport Heights, questioned why certain interested parties needed to be included further in the policy revisions. He felt that the proposed policy was too liberal toward tree removal. The General Services Director noted that he had prepared an agenda item for Commission review at the regular meeting that addressed the comments of the public and the Commission made at the last regular scheduled Commission meeting of December 7, 1999. That agenda item had subsequently been deleted from the regular agenda by the Chairman. It had been subsequently reinstated to a Special Study Session by the Chairman, however, only 3 pages of the extensive report had been forwarded to the Commission. Director Niederhaus felt it was impossible to discuss the proposed policy because the Commission did not have copies of the proposed policy. The General Services Director noted he had only received the Chairman's proposed policy version (attached) at the start of the meeting and objected to • making significant format changes at this stage of review of the policy, particularly since the majority of the interested parties were not present. 0 It was decided that Chairman Beek and the General Services Director would meet on January 10 to discuss any changes to the proposed policy. Further, copies of the original agenda item would be forwarded to all Commissioners by January 7. A second study session was then scheduled for January 13, at 7PM in the Council Chambers to discuss the proposed policy. The Special Study session adjourned at 9:30PM. Submitted by: David E. Niederhaus General Services Director Attachment: (A) PB &R Commission Chairman Pat Beek G -1 Policy Recommendations (updated) �J �u 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 prudent replacement of city trees are necessary to preserve this charm and to protect public and private property. A. 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 they have been identified as: 1. Dead 2. Diseased • 3. Dying 4. Hazardous requiring their removal. See Definitions page 2. Prior to consideration for removal of Special Trees, the General Services Director, or designee, shall prepare a report identifying specific treatment to retain the tree(s) along with a schedule of implementation. If a specific treatment is unsuccessful in retaining a tree(s) then a full report shall be made to the Commission before any further action for removal is considered. Consideration for removal of Special Trees shall be met under the following conditions: 1. 2. 3. 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 pnrned in association with sidewalk, curb, and gutter improvements, sufficient timing 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 shall be pruned 6 months to a year in advance of the other side. Timing will depend on the tree(s) species and related factors. If root pruning methods are not practical and /or critical to the health of the tree(s), then altemate or special hardscape improvements shall be installed by the City in order to retain the tree(s). Note: the Urban Forester shall assess All proposed root pruning. 0 B. ALL OTHER CITY TREES It is the City's policy to retain all other City trees unless removal is necessary for one or more of the following reasons: 1. The City tree has had a proven and repeated history (defined as two or more occurrances within an 18 -month period) of damaging public or private sewers, water mains, roadways, sidewalks, curbs, walls, fences, underground utilities, or foundations. Proven and repeated history will be based on City records or other competent and reliable authority despite specific attempts by the City to alleviate repeated damage. Water or sewer stoppage that results from tree roots causing documented damage to private property shall be sufficient criteria for tree removal. 2. The City tree has had a repeated history (defined as two or more occurrences within an 18 -month period) of interference with street or sidewalk drainage, despite specific attempts by the City to alleviate repeated damage. 3. The City tree is dead, diseased, dying or hazardous, and presents a liability to the City. Definitions Diseased trees — 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 — those trees that have no prospect of recovery. Hazardous trees- those trees that are defective, have a full 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 within the tree, parts of the tree most likely to fail, target where imminent personal injury or property damage may result with tree failure, and action necessary to abate the hazard. 4. Upon the advice of the Risk Manager, the City Manager shall have the authority to remove tree(s) to resolve claims against the City. 5. The removal of the tree(s) has been requested by the City Council in conjunction with a City beautification program. • Procedure for Removal of City Trees • The action to remove any City tree may be initiated by: 1. General Services Department 2. Public Works Department 3. A legally established community association 4. A private property owner This action will be in the form of an application (written request) made to the General Services Department. 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 for removal. At this time the Urban Forester shall also determine whether in his/her judgment specific treatment can be initiated to retain the tree. If the results from the inspection meet the criteria for removal, the Urban Forester shall provide a notice to the affected property owner and the owners immediately adjacent to the applicant's property or the appropriate community association if applicable. Exception: This action does not apply to the emergency removal of hazardous tress as set forth in Item 3 under All Other Trees. Once a decision has been made by the General Services Director to remove a tree(s) then the applicant, the adjoining property owners, and the community association (if applicable) shall be notified within 30 days of the proposed removal. Note- If a decision is made to retain a tree(s) then the General Services Director will notify in writing the applicant, the adjoining property owner, and the community association (if applicable) within 30 days. When a tree(s) is to be removed, the tree(s) shall 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. The General Services Director, or his designee, shall report all trees recommended for removal in the Trees Division Activities Report during the regularly scheduled Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission meeting. . Exception: This does not apply to those trees categorized in Item 3 under All Other Trees. Right to Appeal An applicant, an adjoining property owner, or any interested party may appeal the recommendation of the General Services Director to the Commission. The Commission, in considering any appeal, shall determine whether the removal meets Policy criteria, as well as any unique factors that may be relevant to the removal or retention of the 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 appealed tree removals for at least 14 calendar days from the Commission's decision in • order to allow time for a Councilmember or the City Manager to call the item. • REFORESTATION OF CITY TREES Reforestation is the concept of systematically replacing trees which 1. are creating hardscape and/or view problems and cannot be properly trimmed, pruned or modified to alleviate the problems they create. 2. Have reached their full life and are declining in health. City trees were planted many years ago and in some cases were planted with specific species that when fully mature created significant damage in curbs, gutters, sidewalks or underground utilities. In certain neighborhoods, City street trees may encroach into blue water views from public and private property as a result of tree trimming intervals or the age and height of the trees. Aborists have developed lists of tree species that will grow in restricted parkway areas without causing damage to curbs, gutters, sidewalks, utilities or views. As a City that 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 shall expeditiously replace them with the appropriate designated City tree. • City residents as individual property owners, as well as community associations may apply for single or multiple tree reforestation. Individuals or groups desiring to reforest City trees in their respective area, may submit a written request to the General Services Director for consideration by the Commission that meets the following requirements: 1. 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 identifying geographical information. 2. Residential communities, neighborhoods or business organization must submit a petition signed by a minimum of 60% of the property owners within the area defined for reforestation. Note: a neighborhood is defined for the purpose of this policy as ten or more homes in any given area of the City. As an alternative, areas represented by a legally established community association empowered with CC &R's may submit a resolution of the Board of Directors formally requesting a reforestation. Included shall be 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 prior to Board approval. • 9 Individuals not residing within a CC &R based community association may submit individual requests for single or multiple tree reforestation by presenting a petition with a minimum of 60% of the residents within a one block distance in both directions from the reforestation site. Included shall be an endorsement of the appropriate homeowners' association, if applicable. 4. A written agreement shall be provided by the petitioning sponsor to pay 100% of the costs to remove and replace the public trees. This must be received in advance of any removal activity. Actual removal and replanting will be coordinated by the General Services Department. Total costs shall include the contractor's removal and replacement costs and shall be paid in advance of any removal actions. 5. The replacement tree(s) shall be the designated street tree as prescribed by City Council Policy G -6. Any change to the designated street tree shall be heard by the Commission as a formal request to change the designated street tree species. 6. There shall be a minimum of a one - for -one replacement of all trees removed in reforestation projects. Replacement trees shall be a minimum 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 removal site as prescribed by City • Council Policy G -6, then the replacement tree shall be planted in the same neighborhood. 7. If within a legally established community association, an individual must obtain unanimous approval of those who will have their residential views affected. The decision of the Commission on reforestation requests will be considered final unless called up by at least one Councilmember or the City Manager. Note: 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 (private property development which have encroached upon City right of way) involving the removal or replacement of City trees must be identified by the property owner prior to the building and/or demo permit process. The proposed construction plans ;must indicate preservation of existing City trees wherever possible (exempt: dead, dying, or in an advance state of decline). If the proposed developpment, 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 costs as indicated in the reforestation requirements. • • City of Newport Beach Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission Special Study Session Minutes January 13, 2000 Meeting Convened at 7:15PM By Chairperson Beek at Council Chambers Present: Beek, Skoro, Pfaff, McFarland Absent: Tobin, Franklin Staff: David E. Niederhaus, General Services Director Public Comments Dr. Vandersloot questioned two street tree removals on East Bluff Drive. Staff explained the removal proposal. Dr. Vandersloot noted his interest in appealing the removal request. He also requested an update on an earlier tree removal request for Santa Ana Avenue. Dr. Alden Kelly also questioned the proposed tree removals on East Bluff Drive 0 G -1 Tree Policy The Commission discussed the various changes to the current proposed tree policy. The attached letter of Commission Franklin was also reviewed. A number of changes were made to the proposed policy as a result of Commissioners' comments or those of the public. A copy of the amended policy is attached. Meeting adjourned as of 9:50PM. Respectfully submitted by: David E. Niederhaus General Services Director Attachment: (A) Commissioner Franklin's letter dated January 11, 2000 (B) Amended G -1 Tree Policy •• JAN 11 2000 15 10 FR PAC [FIC LIFE To: Chair Pat Beek From: Commissioner Marc Franklin RE: Revised GI Policy Date: 1 /11100 949 ?21 5130 TO 96500 ?4? P.02iO3 On a philosophical note, I feel the major change to the revised GI is the addition of "single tree tCforestation ". I agree with Mr. Niederhaus that this in practice really just adds an "aesthetic' criterion to the GI. You can already remove a single tree for the non- aesthetic reasons enumerated in the existing policy. As a result, I am inclined to oppose the revision when we actually vote on the matter. Nevertheless, since the revision might be adopted, I would like to comment on its details as well. I do admit that the wording represents an improvement in many respects over Ashall the existing policy. Here arc my comments, based on the underlined draft dated 12113: age 2, Item A. Should we note at the end of the paragraph "Regular drainpipe clearing not constitute such damage, nor shall damage attributed to a failure by the owner to perform such maintenance." /Page 2, Item B. I would modify "interfering" to "significant interference'; otherwise a t/ photo of small puddle will suffice for removal. i Page 3, REMOVAL.... In the two areas where Paragraph C is exempted I wonder if Paragraph E should be exempted as well. 1 am not for exemptions, but I think adding E is in the spirit of having C exempted (both City actions without a requirement for PB &R review). Page 5, Item B. The underlined phrase adds the concept of residential view, but every / house has a view of something. Do we mean ocean view? Sweeping view? As was Y/ pointed out at our last meeting, any house that can view the tree would need notice, as their vievy would be affected by removing the tree. I am OK with it, if that is what we mean. Pagc 5, Item C. Two issues. In the petition sentence, I think we should note 60% "approvar, otherwise someone could submit enough signatures on a petition, even if / they were all opposed, and we would have to approve it! I don't understand the last Jline... "...endorsement of appropriate Homeowner's Association if applicable ". The paragraph says it is for individuals NOT residing in a CC &R based community /S�InGc association. What am I mis ;ing, is there a subtic-diffcrence? age 5, Item E. change "...the designated street tree..." to "...a designated street tree ", CSC we are going to a system where there will be more than one tree in many cases. age 6, Item G. I do not understand this paragraph. It conflicts with B on the previous G9-1- page, and [.am confused. What is it supposed to do? • qI 0 0 • • • JAN 11 2000 15:11 FR PACIFIC LIFE 949 721 5130 TO 96500747 P.03iO3 age 6. After the sentence "The Decision of the Commission on reforestation requests will be considered final unless..." I think we should add the verbiage found on page 4 that there will be a 14 day delay before removal. Page C The paragraph that starts "All encroachment..." has the phrases `whenever possible" and "wherever possible ". I don't like these phrases, they add nothing, and I think they should be removed. You are either supposed to do something or not. These two phrases create a loophole someone could drive a truck through! Also, this section should include remedics/frnes /penalties for failure to comply. Page 7: The underlined sentence says "However, since these practices often require "topping" or severe disfiguring of a tree and arc often aesthetically displeasing and injurious to a tree, reforestation shall he considered once ' eh occurred more than twice within a one year period." e t e bolded phrase me ? Who will consider it? Do we mean to add it to the ores a on avrng this sentence here so prominently makes it seem like an automatic removal right. It seems out of place. These are my comments. I have a conflict and can't make the study session, but please introduce them into the public record. Sincerely, Marc Franklin Commissioner, PB &R Cc: Dave Niederhaus JO ** TOTAL PAGE.03 ** CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission D r a f t Regular Meeting /Study Session February 1, 2000 - 7pm 13. Revision of City Council G -1 Policy — Retention & Removal of City Trees - Chair Beek reminded audience that they would have three minutes to speak one time. Director Niederhaus stated that this is the 10" meeting to discuss proposed changes to the Policy. During the past 7 months there have been only two removals, both due to extensive damage to private property. There are 68 pending tree removals that are awaiting approval of this Policy. He stated that there is no way to have a perfect G -1 Policy, but feels that this Policy trys to balance the concerns of the property owners as well as those who would retain trees at any cost. He stated that the current Policy has been reviewed and amended numerous times, and appreciates the time and effort of all those who have contributed and believes that this is a much stronger, more flexible policy. He stated that this is the 12" hour for this proposed policy as it will be reviewed by Council at a next study session on February 8. Director Niederhaus suggested that members of the Tree Subcommittee be available at the Council study session. Director Niederhaus stated that he does not recommend going through the policy page by page, but rather address specific issues as they surface during discussion. Commissioner McFarland asked why staff is foregoing tree removal requests that were made 5 months ago, and why are they not being reviewed under. the approved G -1 policy rather than waiting for the new policy. Director Niederhaus stated that Council directed that all routine removals be held in abeyance until the new policy is approved. The only reason that the two tree appeals were on the agenda tonight is because the appeals dealt with safety issues. He noted that the majority of the 68 requests do not meet the removal criteria of the old policy, but may under the new policy. Commissioner Franklin asked if the two trees appeals under discussion tonight would have just been removed without Commission approval under the new policy. Director Niederhaus opined that the trees would probably have been removed as they were deemed to be significant safety issues by the City Traffic Engineer. Director Niederhaus stated that residents are becoming more frustrated at the continued delay of the approval of the new policy and that is why the General Services Department is receiving an increased influx of requests for reforestations. Chair Beek opened the Public hearing Alden Kelly, SPON Arborist, suggested that there is a fundamental flaw with this policy and that the flaw is that this is a removal of trees policy and that the title should be changed to Operation Clear Cut. He stated that this policy will not retain trees. He stated that it is his belief that this policy is not functional and is only for people to remove trees. It is totally skewed for easy removal, and to solve our conscience, is called reforestation. This policy should be scrapped. • • 0 Bob Wynn, former City Manager, stated this is a very serious issue and appreciates all the hard work going into putting this new policy together and asked the Commission to support the amendments. He stated that after some time has passed and if the new policy is not working then it can be reviewed again. Obviously, if the Council wanted the Commission to review it - it was because it is not working. Elaine Linhoff, Peninsula Point, thought that it should be mandatory to notify all association members in an association where a reforestation is going to occur. Objected to two supplemental trimmings provision before tree removals. She felt it was time that this City has a comprehensive tree policy and suggested that there is not an overall policy to create and maintain a urban forest in the City of NB. Suggested that Commission start working on incorporating these policies. Believes that that there should never have been a consolidation of the General Services and Parks Departments because of a lack of checks and balances on tree removals. Kent Moore, Corona del Mar, supports the policy changes as a member of the Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce and a resident. He noted there are diseased trees that are buckling the sidewalks. Also he is looking to underground utilities, but the City will never look at that when there is extensive tree root growth. Urged support of the policy. Barry Eaton, a Director of the Community Associations Alliance, composed of 20 associations and over 5000 homes on the east side of the bay, noted parkway trees have become a major view issue. Thanked staff for resolving their concerns and urges support • of the policy. There are times when individual trees do become concerns for homeowners and there should be remedies. Jan Vandersloot, 2221 E. 16th Street, believes that the Commission will be deluged with requests for removals. With the current policy the Commission is only hearing 2 requests a month and so the policy was working. Only two appeals went to Council. All reforestation requests will have to go to Commission. Abide by the basic premise, and that is this City loves trees, and that this is a weakness in this proposed policy and will allow for a more liberal removal of trees by residents. Urged that the Commission not remove trees just because of some hardscape damage. Recommended that the posted tree notice show the original date of the 30 days notice. He believes that this City lacks a bonafide tree policy and it should be recommended to the Council. City should avail themselves of the use of arborist Kelly. The further noted that the Tree Division and Parks Divisions should not be part of one department. Linda Radzner, Corona del Mar, supports the policy - loves living in CDM, but does see the damage that some of the tree roots do to the sidewalks. Her sidewalk is buckling again, and the street tree is causing a lot of damage. The Edison company is much more responsive to tree trimming then the City. She advocates that individual property owners should have more control over their property. Phil Arst, Pres. CAA, comprised primarily of view oriented communities, associations spends a lot of money on trimming, believes that the General Services Director is a • professional who will look at requests in a responsible manner. Believes that a lot of the problems lie with the decision to plant Ficus trees many years ago. He urged support of the new tree policy and believes that staff has taken a reasonable approach by giving homeowners some rights. Tim Stephens, Corona del Mar, also echoed the previous comments and urges support of the revised policy. He looks at the G -1 policy as the great compromise so that both sides can come to some agreement. I* Jeanne Wanlass, Baycrest, asked that PVC water pipe be installed with all new tree plantings to encourage deep watering and rooting. Mr.Niederhaus, stated that this is occasionally done, but noted that all trees are planted with root barriers to ensure deep rooting. Chair Beek closed the public hearing Motion by Commissioner Skoro for staff to forward G -1 Policy as revised to City Council for their review and approval. Commissioner Franklin stated that he is not in favor of the motion because the amended policy will allow removal based on aesthetic reasons. He believes that the Council should know of the problems with the policy. Also noted that the Commission should not support this new policy. The current policy works fine. Motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Pfaff, Skoro, Tobin Nay: Franklin, McFarland Abstain: Beek • •