HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/7/2002 - Agenda PacketMAY 7, 2002
PB &R COMMISSION
MEETING AGENDA
®ORDER AND ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES (Enclosed)
. April 2, 2002
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Parks, Beaches Et Recreation Commission
Tuesday, May 7, 2002- 7pm
City Council Chambers
AGENDA
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Members of the public are invited to comment on non - agenda items of public interest. Speakers are
limited to three minutes.
CONSENT CALENDAR
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
All matters listed under Consent Calendar (1 -4) are considered by the Commission to be routine and will all be enacted by one motion in
the form listed below. The commission members have received detailed staff reports on each of the items recommending approval. There
will be no separate discussion of these items prior to the time the commission votes on the motion unless members of the commission,
staff, or the public request a specific item to be discussed and /or removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action.
Members of the public who wish to discuss a Consent Calendar item should come forward to the lectern upon invitation by the Chair, state
their name and Consent Calendar item number, and complete the sign -in card provided at the podium. Speakers are limited to three
minutes on agenda items.
1. Correspondence
Fm: Kathy Hamilton, April 24, 2002
2. Park and Tree Division
Report of Park and Tree Division during April and upcoming projects in May.
03. Community Services
Report of Recreation Et Senior Services during April and upcoming projects in May.
4. Tree Donation
Accept donation of one Gold Medallion tree from Claudia Owen, Stop Polluting Our Newport
(SPON) to be located at Gateway Park.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
5. Main Street Ficus Tree Removals
• Discussion /approval of General Services Director's recommendation to remove 15 Ficus nitida
trees on Main Street that are designated "Special /Landmark trees."
• Discussion /approval of General Services Director's recommendation to remove 10 Ficus nitida
trees on Main Street that are designated "All Other Trees."
• Discussion/ approval of planting 32 Coral Gum as replacement trees on Main Street.
6. Committee Reports -
• Park Development (Allen, Beek, Skoro) • Rec Et Open Space Element (Beek, Macfarland, Franklin)
• Finance Sk2m, Allen, Beek) • Recreation Activities (Enelebrecht. Franklin, Tobin,)
• Seniors (Allen, Englebrecht, Tobin)
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Matters which Commissioners may wish to place on a future agenda or raise for discussion.
ADJOURNMENT
40
(Item 1)
(Item 2)
(Item 3)
(Item 4)
(Item 5)
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
• Parks, Beaches Ft Recreation Commission
Regular Meeting
April 2, 2002- 7pm
CONVENED AT 7:03pm
ROLL CALL
Commissioners
Present: Allen, Beek, Macfarland, Skoro, Tobin
Absent: Englebrecht, Franklin (excused)
Staff Present: Marcelino Lomeli, Park & Tree Superintendent
Andrea McGuire, Recreation Superintendent
Teri Craig, Administrative Assistant
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion by Commissioner Beek to approve the minutes of March 5, 2002. Motion carried by
acclamation.
Public Comments
None
Consent Calendar
. 1. Item nulled by Commissioner Beek
2. Park and Tree Division
3. Community Services
4. Bench and Tree Donation
Accept donation from Laura and James Curtis of a bench and a Purple Leaf Plum tree to be
located at Begonia Park.
5. Bench Donation
Accept donation of one bench from Vicki Bowinkel to be located on the lawn area of
Corona del Mar State Beach.
1. Correspondence
To: Dave Hibbard, March 12, 2002
Fm: Dave Hibbard, February 12, 2002
Commissioner Beek asked staff if anything else needed to be followed up on Mr. Hibbard's
complaint of the positioning of the soccer goals at Irvine Terrace Park
Superintendent McGuire stated that this will continue to be a problem for the homeowner.
Motion by Chair Skoro to accept items 1- 5 of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried by
acclamation.
Parks, Beaches It Recreation Commission
Regular Meeting
April 2, 2002
• Page 2
DISCUSSION ITEMS
6. City Street Tree Designation Change — Superintendent Lomeli stated that staff
recommended the change of the current designated street tree for Blue Water Drive, Salt
Air Drive , Salt Air Circle, Island View Drive and Lighthouse Lane from the Chitalpa
tashkentensis to the Magnolia grandiflora to promote uniformity but also because the
Chitalpa has not grown well. He stated that staff has attempted to improve the condition
of the street trees without significant results. He stated that Association is making the
request and that the existing seven Chitalpa trees will be relocated to Grant Howald Park.
Chair Skoro opened the public discussion
Gail Funnel, representing the Homeowners Association stated that the Chitalpas were
planted in spring 1999 and that they have been nurturing them without success.
Chair Skoro closed the public discussion
Motion by Commissioner Macfarland to approve staff's recommendation to change the
current designated street tree for Blue Water Drive, Salt Air Drive , Salt Air Circle, Island
View Drive and Lighthouse Lane from the Chitalpa tashkentensis to the Magnolia
grandiflora. Motion carried by acclamation.
• 7. Castaways Park Grant - Superintendent Lomeli stated that the Castaways Committee chaired
by Bo Glover has been meeting for over 2 years. He stated that their intent is to plant native
plants that offer color, texture and diversity to the Park.
Bo Glover, Chair, stated that the Committee's goal is to restore Castaways Park to a self
sustaining ecological park. He distributed an area map of the park and noted that area #3
was the only area with irrigation.
Mr. Glover stated that $25,000 had been raised from public donations. He noted that the full
budget was for $230,000; $140,000 from grants; and $75,000 from the City.
Chair Skoro thanked Mr. Glover for his work.
_Motion by Chair Skoro to finalize the grant proposal to the California Coastal Conservancy
and to forward a resolution to the City Council for their approval of the grant project. Motion
carried by acclamation.
5. Committee Reports
Finance - Chair Skoro stated that they had met with staff the City Manager to discuss the
budget.
Park Development - Commissioner Allen stated that she hoped for a meeting in April.
• Recreation 6t Open Space Element - None.
Recreation Activities - Superintendent McGuire stated that the Committee would meet
April 17 to discuss field allocation procedures with youth sports groups.
Seniors - None
Parks, Beaches Et Recreation Commission
Regular Meeting
April 2, 2002
• Page 3
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Field Allocation Procedures — May
Castaways - Status of Grant Funding
ADJOURNMENT - 8:02pm
Submitted by:
Teri Craig, Admin Assistant
•
•
•
2735 Ocean Boulevard
Corona del Mar, CA 92625
April 24, 2002
Andrea McGuire
Recreation Supervisor
City of Newport Beach
P. O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658
Dear Andrea,
iz
First, thank you so much for all of your attention to "the circus" at Lookout Point
here on Ocean Boulevard. The wedding coordinator does not appear to be too
busy. Of course, the .wedding season has not begun. We shall see. I have
confidence that all of your efforts and ours will not be in vain.
• As we talked about before, there is a problem with people using Lookout Point as
their cocktail lounge at sunset I enjoy a glass myself, but not at the public
Lookout area. So many people bring bottles of wine (some hidden, some in plain
view) and Lookout becomes crowded with cocktail hour imbibers. Since alcohol
consumption is not permitted on the beaches, enforcement needs to be extended
to other public areas.
Before "busting" all oftthese people, it might be fair to post a sign or two stating
that alcohol consumption is not permitted at Lookout Point. I feel this would be
an appropriate next step in controlling the already out of control.
Again, I thank you and appreciate all of your help with these situations. If there is
anything I can do to assist and support you, please know 1 am always available.
Sincerely,
Kathy amilton
cc: Dennis O'Neil
0
J
...
(1) m o
PB &R Commission Agenda
Item No. eY
May 7, 2002
SUBJECT: Parks and Trees Divisions Activities Report
Park Division Activities
1. Staff continues coordinating the construction of the Bonita Canyon Sports Park with
the Public Works Department.
2. The landscape at West Newport Park that was damaged recently due to a storm drain
emergency project was repaired. The work involved the installation of new irrigation
and landscaping and was funded by the Public Works Department.
3. Landscape and irrigation improvements were completed at Newport Shores Park,
which included converting a planter from ice plant to lawn at the request of local
residents.
• 4. The accent lighting and additional landscape installation for the northeast corner wall
at Jamboree Road and Bayside Drive has been completed.
Upcoming Activities for June
1. The planting of replacement shrubs and groundcover will continue Citywide.
2. Staff will continue to monitor the Arches Mitigation Site in the Big Canyon area.
3. Staff will continue coordinating the annual control of rodents with contract services.
Tree Division Activities
During the month of April 595 trees were trimmed, 20 trees were planted, 2 Ficus trees
were removed due to potential failure and 3 emergency calls were responded to
regarding trees. The Urban Forester received 63 tree maintenance requests.
1. The City tree- trimming contractor, West Coast Arborists is currently working in the
Westcliff area. Additionally, Ficus tree trimming continues throughout the City to
reduce damage caused by tree roots. Staff has selected 350 Ficus trees for trimming
to control root growth, fruit drop, and insects. The contractor has completed
approximately 75% of the project.
F:\ Users \GsNKRiefAParks &Ta s \Parks2002\PBR\May\PBRMay2002OR .doe
•
2. The Urban Forester coordinated the Citywide Sidewalk Replacement Program with
the Concrete Maintenance Supervisor and a Public Works Inspector. This work
involved the Urban Forester inspecting City street trees as related to sidewalk repairs.
3. The attached article "A Forest Grows in Newport" appeared in the Daily Pilot on
April 7, 2002 which highlighted the City Urban Forestry Program.
4. The attached Tree Activity Report summarizes requests and field activities that were
performed during the past several months.
ke ;pectfull, . omeli
Parks and Trees Maintenance Superintendent
Attachments: (A) Tree Activity Report 2001
(B) Daily Pilot April 7, 2002
FAUwn%Gsv\KRietTPuks & Tme Tarks2002\PBR\May\PBRMay2002Dtt .doc
z
moo
3 O ..
�y
v�
Qa
m a
3 c
O
M m'
C
"O N
� N
O
N O
a �
� m
� o
CD
n m
m
v
CD
CD
•
N
w
w
0
A
cn
J
0
dz
�o
'd
'C
C �
� O
rte-. O
u
C
O �
Ib
y
C �
.7 N
N �
a�
CAD "J"
Wuq
�
m �
O �
i
CD
. (D
d
C
r+
V1
. O
MM1
l� /jam
Mai
l �
r
H
O
O
O
O
O
N
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
0
0
O
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
O
O
N
O
O
O
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N w
J
00
00
w
O�
W
N
O1
O
N
N
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
�o
'd
'C
C �
� O
rte-. O
u
C
O �
Ib
y
C �
.7 N
N �
a�
CAD "J"
Wuq
�
m �
O �
i
CD
. (D
d
C
r+
V1
. O
MM1
l� /jam
Mai
l �
r
H
r COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT (Item 3)
May 7, 2002
Arts & Cultural - Library - Recreation - Seniors
To: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission
From: La Donna Kienitz, Community Services Director /City Librarian
Re: Recreation and Senior Services Division Monthly Activities Report
Monthly Activities - Reports on the activities of the Recreation and Senior Services Divisions for the
past month are enclosed.
•
0
Monthly Activities Report (Item 3)
Page 2 May 7, 2002
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT'
• Arts & Cultural - Library - Recreation - Seniors
To: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission
From: Andrea McGuire, Recreation Superintendent
Re: Recreation Division Monthly Activities Report
ADULT SPORTS
Softball - Seventy -seven teams are still competing in the spring softball program concluding on May
16. Summer registrations were taken through April 19; league begins May 17. Games will be
conducted at Bonita Creek Park, Grant Howald Park, Arroyo Park and Lincoln Athletic Center.
Basketball - The spring 2002 program has an all -time high of 90 teams competing on Monday
through Thursday nights at West Newport Community Center, Lincoln Gym and the Eastbluff Boys
and Girls Club. Eleven leagues are being scheduled to meet the demand. The spring league
concludes June 13; summer league begins June 17.
YOUTH PROGRAMS
Youth Basketball - The winners from the over 200 participants in Winter Basketball qualified to
• compete in the Southern California Municipal Athletic Federation - Orange County Tournament. All
of the Newport teams did extremely well with 3 of the 4 qualifying to go on to the All Southern
California Tournament held the first weekend of April. The Dangerous Dunkers won Southern
California tournament and represented the City of Newport Beach with good sportsmanship as well.
•
Team
School
Grade
SCMAF -OC
Cheesheads -boys
Anderson
3rd and 4th
1n
Lakers -boys
Newport Heights
5th and 6`h
2nd
Dangerous Dunkers -girls
Newport Heights
3rd and 4`h
IA
Anderson Sparklers -girls
Anderson
5`h and 6`h
3rd
Youth Track and Field Championships - The 2002 Youth Track and Field Championships were held on
April 19, 2002, at Newport Harbor High School. The event attracted 187 children ages 6 -15 who
competed in a variety of running and field events. Youth placing first through fourth in all events
(first place only in 400m relay) qualified to compete in the Southern California Municipal Athletic
Federation - Orange County meet held May 5. Below is a list of the athletes who set new records at
the meet this year:
Name / Divison
Event
Time /Distance
Previous
Michelle Allred G88
Softball Throw
144'
1995- 75'
Kevin Williams B89
Softball Throw
212'6"
1998- 178'
Kevin Williams B89
Shot Put
34'1.25"
1970- 32'10"
Brandon Metzger B95
Long Jump
8110"
1995- 87"
Michael Andraszczyk B90
800m
2:24.68
1998- 2:31.3
Michael Andraszczyk B90
400m
1:04.06
1999 - 1:05.00
•
Monthly Activities Report
Page 3
(Item 3)
May 7, 2002
Stephanie Nealy G90
400m Relay
1:01.71
1995- 1:02.40
Monique Gallardo
743
Annual Pass
350
Brittany Sowers
Punch Pass
50
1
Alesha Young
1,925
9
NBAC -Jr. Polo
Nicholas St. Andre B87
1600m
5:10.44
1993- 5:11.00
Paige Lynch G87
400m Relay
1:02.18
1996- 1:04.70
Sara Sweeney
Lauren Smith
Sidney Sweeney
Matt Williams B87
200m
26.45
1998- 28.8
To honor these athletes who set new records, the Newport- Balboa Rotary Club, which sponsors the
track meet will host a dinner for the athletes on May 15 at the Bahia- Corinthian Yacht Club. Both
athletes and their parents were invited to the evening which included a featured guest speaker. To
top off the evening, athletes will be presented with medals from the Okazaki youth track and field
championships. Okazaki, Japan is the Sister City to Newport Beach.
KidScene and Kids Club After School programming - At the Community Youth Center (CYC) site a
computer workstation is currently being constructed that will house 4 computers. The CYC
computer center is the second of a planned three computer centers with the first center at the
Mariners site and the third planned for the West Newport Community Center program.
Youth Council - The Youth Council made a presentation
•
to the City Council at the April 9 meeting. The
presentation outlined the accomplishments of the Youth
Council over the past year and future goals.
On April 8, Youth Council participated in a visioning
workshop conducted by Tamara Campbell, Senior
Planner, to help shape the new city General Plan. The
input and information exchange was well received and
the Youth Council was glad to be a part of the process.
A uATlcs
Aquatics Programs
Revenue
Participants
Lap Swim
904
743
Annual Pass
350
2
Punch Pass
50
1
NBAC -Swim
1,925
9
NBAC -Jr. Polo
985
7
TOTAL
$4,384
759
Overcast skies, cool temperatures and spring break travel may have been the reason for lower lap
swim attendance this month. The high school is in the middle of it swim season with afternoon
meets on Wednesday's twice a month. League finals are on April 30. Sage Hill is continuing to rent
the pool three nights a week for swim team practice.
Monthly Activities Report
Page 4 ,
(Item 3)
May 7, 2002
• CONTRACT CLASSES /INSTRUCTION
Summer Registration - Summer classes and programs are now available for online viewing at
www. city. newport- beach. ca. us, select Recreation Registration from the upper right corner drop
down menu. The summer Navigator was mailed to all Newport Beach residents and available at all
City libraries.
Spring Session - Class registration for spring session stands at 1,460 on 4/15/02.
FACILITIES USE AND MAINTENANCE
Community Center Repairs - Repairs have been completed at Carroll Beek and Bonita Creek
Community Centers; the roof and windows at Cliff Drive Park.
Sailboats The Lido and Sabot sailboats are being repaired and will be completed by May 15.
Facility Rentals - During the period March 16, 2002 through April 15, 2002 there were:
11 Picnic /Park Area Rentals
• 31 Room Rentals
5 Field Rentals
6 Gymnasium Rentals
• There was a total of (1) wedding reservation rentals as follows: Lookout Point- 3 -17 -02
SPECIAL EVENTS
Arbor Day Celebration - Recreation Division and Parks Division held
the 2002 (12" Annual) Arbor Day Celebration on Monday, April 22
at 10:30am in Buffalo Hills Park. Five trees were planted in the
Park along the playground area between the streets of Port Taggart
and Port Wheeler. Principal Mary Maros, from Andersen
Elementary School brought 45 6`" graders to the event. Special
dignitaries included Mayor Tod Ridgeway, Council Member John
Heffernan, Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commissioner Chair Val
Skoro and Commissioner Marc Franklin; and John Melvin, California
Urban and Community Forestry. Each child received a plant to
commemorate Arbor Day and to help develop environmental awareness.
Challenge Da v - Challenge Day is scheduled for Saturday, May 18, 2002. It is organized and hosted
by the Youth Council designed to teach tolerance and understanding to the anticipated 100
students and 25 or more parents, administrators and community leaders who will attend. You are
cordially invited to participate.
CDM 5K - Preparation continues for the 2002 Corona del Mar 5k which will be held on Saturday,
• June 1. The popular Restaurant Row currently has 23 local restaurants signed up to provide
gourmet food to the anticipated 3000 registered runners and walkers. Registrations for the event
are being taken at the Recreation office or on -line at www.active.com. Brochures and posters are
being distributed.
Monthly Activities Report
Page 5
Spring Break Camp - Spring break sports camp was held
•the week of April 1 -5 at CYC. The camp filled to
capacity and was attended by fifty -one first to sixth
graders. Daily activities included cooperative games,
crafts and a variety of sports activities including flag
football, basketball, court hockey, soccer, touch
rugby, ultimate Frisbee, cricket ball, disc golf, lacrosse
and much more. The highlight of the week was the
beach excursion to Big Corona beach, which included
swimming, sand capture- the -flag, Frisbee and
sunbathing.
OTHER
(Item 3)
May 7, 2002
Staff Training - Several Recreation staff attended the California Parks and Recreation Society
Training Conference at the Los Angeles Convention Center April 4 and 5.
Supervisory Management Training Program - Beginning in April, Andrea McGuire and Peggy Calvert
attended 4 sessions of an 8- session supervisory training program being held by the City of Newport
Beach for management in all departments. Sean Levin is scheduled to take the second round of
training, which will begin in September. Classes include communication skills, problem solving,
motivation and many other supervisory skills.
•
n
U
•
•
•
Monthly Activities Report
Page 6
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Arts ft Cultural - Library - Recreation - Seniors
To: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission
From: Celeste Jardine -Haug, Senior Services Manager
Re: Seniors Division Monthly Activities Report
(Item 3)
May 7, 2002
Tax Season Comes to a Close - Another successful 3 months of tax consultant closed this month with
8 dedicated volunteers assisting approximately 650 people with their tax returns. A detailed report
from the lead volunteer, Larry White, is attached.
Special Programs - Two very different activities took place
this month that were coordinated by the newest Recreation
Coordinator, Haya Sakadjian. A professionally lead "drum
circle" was very popular with a large group of seniors beating
on drums of all kinds. The leader sets the pace by signaling
to each person and dancing around the crowd. The energy
from this activity was incredible. The second event was a
Hand bell demonstration by a senior bell choir called
"Partners in Chimes ". The OASIS Center has a large set of
hand bells that were donated and this presentation was given
to see if the seniors at OASIS would be interested in beginning a group.
UCI Medical Lecture Series - This month's topic for the medical lecture series was "Back Surgery:
There is Hope ". It was presented by Dr. Mark Spoonamore who is an Orthopedic Surgeon. The
attendance was overwhelming with 100 inquisitive people. Dr. Spoonamore was very patient in
answering questions for over 1 hour. The UCI series will begin again in September.
25`h Anniversary Plans Underway - Staff and volunteers have been working hard on making the plans
for the Center's 25`h anniversary a very special event. The celebration will be held July 13`h and
will incorporate many events during the entire day beginning with pancake breakfast, which was
the Friends of OASIS's first fundraiser some 25 years ago. The day will continue with music and
activities, historical displays depicting the development over the 25 years, a BBQ luncheon and a
jazz concert. Each person in attendance will receive a memory book filled with history of the
development of the Center.
I
•
i
•
Monthly Activities Report
Page 7
OASIS Senior Center
PARTICIPANTS ATTENDING
RECREATIONAL CLASSES
PERSONALIZED SERVICES PROVIDED
Includes:
9,137 CUSTOMERS
3,552 CUSTOMERS
2,075 CUSTOMERS
Blood Pressure
75
Housing counseling
30
Braille
45
Information /Referral
1,615
Counseling- persons
50
Legal Assistance
12
Eldercare
3
Senior Assessment(hrs)
20
Employment
20
Telephone Reassurance
189
HICAP
6
Visual Screening
6
Homerepair Program
4
Bereavement group
0
SENIORS RECEIVING TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
Care -A -Van
569
Shuttle
321
890 CUSTOMERS
CUSTOMERS RECEIVING NOON MEALS AT THE CENTER
VOLUNTEER HRS. OF SERVICES PROVIDED AT THE CENTER
Includes:
Kitchen Ft Home Delivered Meals
Front Office
Travel Office
Gift Shop
Library
Instructors
President
Treasurer/
Vice President
Bookkeeper
Pancake Breakfast
Taxes
PARTICIPANTS IN
FRIENDS OF OASIS TRAVEL PROGRAMS
Day Trios
Palm Spring Follies 40
Somewhere in Time 29
Viejas 45
ATTENDEES TO MEETINGS AT OASIS
Board of Directors 18
General Membership 145
SPECIAL EVENTS/SCREENINGS/LECTURES
Pancake Breakfast 300
Computer Friends 90
Tax appts 175
1,435 CUSTOMERS
2,108.00 HOURS
('equiv. to 13 full -time employees)
201 CUSTOMERS
Lone Trips
Laughlin /Harrahs 48
Death Valley 39
163 PERSONS
821 PERSONS
Volunteer Recognition 135
Dinner Dance 61
Drum Circle 60
(Item 3)
May 7, 2002
04
i�
C74 FO0.N�P
TO:
FROM:
Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission
General Services Director
SUBJECT: Tree Donation
Recommendation
PB &R Commission Agenda
Item No.
May 7, 2002
To accept one Golden Medallion tree donation from the Stop Polluting Our Newport
(SPON) organization that will be planted at Gateway Park.
Discussion
• In 1997 SPON proposed to donate trees in recognition of individuals over the next few
years to be placed in City parks as part of SPON's Frank and Frances Robinson
Environmental Award program. Staff received an inquiry and subsequently a letter dated
April 3 from Ms. Claudia Owen, Co- Presiding Officer of SPON regarding a proposed
tree donation for Gateway Park (Attachment A) in recognition of Ms. Virginia Herberts.
Staff has met on site with Ms. Owen to confirm the tree planting location. In previous
years SPON tree donations have included a 5" x 7" plaque as part of the program. The
proposed plaque size will be 5" x 7" and the verbiage read "Planted in honor of Virginia
Herberts, recipient of the Frank and Frances Robinson Environmental Award, May 18,
2002 ", in compliance with City Council Policy G -5.
Ms. Owen has received a copy of this report and a notice of the May 7 Commission
meeting.
Very respectfully,
David E. Niederhaus
Attachment: A. Letter from Ms. Claudia Owen (SPON) dated April 3, 2002
HAParks & Trees\Parks2002\PBR \May\SPONTmeDonation.doc
0
RECEIVED
APR 0 q 2002
US Pmt &TRE
P.O. BOX 102 BALBOA ISLAND, CALIFORNIA 92662
Mr. Val Skoro
Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission
City of Newport Beach
Newport Beach CA 92658 -8915
Dear Mr. Skoro:
April 3, 2002
Stop Polluting Our Newport respectfully requests
permission to plant a Golden Medallion tree at Gateway
Park on May 18, 2002.
• This year the Frances and Frank Robinson
Environmental Award will honor Virginia Herberts. As
you know, Virginia served with distinction on the PB &R
Commission as well as befriending every tree in
Newport Beach.
SPON is delighted to plant a tree in her honor.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
.4 -9�L
Claudia Owen, co- Presiding Officer
. � a
�sy a
� �tiW PORT
G jp Z
C94GORN�P
•
•
Not 14 Riau
PB &R Commission Agenda
Item No.
May 7, 2002
TO:
FROM:
Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission
General Services Director
SUBJECT: Main Street Ficus Tree Removals
Recommendations:
Approve the General Services Director's recommendation to remove 15 Ficus nitida trees on
Main Street that are designated Special /Landmark trees.
Approve the General Services Director's recommendation to remove 10 Ficus nitida trees on
Main Street that are designated as "All Other Trees ".
Approve the planting of 32 Coral Gum replacement trees on Main Street.
Background:
There are 25 Ficus trees on Main Street. The ten Ficus trees located north of Balboa Boulevard
are designated Special/Landmark trees by City Council Policy G -1. Policy G -1 provides that the
Parks, Beaches, and Recreation (PB &R) Commission shall administer Special City Trees, and
that the General Services Director shall provide recommendations on the removal of "All Other"
City trees. The Policy also establishes requirements prior to the removal of City trees. Tree
removal recommendations of the General Services Director may be appealed to the Commission.
An appeal of any Commission tree removal decision may be made by a Councilmember or the
City Manager.
The Main Street Ficus trees were planted over 40 years ago. Root barriers were not installed
when the trees were planted. The trees have fared well in the sometimes harsh oceanfront
environment, but tree roots have caused hardscape and underground utility damage. The trees
have grown tall with a corresponding aggressive growth of roots. Recent construction activities
in the Balboa Village area have discovered roots over 100 feet long and 8 inches thick. In the
past 10 years, the trees have been trimmed on an annual basis to prevent tree heights from
increasing and to curtail root growth. The result has been the exposure of over 75% of the tree
limbs.
i
1
• Private property and business owners along Main Street have requested the removal and
replacement of the Main Street Ficus trees for many years. The primary reasons advocated for
tree removal have been reoccurring public and private property damage caused by Ficus tree
roots. Damage within the public right -of -way has included cracked, raised, and broken
sidewalks, curbs, gutters, and street pavements, as well as damage to underground utilities.
Damage to private property has been primarily associated with the sewer lines blocked by Ficus
tree roots.
In December 1999, a concept to revitalize the Balboa Village area was approved by the City
Council. This proposal included various pedestrian friendly improvements, including new street
trees and landscaping, as well as street furniture and streetlights.
In late 2000, Psomas Engineering was hired to prepare construction drawings for the Balboa
Village Improvement Project. The landscape subconsultant for the project, Nuvis Landscape
Architects, prepared a series of preliminary drawings showing a comprehensive layout for new
trees, street lights, street furniture, and landscaped areas. Special attention was paid to Main
Street, where exact tree and streetlight locations and dimensions were selected to work with shop
windows and entrances.
Beginning in late 2000, City staff held community meetings to acquaint Balboa residents and
business owners with alternative tree species for Main Street. Over 75 species of street trees
• were eventually studied.
•
As the planning process for Balboa Village continued in 2000, the Main Street tree removal and
replacement issue was revived as part of that project and included participation by various
homeowners groups such as the Balboa Peninsula Point and the Central Newport Homeowner's
Associations as well as the Balboa Merchants' and Owners' Association. Each group concurred
in the necessity to replace the Ficus trees and participated in the selection process of an
alternative tree.
The selection process continued into 2001 with consultation with the Balboa Peninsula Point
Association (BPPA), the Central Newport Community Association, and the Balboa Merchants'
and Owners' Association (BMOA). These groups concurred on the necessity to replace the
Ficus trees and participated in the selection of six candidate replacement trees. In addition, the
BPPA met on April 23, 2002 and voted to remove the Ficus trees and approve the Coral Gum as
a replacement tree. The BMOA did likewise on April 25, 2002.
As required by Policy G -1, the City commissioned an independent analysis by Integrated Urban
Foresters (IUF) in March 2001 of the Main Street Ficus trees, in addition to the attached
individual tree reports by the City Urban Forester. The attached IUF study assessed the value of
the Ficus trees, analyzed the effectiveness of root pruning and root barriers, the costs for
implementing these measures, and estimated the remaining life of the trees. The study suggested
three replacement trees if the Ficus trees are removed.
2
• In April 2001, the Public Works Department staff prepared the attached analysis of projected
costs for street maintenance, property damage and bodily injury claims as well as Ficus tree
damage.
Following preparation of these the analyses of the IUF and Public Works Department reports, six
species of candidate street trees for Main Street were presented to the City Council Committee to
"Promote Revitalization of our Peninsula" (PROP), during three public sessions. The Committee
is comprised of Mayor Ridgeway, Mayor Pro -Tem Bromberg, and Councilperson Proctor. After
reviewing the Ficus tree reports and listening to public comments, the PROP Committee voted to
recommend removal of the Ficus trees and designate the Coral Gum tree as the new street tree
for Main Street.
The PB &R Commission subsequently approved the Coral Gum tree as the designated street tree
for Main Street on July 3, 2001 (Minutes and report attached).
Discussion:
Staff has adhered to the tree removal procedures of the G -1 Policy by posting each of the 25 trees
for 30 days beginning on April 5, notifying adjacent property owners and interested parties, and
by completing the detailed attached reports on each tree, as well as the IUF and Public Works
Department reports mentioned above.
• IUF estimated the value of the 25 Main Street Ficus trees at $192,910. Value is based on
species, age, condition, and size according to international standards. Staff believes this value
needs to be balanced against City and private party maintenance and repair costs to retain the
Ficus trees.
Extensive damage to sidewalks, curbs, and gutters due to Ficus tree roots is visible on the
southern portion of Main Street. Major repairs to this section have been on hold for several years
due to the possibility of tree replacement. The northern section of Main Street was completely
renovated in the mid 1990's, including the replacement of the sidewalks, curbs, and gutters that
were mainly damaged by Ficus tree roots. The northern portion of the Main Street hardscape
shows no significant hardscape damage due to root incursions at this time.
Sewer blockages caused by Ficus tree roots continue to be a problem for Balboa Village area
property and business owners. The City has settled two tree related claims in the past eight years
totaling less than $8,000, one of which was for sewer blockage. Staff has been told by at least
four business owners about malfunctioning sewer lines caused or exacerbated by tree roots. The
attached letter from the former owner of Britta's Restaurant illustrates the problems that
businesses in the Village encounter.
The report prepared by Public Works Department staff considered costs for three damage levels:
low severity, medium severity, and high severity. The cost to retain the 25 Ficus trees on Main
• Street range from $310,000 for the low severity damage scenario to $1,200,000 for the high
severity damage scenario over a 30 -year period. The report does not include the large Ficus tree
• claims made against the City in the past year. The report may overstate the costs for Main Street
because it used Citywide data for projecting potential costs for property damage and bodily
injury claims, rather than Main Street tree claims. However, staff believes that Main Street
claims have been limited by the City's extraordinary tree and hardscape maintenance efforts in
this location, as well as by private businesses paying for the sewer damage without filing claims
against the City.
The IUF study notes that the Ficus tree was not an appropriate tree selection for a restricted
growing area like Main Street. As a result, the trees have required high maintenance and have
caused hardscape and sewer line damage, as discussed above. However, they have done well
and developed good canopies, even with frequent pruning and the harsh conditions of a windy,
salty environment. The consultant emphasized the stark difference between the mature Ficus
trees and their full canopies relative to the small size of the proposed replacements as well as the
harsh environment the replacement trees would be expected to grow in. Replacement Coral
Gum trees should be 12 to 15 feet in height when planted in February 2002. It may take 5 to 10
years for the replacement trees to achieve full maturity and a maximum height of 20 feet.
In order to construct the streetscape improvements planned for Main Street, and to prevent
damage to these improvements, IUF notes that severe root pruning of the Ficus trees would have
to be done. The pruning would risk the health of the trees and possibly cause them to fall over.
Some trees could be lost during construction, which in itself would change the aesthetics of Main
. Street. IUF also analyzed the use of root barriers, and concluded that they have not been proven
to be 100% effective; roots can lift barriers or grow over or under them. The report notes that if
the City were to do root pruning and install barriers to try and retain the Ficus trees as part of the
Main Street project, it is likely that property damage could be controlled for up to ten years, and
that there probably would be long -term root intrusions.
The study also recommended modifying the proposed hardscape improvements to include pavers
around the trees to help mitigate hardscape damage while retaining the Ficus trees. Staff
believes that this option could make hardscape repairs less expensive. However, this work
would still need to be done regularly, and the use of pavers would do nothing to mitigate private
property damage. A decision has been made to use tree grates for the tree wells. Grates are
more compatible with the design quality of the proposed hardscape improvements and more
compliant with ADA.
The Coral Gum tree was selected as the most appropriate tree after a thorough research of
alternative street tree species. The Coral Gum is a quick growing tree to a maximum height of
20 feet, is not susceptible to the lerp insect, is drought and heat tolerant, has attractive flowers, is
suitable for planting in small parkways such as along Main Street, and would not cause
hardscape nor underground utility damage with its roots. Excerpts and a photo of the Coral Gum
tree from the publication, Street Trees for Southern California, are attached. With regard to the
survivability of the Coral Gum, the General Services Department staff planted a 24 -inch box
specimen in the Balboa Village area as a test case in August 2001. After six months, the tree had
• grown over three feet and had adapted well to the climate. The tree was recently boxed and
4
' fl , •1
• moved from the parkway on the north side of Balboa Blvd. to make way for sidewalk
replacement.
Staff has purchased 32 Coral Gum trees to be replanted in 36 -inch boxes for the purpose of
accelerating the growth of the trees at the Corporation Yard. This advance action was due to the
fact that 24 -inch boxed Coral Gums are not readily available in either California or Arizona.
Should the PB &R. Commission and the Council deny the staff proposal to replace the Ficus trees,
the new Coral Gum trees will be planted elsewhere in the City. An example replacement tree
will be on display at the Council Chambers on May 7.
Conclusion:
The main factor in staff's decision to recommend the removal and replacement of the Main
Street Ficus trees with Coral Gum trees is the goal of the revitalization of Balboa Village. The
plan for the Village includes Main Street tree replacement because the existing Ficus trees are
past their prime. They have grown so tall as to be out of scale with the area and to block
commercial signage. They will require ongoing root pruning, which will be expensive and
damaging to the new hardscape in which the City is making a huge investment. Some trees
could be lost during construction, and surviving trees could be weakened by ongoing aggressive
root pruning. Even with root pruning and root barriers, damage from Ficus tree roots is likely to
be controlled for only ten years. If the Ficus trees are to be replaced within that approximate
• timeframe, staff believes it is prudent for the City to do so now, when we have an opportunity
wherein funding is available to completely revamp the entire area.
Very respectfully,
David E. Niederhaus
Attachments
(A) Urban Forester's Individual Tree Reports — Main Street
(B) Integrated Urban Forestry Report (City Ficus Landmark Trees) dated April 23, 2001
(C) Public Works Department Report (Analysis of Costs to Retain the Main Street Ficus Trees) dated
May 8, 2001
(D) PB &R Commission Item No. 10 and minutes of July 3, 2001 meeting
(E) Ms. Britta Pulliam's letter dated March 26, 2002
(F) Street Trees for Southern California: Coral Gum tree
I\U rslGsvMLin&mwn N2APR02\MainSVxtFiCMPBRCom g.do
•
5
•
•
,�
b
as
m
r
nD`on
w
W
r
U
F
M
a
W—
F
W
N
h
T
r
-.
Q•
voMV.wo
V'
W
N
Vl
'C
m
r^
W.
.-•
..
v
h
•P.WFd
o
v
vi
r
�?
�n
M
�?
o
0o
h
o
O
�
r l
WwW
al
>"aaWW
oo"
a0
V
o0
P
W
U
C7
w
•
,�
b
as
m
r
nD`on
w
a
r
m
o
G�
moMnmwrnrmm
M
W
W—
Vl
W
N
h
T
r
-.
Q•
voMV.wo
V'
W
N
Vl
'C
m
r^
W.
.-•
..
v
h
a—
o
v
vi
r
�?
�n
M
�?
o
0o
h
o
v—
e
v
oo"
a0
V
o0
P
d
vi
z
ev,voo�o
n�
Boa
dd
�?
_
MbOm
vv
a
ncl
r%
N
N
•A
OU
69
yi
yj
�
K
d3
Hf
(A
FA
�
Vf
�
Vi
Vi
�
Ni
Vi
F9
V3
�y
�
fA
fA
y
U
O
ul F
U
Yl
M
M
Q•
Yl
O1
N
V'
h
(�
W
V'
�
h
Vl
r
h
h
Vl
ti
Gl
W�
Vl
�
Vr
J
U
//~j ]
N
N
N�
m
h
M
M
Vl
O
Vl
vl
W
lJ
V
W
Vl
W
Vt
Y'1
GO
Vl
dd
..
�obm�mri
mo
V
06_ao"
fA
f9
�
Vi
s3
69
t9
f9
69
f9
V3
�
69
V3
Vi
69
H3
M
F9
—o
f9
fA
�
fA
M
y
S �
Q
Z Uv
v
v
oo
m
a,
n
h
oo
M
o
v
m
m
m
M
r
rn
r
a
N
M
M—
M
M
a
N
N
N
M
YY
N
N
M
N
M
N
M
V1
M
M—
N N
M
xw
z F
h
r
;
h
n12
n
h
oa
'^
a
o
m
m
v,
vi
h
n
Q
N
m
r
N
o0
F
A
h
h
V]
vl
R7
F'1
0.1
Vl
fn
N
y
h
N
y
N
N
ti
h
N
N
G
VJ
VJ
W
m
TREE INSPECTION REPORT
Name: Balboa Village Improvement Project
Address: 306 Main St.
Phone Number: N/A
Request: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street
Botanical Name: tree site #1 Ficus microcarpa `Nitida'
Common Name: Indian Laurel Fig
Designated Street Tree: Eucalyptus torquata (Coral Gum)
Estimated Total Tree Value: $5,685
Damage: See attached history of repairs
Parkway: Concrete Brick Turf Other
• Comments: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street which includes removal of tree
and installation of a 36" box size Coral Gum during construction phase of project
9
Inspected by:
John Conway
Date: April 10, 2002
Recommendation: Forward to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for
review and public comment on May 7, 2002
Reviewed by: Date: April 10, 2002
Marcelino G. Lomeli
• HISTORY OF REPAIRS
MAIN STREET
1997 — Sidewalk inspections, no ramps or grinds needed
1998 — 6/10/98 The sidewalk was ramped at: 105, 202, 301 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave.
at Davey's Locker
6/9/98 The sidewalk was ground at: 801 E. Balboa Blvd. on Main St.
1999 — 1/15/99 The sidewalk was replaced at: 204 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at
Davey's Locker
2000 — 4/3/00 The sidewalk was ramped at: 100, 106, 105, 107, 200, 301 Main St.
4/6/00 The sidewalk was ground at: 202, 205, 300 Main St.
i
TREE INSPECTION REPORT
Name: Balboa Village Improvement Project
Address: 300 Main St.
Phone Number: N/A
Request: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street
Botanical Name: tree site #2 Ficus microcarpa `Nitida'
Common Name: Indian Laurel Fig
Designated Street Tree: Eucalyptus torquata (Coral Gum)
Estimated Total Tree Value: $8,196
Damage: See attached history of repairs
Parkway: Concrete Brick Turf Other
• Comments: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street which includes removal of tree
and installation of a 36" box size Coral Gum during construction phase of project
41
Inspected by:
John Conway
Date: April 10, 2002
Recommendation: Forward to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for
review and public comment on May 7, 2002
Reviewed by: Date: April 10, 2002
Marcelino G. Lomeli
0
r1
U
•
HISTORY OF REPAIRS
MAIN STREET
1997 — Sidewalk inspections, no ramps or grinds needed
1998 — 6/10/98 The sidewalk was ramped at: 105, 202, 301 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave.
at Davey's Locker
6/9/98 The sidewalk was ground at: 801 E. Balboa Blvd. on Main St.
1999 — 1/15/99 The sidewalk was replaced at: 204 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at
Davey's Locker
2000 — 4/3/00 The sidewalk was ramped at: 100, 106, 105, 107, 200, 301 Main St.
4/6/00 The sidewalk was ground at: 202, 205, 300 Main St.
1
TREE INSPECTION REPORT
Name: Balboa Village Improvement Project
Address: 204 Main St.
Phone Number: N/A
Request: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street
Botanical Name: tree site 43 Ficus microcarpa `Nitida'
Common Name: Indian Laurel Fig
Designated Street Tree: Eucalyptus torquata (Coral Gum)
Estimated Total Tree Value: $8,196
Damage: See attached history of repairs
Parkway: Concrete Brick Turf Other
• Comments: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street which includes removal of tree
and installation of a 36" box size Coral Gum during construction phase of project
•
Inspected by:
John Conway
Date: April 10, 2002
Recommendation: Forward to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for
review and public comment on May 7, 2002
Reviewed by: Date: April 10, 2002
Marcelino G. Lomeli
HISTORY OF REPAIRS
MAIN STREET
1997 — Sidewalk inspections, no ramps or grinds needed
1998 — 6/10/98 The sidewalk was ramped at: 105, 202, 301 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave.
at Davey's Locker
6/9/98 The sidewalk was ground at: 801 E. Balboa Blvd. on Main St.
1999 — 1/15/99 The sidewalk was replaced at: 204 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at
Davey's Locker
2000 — 4/3/00 The sidewalk was ramped at: 100, 106, 105, 107, 200, 301 Main St.
4/6/00 The sidewalk was ground at: 202, 205, 300 Main St.
r 1
U
U
TREE INSPECTION REPORT
Name: Balboa Village Improvement Project
Address: 202 Main St.
,Phone Number: N/A
Request: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street
Botanical Name: tree site #4 Ficus microcarpa `Nitida'
Common Name: Indian Laurel Fig
Designated Street Tree: Eucalyptus torquata (Coral Gum)
Estimated Total Tree Value: $4,477
Damage: See attached history of repairs
Parkway: Concrete Brick Turf Other
• Comments: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street which includes removal of tree
and installation of a 36" box size Coral Gum during construction phase of project
Inspected by: Date: April 10, 2002
John Conway
Recommendation: Forward to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for
review and public comment on May 7, 2002
Reviewed by:
n
U
Marcelino G. Lomeli
Date: April 10, 2002
E
•
40
HISTORY OF REPAIRS
MAIN STREET
1997 — Sidewalk inspections, no ramps or grinds needed
1998 — 6/10/98 The sidewalk was ramped at: 105, 202, 301 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave.
at Davey's Locker
6/9/98 The sidewalk was ground at: 801 E. Balboa Blvd. on Main St.
1999 — 1/15/99 The sidewalk was replaced at: 204 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at
Davey's Locker
2000 — 4/3/00 The sidewalk was ramped at: 100, 106, 105, 107, 200, 301 Main St.
4/6/00 The sidewalk was ground at: 202, 205, 300 Main St.
TREE INSPECTION REPORT
Name: Balboa Village Improvement Project
Address: 801 E. Balboa Blvd.
Phone Number: N/A
Request: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street
Botanical Name: tree site #5 Ficus microcarpa `Nitida'
Common Name: Indian Laurel Fig
Designated Street Tree: Eucalyptus torquata (Coral Gum)
Estimated Total Tree Value: $8,598
Damage: See attached history of repairs
Parkway: Concrete Brick Turf Other
• Comments: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street which includes removal of tree
and installation of a 36" box size Coral Gum during construction phase of project
Inspected by: Date: April 10, 2002
John Conway
Recommendation: Forward to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for
review and public comment on May 7, 2002
Reviewed by:
r1
LJ
Marcelino G. Lomeli
Date: April 10, 2002
•
•
HISTORY OF REPAIRS
MAIN STREET
1997 — Sidewalk inspections, no ramps or grinds needed
1998 — 6/10/98 The sidewalk was ramped at: 105, 202, 301 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave.
at Davey's Locker
6/9/98 The sidewalk was ground at: 801 E. Balboa Blvd. on Main St.
1999 — 1/15/99 The sidewalk was replaced at: 204 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at
Davey's Locker
2000 — 4/3/00 The sidewalk was ramped at: 100, 106, 105, 107, 200, 301 Main St.
4/6/00 The sidewalk was ground at: 202, 205, 300 Main St.
TREE INSPECTION REPORT
Name: Balboa Village Improvement Project
Address: 801 E. Balboa Blvd.
Phone Number: N/A
Request: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street
Botanical Name: tree site 46 Ficus microcarpa `Nitida'
Common Name: Indian Laurel Fig
Designated Street Tree: Eucalyptus torquata (Coral Gum)
Estimated Total Tree Value: $9,404
Damage: See attached history of repairs
Parkway: Concrete Brick Turf Other
• Comments: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street which includes removal of tree
and installation of a 36" box size Coral Gum during construction phase of project
Inspected by: Date: April 10, 2002
John Conway
Recommendation: Forward to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for
review and public comment on May 7, 2002
Reviewed by: Date: April 10, 2002
Marcelino G. Lomeli
HISTORY OF REPAIRS
MAIN STREET
1997 — Sidewalk inspections, no ramps or grinds needed
1998 — 6/10/98 The sidewalk was ramped at: 105, 202, 301 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave.
at Davey's Locker
6/9/98 The sidewalk was ground at: 801 E. Balboa Blvd. on Main St.
1999 — 1/15/99 The sidewalk was replaced at: 204 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at
Davey's Locker
2000 — 4/3/00 The sidewalk was ramped at: 100, 106, 105, 107, 200, 301 Main St.
4/6/00 The sidewalk was ground at: 202, 205, 300 Main St.
•
TREE INSPECTION REPORT
Name: Balboa Village Improvement Project
Address: 801 E. Balboa Blvd.
Phone Number: N/A
Request: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street
Botanical Name: tree site #7 Ficus microcarpa `Nitida'
Common Name: Indian Laurel Fig
Designated Street Tree: Eucalyptus torquata (Coral Gum)
Estimated Total Tree Value: $11,157
Damage: See attached history of repairs
Parkway: Concrete Brick Turf Other
• Comments: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street which includes removal of tree
and installation of a 36" box size Coral Gum during construction phase of project
•
Inspected by:
John Conway
Date: April 10, 2002
Recommendation: Forward to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for
review and public comment on May 7, 2002
Reviewed by: Date: April 10, 2002
Marcelino G. Lomeli
HISTORY OF REPAIRS
MAIN STREET
1997 — Sidewalk inspections, no ramps or grinds needed
1998 — 6/10/98 The sidewalk was ramped at: 105, 202, 301 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave.
at Davey's Locker
6/9/98 The sidewalk was ground at: 801 E. Balboa Blvd. on Main St.
1999 — 1/15/99 The sidewalk was replaced at: 204 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at
Davey's Locker
2000 — 4/3/00 The sidewalk was ramped at: 100, 106, 105, 107, 200, 301 Main St.
4/6/00 The sidewalk was ground at: 202, 205, 300 Main St.
E
TREE INSPECTION REPORT
Name: Balboa Village Improvement Project
Address: 106 Main St.
Phone Number: N/A
Request: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street
Botanical Name: tree site #8 Ficus microcarpa `Nitida'
Common Name: Indian Laurel Fig
Designated Street Tree: Eucalyptus torquata (Coral Gum)
Estimated Total Tree Value: $6,016
Damage: See attached history of repairs
Parkway: Concrete Brick Turf Other
• Comments: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street which includes removal of tree
and installation of a 36" box size Coral Gum during construction phase of project
•
Inspected by:
John Conway
Date: April 10, 2002
Recommendation: Forward to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for
review and public comment on May 7, 2002
Reviewed by: Date: April 10, 2002
Marcelino G. Lomeli
HISTORY OF REPAIRS
MAIN STREET
1997 — Sidewalk inspections, no ramps or grinds needed
1998 — 6/10/98 The sidewalk was ramped at: 105, 202, 301 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave.
at Davey's Locker
6/9/98 The sidewalk was ground at: 801 E. Balboa Blvd. on Main St.
1999 — 1/15/99 The sidewalk was replaced at: 204 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at
Davey's Locker
2000 — 4/3/00 The sidewalk was ramped at: 100, 106, 105, 107, 200, 301 Main St.
4/6/00 The sidewalk was ground at: 202, 205, 300 Main St.
0
TREE INSPECTION REPORT
Name: Balboa Village Improvement Project
Address: 104 Main St.
Phone Number: N/A
Request: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street
Botanical Name: tree site #9 Ficus microcarpa `Nitida'
Common Name: Indian Laurel Fig
Designated Street Tree: Eucalyptus torquata (Coral Gum)
Estimated Total Tree Value: $5,069
Damage: See attached history of repairs
Parkway: Concrete Brick Turf Other
• Comments: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street which includes removal of tree
and installation of a 36" box size Coral Gum during construction phase of project
Inspected by: Date: April 10, 2002
John Conway
Recommendation: Forward to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for
review and public comment on May 7, 2002
Reviewed by:
•
Marcelino G. Lomeli
Date: April 10, 2002
HISTORY OF REPAIRS
MAIN STREET
1997 — Sidewalk inspections, no ramps or grinds needed
1998 — 6/10/98 The sidewalk was ramped at: 105, 202, 301 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave.
at Davey's Locker
6/9/98 The sidewalk was ground at: 801 E. Balboa Blvd. on Main St.
1999 — 1/15/99 The sidewalk was replaced at: 204 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at
Davey's Locker
2000 — 4/3/00 The sidewalk was ramped at: 100, 106, 105, 107, 200, 301 Main St.
4/6/00 The sidewalk was ground at: 202, 205, 300 Main St.
r1
•
TREE INSPECTION REPORT
Name: Balboa Village Improvement Project
Address: 104 Main St.
Phone Number: N/A
Request: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street
Botanical Name: tree site #10 Ficus microcarpa `Nitida'
Common Name: Indian Laurel Fig
Designated Street Tree: Eucalyptus torquata (Coral Gum)
Estimated Total Tree Value: $6,703
Damage: See attached history of repairs
Parkway: Concrete Brick Turf Other
. Comments: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street which includes removal of tree
and installation of a 36" box size Coral Gum during construction phase of project
•
Inspected by:
John Conway
Date: April 10, 2002
Recommendation: Forward to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for
review and public comment on May 7, 2002
Reviewed by: Date: April 10, 2002
Marcelino G. Lomeli
HISTORY OF REPAIRS
MAIN STREET
1997 — Sidewalk inspections, no ramps or grinds needed
1998 — 6/10/98 The sidewalk was ramped at: 105, 202, 301 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave.
at Davey's Locker
6/9/98 The sidewalk was ground at: 801 E. Balboa Blvd. on Main St.
1999 — 1/15/99 The sidewalk was replaced at: 204 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at
Davey's Locker
2000 — 4/3/00 The sidewalk was ramped at: 100, 106, 105, 107, 200, 301 Main St.
4/6/00 The sidewalk was ground at: 202, 205, 300 Main St.
U
TREE INSPECTION REPORT
Name: Balboa Village Improvement Project
Address: 100 Main St.
Phone Number: N/A
Request: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street
Botanical Name: tree site #11 Ficus microcarpa `Nitida'
Common Name: Indian Laurel Fig
Designated Street Tree: Eucalyptus torquata (Coral Gum)
Estimated Total Tree Value: $7,438
Damage: See attached history of repairs
Parkway: Concrete Brick Turf Other
Comments: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street which includes removal of tree
and installation of a 36" box size Coral Gum during construction phase of project
Inspected by:
John Conway
April 10, 2002
Recommendation: Forward to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for
review and public comment on May 7, 2002
Reviewed by:
Marcelino G. Lomeli
Date: April 10, 2002
0
•
0
HISTORY OF REPAIRS
MAIN STREET
1997 — Sidewalk inspections, no ramps or grinds needed
1998 — 6/10/98 The sidewalk was ramped at: 105, 202, 301 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave.
at Davey's Locker
6/9/98 The sidewalk was ground at: 801 E. Balboa Blvd. on Main St.
1999 — 1/15/99 The sidewalk was replaced at: 204 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at
Davey's Locker
2000 — 4/3/00 The sidewalk was ramped at: 100, 106, 105, 107, 200, 301 Main St.
4/6/00 The sidewalk was ground at: 202, 205, 300 Main St.
TREE INSPECTION REPORT
Name: Balboa Village Improvement Project
Address: 105 Main St.
Phone Number: N/A
Request: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street
Botanical Name: tree site #12 Ficus microcarpa `Nitida'
Common Name: Indian Laurel Fig
Designated Street Tree: Eucalyptus torquata (Coral Gum)
Estimated Total Tree Value: $12,578
Damage: See attached history of repairs
Parkway: Concrete Brick Turf Other
• Comments: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street which includes removal of tree
and installation of a 36" box size Coral Gum during construction phase of project
Inspected by: Date: April 10, 2002
John Conway
Recommendation: Forward to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for
review and public comment on May 7, 2002
Reviewed by: Date: April 10, 2002
Marcelino G. Lomeli
n
U
0
0
•
HISTORY OF REPAIRS
MAIN STREET
1997 — Sidewalk inspections, no ramps or grinds needed
1998 — 6/10/98 The sidewalk was ramped at: 105, 202, 301 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave.
at Davey's Locker
6/9/98 The sidewalk was ground at: 801 E. Balboa Blvd. on Main St.
1999 — 1/15/99 The sidewalk was replaced at: 204 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at
Davey's Locker
2000 — 4/3/00 The sidewalk was ramped at: 100, 106, 105, 107, 200, 301 Main St.
4/6/00 The sidewalk was ground at: 202, 205, 300 Main St.
TREE INSPECTION REPORT
Name: Balboa Village Improvement Project
Address: 105 Main St.
Phone Number: N/A
Request: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street
Botanical Name: tree site #13 Ficus microcarpa `Nitida'
Common Name: Indian Laurel Fig
Designated Street Tree: Eucalyptus torquata (Coral Gum)
Estimated Total Tree Value: $4,761
Damage: See attached history of repairs
Parkway: Concrete Brick Turf Other
. Comments: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street which includes removal of tree
and installation of a 36" box size Coral Gum during construction phase of project
u
Inspected by:
John Conway
Date: April 10, 2002
Recommendation: Forward to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for
review and public comment on May 7, 2002
Reviewed by: Date: April 10, 2002
Marcelino G. Lomeli
0
•
•
HISTORY OF REPAIRS
MAIN STREET
1997 — Sidewalk inspections, no ramps or grinds needed
1998 — 6/10/98 The sidewalk was ramped at: 105, 202, 301 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave.
at Davey's Locker
6/9/98 The sidewalk was ground at: 801 E. Balboa Blvd. on Main St.
1999 — 1/15/99 The sidewalk was replaced at: 204 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at
Davey's Locker
2000 — 4/3/00 The sidewalk was ramped at: 100, 106, 105, 107, 200, 301 Main St.
4/6/00 The sidewalk was ground at: 202, 205, 300 Main St.
r,
LJ
n
U
TREE INSPECTION REPORT
Name: Balboa Village Improvement Project
Address: 105 Main St.
Phone Number: N/A
Request: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street
Botanical Name: tree site #14 Ficus microcarpa `Nitida'
Common Name: Indian Laurel Fig
Designated Street Tree: Eucalyptus torquata (Coral Gum)
Estimated Total Tree Value: $5,685
Damage: See attached history of repairs
Parkway: Concrete Brick Turf Other
Comments: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street which includes removal of tree
and installation of a 36" box size Coral Gum during construction phase of project
Inspected by:
John Conway
Date: April 10, 2002
Recommendation: Forward to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for
review and public comment on May 7, 2002
Reviewed by:
Marcelino G. Lomeli
April 10, 2002
HISTORY OF REPAIRS
MAIN STREET
1997 — Sidewalk inspections, no ramps or grinds needed
1998 — 6/10/98 The sidewalk was ramped at: 105, 202, 301 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave.
at Davey's Locker
6/9/98 The sidewalk was ground at: 801 E. Balboa Blvd. on Main St.
1999 — 1/15/99 The sidewalk was replaced at: 204 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at
Davey's Locker
2000 — 4/3/00 The sidewalk was ramped at: 100, 106, 105, 107, 200, 301 Main St.
4/6/00 The sidewalk was ground at: 202, 205, 300 Main St.
IJ
41
TREE INSPECTION REPORT
Name: Balboa Village Improvement Project
Address: 105 Main St.
Phone Number: N/A
Request: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street
Botanical Name: tree site #15 Ficus microcarpa `Nitida'
Common Name: Indian Laurel Fig
Designated Street Tree: Eucalyptus torquata (Coral Gum)
Estimated Total Tree Value: $8,598
Damage: See attached history of repairs
Parkway: Concrete Brick Turf Other
• Comments: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street which includes removal of tree
and installation of a 36" box size Coral Gum during construction phase of project
•
Inspected by:
John Conway
Date: April 10, 2002
Recommendation: Forward to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for
review and public comment on May 7, 2002
Reviewed by: Date: April 10, 2002
Marcelino G. Lomeli
i
0
HISTORY OF REPAIRS
MAIN STREET
1997 — Sidewalk inspections, no ramps or grinds needed
1998 — 6/10/98 The sidewalk was ramped at: 105, 202, 301 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave.
at Davey's Locker
6/9/98 The sidewalk was ground at: 801 E. Balboa Blvd. on Main St.
1999 — 1/15/99 The sidewalk was replaced at: 204 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at
Davey's Locker
2000 — 4/3/00 The sidewalk was ramped at: 100, 106, 105, 107, 200, 301 Main St.
4/6/00 The sidewalk was ground at: 202, 205, 300 Main St.
TREE INSPECTION REPORT
Name: Balboa Village Improvement Project
Address: 107 Main St.
Phone Number: N/A
Request: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street
Botanical Name: tree site #16 Ficus microcarpa `Nitida'
Common Name: Indian Laurel Fig
Designated Street Tree: Eucalyptus torquata (Coral Gum)
Estimated Total Tree Value: $6,372
Damage: See attached history of repairs
Parkway: Concrete Brick Turf Other
• Comments: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street which includes removal of tree
and installation of a 36" box size Coral Gum during construction phase of project
Inspected by: Date: April 10, 2002
John Conway
Recommendation: Forward to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for
review and public comment on May 7, 2002
Reviewed by: Date: April 10, 2002
Marcelino G. Lomeli
•
0
•
•
HISTORY OF REPAIRS
MAIN STREET
1997 — Sidewalk inspections, no ramps or grinds needed
1998 — 6/10/98 The sidewalk was ramped at: 105, 202, 301 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave.
at Davey's Locker
6/9/98 The sidewalk was ground at: 801 E. Balboa Blvd. on Main St.
1999 — 1/15/99 The sidewalk was replaced at: 204 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at
Davey's Locker
2000 — 4/3/00 The sidewalk was ramped at: 100, 106, 105, 107, 200, 301 Main St.
4/6/00 The sidewalk was ground at: 202, 205, 300 Main St.
TREE INSPECTION REPORT
Name: Balboa Village Improvement Project
Address: 107 Main St.
Phone Number: N/A
Request: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street
Botanical Name: tree site #17 Ficus microcarpa `Nitida'
Common Name: Indian Laurel Fig
Designated Street Tree: Eucalyptus torquata (Coral Gum)
Estimated Total Tree Value: $5,685
Damage: See attached history of repairs
Parkway: Concrete Brick Turf Other
Comments: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street which includes removal of tree
• and installation of a 36" box size Coral Gum during construction phase of project
Inspected by: Date: April 10, 2002
John Conway
Recommendation: Forward to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for
review and public comment on May 7, 2002
Reviewed by: Date: April 10, 2002
Marcelino G. Lomeli
•
HISTORY OF REPAIRS
• MAIN STREET
1997 — Sidewalk inspections, no ramps or grinds needed
1998 — 6/10/98 The sidewalk was ramped at: 105, 202, 301 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave.
at Davey's Locker
6/9/98 The sidewalk was ground at: 801 E. Balboa Blvd. on Main St.
1999 — 1/15/99 The sidewalk was replaced at: 204 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at
Davey's Locker
2000 — 4/3/00 The sidewalk was ramped at: 100, 106, 105, 107, 200, 301 Main St.
4/6/00 The sidewalk was ground at: 202, 205, 300 Main St.
•
•
TREE INSPECTION REPORT
Name: Balboa Village Improvement Project
Address: 111 Main St.
Phone Number: N/A
Request: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street
Botanical Name: tree site #18 Ficus microcarpa `Nitida'
Common Name: Indian Laurel Fig
Designated Street Tree: Eucalyptus torquata (Coral Gum)
Estimated Total Tree Value: $5,069
Damage: See attached history of repairs
Parkway: Concrete Brick Turf Other
• Comments: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street which includes removal of tree
and installation of a 36" box size Coral Gum during construction phase of project
Inspected by: Date: April 10, 2002
John Conway
Recommendation: Forward to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for
review and public comment on May 7, 2002
Reviewed by: Date: April 10, 2002
Marcelino G. Lomeli
HISTORY OF REPAIRS
MAIN STREET
1997 — Sidewalk inspections, no ramps or grinds needed
1998 — 6/10/98 The sidewalk was ramped at: 105, 202, 301 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave.
at Davey's Locker
6/9/98 The sidewalk was ground at: 801 E. Balboa Blvd. on Main St.
1999 — 1/15/99 The sidewalk was replaced at: 204 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at
Davey's Locker
2000 — 4/3/00 The sidewalk was ramped at: 100, 106, 105, 107, 200, 301 Main St.
4/6/00 The sidewalk was ground at: 202, 205, 300 Main St.
r1
U
•
TREE INSPECTION REPORT
Name: Balboa Village Improvement Project
Address: 111 Main St.
Phone Number: N/A
Request: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street
Botanical Name: tree site #19 Ficus microcarpa `Nitida'
Common Name: Indian Laurel Fig
Designated Street Tree: Eucalyptus torquata (Coral Gum)
Estimated Total Tree Value: $7,817
Damage: See attached history of repairs
Parkway: Concrete Brick Turf Other
Comments: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street which includes removal of tree
and installation of a 36" box size Coral Gum during construction phase of project
Inspected by:
John Conway
Date: April 10, 2002
Recommendation: Forward to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for
review and public comment on May 7, 2002
Reviewed by: Date: April 10, 2002
Marcelino G. Lomeli
•
C�
J
n
U
•
HISTORY OF REPAIRS
MAIN STREET
1997 — Sidewalk inspections, no ramps or grinds needed
1998 — 6/10/98 The sidewalk was ramped at: 105, 202, 301 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave.
at Davey's Locker
6/9/98 The sidewalk was ground at: 801 E. Balboa Blvd. on Main St.
1999 — 1/15/99 The sidewalk was replaced at: 204 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at
Davey's Locker
2000 — 4/3/00 The sidewalk was ramped at: 100, 106, 105, 107, 200, 301 Main St.
4/6/00 The sidewalk was ground at: 202, 205, 300 Main St.
TREE INSPECTION REPORT
Name: Balboa Village Improvement Project
Address: 716 E. Balboa Blvd.
Phone Number: N/A
Request: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street
Botanical Name: tree site #20 Ficus microcarpa `Nitida'
Common Name: Indian Laurel Fig
Designated Street Tree: Eucalyptus torquata (Coral Gum)
Estimated Total Tree Value: $13,549
Damage: See attached history of repairs
Parkway: Concrete Brick Turf Other
Comments: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street which includes removal of tree
• and installation of a 36" box size Coral Gum during construction phase of project
Inspected by: Date: April 10, 2002
John Conway
Recommendation: Forward to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for
review and public comment on May 7, 2002
Reviewed by: Date: April 10, 2002
Marcelino G. Lomeli
•
0
9
E
HISTORY OF REPAIRS
MAIN STREET
1997 — Sidewalk inspections, no ramps or grinds needed
1998 — 6/10/98 The sidewalk was ramped at: 105, 202, 301 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave.
at Davey's Locker
6/9/98 The sidewalk was ground at: 801 E. Balboa Blvd. on Main St.
1999 — 1/15/99 The sidewalk was replaced at: 204 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at
Davey's Locker
2000 — 4/3/00 The sidewalk was ramped at: 100, 106, 105, 107, 200, 301 Main St.
4/6/00 The sidewalk was ground at: 202, 205, 300 Main St.
TREE INSPECTION REPORT
Name: Balboa Village Improvement Project
Address: 205 Main St.
Phone Number: N/A
Request: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street
Botanical Name: tree site #21 Ficus microcarpa `Nitida'
Common Name: Indian Laurel Fig
Designated Street Tree: Eucalyptus torquata (Coral Gum)
Estimated Total Tree Value: $9,404
Damage: See attached history of repairs
Parkway: Concrete Brick Turf Other
Comments: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street which includes removal of tree
and installation of a 36" box size Coral Gum during construction phase of project
Inspected by: Date: April 10, 2002
John Conway
Recommendation: Forward to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for
review and public comment on May 7, 2002
Reviewed by:
•
Marcelino G. Lomeli
Date: April 10, 2002
L
•
0
HISTORY OF REPAIRS
MAIN STREET
1997 — Sidewalk inspections, no ramps or grinds needed
1998 — 6/10/98 The sidewalk was ramped at: 105, 202, 301 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave.
at Davey's Locker
6/9/98 The sidewalk was ground at: 801 E. Balboa Blvd. on Main St.
1999 — 1/15/99 The sidewalk was replaced at: 204 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at
Davey's Locker
2000 — 4/3/00 The sidewalk was ramped at: 100, 106, 105, 107, 200, 301 Main St.
4/6/00 The sidewalk was ground at: 202, 205, 300 Main St.
•
E
TREE INSPECTION REPORT
Name: Balboa Village Improvement Project
Address: 301 '/2 Main St.
Phone Number: N/A
Request: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street
Botanical Name: tree site #22 Ficus microcarpa `Nitida'
Common Name: Indian Laurel Fig
Designated Street Tree: Eucalyptus torquata (Coral Gum)
Estimated Total Tree Value: $7,438
Damage: See attached history of repairs
Parkway: Concrete Brick Turf Other
Comments: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street which includes removal of tree
and installation of a 36" box size Coral Gum during construction phase of project
Inspected by:
John Conway
Date: April 10, 2002
Recommendation: Forward to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for
review and public comment on May 7, 2002
Reviewed by:
Marcelino G. Lomeli
Date: April 10, 2002
0
•
F-1
L
HISTORY OF REPAIRS
MAIN STREET
1997 — Sidewalk inspections, no ramps or grinds needed
1998 — 6/10/98 The sidewalk was ramped at: 105, 202, 301 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave.
at Davey's Locker
6/9/98 The sidewalk was ground at: 801 E. Balboa Blvd. on Main St.
1999 — 1/15/99 The sidewalk was replaced at: 204 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at
Davey's Locker
2000 — 4/3/00 The sidewalk was ramped at: 100, 106, 105, 107, 200, 301 Main St.
4/6/00 The sidewalk was ground at: 202, 205, 300 Main St.
•
n
U
TREE INSPECTION REPORT
Name: Balboa Village Improvement Project
Address: 303 Main St.
Phone Number: N/A
Request: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street
Botanical Name: tree site #23 Ficus microcarpa `Nitida'
Common Name: Indian Laurel Fig
Designated Street Tree: Eucalyptus torquata (Coral Gum)
Estimated Total Tree Value: $4,192
Damage: See attached history of repairs
Parkway: Concrete Brick Turf Other
Comments: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street which includes removal of tree
and installation of a 36" box size Coral Gum during construction phase of project
Inspected by:
John Conway
Date: April 10, 2002
Recommendation: Forward to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for
review and public comment on May 7, 2002
Reviewed by:
Marcelino G. Lomeli
Date: April 10, 2002
0
•
•
HISTORY OF REPAIRS
MAIN STREET
1997 — Sidewalk inspections, no ramps or grinds needed
1998 — 6/10/98 The sidewalk was ramped at: 105, 202, 301 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave.
at Davey's Locker
6/9/98 The sidewalk was ground at: 801 E. Balboa Blvd. on Main St.
1999 — 1/15/99 The sidewalk was replaced at: 204 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at
Davey's Locker
2000 — 4/3/00 The sidewalk was ramped at: 100, 106, 105, 107, 200, 301 Main St.
4/6/00 The sidewalk was ground at: 202, 205, 300 Main St.
TREE INSPECTION REPORT
Name: Balboa Village Improvement Project
Address: 305 Main St.
Phone Number: N/A
Request: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street
Botanical Name: tree site #24 Ficus microcarpa `Nitida'
Common Name: Indian Laurel Fig
Designated Street Tree: Eucalyptus torquata (Coral Gum)
Estimated Total Tree Value: $5,685
Damage: See attached history of repairs
Parkway: Concrete Brick Turf Other
Comments: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street which includes removal of tree
• and installation of a 36" box size Coral Gum during construction phase of project
Inspected by: Date: April 10, 2002
John Conway
Recommendation: Forward to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for
review and public comment on May 7, 2002
Reviewed by: Date: April 10, 2002
Marcelino G. Lomeli
•
n
U
•
•
HISTORY OF REPAIRS
MAIN STREET
1997 — Sidewalk inspections, no ramps or grinds needed
1998 — 6/10/98 The sidewalk was ramped at: 105, 202, 301 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave.
at Davey's Locker
6/9/98 The sidewalk was ground at: 801 E. Balboa Blvd. on Main St.
1999 — 1/15/99 The sidewalk was replaced at: 204 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at
Davey's Locker
2000 — 4/3/00 The sidewalk was ramped at: 100, 106, 105, 107, 200, 301 Main St.
4/6/00 The sidewalk was ground at: 202, 205, 300 Main St.
.•
TREE INSPECTION REPORT
Name: Balboa Village Improvement Project
Address: 814 E. Bay Ave.
Phone Number: N/A
Request: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street
Botanical Name: tree site 425 Ficus microcarpa `Nitida'
Common Name: Indian Laurel Fig
Designated Street Tree: Eucalyptus torquata (Coral Gum)
Estimated Total Tree Value: $9,404
Damage: See attached history of repairs
Parkway: Concrete Brick Turf Other
Comments: Approve conceptual plan for Main Street which includes removal of tree
• and installation of a 36" box size Coral Gum during construction phase of project
Inspected by:
John Conway
: April 10, 2002
Recommendation: Forward to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for
review and public comment on May 7, 2002
Reviewed by: Date: April 10, 2002
Marcelino G. Lomeli
•
•
HISTORY OF REPAIRS
MAIN STREET
1997 — Sidewalk inspections, no ramps or grinds needed
1998 — 6/10/98 The sidewalk was ramped at: 105, 202, 301 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave.
at Davey's Locker
6/9/98 The sidewalk was ground at: 801 E. Balboa Blvd. on Main St.
1999 — 1/15/99 The sidewalk was replaced at: 204 Main St. and 400 E. Bay Ave. at
Davey's Locker
2000 — 4/3/00 The sidewalk was ramped at: 100, 106, 105, 107, 200, 301 Main St.
4/6/00 The sidewalk was ground at: 202, 205, 300 Main St.
•
•
n rtp
�qD
Av 1
y O y EDrNq WY
CO NA D0 ST t �y
Z o ERGO �/
ST
sT
a Park's, Beaches li Recreation Commission
Regular Meeting
July 3, 2001
• Page 5
9. Balboa Island Bench Report - Director Niederhaus stated that this was the third time
that this report had come before the Commission. He noted that document on had
been added with a map with locations of benches.
Director Niederhaus also stated that he had just received a peti/ni posit ion of the
bench at South Bay Front and Topaz Avenue tonight.
Commissioner Beek stated that Topaz is actually 1 foot 3 in s shorter than the other
streets that have two benches.
Commissioner Skoro opened the public hearing
Peggy Marotta and Pat Butterwitz repres Xing the Balboa Island Improvement
Association, stated that the public enjoy ti benches and that there are always people
that wish to donate a bench.
Ms. Marotta stated that they were ompletely unaware of the petition.
• Motion by CommissioAfir Beek to deny the request for a bench to be installed at Topaz
and South Bay Fro
Z Franklin agreed that there comes a time when there are too many
by acclamation.
Motion by Commissioner Beek to approve the request for a bench to be installed at
Garnet at South Bayfront with the stipulation that two pots be removed from the
location. Motion carried by acclamation.
10. Change of Street Tree Redesignation - Director Niederhaus stated that the Balboa
Village Project, is a beautification project for the Balboa area. During the Promote
Revitalization of Our Peninsula (PROP) meetings it became apparent that the street
trees designated for Main Street and Balboa Boulevard needed to be changed. The
PROP Committee on May 10 and 29 voted unanimously to change the street trees from:
Cryptocarya rubra to the Coral Gum on Main Street; and the New Zealand Christmas
tree to the Willow- Leafed Peppermint on Balboa Boulevard.
Discussion ensued regarding the G1 policy as related to beautification projects.
• Chair Skoro opened the public hearing
Jan Vandersloot, 2221 E. 16`h Street, stated that Ficus trees are special City trees and
that in accordance with the G -1 policy that should be retained. He questioned the
G
•
Parks, Beaches l3 Recreation Commission
Regular Meeting
July 3, 2001
Page 6
wisdom of replacing trees just for aesthetic reasons. He urged the Commission to deny
the request.
Kay Mortensen, Balboa Island Point Association stated that the future of the Ficus tree
and their problems have been a discussion item for a long time and that the feeling of
the Association is that the Ficus has enough problems associated with them to
substantiate the need to get the appropriate tree planted during the project.
Director Niederhaus noted that Dr. Vandersloot's letter stating that the Coral Gum
usually flowers and drop onto the sidewalk was correct, but in a beach area it will
flower. He noted that 42 other tree species were discussed before the decision was
made on these two proposed species.
Commissioner Beek stated that the only decision that the Commission has before them
tonight is whether to approve the street tree redesignation on the list and not the
actual removal.
Commissioner Tobin stated that an outside Urban Forester was retained by the City and
recommended that the Ficus be removed.
• Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager stated that the Ficus trees have done well but are
causing problems now. She noted that with all the work that will be done, that some of
these trees will be lost, and that the Coral Gum was approved by the Association as well
as the PROP Committee.
Chair Skoro closed the public hearing
Commissioner Macfarland stated that he has a problem with the redesignation since
these trees are designated as special trees.
Motion by Commission Tobin to approve the change of the street tree desination on:
• Main Street from the Cryptocarya rubra to the Coral Gum; and
• Balboa Boulevard from the New Zealand Christmas Tree to the Willow- Leafed
Peppermint.
Motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: Beek, Pfaff, Skoro Tobin
Nay: Franklin, Macfrarland
Absent: Allen
11. Committee Reports
• Budget - Nothing new to report.
• Castaways Park - Nothing new to report.
• Park Development - Nothing new to report
• Recreation ii Open Space Element - Nothing new to report
• Recreation Services - Meeting will be set up by the end of July
Park's, Beaches £t Recreation Commission
Regular Meeting
July 3, 2001
• Page 7
• Seniors - Nothing new to report
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Results of root pruning on Clay Street
• 381h Street update
Volleyball - Coastal Commission Update
• Review of G -5 Policy
ADJOURNMENT - 10:35pm
Submitted by:
Teri Craig, Admin Asiltant
•
n
U
Dear City Council,
• Gay Kelly has informed me that the trees on Main Street will be discussed
this evening. I am shocked since I have been on different committees over
eight years to study the trees. After several meetings we came to the
conclusion that the ficus trees are the wrong tree for that location. Many
times over we came to the conclusion that the only answer was to replace
them with a tree that will not invade the plumbing but still maintains a
canopy effect.
My personal experience with the Ficus on Main was a costly one. I would
spend on a plumber about $95.00 - $150.00 a month to maintain the roots.
This process would keep the roots om invading the pipes. When we first
opened this aintenan not been done, consequently we had to jackhammer
the floor two times to replace bro en pipes. My husband and I would do most
of the work because it was too costly for us to hire a plumhej-to do the work
after hours. It seems to me most our bids from other plumbers were around
$3000.00 per lob
Sometimes the roots would invade the pipes quicker than my plumber would
guess. So this would cause all the lines in the restaurant to completely
back up. Of course it seemed as if it always happened on busy days. The
effect of this would cause the restaurant to stop. We could not was dishes
or use the bathroom. The floor drains would over flow with "dark stinky
water." Twice the toilet had to be pulled to remove the roots. To this day,
• I have customers joke about the day the toilet walked out the door while they
were dining. Luckily for me they found some humor, but that same day I had
customers that did not get the antics of Balboa and they were applaud.
My business time in Balboa has some great memories. It is a great place to
begin your first business. However, it can be very stressful. To be
successful you have to be involved in the politics, deal with the weather,
hope that people will make the long drive, and depend on tourism.
I feel the city should be focused on making The Village a desirable place for
quality businesses. The Village must compete with all the shopping centers
in the area. I guarantee that a successful shopping center would not force
the tenants to put up with tree roots in their plumbing. The trees would be
gone and replaced with the correct tree. Tenants would not have to spend
several hours on committees and then have to defend themselves to the loud
minority of residents. The tenant's focus should always be on making his
business successful. And in turn that will make The Village a success.
I am a resident of Newport Beach - I would like to see the trees replaced.
If you would like more information my work number is 949 -509 -1211.
Thank you!
Britta Pulliam
• 205 _7NOV4v
Page 1 of 1
a2U✓l�
mime: / /Ox00120FBO/ 3/2612002
• To: Gay Kelly <balboabeacon(ahome.com>
Date: Friday, October 05, 2001 7:43AM
Subject: roots
Gay:
For several years there has been controversy regarding the removal of the FicusTrees on
Main. St. It is a fact that many people like the look & many do not. It is also a fact that
the trees have caused a great deal of root damage to underground utilities, sidewalks,
streets & possibly foundations.
Two weeks ago the Gas Co. were replacing gas lines beneath the streets & sidewalks on
East Bay Ave. They excavated a trench in the sidewalk along Bay Ave, next to the
Bakery, other shops. The trench was approximately eight feet long, eighteen inches wide
& four feet deep. There was a workman in the trench & a supervisor standing by. Laying
on the sidewalk was a root, two feet long and two & '/2 inched in diameter. (Photo '
attached). This root was cut out by the workman to clean the trench. The supervisor
pointed out an even larger root growing against the sidewalk & the foundation of
neighboring buildings and under a phone booth. In the opinion of the supervisor the roots
are those of the Ficus trees on Main St. He said it is common for Ficus roots to grow a
great distance.
6K
J
•
•
•
L b - go��f���E
-e, e S c 1 o vt - S i j e vy Q l k
'kle5e �Tte5 A4. ✓e- Ilac c) tii& -Cr be5�
Dr o rr(f l vl Is -4- Y U LA Pro b) e FYI S art 1l o n--F- ✓1 c) ( 09,
we_ receYJLy re- ID[otce vu.r cur(- 'A'kOj a
becLt5e-
L .Jcw1C�
vjt i rL a C( ct
.�^1 +e, 0-nLy U tfe , wee kl our ce�r pe -ta��r� �s
cztf)'4 �e e 1 i,tt{%' LL) i4-L Ae- (eIjL, ired cf ,ecd7ir��
7 rl,e-- bcc�kr ooiyi ��Jr�S Cl L- Q�tC({2Llt✓�tS �Db� GYL
tl�u.f �-�-
�' 'rLU e
roots J 71 Lcz� �o (,t iii d 44i e t'r wcc� bwd er
4-� c c e o or fo 4A*-;, pct ff� ro �vt.
t h i c k i
4rr
" oAt U� our Sh,OF
[je WO IC( bL2 eV-1
JA) ere Y4-2 (p fac ec{,
j Aese 4rce--5
/ � t GLS (if C/ D!%u
3/25/02 ul&)
•
Mayor Tod Ridgeway and Newport Beach Council Members
Re: Removal of Ficus trees, Main Street, Balboa
It has been brought to the Balboa Merchants Owner Associations attention
that a group of people are revisiting the removal of the mature Ficus trees on Main
St., at your Council meeting March 26 during Public Comment.
Over the past 10 years we have studied this one element of the revitalization
of Balboa Village many times. The trees are out of scale with the streets and in the
wrong place in relation to Balboa's' revitalization. Over 5 years ago, one -half of the
Ficus trees on Main Street were removed as part of the future plan for the
remainder of the trees to be removed and replaced with a new choice of tree.
Our Board that represents the Balboa Village majority agrees that without
sacrificing the entire Main Street revitalizion plan the trees must be removed.
We appreciate the passion of others who can't stand to see a beautiful tree
removed. But for the above mentioned reasons as stated above and other well -
informed reasons why they should be removed, to revisit this is redundant at this
• time.
The City is investing a much appreciated meaningful amount of money into
Balboa Village. The Village beautification and revitalization will have a very
important effect on our community that was a part of, if not, the `first light' of
Newport Beach.
The `trees' must come out.
Sincerely,
The Balboa Merchants /Owners Association
Gay Wassail- Kelly, President, Balboa Beacon News
Penny Rodheim, V -P, Balboa Boat Rentals
Bob Black. See/Treas., Catalina Flyer
Patrick Moore, Balboa Fun Zone Rides
Dayna Pettit, Cannery Village Realty
Dave Walker, Habour House Coffee (out of town at time of polling)
Butch Wilson, Balboa Saloon
Scott St. John, Balboa Market
Ben Swenson, Newport Landing Restaurant
•
C. J. WILLIAMS
April 12, 2002
Val Skoro, Chair, and Commissioners
Parks, Beaches & Recreation
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
RE: Ficus Tree Removals on Main Street, Balboa
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Commission:
I recently wrote a letter acknowledging the Ficus Trees on Main Street and that they.
should be kept in place for their canopy and beauty effect; however, after extended
conversations with fellow merchants, owners of businesses and homeowners, I am more
informed as to the consistent problems to plumbing, flooring, sewers, torn up sidewalks,
streets and curbs that are caused by the mature Ficus Trees, and I am no longer in favor
of saving the trees. Although my properties do not seem to be affected by the roots, I do
• know that the roots have grown and continue to grow over 200 feet from and around my
fellow merchants on all sides. I also realize that every time you trim the roots (only %< of
the root system a year), the new sidewalks will have to be torn up at great expense to the
City, plus the tree root damage will persist as mentioned above and the trees will continue
to grow larger, ultimately reaching a size that will simply have to be removed, at even
greater expense.
The Revitalization Project is long overdue and the transformation of our downtown will
be further enhanced with new trees that will "fit the landscape" appropriately, eventually
growing into the new look needed by Balboa By The Sea, a Wonderful Place to Be.
CC: City Council Members �1-9--
✓Homer Bludau e
�'bave Niederhaus Q
11alboa Merchants Owners Association Q..
:Balboa Peninsula Point Association r31 etc
is
Most sincerely,
J
C. J. Williams
L
c
�o
9
t
C
C
J
` t
Ficus Trees
L
� o d 1z o
O O
L d y s 0 L L o R O o>
d } c Ol Cn S } L 1] OJ Q .O ° t
S T
} 'S O .`n M G ;u O C` V
Ol y } p L p a d b .QM O h Q C
sn p Q ±- L +L- y o d of s y y, cn. rn c h` N
y} i ° CO vp- . Q d CIN
U C71
W 4U
tj
tn H L }
�s d a 3cc o —
C j
N -0
o Q ov y .N o o ai 3 ei o a c o d
tn fl)
L h N -° > Q L N
Q (.L d S }(5 N\ O
T
}
7
O
V
N
C
Q
L
Q
O
R
7
O
L
C
Y
L
Q
3
t
i
O
II.
L
Q
G c:iEd
V
Z
� W
S W
t C
L C
Y°- p
H �
7 C
C
� C
o �
h
Q
L
v
O .O
O
`W
a m
E v
a 3 q
L � �
4_ V 6l
Up
d �^
CL
Z
S
t
oe
V L
H �
S O
V 9
c a
h
V +�
Qt O
z
E
r
w
� y
p
Q
Y .
W �
�P
S
� W
a y
E o
o C
d .`O
a C
¢ y
d
o �y
a-
F�-
S
N
E CO'
Q � �
�O
k
t
\d
S
e
h
Q
U C
m �
O i
Az
O g�
� � V
d h
O
C O
� V
8m
M �
R
Z
In Memory Of
r
}
C
M
-Q
p
O
d
F
o
N
_
Q
d
p
a
a
d
o
v
t
a h
o
5
C%
L
a
O
w
+S-
� H
fi
C
cdil
}
a
c p
A
d
t
O_
O
'>
c
}
01
m
d
d
CJ
O
N_
aL0
`
N
E a
O
v
+-
Q 11J
} Q
=
d
L
u
o
O
d
Cn
d
O
7
d
O
�
d O
VI
p
vdl
O
=
O Q
H
d
C
kn
ON
D
cn
C
3
S
L
d
}
�
fV
d
A
vC-
c
� L
C
d
d
d
3
05,
F-
v
S
L
In Memory Of
1.
r
r
}
C
M
-Q
p
O
d
F
o
N
_
Q
d
p
C
o
�
t
C.
C%
L
a
O
Q
O
O
N
N
ro0
}
n
d
O
O
d
O_
O
'>
c
}
01
m
d
d
x&)
O
N_
aL0
`
N
O
O
y
L
�
u
o
O
Cn
d
7
d
G
kn
t
~
L
S
L
7
�
fV
•n
vC-
c
X
O
O
d
d
3
05,
F-
v
S
L
V
O
L
O
_7
CO
�
c
h
O
s
d
a
D_
-0
}
L
d
Y
U
d
d
>`
d
tj
L
+-
N
6
C
Q
^a
W
o1
V
O
wf
1.
r
r
}
C
M
d
F
o
0
o
p
2
o
O
O
N
N
ro0
}
n
d
O
O
d
O_
O
'>
01
m
d
J
x&)
Y
aL0
`
y
L
�
N
d
7
d
G
kn
t
~
L
S
L
7
�
fV
•n
vC-
O
X
F-
T
a
L
A
V
O
L
O
_7
CO
d
w
a
h
O
s
d
D
-O
d
+-
S
L
V
O
wf
dnoaXJ Sul3[aoM laodir .V 4 autala iuo.i f alas a$aseO
4 -t5 -02
To: Dayna Pettit
Re: The ficus trees on Main St.
Dayna the roots liomthe ficus trees have cost us hundreds upon hundreds
Of dollars over the years. 1 average a visit from Rotor - Rooter every six to eight weeks.
Fach time they tell me it is the roots fium these trees that are causing my plumbing
prnhlems. l7icy tell me the ficus roots we noloriuus for this.
Thank -You,
Steve Welton
• Manager, Studio Cafe
40
S
•
0
i asc 1 vi i
City Council
City of Newport Beach
My name is Darrell H. Studer owner of a residence at 807 E. Kiyy Ave. 1 have had trouble with
the roots of the Ficus trees on Main Street clogging my sewer line for many years and the
stoppages are getting more frequent. My sewer runs under a building at the fear of MY Property
to the city sewer in the alley. I have run a video camera through my line and the roots are
entering my line at or new the alley property lire. This year t had ray sewer cleaned on January
28" and again on March 29*. Mr. Black has copies of the invoices from the plumber and also the
roots which were removed on the 29". 1 have discussed my problems with Mr. Robert Stein of
the City Public Works Department and Mr. John Conway with the City Urban Forester who has
determined that the roots are definitely from a Ficus tree.
Although the trees maybe attractive, it is not right that a citizen should be deprived of the use of
his residence, so I endorse the removal of these trees.
Darrell H. Studer
(760) 321 -5391
4zc ,'V1s7oz
Mror,
..Jgetmsg ?curmbox= F000000001 &a= 976889cOc5 d6cOfbO4549a45ee4b 1983 &msg= MSG1019234/19/02
JONES PLUMBING
• P.O. Box 7813
Newport Beach, CA 92658
Phone (949) 642 -3575 State Contractors Uc. # 600049
To: nn
go') Ps r5 n >a _
k p. t - -. i O J 'r - Aja Cr
nucnvuAOVC ncNlnrv. I Z TERMS:
PLUMBING
Work Order /Invoice
OA ORCE �,9.
- aaa
NOME TEL.
MEN LAKEN BY
WORK TEL.
CUSTOMER ORDER NO.
DAYWORK ❑CONTRACT [--]EXTRA
Cl OVERTIME ❑ OTHER
STARTING DATE
JOB NAME NO.
4.:H w Lf rA_n
AE LOCATION
IN DAi 6
�2
JOB TEL
❑ WORK TO BE DONE 14kfV [b}�WORK COMPLETED II'"�
.�v�' ��g'Z DESCRIPTION OF WORK `
� r4 - N
NO HEAT
NO WATER
BURST PIPE(S)
GAS LINE
INSULATE PIPE(S)
LABOR
HRS.
RATE
AMOUNT
BLOCKAGE - WASTE SYSTEM
KITCHEN
SINK
AJIJANr HOT
R FILTER
DISPOSAL
TOTAL LABOR
DISHWASHER
OTY.
MATERIAL
UNIT
AMOUNT
BATH (1) (2) (3)
LAVATORY
WATER CLOSET
BATHTUB
SHOWER STALL / HEAD
WHIRLPOOL/ SAP] HOT TUB
LAUNDRY
WASHING MACHINE
FAUCET(S)
SILL COCK
_ SUPPLY UNE(S)
TRAP(S) I DRAIN(S)
FILTER(S)
GATE / BALL VALVE(S)
WATER UNE(S)
PRESSURE TANK
SUMP /EFFLUENT PUMP
WATER HEATER
BOILER - STEAM /HOT WATER
WORK ORDERED BY
TOTAL
MATERIALS
SAFETY VALVE
ULATOR
1 h aNVnMeCge the seiisfanery CCmpWim at the aEOVe
X
TOTAL
LABOR
ACE
BURNER -
TAX
HEAT PUMP
SIGNATURE WE
Thank You!
OTHER CHARGER
WASTE/ SEWER LINE(S)
VENT PIPES)
TOTAL
$ $ a�
VAL SKORO
PARKS, BEACH & RECREATION
Copy of letter collected by the BMOA
JONES PLUMBING
• P.O. Box 7813
Newport Beach, CA 92658
Phone (949) 642.3575 State Contractors Lio. R 600049
To:
`DQsPet1 SJvSJ 2J'
R10 -7 L5 9 ) /S� 9 _
q- eL'.)P0A T- E 1 - 4Ly� --
TERMS:
PLUMBING
Work Order /Invoice
ATE ORDER
-2o4 -L-
HONE TEL.
ON, AE BY
WORN TFI.
CUSTOMER ORDER ND.
XIDAYWORK ❑CONTRACT ❑EXTRA
C1 OVERTIME El OTHER
STARTING DATE
JOB NAME I NO.
-
JOB LOCATION
7'rrc e- 2c.e f S
INVOICE pA!�)E
��']'J
JJB TEL.
VrICVMVV\MJ VCIVV IC. -�
❑ WORK TO BE DONE 'vy \vim 2
WORK COMPLETED�ci ��Q ���� Ae �-2- DESCRIPTION OF WORK
mp
NO HEAT
NO WATER
BURST PIPES)
GAS UNE
INSULATE PIPE(S) LABOR HRS. RATE AMOUNT
BLOCKAGE - WASTE SYSTEM
KITCHEN
SINK
M HOT
FILTER
DISPOSAL
TOTAL
LABOR
DISHWASHER
CITY.
MATERIAL
UNIT
AMOUNT
BATH (1) (2) (3)
LAVATORY
WATER CLOSET
BATHTUB
SHOWER STALL / HEAD
I
WHIRLPOOL/ SAP I HOT TUB
LAUNDRY
WASHING MACHINE
FAUCET(S)
SILL COCK
SUPPLY UNE(S)
TRAPS) / DRAIN(S)
FILTER(S)
GATE 1 BALL VALVE(S)
WATER UNE(6)
PRESSURE TANK
SUMP I EFFLUENT PUMP
WATER HEATER
BOILER - STEAM / HOT WATER
WORK ORDERED BY II
' �J><A -,)'
TOTAL
MATERIALS
SAFETY VALVE
py
tlescn6ed -.Wed JS the satisfactory completion d the abwe
X
TOTAL
LABOR
LATOR
ACE
BURNER
TAX
HEAT PUMP
SIGNATURE DATE
Thank You!
OTHER CHARGES
WASTE/ SEWER LINE(S)
VENT PIPE(S)
TOTAL
Q
O
April 16, 2002
Gay Wassall-Kelly
Balboa Beacon News
Balboa Merchants - Owners Association President
P.O. Box 4336
Balboa, CA 92661
Dear Gay,
Bi6i A nna s Cafe
• I am writing you in regards to the planned removal of Fichus trees from Main Street in Balboa Village. I am
in full support of their removal, for the following reasons.
Plumbing costs associated with root removal in waste lines have exceeded $350.00 since acquiring
the business in July 2001. As a restaurant that serves the community from 7 AM every day,
plumbing issues are not only a direct out -of- pocket expense, but also pose a significant loss of
opportunity should business be interrupted due to unsatisfactory conditions.
2. Removal of the large tree in front of the restaurant is critical to our plans to provide outdoor dining.
Current zoning restrictions prohibit such expansion of our services, as the tree constricts pedestrian
flow.
3. Waste from the tree, and the wildlife that occupies it, constantly soils our awnings and sidewalk.
Restaurant staff must be utilized to maintain the property in good condition for both our customers
and visitors to Balboa Village.
4. Any further delays in the Balboa Village Revitalization Plan will have a profound negative impact
on all the businesses in the Village.
Please let me know if you I can be of further assistance.
• Sincerely,
Paul Mesmer
Owner
4AI6�
0
City of Newport Beach
City Council
PBR Committee
04/20/2002
Re: Fichus Trees, Main Street, Balboa
Dear Council Members,
ON THE SAND AT NEWPORT
This letter is to inform the PBR Committee of the inconveniences and problems that are
caused by the Fichus trees located on Main Street in Balboa.
To start with, the roots of these trees travel hundreds of feet underground, over a short
period of time. This causes the roots of such trees to penetrate into the underground
sewer pipes, causing overflows and other such problems. We have been experiencing
such problems for over the past 10 years. We also went through considerable expense to
• see if we could put a stop to this costly and aggravating problem. We hired numerous
plumbing companies that checked all the pipes with special cameras and had no solution
to offer us, rather than maintaining the pipes and cleaning them professionally once or
twice a month depending on the rate of growth of such roots.
•
This process was costing the Balboa Inn a few hundred dollars per month. In turn, we
had to purchase numerous plumbing and maintenance equipment plus a commercial
snake costing over $3,000 to do the job in house. We still have to spend two to three
hours every week cleaning all the sewer pipes in order to prevent any further problems.
Further more, we think these trees have exhausted their useful life and could be replaced
by other cleaner, more convenient and even more beautiful types of trees.
We appreciate all the work and effort of the city to beautify the Balboa Peninsula and
recommend the replacement of the Fichus Trees.
Sincerely,
%IV Pourmussa
105 MAIN STREET • BALBOA, CALIFORNIA 92661 • (949) 675 -3412 • Fax (949) 673 -4587
City of Newport Beach
c/o Gay Kelly
PO Box 4336
Balboa, CA 92661
April 24, 2002
To Whom It May Concern:
Please be informed that BJ's Pizza and Grill at 106 Main Street, Balboa, does experience
sewage and plumbing problems from the Ficus trees lining Main Street. We have had
problems specifically with our drains in the kitchen from the roots of the trees.
We are in favor of removing the trees during the remodeling of the downtown area.
• Sincerely,
Stephan Loutrel
General Manager
0
CHICAGO PIZZA 8< BREWERY, INC.
16162 BEACH BOULEVARO, SUITE 100 • HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92647
TELEPHONE 714.848.3747 FAX 714.848.5587
Balboa
Merchants fowners
By h
4/25/02
Parks, Beaches, Recreation Department
City of Newport Beach
Re: Removal of Ficus Trees, Main Street, Balboa Village
BMOA vote on Ficus Trees Removal
Enclosed are letters from Merchants on Main Street, Balboa Village regarding the
difficulties experienced and their feelings on the removal of the mature Ficus trees.
Over the past month we have made a consorted effort to contact all of the business,
homeowners, and land /building owners. The letters attached are the ones we were
• successful contacting. Some of the merchants/owners will attend the May Ph meeting to
learn more about the above mentioned and or send letters.
Included in the letters is one from C. J. Williams, who owns 4 buildings (8 storefronts),
rescinding a letter (in favor of saving all the trees) that was presented to the City
Council in March.
•
The Balboa Merchants Owners Association took a vote of our 9 member board. 7-
remove all trees. 1 vote: Neutral- whatever the PBR decides. 1 vote: Keep 4 on the
corners of Main & Balboa Blvd.
Sincerely,
Gay Wassall elly o
BMOA President
cc: City Council Members
D. Niederhaus
B. Stein
S. Wood
H. Bludau
P.O. Box 840 Balboa, CA., 92661
Balboa B9 t�teSea - A Wowderfii.l Place to Be!
•
�T33
Page lof3
FAX
May 1, 2002
IA 92661
To: Val Skoro
Chair
Parks, Beach & Recreation Commission
City of Newport Beach
FAX No. (949) 673 -4511
From: Gus Chabre
President
Balboa Peninsula Point Association (BPPA)
FAX No. (949) 675 -3152
Telephone (949) 675 -6433
e-mail Schabre@adell2hia.net
him
Subject: Main Street Trees — Balboa Peninsula
Reference: December 8, 2000 Memo — Tod White, President BPPA to Bob
Stein, City ofNewport Beach (attached)
Dear Mr. Skoro,
The referenced December 8, 2000 BPPA memo recommends the Main Street Ficus Trees
be removed and replaced with Gold Medallion or Coral Gum trees. The removal and
replacement of the trees on Main Street remains the position of the BPPA today.
On April 23, 2002 the BPPA held a general membership meeting to review the BPPA
2000 decision recommending the removal of the Main Street Ficus trees. Three points of
views were presented to the general membership prior to establishing the current position
of the BPPA. The three positions were:
1) Dave Niedderhaus and Dan Trimble, Newport Beach staff stated the City wants
the Ficus Trees removed to protect the new Main Street bardscape from potential
• Ficus Tree root damage.
0 Page 2 of 3
2) Elaine Linhoff, BPPA member, stated the Ficus Trees should be retained because
they are mature trees which provide a canopy that cannot be provided by the new
trees. Further, the City should change the current Main Street hardscape plans
and provide root barriers and root trimming to control the Toot damage.
3) Kay Mortensen, BPPA member, presented a compromise which would retain four
of the Ficus Trees located at the intersection of Balboa Blvd. and Main Streets.
The general membership poll conducted at the April 23,2002 BPPA meeting continues to
supports the removal of the Main Street Ficus Trees. The membership further agreed if a
member was in favor of the compromise plan they should attend the upcoming PB&RC
meeting to express their view as individual resident of the peninsula.
I hope that this FAX will clarify the current position of the BPPA for your upcoming
May 7, 2002 PBRC meeting. Do not hesitate to contact me if you require further
information.
With best regards,
n
Gus Chabre
President, Balboa Peninsula Point Association
cc: Thomas Tobin, Commissioner
David L. Niedderhaus, General Services Director, Staff Liaison
Attachment
•
•
•
la Z
To: Bob 8aen►
5'cr�
t DevidNdkV&u%, Tod Y 1. T=TcbnBnftPUHNM. an MA bond MOM
F=m Tod WhftWPAPred l"
gubjeot 1i�sT�eeeanMasn8tceot
to a RMW uwvw 6 m►Novamr s�
vpBPPA invited sIl peoiaouk p� , � mTivciY, ffiw
iLetieesonDd�e3tmet Aboec40readmtsd e°Ssti�
d;,�ono�twoistae� 1) aekaha�a £Poedeei��rMdn9lteetaad�VAWWdo
aboatlltetndWdg�
*o dodp" tteo for it "Sheet cur gasp oudw edveab8a dtbn
owdG n=ddw&UM W"m Weweie *1,poinrtoeod. nee IWO
stwotoaaaratio,
Bv mw. iabM V � =
a q0WR Oslo be aeciM Of** Goallwdum
ho otie GWMeddw forL wA and odw oouMdOw on bmilSft°t
S"w
A",w{byteapsteapatb bYn arh� Wm
�a�+ etdly�uPPo�ts�°d°°o[tlheCasicum,
t�tBrOoldMt>dd�i`+� cbo ffiat�beC6yw dp �b�°Sheet3r
,�beltadglrwat�eiroppraret $�atoeabope
band op ofaahttee sa arayoo�seadd eeeydy tit mg'
9�eseodoiipre.w�iud4abaadsaf�st OmpnaP�7!�ewrwdlL°
pcosaod oaas of varioes optiaa usd mao "�. � in s tau fp aee radio. b � �
S0.injowmmyowmamomdodw for Main9orectistniorsaYO liefiearaseand>DtepYos
t�emre9rie�i/irM88'baac p�dMedeliaesar, iffiold#ieddGoof sr wed
1Lea.�Ooeei Qr■a.
Tbeoit you f br iav�n6 otr Pte° t6 P�0t0� �e �iha Beta bminee�
dbhict
n
u
•
F-
L-1
Balboa Village Rehabilitation Project
Analysis of Costs to Retain the
Main Street Ficus Trees
May 8, 2001
Prepared by:
City of Newport Beach
Public Works Department
CAWNOOWStTamp a, Imarnat FIIes1OLKA1 WCosts for Fiws Trees on Main Street 050601.doc
n
u
Introduction
The City of Newport Beach has initiated a program to rehabilitate the Balboa
Village area. This project includes the widening of sidewalks and reconstruction
of roadways including Main Street from Oceanfront to the Pavilion.
Main Street is lined with twenty -four ficus trees. These trees have a root system
that has damaged the road, curb and gutter, sidewalks, sewers, adjacent building
foundations, and public and private sewer systems. The pavement broken by
the ficus tree roots has created trip- and -fall hazards and claims have been made
against the city.
The material to be used for the streets and walkways for the Balboa Village
project is a structural -grade colored concrete called lithocrete. This concrete
paving is costly to install and the City wishes to maintain this pavement in good
condition for safety and aesthetic reasons. It is important to determine if the ficus
trees should be removed and replaced with a new tree species that does not
have the same root problems.
The city commissioned Integrated Urban Forestry (IUF) to evaluate the ficus tree.
• The IUF study discusses specific root mitigation methods: root pruning and
installation of root barriers. The report recommends cautious use of root pruning
in order to not jeopardize the health of the trees. The report notes that root
barriers can be expected to provide a temporary solution with "roots probably ...
contained for a 10 year period" and "less favorable results over a 20 year period ".
To compliment the IUF analysis, the Public Works Department has prepared this
evaluation of the range annual maintenance costs that could be expected in
order to retain the twenty -four ficus trees on Main Street.
Costs for Repair, Maintenance and Claims
This analysis considered the following costs for retaining the twenty -four ficus
trees:
1. Removing and replacing lithocrete sidewalks and roadway pavement.
2. Removing and replacing curb and gutter.
3. Enhanced maintenance for tree pruning, root trimming and root barrier
installation.
4. Cleaning and repairing sewer laterals and mains.
5. Property damage claims due to root incursions.
6. Bodily injury claims due to trip- and -fall hazards created by the ficus tree roots
• lifting the pavement.
C:1WING0WWemporary IMemet FIIes10lK MkCosts for Fir ua Trees on Main Street 050801. doc
• Lithocrete Sidewalks and Roadway Pavement
The proposed material for Main Street is a reinforced concrete pavement called
lithocrete. This lithocrete will include a granite material broadcast on top of the
wet concrete and coated with a special sealant. Subsequently, a diamond
pattern will be sawcut in and alternate diamonds stained. The cost for this
material is $15.50 per square foot for the sidewalk and $16.40 per square foot for
the roadway.
Curb and Gutter
North of Balboa Boulevard, standard curb and gutter will be used. South of
Balboa Boulevard, the curb face will be `zero- inches'. The cost to remove and
replace the curb and gutter is approximately $30 per lineal foot.
Tree Maintenance
7$
The cost for providing twice a year pruning of the crown i $158 r year per
tree.
Per IUF estimates, root trimming and the installation of root barriers will cost
$1,012 per tree. For this cost analysis, it was assumed that these mitigation
• measures will only be implemented at the time of construction of the hardscape
improvement on Main Street. For this analysis, the total cost of $1,012 is
`annualized' as $34 per year per tree.
Sewer Mains and Laterals
On Main Street, there are two 6 -inch PVC sewer mains and one 8 -inch VCP
sewer with a total length of about 470 feet. There are also five sewer laterals
with a total length of approximately 100 feet. Sewer cleaning costs are
approximately $1.00 per lineal foot. Replacement costs are approximately $100
per lineal foot.
Property Damage
In the past three years, there have bee( 29�itywide claims made against the city
for property damage caused by ficus tree roots. These claims range from $109
to $97,186. The average claim is $9,000. On Main Street, there have been two
claims in the past three years totaling $1000.
Bodily Injury
Annually, there are six to twelve bodily injury claims made against the city for trip -
and -fall incidents. The percentage of these claims that are due to root damage
• of the pavement is not available.
CAWND0WS%TemporWy Intemat Files10LKA1901Cosls for Fic s Trees on Main Streat 050801 Ooc
• Successful judgments against the city run between $1,000 and $175,000 with
many awards ranging between $20,000 and $50,000. There has been one trip -
and -fall claim for $5,000 on Main Street in the past seven years.
For this analysis, it is assumed that City staff and Village business owners will be
proactive in identifying pavement damage and that frequent repairs of the
pavement will be successful in continuing to minimize trip- and -fall claims on Main
Street.
Root Damage Scenarios
As the trees become larger, it can be expected that the ficus tree roots will
become more aggressive and there will be a corresponding acceleration in
damage to the sidewalk and street pavement. Root pruning and the installation
of root barriers have been proposed to help mitigate this expected future
damage. This analysis assumed three possible levels of damage that will be
caused by the ficus tree roots depending upon the effectiveness of the proposed
mitigation measure. These three damage levels are denoted as 'High Severity',
'Medium Severity', and 'Low Severity'.
For the Medium Severity damage scenario, it was assumed that root trimming
and root barriers would reduce root biomass in the top foot of soil near the tree,
• but over time would not be particularly effective in protecting the adjacent
sidewalk and street pavement. The cost for property damage claims is assumed
to be equal to a single claim of $9,000. Bodily injury claim costs were assumed
to be one -third that of the property damage claim costs ($3,000). It was
assumed that 64 square feet of roadway, 100 square feet of sidewalk and ten
feet of curb and gutter would be replaced annually. Sewer cleaning and repair
costs are based on interviews with the City utility maintenance section. For this
scenario, it was assumed that twenty feet of sewer main or lateral would be
replaced annually.
For the Low Severity damage scenario, it was assumed that root trimming and
barriers will restrain the expected acceleration of pavement damage due to a
more aggressive root system. It was assumed that property damage and bodily
injury claims will be one half that of the Medium Severity scenario. It was
assumed that the reinforced lithocrete will perform very well with respect to the
ficus tree roots and that the pavement repairs will be one -half of that projected
under the Medium Severity damage scenario. It was assumed that ten feet of
sewer main or lateral would be removed and replaced annually.
For the High Severity damage scenario, it was assumed root trimming and root
barriers will be ineffective and that pavement damage will become progressively
worse as roots become more intrusive with tree age. Three property damage
. claims per year were assumed. Bodily injury claim costs were assumed to be
twice that of the Medium Severity damage scenario. Hardscape repair costs and
CiWINDOWS1Temporary Inte nw Files101_KA190ICosts for Fic s Trees on Main Street 0508014oc
• sewer maintenance costs are assumed to be about 40 percent more costly that
the Medium Severity damage scenario. It was assumed that thirty feet of sewer
main or lateral would be removed and replaced annually.
•
•
Annual Costs
To determine costs, the following was assumed:
Because lithocrete is a reinforced concrete material, a life span of fifty years
would not be unrealistic. For this study, a life span of thirty years was used.
2. A three - percent annual rate of growth for the economy was assumed.
The tables in Appendix A list each of the repair, maintenance and claim items
with unit costs and shows the calculated annual costs for the three damage
scenarios.
These annual costs were then used to calculate total costs over thirty years using
standard tables for calculating compound interest. These calculations are shown
in the following section.
Table 1 summarizes the annual costs and total expenditures over 30 years.
Table 1: Annual and Total Costs
Damage
Scenario
Annual cost
Total Expenditure
over 30 years
Total Expenditure over 30
years in today's dollars
Low
Severity
$16,000
$ 960,000
$310,000
Medium
Severity
$25,000
$1,200,000
$490,000
High
Severity
$4 9,000
$2,300,000
$1,200,000
From Table 1, the annual costs for the Low, Medium and High Severity damage
scenarios are $13,000, $25,000 and $49,000 respectively.
The third column in Table 1 shows the total amount that would be expended over
a thirty-year period. For example, the total expenditure over thirty years for the
Medium Severity damage scenario is projected to be 1.2 million dollars. The last
column in Table 1 shows that the value of that amount in today's dollars is
$490,000.
Note that all costs are rounded to two significant figures.
CSWINOOWWemporary InternetFiles%OL1(N90lCosts for Fiws Trees an Main Street 05(XIOI, oa
•
•
•
Calculations
Total maintenance costs over thirty years were determined using standard tables
for calculating compound interest. Sections A, B and C present the calculations
for determining future value (actual dollars spent) and present worth (cost in
terms of today's dollars).
A. Low Severity Damage
Annual Maintenance Cost: $16,000.00
Present Worth (P.W.) of associated costs
P.W.= $16,000 (P /A, 3 %,30)= $16,000 (19.600)= $314,000
Future Value (F.V.) of funds expended on maintenance /replacement.
F.V.= $16,000 (F /A, 3 %, 30)= $16,000 (47.575) = $761,000
B. Medium Severity Damage
Annual Maintenance Cost: $25,000
Present Worth of associated costs
P.W.= $25,000 (P /A, 3 %,30)= $25,000 (19.600) = $490,000
Future Value of funds expended on maintenance /replacement.
F.V.= $25,000 (F /A, 3 %, 30)= $25,000 (47.575) = $1,189,000
C. High Severity Damage
Annual Maintenance Cost: $49,000
Present Worth of associated costs.
P.W.= $49,000 (P /A, 3 %,30)= $49,000 (19.600) = $960,000
F.V.= $49,000 (F /A, 3 %, 30)= $49,000 (47
CIWINOOWS1Temi rery Intennet FIIeS% OLIW1MCOSts la Fives Trees on Main Street 050801.noc
111
0
•
n
u
APPENDIX A
CAVYINDOMTernWna Internet FikS%OLK 1901Cosis for Fiws Trees on Main Street 050801 cm
r�
U
s
0
N
T
CC
•
Z
xw
v�
as
wa
ac
Y
z3
w
H
H �
UW
9
0 0 0
\ \
Lo 0 u7o
000000000000
0000000000000
a�
U o v
L m
0
000
U >
C N LO
000
.0.
o0_rio
C X
0 0
O O N
0 O_ 0
O
O O
Ga
O O O
0
O
O
iL
O
l�
N
M
Cn
O0
0
0
0
N "o '
CL E
�
m
U m >
O
C O
Cc
p
O-
G
p 'a
d
N
(6
E
W X
O
C m O m
�p 0.0
U
w
G N N U
N y
U m "O C
E C
N= mm
E
9 9
0
CCU
m m
3
c G E m
a
p O
c.m
2 E ow
a
�
Q
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
M
0
R
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
oo
On
M'+..,M
in
o�i°n
Fw
zaN
�e
as
E
E
E
E
E
as
a
a"
'ti
a
N
R
3�
L
v
0
_Y
O
x
c
m
3
F
m
m
CD
CD
.0
-
.`
vVi
N
�?
R
m
10LL
0,—j
m
m
w
D
0
��
w
cc
0
OUV.
C
O
y
m
O
paeVUU
m
O
CS�3A
Aym
U
U
10
V
>
O
O
m
u
p
O
j—
p
N
0
>
0
0
.°.
N
m
c
O=
-op�°
m
N
o�v
EEccEcto
O
�
H
K
W
U
U
F
W
U�
m
a
0 0 0
\ \
Lo 0 u7o
m 6
f�
0
a�
U o v
L m
0
000
U >
C N LO
000
.0.
o0_rio
C X
0 0
O O N
0 O_ 0
O
O O
Ga
O O O
0
N
O' O O O
3
00.0 Lo
m 6
f�
iN N
L-Y Vj ER ffl V3
a�
U o v
L m
0
U >
C N LO
.0.
C X
0 0
0 O_ 0
Ga
C
E 0 co
3
>
`m m °6
m
0— °
3m
y p E
°
> 0 a>
d
N "o '
CL E
�
m
U m >
O
C O
Cc
p
O-
G
p 'a
d
N
(6
E
W X
O
C m O m
�p 0.0
U
w
G N N U
N y
U m "O C
E C
N= mm
E
9 9
0
CCU
m m
3
c G E m
a
p O
c.m
2 E ow
a
0
s
0
N
T
W
i
•
F
z
v�
as
ma
a.
�o
Qr �
Y
z°
'ti U
° rr
F�
Ua
9
0 0
ooUo
7 7 LO
O
O O O
000
oo_uia
00 N�-
O 0 O O
O O O O
oCD6L
r N
f9 fH fA EA
d
t
c
L
3
w
N
U
d
m
m
E
a
r rn
CL m
o
am
m o
Q �
000000000000
CC0000Oi
e}
NCCCC
N
VI
M
M
Vi
O
h
U')
O
O
O
Q W
N
M
N
M
Qi
Fa
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OONM.Vi-
^700
...00C
Z a
N
M
O B
E
E
• 9
0
��Gi
0
[r.
Ci
Ls.cn
n
uGi
Li�7
y
e
o
O
>
>
>
C
7
m
L
�L
3
d
d
N
m
to
W)
o
c°i23�mo;;3
d
0
d
m
a
N
m
O
O
an
J
y
0:
=
r
d
d
0
o
Y U
U
U
3
3
A
m
a
d
d
U
U
s
d
E
d
d
o
U
m
ID
7
C
O
U
O
d
O
d_
N
n
=
>>
O
E
O
E
O
N�
R
C
O—
O
d
N
6
c
c
E
m
E
cUB
..UU1
O
�F-
-W
UKma
0 0
ooUo
7 7 LO
O
O O O
000
oo_uia
00 N�-
O 0 O O
O O O O
oCD6L
r N
f9 fH fA EA
d
t
c
L
3
w
N
U
d
m
m
E
a
r rn
CL m
o
am
m o
Q �
0
s
0
N
T
W
1,
/ 1
L J
F
Z
�W
U�
Q C
W Q
ma
as
x
Z �
WU
Fm
U Pa.
It
0 o a o
OO 7 LO
V M r r
0
00
00000
O 0_ui 00
O O N r
- O O
0000
oL6
N
fA fA fA to
r
w
0
a
0
0
CL
E
C13
0
U
Q) N
rnQ)
m
E cn
m 4
-0
a3
O O
CL
C
O
C
O
4 G
4 4
O
0
1^ 1
M
C
7
C
0
N
Q i
C
0
C
0
O
0
O
0
QW
U
M
Nn
M
M`O�
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
Vl
0
R
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
F w
CONO
°o
V°]
M
V1
�•
�G
r
RGC
M
l l l
.-
GCC
O
O
O
Ua
aN+
>
>
3
O
p
0
E
E.7.
y
r
Ew-�;
E
E
R
t
Z
a
08
3
�
?
J
rj
fA
+•
N
m
IL
N
m
d
D
U�y'Op0
CL
H'a
o
o
JN
a0v�a�0Zm
070
O`0
Y�000
ti
O
07
m
m
C
+
4
O
UU��;-
N
CL
Ed)
°-
00Aat;46
"a
�
-o
r4
U
j
3
0
0
47
U
0
o
d
C
7y
'-
v
>>
>>
�
i
>-
o
m
O
E
O
E
w
c
N�
c
E
r
C
O
E:5
y
0
N
3
0
d
O
�F
a0:0
to)
-wU�ma
F
0 o a o
OO 7 LO
V M r r
0
00
00000
O 0_ui 00
O O N r
- O O
0000
oL6
N
fA fA fA to
r
w
0
a
0
0
CL
E
C13
0
U
Q) N
rnQ)
m
E cn
m 4
-0
a3
O O
CL
1
1
1
1
1
1
CITY FICUS LANDMARK TREES
ARBORICULTURAL SERVICES
Prepared fora
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92658
Prepared by.
INTEGRATED URBAN FORESTRY
A David Evans and Associates, Inc. company
23382 Mill Creek Drive
Suite 225
Laguna Hills, California 92653
(949) 588 -5050 Fax (949) 588 -5058
April 23, 2001
1
l
TABLE OF CONTENTS
JASSIGNMENT
1
ANALYSIS AND INVESTIGATION PROCESS
2
OBSERVATIONS
2
General Site Conditions '
2
General Tree and Field Conditions
3
Tree Appraisal and, Evaluation
3
DISCUSSION
6
Existing Ficus Trees and Alternate Street Tree Discussion
6
Root Pruning Assessment
7
Costs of Root Pruning, Root Barriers, Excavation, and
Concrete Work
7
Root Barrier Assessment
8
Impact of Retention Measures on Health and Longevity of Trees
8
Proposed Hardscape and Street Improvement
Design Alternatives
10
Three Proposed Alternative Street Trees
11
ICONCLUSIONS
12
APPENDIX
Existing Ficus Tree Assessment Exhibit
Tree Appraisal
Photo- simulations of Proposed Alternative Street Trees
Root Barrier Placement Diagram
l Soil Analysis Report
J
0
I
' City of Newport Beach
Ficus Landmark Trees
' ASSIGNMENT
Integrated Urban Forestry (IUF), a division of David Evans and Associates (DEA), has
' been retained by the City of Newport Beach to Provide consulting arboricultural services
for the twenty -five Indian Laurel Fig, Ficus microcarpa nitida, trees located on Main
Street on the Balboa Peninsula. The' City is currently considering the best alternatives
' available, such as removal of the trees or performing remedial work to include the trees in
a major streetscape plan, known as Balboa Village Rehabilitation Project.
'
The City's Main Street has long been an historic and popular community and tourist
gathering area. For many years, the City Ficus trees have been part of the character of
the area. To many people the trees are considered an integral part of the area's culture
'
and charm, while others have less affinity for the trees. As a result retention of the Ficus,
which are designated City Landmark trees per City Council Policy G -1, has become
controversial.
'
In preparation for redevelopment plans for this area, the City of Newport Beach is now
considering alternatives of either removing the trees or performing remedial work to
'
include the trees in a new streetscape improvement plan. In this plan, existing sidewalks
will be removed and replaced with colored, textured concrete. To help resolve the tree
'
issue, JUF has provided an independent assessment of the trees and conducted an
evaluation of options and costs associated with the proposed scenarios available. In our
assessment, we have made recommendations on three new street trees that are
'
appropriate for the coastal and specific site conditions. In this process, photo - simulations
have been created for the purpose of visually presenting the proposed alternative tree
species. The purpose of this report with recommendations and photo - simulations is to
assist the City in this important decision making process.
In order to complete the project goals of the City, the following tasks have been identified
'
for presentation in this report:
Task 1- Assess the value of the existing trees based on International Society of
Arboriculture (ISA) standards
'
Task 2- Assess if trees,can be root pruned on all sides and root barriers installed
Task 3- Estimate cost of root pruning; root barriers, excavation, and concrete work
Task 4- Assess the probability of root barriers to contain roots over 20 years
'
Task 5- Assess the impact, if any, of the retention measures on health and longevity of
the trees
Task 6- Attend two public meetings, separate item
Task 7- Three recommendations for an appropriate replacement street tree -
City Landmark Ficus Trees Page I
'
Arboricultural Services
0:\PROJECT\N \Nbch0008 \Ficus revisions Idoc
I
I
1
[I
1
i
I
F
ANALYSIS AND INVESTIGATION PROCESS
Our first step was to meet with key City personnel to receive input on community and
merchant needs and concerns and to, secure all pertinent information, data, and
background that may be available. Specific community and merchant concerns
regarding; aesthetics, canopy size, root damage, and tree heritage were all communicated
to us by City staff. It was expressed that part of the community favors retaining the trees,
while part favors removal. We also obtained for review tree lists, City standards, pruning
and maintenance information, and relevant public works data that included salt water
intrusion depths in the soil as well as an aerial map with utility locations. We also
received plans for the proposed Balboa Village Rehabilitation Project. All materials
received were reviewed and considered, with particular attention to lists of trees rejected
by the community and City staff.
On site field investigation and observation by IUF arborists consisted of an evaluation
and appraisal of all twenty -five Indian. Laurel Fig, Ficus microcarpa nitida, trees utilizing
International Society of Arboriculture Standards. Documentation obtained for the
appraisals consisted of: (1) measurement of plant size (trunk diameter, tree height,
canopy width); (2) species rating; (3) current condition (overall health, injuries, overt
hazard status; etc.); and (4) location factors, as described in the Guide for Plant Appraisal,
Eighth Edition. Soil samples were taken from the existing tree cutouts to a laboratory for
analysis. Of particular concern are the potential salt, sulfur, and high ph levels that might
exist in the soil. While on site, general observations were made regarding vehicular and
pedestrian traffic flow and patterns, and notes about related signage and site lighting.
Attention was given to people using the space and the overall aesthetics created by the
presence of the trees.
OBSERVATIONS
General Site Conditions:
The trees are located in an historic and popular commercial district on Main Street on the
Balboa Peninsula. Vehicular traffic on the adjacent major arterial Balboa Boulevard is
regular to heavy at times, with 2 lanes of traffic running in each direction. Stop lights are
installed at the intersection of Balboa Boulevard and Main Street. Main Street, however,
is a less congested side street beginning beachside and running inland with 2 lanes of
traffic in one direction. Since this area is a popular destination point for the local
community_ as well as tourists, there is'a moderate to heavy flow of pedestrian traffic and
activity in the area. With the adjacent beach, pedestrian traffic fluctuates depending on .
the season. Lighting for the community is emitted from existing street lights present at
approximately 25 feet on center and from lighting installed on building facades. Signage
for the local businesses is limited to small, non - obtrusive signs that are contained within
the building facades. Size and height restrictions on business signage contribute to the
overall character of the community.
City Landmark Ficus Trees Page 2
Arboricultural Services
0:\PR0JECT\N \Nbch0008 \Ficus revisions Idoc
I
.General Tree and Field Conditions:
The Ficus trees are located within the coastal zone, all within less than' /2 mile of the
ocean. This means that these trees have to withstand conditions of coastal winds and salt
spray. The City of Newport Beach Public Works Department has informed us that the
salt water intrusion level is at a 5 to 6 foot depth. The trees were planted during the
1960's within approximately 3' x 3' cutouts in the sidewalk, making them approximately
35 -40 years old. Evidence of root encroachment into hardscape is present. There are
signs of roots cracking concrete sidewalks and of past repairs with asphalt patches. Root
encroachment into the local businesses and the resulting damage was indicated at our first
meeting.
Considering the restricted planter size, coastal conditions, and salt water intrusion level
'
limiting root growth, the Ficus are thriving quite well. The City has pruned the trees
annually to confine the canopy in the allotted space and prevent interference with
'
building facades. Trees are shaped to allow for tall delivery trucks for local businesses to
pass through. Current pruning practices are succeeding at creating good branch structure
and opening up the canopy. The crown is shaped nicely to fit, within the restricted space.
Typically if the trees were located in an open area, similar to the Ficus trees in front of
City Hall, the crown would be allowed to grow to a larger and fuller size. Even with the
'
crown size reduced slightly to fit within this space,.the crown appears to be shaped nicely
to present a full overhead canopy. With root pruning occurring as needed, the practice of
restricting the volume of roots is also helping to limit canopy growth of the trees. It is
'
our opinion that further reshaping of the crown would not contribute to the trees' appeal,
nor is it feasible considering the age and development of the trees.
'
With the age and maturity of the trees, a full canopy that frames and encloses the space
has been created. This dense, full canopy covers the community creating a protected
space for pedestrians desiring shade. Within this overhead canopy, a comfortable
1
microclimate.is maintained. In addition, the trees act to soften the buildings and frame
the view down Main Street of the Pacific Ocean.
P
'
•
Task 1- Tree Appraisal and Evaluation:
A tree evaluation and appraisal by IUF arborists was made on twenty -five Ficus trees; see
the attached Exhibit. This consisted of an assessment of the overall health and condition
related to crown development, trunk condition, major branch structure, growth rate,
foliage, harmful insects and diseases, injuries, overt hazard status, and exposed root
'
flares /roots. Documentation was obtained for the appraisals and consisted of: (1)
measurement of the tree size (trunk diameter, tree height, canopy width); (2) species .
rating; (3) current condition (overall health, injuries, overt hazard status, etc.); and (4)
'
location factors, as described in the Guide for Plant Appraisal, Eighth Edition. The
Trunk Formula Method of appraisal was used. Data to determine replacement cost was
'
obtained from local nursery sources, and is based on what they consider to be the largest
City Landmark Ficus Trees - Page 3
'
Arboricultural Services
0APR0JECTW1Nbch00081Ficus revisions 3.doc
1
1
1.
I
[]
I
Condition: A rating of 70% was assigned to these trees. Trees were scored on
structure and health on the following factors: roots, trunk, scaffold branches,
small branches and twigs, and foliage and /or buds. The condition rating is
determined by the sum of the rating scores for each of the five factors. Roots
were given the lowest score, receiving a score of 2 out of a possible 8, for
structure and health. Root pruning puts the tree at risk in several ways. First, it
creates a potential overturn hazard by severely reducing its anchorage and support
system. Second, crown growth is reduced since the source for nutrient uptake is
now, restricted. Lastly, when the root area is covered by sidewalks or streets, the
health and longevity of trees can be substantially reduced.
The above rating is based upon known plant and root responses to certain
circumstances, but until the pavement is removed and the roots are actually
observed, it is difficult to accurately assess root condition. The health and
condition of each tree may be different. Furthermore, it is difficult to assess the
ability of these roots to withstand additional pruning, especially during times of
major reconstruction of hardscape and utilities, as dictated by the plans provided
by the City Public Works Department. Severe root pruning will be necessary for
the installation of linear root barriers adjacent to the street and for the surrounding
utilities and hardscape. Based on our experience with Ficus trees and data
obtained from several cities, there is a high probability 6f survival for the trees
due to their known resiliency and high tolerance of root pruning. If some of the
trees do die during this process, this will jeopardize the uniform appearance of the
community. With the trees that do survive the,pruning, there are stability issues
that can't be predicted. Public safety becomes the larger issue.
Trunks were rated fairly high, receiving 6 out of 8 possible. Some evidence of
mechanical damage (past pruning) was present on several trees. Most appeared
sound, with no cracks or presence of insects-or disease. Scaffold branches were
given a 7 out of 8. The following was observed: strong branch attachments, well
City Landmark Ficus Trees
Arboricultural Services -
0: \PROJECTIN \Nbch0008\Ficus revisions 3.doc
Page 4
commonly available size for that particular species. The following data and rationale is
'
the basis for the appraisal.
'
Species Rating: A value of 90% was assigned to these trees, per our Table' 1
Exhibit. This data was obtained from a publication from the Western Chapter of
the ISA entitled, Species Classification and Group Assignment. According to
this, a Ficus microcarpa nitida planted in a seacoast area of Southern California is
'
given a classification of 1 (90 %). Factors considered in this rating include,,
climate and soil adaptability, growth characteristics, and resistance or tolerance to
diseases and insects. The Ficus in this area have proven to be solid performers,
tolerant of seacoast conditions, salt water intrusion, and restricted planter space.
Despite these conditions, the trees have thrived within this environment and
proven extremely adaptable. Many other species would be hard pressed to
survive under these conditions.
1
1
1.
I
[]
I
Condition: A rating of 70% was assigned to these trees. Trees were scored on
structure and health on the following factors: roots, trunk, scaffold branches,
small branches and twigs, and foliage and /or buds. The condition rating is
determined by the sum of the rating scores for each of the five factors. Roots
were given the lowest score, receiving a score of 2 out of a possible 8, for
structure and health. Root pruning puts the tree at risk in several ways. First, it
creates a potential overturn hazard by severely reducing its anchorage and support
system. Second, crown growth is reduced since the source for nutrient uptake is
now, restricted. Lastly, when the root area is covered by sidewalks or streets, the
health and longevity of trees can be substantially reduced.
The above rating is based upon known plant and root responses to certain
circumstances, but until the pavement is removed and the roots are actually
observed, it is difficult to accurately assess root condition. The health and
condition of each tree may be different. Furthermore, it is difficult to assess the
ability of these roots to withstand additional pruning, especially during times of
major reconstruction of hardscape and utilities, as dictated by the plans provided
by the City Public Works Department. Severe root pruning will be necessary for
the installation of linear root barriers adjacent to the street and for the surrounding
utilities and hardscape. Based on our experience with Ficus trees and data
obtained from several cities, there is a high probability 6f survival for the trees
due to their known resiliency and high tolerance of root pruning. If some of the
trees do die during this process, this will jeopardize the uniform appearance of the
community. With the trees that do survive the,pruning, there are stability issues
that can't be predicted. Public safety becomes the larger issue.
Trunks were rated fairly high, receiving 6 out of 8 possible. Some evidence of
mechanical damage (past pruning) was present on several trees. Most appeared
sound, with no cracks or presence of insects-or disease. Scaffold branches were
given a 7 out of 8. The following was observed: strong branch attachments, well
City Landmark Ficus Trees
Arboricultural Services -
0: \PROJECTIN \Nbch0008\Ficus revisions 3.doc
Page 4
C
1J
1
1
1
The contribution component is determined by its functional and aesthetic
contributions that influence its value. These benefits may be affected by plant
size, shape, branch structure, foliage density, and distribution. In this case, the
trees contribute heavily to the aesthetics of the area through their mature size,
significant canopy, and heritage in the community. A rating of 90% was
assigned.
The placement of a tree may determine how effective it is in providing its
functional and aesthetic attributes. In this case, placement of these trees in small
cut -outs within sidewalks is not desirable, for plant health and future root
encroachment problems. High levels of maintenance are required to maintain
these trees in the restricted planter areas. With growth habits known for these
trees now, different decisions on tree selection would probably be made than were
forty years ago. Again, despite poor placement decisions and the high
maintenance costs that have resulted, from a health standpoint they have
performed well. Placement in the site is also important from an aesthetic
viewpoint. Here, the trees frame the view of the ocean, create a lush overhead
canopy, and soften building facades. A 60% rating was given to placement,
resulting in an overall rating of 80% for the three categories.
City Landmark Ficus Trees
Arboricultural Services
0:\PR0iECT\N \Nbch0008 \Ficus revisions 3.doc
Page 5
pruned, wound closure, well - proportioned. with proper taper; and free of dead
wood.
Small branches and twigs were rated 3 out of 4 possible. Vigor of current shoots,.
'
well distributed through the canopy, and no presence of weak or dead twigs were
all observed. The foliage was rated a 4 out of 4 possible. All the trees have good
coloration of the foliage, no nutrient deficiencies, no wilted or dead leaves, and
'
are free of insects and disease. Out of total possible of 32, the trees received 22,
giving them a conservative 70% rating.
'
Location: A location rating of 80% was assigned to the trees. The location
rating includes three components: site, contribution, and placement. Each of these ,
components is assigned a percentage rating. The average of the three component
'
ratings determines the overall location rating.
The site component is expressed by its relative market value within the area in
'
which the site is located. A site is rated in relation to the value of other areas in
the same city, county, or region, including the area's economic, functional, and
'
aesthetic aspects. A 90% rating was given for site, considering the popularity and
exclusiveness of the Balboa Peninsula area.
C
1J
1
1
1
The contribution component is determined by its functional and aesthetic
contributions that influence its value. These benefits may be affected by plant
size, shape, branch structure, foliage density, and distribution. In this case, the
trees contribute heavily to the aesthetics of the area through their mature size,
significant canopy, and heritage in the community. A rating of 90% was
assigned.
The placement of a tree may determine how effective it is in providing its
functional and aesthetic attributes. In this case, placement of these trees in small
cut -outs within sidewalks is not desirable, for plant health and future root
encroachment problems. High levels of maintenance are required to maintain
these trees in the restricted planter areas. With growth habits known for these
trees now, different decisions on tree selection would probably be made than were
forty years ago. Again, despite poor placement decisions and the high
maintenance costs that have resulted, from a health standpoint they have
performed well. Placement in the site is also important from an aesthetic
viewpoint. Here, the trees frame the view of the ocean, create a lush overhead
canopy, and soften building facades. A 60% rating was given to placement,
resulting in an overall rating of 80% for the three categories.
City Landmark Ficus Trees
Arboricultural Services
0:\PR0iECT\N \Nbch0008 \Ficus revisions 3.doc
Page 5
' The Landmark Ficus trees have performed well, in terms of appearance, canopy size, and
health, for approximately 40 yea &s thus far. With proper management and sound cultural
practices, some of which are discussed below, we would expect these trees to live at least.
' another 30 years and possibly longer. Within Southern California, known specimens
exist that are over 100 years old.
' Of course with respect to destruction of hardscape and sewer lines, they have not
performed well. Trees are located within proximity of existing sewer and water lines. As
indicated on plans obtained from the Public Works Department, existing sewer and water
' lines that run along Main Street are as follows: an 8" sewer line runs under the west side
of Main Street 5' out from the front of curb and 13' away from Ficus trees on the west
' side; a 6" sewer and 2" water line run under the sidewalk 7' in from the back of curb on
the east side and only about 5' from trees on the east side; and a 4" water line runs on the
west side of Main just in back of the curb under the sidewalk and less than 2' from the
Ficus trees. Any trees, whether existing or new, will eventually have to contend with
existing sewer lines in proximity.
O
City Landmark Ficus Trees Page 6
Arboricultural Services
0:\PR0SECT\N \Nbch0008 \Ficus revisions 3.doc
DISCUSSION
Existing Ficus Trees and Alternative Street Tree Discussion:
'
Challenging growth conditions exist on the site. Within the coastal zone, trees'are
exposed to winds, salt spray, and a salt water intrusion level at a 5 -6 foot depth. Over
their approximately 40 year life span, the trees have proven to be very well suited to this
site. Despite the harsh conditions that exist, the trees have adapted well and even
flourished, developing a lush overhead canopy. The trees have been designated as City
'
Landmark trees. Enduring many conditions over a 40 year period, they have "earned"
their place in the heritage of the area.
The desire for the City to have a tree with a canopy that is to scale with the Main Street
architecture is important. A broad, overhead canopy has developed on the existing trees.
Any new tree proposed will take 15 -20 years to develop a canopy as large as provided by
'
the existing Ficus trees.
Very few species of trees exist that will grow well within the site conditions. Listed in
this report, we have selected 3 trees that are well. adapted to coastal conditions. The salt
'
water intrusion level further complicates the decision. We believe that the roots on the
proposed trees will stay above this level, as in the case of the Ficus trees, but we do not
'
know for certain how the roots will respond. The performance and growth of a new street
tree is somewhat unpredictable due to unforeseen factors and may not meet the
expectations of the community and City. Since the community has been living with these
'
trees for many years, the management issues, costs, and problems that are associated with
Ficus trees are more known, along with its performance.
' The Landmark Ficus trees have performed well, in terms of appearance, canopy size, and
health, for approximately 40 yea &s thus far. With proper management and sound cultural
practices, some of which are discussed below, we would expect these trees to live at least.
' another 30 years and possibly longer. Within Southern California, known specimens
exist that are over 100 years old.
' Of course with respect to destruction of hardscape and sewer lines, they have not
performed well. Trees are located within proximity of existing sewer and water lines. As
indicated on plans obtained from the Public Works Department, existing sewer and water
' lines that run along Main Street are as follows: an 8" sewer line runs under the west side
of Main Street 5' out from the front of curb and 13' away from Ficus trees on the west
' side; a 6" sewer and 2" water line run under the sidewalk 7' in from the back of curb on
the east side and only about 5' from trees on the east side; and a 4" water line runs on the
west side of Main just in back of the curb under the sidewalk and less than 2' from the
Ficus trees. Any trees, whether existing or new, will eventually have to contend with
existing sewer lines in proximity.
O
City Landmark Ficus Trees Page 6
Arboricultural Services
0:\PR0SECT\N \Nbch0008 \Ficus revisions 3.doc
I
L
1
[l
1
1
I
Task 2 - Root Pruning Assessment:
The roots of the Ficus, trees have adapted well to the limited space in which they have to
grow. Most root growth of trees is found in the upper 12 -36 inches of soil. In this case in
particular, the roots have stayed above the 5 -6 foot salt water intrusion depth and have
probably followed surrounding wet and dry lines for water and space respectively.
Except for minimal root pruning that occurred five years ago to the trees on the north side
of Main Street, to accommodate hardscape repairs, the City has not root pruned these
trees. It is our opinion that root pruning puts the trees' health and stability at risk and
should only be continued in a judicious manner, only where appropriate. There are two
considerations in evaluating root pruning: removal of support or anchoring roots and
removal of absorbing roots. Research contained within the ISA publication, The
Landscape Below Ground II, contains a table for estimated minimum rooting area by tree
diameter. A Ficus tree with a trunk diameter of 17 inches has a critical rooting distance
of a 21 foot radius, and a tree with a 21 inch diameter trunk has a critical rooting distance
of a 26 foot radius. _The book, Arboriculture by Richard Harris, suggests a root -shoot
ratio of 115 to 1/6, meaning the top is five to six times heavier than the roots., Eliminating
large root sections as often as every six months reduces the tree anchorage system, -
putting the tree at risk for falling over in a public space. If roots are pruned too much and
too close, potential damage to surrounding buildings as well as possible harm to the
health and safety of the public may result.
Removing the shallow, absorbing roots can also cause immediate water stress to the tree.
The ability of the tree to survive that impact is linked to its tolerance of water stress and
ability to form new roots rapidly. Also, by removing uptake roots, the potential for
crown growth is reduced. The long term effect is chronic stress on the tree from a
reduced root system.
Task 3 — Costs of Root Pruning, Root Barriers, Excavation, and Concrete Work:
The cost for root pruning as obtained from local sources is $10.00 per linear foot,.
depending on soil conditions. The cost to both root prune and install 12" linear root
barriers would be $18.00 per linear foot for both labor and material. This price does not
include the removal and repair of hardscape. Refer to the Cost Analysis for Maintaining
the Main Street Ficus Trees prepared by the Public Works Department for projected
concrete repair costs. Based on a total estimated linear footage of 1350', assuming that a
panel is sunning at the back of the curb the entire length of the street and on all four sides
of the trees, as obtained from Public Works site plans, the total cost would be $24,300.
Refer to the diagram in the Appendix section. These costs reflect installation with -
existing trees and digging in compacted soils that typically exist at the edge of streets.
Prices include hand digging and no sawcutting or curb removal. Linear barriers should
be installed the entire length of the street. Installation of root barriers and root cutting
would happen concurrently with excavation for street improvements. As is discussed in
other sections, there is a risk of tree failure if roots are pruned too closely and/or on all
sides at the same time. At the time of excavation and pruning, all trees should be
City Landmark Ficus Trees Page 7
Arboticultural Services
0: \PROJECT\N \Nbch0008 \Ficus revisions 3.doc
1
'
inspected and tested for root health, anchorage, and tree stability. If root pruning occurs
at this time, they should be inspected for
again stability.
Task 4 - Root Barrier Assessment:
Research indicates that root barriers can substantially reduce root biomass in the top foot
'
of soil within a 3 foot radius from the trunk. Whether such results translate into less
conflict between root and sidewalks over time is still in question. From our experience'
and observation, we have seen root barriers to be only a temporary solution. They are
merely an attempt to delay the inevitable. If properly installed, we would expect the
'
roots to probably be contained for a 10 year period, but would expect less favorable
results over a 20 year period. Some encroachments will probably still occur. Studies to
evaluate the long term success of root barriers are still in process. We have also observed
that trees in root control barriers do not grow quite as fast as those not confined. In
compacted soils, roots may be confined to the barrier and the trees become unstable as
they increase in size. As roots enlarge, they occasionally lift the barrier in the ground. If
'
the barriers are set too low, roots often grow over the top.
If root barriers are to be used with the existing trees or with new street trees, we
recommend using the linear type panels, as opposed to preformed boxes. Interlocking,
semirigid panels can be placed parallel to the curb and out surrounding'the trees on all
.'
sides. They should be sloped to direct roots downward with the upper edge above the
soil line. These come in 2 foot widths and in 18, 24, 36, and 48 inch depths. Usually the
24 inch is. deep enough to impede roots, but would only install a 12" with the existing
Ficus trees. If roots are cut close to the trunk, a shallower cut is preferred and safer for
t
health and stability. Barriers' would be installed at the same time excavation for street
improvements takes place.
Task 5 — Impact of Retention Measures on Health and Longevity of Trees:
'
We recommend only root pruning when conflicts arise and after evaluation that these
measures need to be taken. However, if the City decides to root prune on a regular basis,
we would incorporate more stringent practices. Most of the large roots will be in the
upper I foot of soil; cutting roots deeper may make the trees more subject to windthrow
with only little additional protection for the pavement: Regrowth is extremely rapid from
most cut Ficus roots. On trees without barriers, sidewalks have been lifted within two to
three years after they were repaired and the trees root pruned. Roots should only be cut
on one side and then allowed to grow at least three to four years before pruning the other
side to allow for sufficient regrowth and establishment. However, inspections of roots
'
for encroachment should take place at more frequent intervals than this. Most cities we
are aware of root prune only as needed and not on a regular maintenance schedule.
Roots are going to grow where the conditions are best: - aeration, soil, and water.
Towards the street, soils are compacted for the roadbed. Roots will probably continue to
grow out and seek water, from cracks in the sewer lines. If roots are not redirected with
barriers, shallow roots will eventually lift any new public hardscape. Deeper roots, if not
City Landmark Ficus Trees Page 8
Arboricultural Services
0: \PROJECI\N \Nbch0008 \Ficus revisions 3.doc
1
successfplly contained, could still enter into public or private merchant sewer systems
causing damage. It is also difficult to predict future damage, other than more of what is
already happening. As long as crowns are maintained in a reduced size, the City is
" . probably experiencing close to the full extent of damage that these mature trees will
cause. Lift of sidewalks, curb. and gutter cracking, and damage to sewer lines in both
public and private areas will probably continue.
'
Without root barrier containment, it is difficult to predict what area of pavement would
need to be removed to effectively prune the roots within a schedule that alternates root
t
pruning of one tree side and then the other every 3 1/2 years. There are no established
ISA standards for root pruning. Instead, we have found practices common to many cities
'
with Ficus trees. Accordingly, we could estimate that they probably will need 8 -10 feet
from the root crown for best tree health and stability. Most cities indicated the farther out
pruning occurs the better, about 8'. In our experience and what we have learned from
'
other cities, Ficus trees take severe root pruning very well. Their survivability is high,
and they are rarely subject to toppling if pruned on only one side at a time. We have seen
trees cut as close as 2 '/z to 3 feet.
In
order for the Main Street Ficus trees to survive they have probably' sent roots out for
some distance to find the water they need. Without regular water, if these roots are cut
'
too close, both the health and stability of the tree will be jeopardized. Regular water that
will be provided by anew irrigation system should allow for closer root pruning.
Given the current root control barrier technology and regular pruning schedule, City staff
will probably be able to control the extent of property damage for quite some time,
probably up to 10 years. Out to 20 years is hard to predict. If barrier installation is done
'
upon construction, we suggest installing 12" linear type root barriers. Deeper than this is
not recommended since it will involve cutting more roots and putting stabilization at risk.
These panel barriers should run the entire length of the street, backing the curb. The
'
others ideally should be located as far out as possible from trunks to allow for sufficient
root growth and stability. In many cities, they are creating longer tree wells to allow for
this; such as a minimum 6' width by 8' length.
'
If root pruning is to take place during project construction, crown reduction pruning
should take place 6 months prior to root pruning. Root pruning and crown reduction
'
should not take place at the same time. An air spade should be used for the installation of
any utility or irrigation lines in proximity to the trees; this will prevent roots from being
cut unnecessarily. If roots are pruned during construction, the City should inspect each
tree for tree stability. Ficus trees are tough, resilient trees when it comes to urban abuse.
There are cities that we are aware of that root prune as close as 2'1/2 to 3 feet, but this is ;.
only done on one side at a time when conflicts arise. They all might be resilient enough to
'
survive the process, while a few might be lost, affecting the uniform appearance of Main
Street.
City Landmark Ficus Trees F Page 9
'
Arboricultural Services
6: \PROJECT \N \Nbch0008 \Ficus revisions 3.doc
1
. While we recognize the costs to repair infrastructure damaged by root encroachment is
substantial to both the City and private merchants, we would like to present alternatives
' that would reduce or eliminate root priming. Our goal is to work with the existing tree
growth habits, instead of trying to intensely manage them, and thus reduce maintenance
costs. Even with root pruning and root barriers, long term conflicts with surrounding
' hardscape will probably still exist. A costly paving treatment will certainly have to be
repaired or even removed and replaced over time.
As stated earlier, the regular practice of root pruning will have detrimental effects on tree
One city we are aware of has been consistently root pruning their Ficus trees for many
'
years. They have been observing decay on pruned roots., It was explained to us that after
many years of root pruning, the mature trees began to decline and eventually defoliate.
The weakened trees became more susceptible to pests and were eventually infested with
'
Red' Spider Mite. After this slow decline, some of the trees eventually died and some fell
over. Decay was observed inside the roots all the way up to the root crown in the fallen
'
trees.
Task 5 - Proposed Hardscape and Street Improvement Design-Alternatives: ,
. While we recognize the costs to repair infrastructure damaged by root encroachment is
substantial to both the City and private merchants, we would like to present alternatives
' that would reduce or eliminate root priming. Our goal is to work with the existing tree
growth habits, instead of trying to intensely manage them, and thus reduce maintenance
costs. Even with root pruning and root barriers, long term conflicts with surrounding
' hardscape will probably still exist. A costly paving treatment will certainly have to be
repaired or even removed and replaced over time.
As stated earlier, the regular practice of root pruning will have detrimental effects on tree
stability and health. With '.this in mind, an alternative hardscape option is the use of a
more flexible hardscape material that is easier and less costly to repair or replace.
Interlocking pavers are now available from a variety of manufacturers in a variety. of
patterns, shapes, and colors. We do not have special knowledge as to their use and
success under high oscillating groundwater, but understand from a previous city
'
consultant that they can be installed on an asphaltic subbase to protect pavers from
sinking, as a sand base may wash away. If root conflicts arise, pavers can still be more
easily removed, root problems removed, and the asphaltic base and pavers put back into
'
mace. It should be noted that even with the use of pavers, roots may continue to cause
public property damage. They are commonly used in many public spaces, adding to the
aesthetics of the community. With the many design options available, we see the
opportunity to use a material that works with the conditions on site and enhances the
value of the area.
We recognize that the success of the new proposed hardscape plan is predicated on
having wide sidewalks for pedestrians,-and thus the 3' by 3' tree wells. Tree trunk
diameters for the existing Ficus range from 15 inches to 27 inches; the average diameter
'
is 20 inches. In order for a 20 inch diameter Ficus to fit within a 3 foot wide planter,
roots would have to be cut 8 inches from the root flare. We interviewed 5 cities with
respect to their experiences with root pruning Ficus, and they all concur that Ficus are
'
extremely resilient and tolerate excessive root pruning better than most other species.
While cities have cut Ficus as close as 2 t/� feet from the trunk, they have only cut one
side at a time, waiting 3 to 4 years before pruning the other side. Cutting as far out from
'
the trunk as possible was preferred; 8 feet and farther if possible, but 5 to 6 feet may be
acceptable: These are general guidelines and each tree should be individually assessed.
'
If more sides were cut at the same pruning, stability -became an issue. Most cities only
cut roots as encroachment problem arise, and not on a regular maintenance schedule.
City Landmark Ficus Trees Page 10
'
Arboricultural Services
'
0:\PR0JECT\N \Nbch0008 \Ficus revisions 3.doc
' The following are three proposed alternative street trees that are well adapted to coastal
conditions and should perform well on site. The pros and cons of each species are listed
along with nursery . availability. The trees are not listed in order of priority.
1. Metrosideros excelsa- New Zealand Christmas Tree
36" Box Planted Specifications: height 10 -12 feet; canopy spread 5 -6 feet, trunk caliper
' 2 -3 inches, branch clearance 5 %z feet
Pros: Well suited to coastal conditions (wind, salt spray), clusters of scarlet flowers,
compact, dense head, tolerant of moderate to high salinity and alkaline soils, drought
tolerant
' Cons: Slow growth rate to 30 feet and 20 foot spread, roots will crack sidewalks in tight
planters, ideally needs 5 -6 foot cut -outs
' Nursery Availability: Lots of 24" box available now, can get 36" box sizes if nursery has
time to contract grow, no 48" box available
r
City Landmark Ficus Trees Page I I
Arboricultural Services.
0:\PR0JECTNWbch0008 \Ficus revisions 3.doc
1
Also, the closer roots were pruned to the trunk, the shallower the trench was made for the
cuts.
t'
With these comments in mind, other design alternatives may be implemented. Trees
planted in pavement should ideally have an opening of at least 6.5 feet x 6.5 feet (Harris,
1992):,- Curb problems can also be reduced if the trunk is at least 3 feet from the curb
when the tree is mature. Maintaining the existing trees in a 3 foot by 3 foot tree well is
'
not feasible. In order to create more root space, the tree well could be longer and
narrower, prefdrably a minimum of 6 feet by 8 feet. With`a longer tree well, roots would
not have to be cut so much on all sides. Customized tree grates could then be installed
over the larger planter so pedestrian space is not sacrificed.
'
Other design and management practices can also be implemented during the street
renovation. The irrigation system can be designed with bubblers located in ABS pipe
below grade. A pipe with holes on the underside could be connected at a 45 degree angle
to allow water to, percolate down, promoting deeper root growth. Also, sewer lines could
'
be wrapped with Biobarrier. To prevent or at least delay the invasion of sewer lines, a
sewer pipe would be wrapped wherever roots might come in contact with it. This would
'
protect the joints and any cracks from invasion and greatly reduce the possibility of
nearby expanding roots cracking or collapsing the pipe: Wrapping sewer lines with root
resistant geotextiles.will not prevent joint or pipe cracking by roots, but it should keep
'
invading roots from entering cracks. If a sewer line is "not fractured or cracked, roots will
not enter. Moisture from a sewer crack could result in excessive root growth adjacent to
the crack causing further displacement.
Task 7 - Three proposed Alternative Street Trees:
' The following are three proposed alternative street trees that are well adapted to coastal
conditions and should perform well on site. The pros and cons of each species are listed
along with nursery . availability. The trees are not listed in order of priority.
1. Metrosideros excelsa- New Zealand Christmas Tree
36" Box Planted Specifications: height 10 -12 feet; canopy spread 5 -6 feet, trunk caliper
' 2 -3 inches, branch clearance 5 %z feet
Pros: Well suited to coastal conditions (wind, salt spray), clusters of scarlet flowers,
compact, dense head, tolerant of moderate to high salinity and alkaline soils, drought
tolerant
' Cons: Slow growth rate to 30 feet and 20 foot spread, roots will crack sidewalks in tight
planters, ideally needs 5 -6 foot cut -outs
' Nursery Availability: Lots of 24" box available now, can get 36" box sizes if nursery has
time to contract grow, no 48" box available
r
City Landmark Ficus Trees Page I I
Arboricultural Services.
0:\PR0JECTNWbch0008 \Ficus revisions 3.doc
1
2. Podocarpus gracilior- Fern Pine
48" Box Planted Specifications:. height 14 -16 feet, canopy spread 7 -8 feet, trunk caliper
4 inches, branch clearance 6 feet
' Pros: Suited to coastal, conditions, large, dense head, good.choice for•clean and pest free
street tree, tolerant of any soil conditions from moderate to high salinity, moderate
' growth rate, drought tolerant
Cons: Up to 60 feet in height, should be planted in larger 8 foot cut -outs, roots will lift
' sidewalks in tight planters
Nursery Availability:
' Best availability out of the three, 36" and 48" box readily available
3. Olea europaea "Fruitless Swan Hill ", Fruitless Swan Hill Olive
' 48" Box Planted Specifications: height 14 feet, canopy spread 10 -11 feet, trunk caliper 4
inches, branch clearance 2 ?/2 -3 feet on a short standard
' Pros: No fruit, tolerant of coastal and drought conditions, disease resistance, graceful
trunk, nice accent tree, moderate growth rate, 25 -30 feet height, 25 -30 feet spread
Cons: Low branching, unknown as to how roots will respond to salt intrusion level, roots
should stay above, should have 6 foot planter for roots
Nursery Availability: All 36" box out of stock for 2 years, have plenty of 42" and 48"
box in stock
' All of these trees have roots that are capable of lifting sidewalks as they mature and
should be planted in tree wells larger than a 3 foot by 3 foot. In order for a sizeable
canopy to develop on the new trees, sufficient space for root growth will be needed,
preferably a minimum 4' by 6' planter space. As the crowns grow, they will need .
pruning to open up the trees, so as not to block merchant signage, and this will reduce
crown size.
' CONCLUSIONS
Replacement Trees:
Many cultural and aesthetic requirements are placed on possible replacement trees.
' Newly planted street trees will take up to 20 years twattain the size and canopy as large
as provided by the existing Ficus trees. It will take real efforts to establish anything of,
size. Young trees will require thinning to eliminate blocked views of building signage,
and thinning will reduce the crown size. We observed recent plantings of Metrosideros
in the center medians on Balboa Avenue that,did not appear to be performing well. The
' eventual performance of new trees under the site conditions that exist can be
unpredictable. Even though species have been carefully selected with regards to their
' City Landmark Ficus Trees Page 12
Arboricultural Services
0:\PR0JECT \N\Nbch0008 \Ficus revisions 3.doc
- - City Landmark Ficus Trees Page 13
Arboricultural Services
0APROJECTWNbch0008 \Ficus revisions 3.doc `
adaptation to seacoast exposure, unforeseen environmental conditions may exist that
result in the trees not performing to the expectations of the community. As mentioned
above, a planter larger than a 3' by 3' is needed to allow for sufficient root growth to
'
support development of the desired canopy.
Retain Ficus Trees with No Root Pruning:
'
The decision to retain the Ficus trees is complicated and weighted on many factors, some
of which are presented in this report. There is a price to pay for this type of landscape
'
element. The cost to retain the trees is not fully known but may be substantial, as
presented in a Cost Analysis prepared by the Public Works Department. Maintenance to
both the trees and infrastructure and claims that may arise are costly in terns of time,
expense, and aggrevation. While we are aware of the resulting disturbances, we view
'
them as known factors. The community and City already hag been working with the
issues and costs involved with retaining the trees for many years. With this in mind, we
see that managing a known set of conditions may be easier than managing the unknown
'
alternatives.
'
Retain the Ficus Trees with Root Pruning and Crown Modification:
If the trees are retained and contained within their space, then we recommend
modifications to the proposed hardscape design. Excessive root pruning that would be
necessary to confine roots in a 3 foot by 3 foot tree well may create a public risk with
regards to tree stability. Pruning roots on all sides that close to,the trunk is not
'
recommended. Second, Ficus trees are resilient when it comes to root pruning and urban
abuse, but it is questionable as to whether these trees will survive this severe pruning. In,
other cities, only one side at a time is done so closely every 3 to 4 years.
Design alternatives that were discussed earlier such as lengthening tree wells to
accommodate root growth and lessen the amount of pruning required, installing tree
grates, installing interlocking pavers on an asphalt base, and directing irrigation down to
encourage deeper root growth are all management options that should be considered.
Management activities and design solutions that work to accommodate the trees can be
'
implemented.
The existing Ficus trees provide a broad canopy for the community. They have been
successful performers on site with coastal winds, salt spray, and salt water intrusion.
They have endured many harsh conditions over their approximately 40 year life so far
and still have managed to develop the overhead canopy that. frames the community. If
'
the new trees perform well, a nice canopy will still take many years to achieve. With
proper management and hardscape that works with the growth habits of the trees to create
easier maintenance, the Landmark Ficus trees can benefit the community for many more
years to come. Please note that the findings of this report are tentative pending the results
of the cost analysis.
- - City Landmark Ficus Trees Page 13
Arboricultural Services
0APROJECTWNbch0008 \Ficus revisions 3.doc `
' APPENDIX
!�T-
M
N
0
rn
n
O
R
M
N
C
O
,1••1
R y
7 d
LL
W r
N
� 7
C U
LL
Nt
U
Q
O
d Q
F- ai
Z
O O
Y
Fes- U
IN
0
CL
N
0
L_
C_
N
0
d
(9
Ul
Q1
® M � � � if � � r r � . .
Q
a
b
d
Oi
d
C
a
b
m
`m
4
d
W
ILiz
U C
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
a
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
J r
W
O
N
CO
DO
M
O
O nJ
O
IA
°�
4]
0J
M
CO
CO
W
of
O
W
W
of
e
e
e
e
e
a
e
C O
o
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
n
0
0
Y
U
d
O
O
O
O
V
W
O
N
rn
N
f0
M
O
Vy
CO
O
V
OJ
1[l
N
O
aD
N
n
r
r
CO
M
O
13
N
r
M
N
O
N
r
y
yyV
N +
O
a'
LO
N
CO
rn
O)
N
M
0)
O'
N
Ol
^
M
(O
M
(O
O
(O
A �
d
y
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
o°
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
y
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•�
m
rn
m
rn
rn
rn
m
rn
rn
rn
rn
rn
rn
rn
m
rn
m
m
m
rn
rn
m
m
rn
a
a
u!
a
^
v
0
C
0
N
0<
CO
N
rn
V
M
O
O
m
rn
MN-
O
N
n
IO
O
rn
r
OI
0)
N
O
M
CO
V
O
M
:6 n
W
N
N
(O
M'
4
N
CO
n
(J
�
O
N
m
n?
M
N
(T
n
M
N
r�
N
NV
rn
o
n
N
v
ap
rn
V
^
OV
V
y Uy
N
m
r
N
O
M
(A
M
p
O
N
n
n
O
n
M
O
p
F
m .
y
`.
W
�L
O
N
u'1
h
IO
aD
N
rn
O
(O
l0
h
N
to
h
IO
n
In
O
N
N
N
Q
d C
n
N
h
(V
O
CO
N
N
n
m
N
N
7
U
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
p
0
co
co
to
m
ao
ao
to
m
m
o
-
m—
o
m
m
m
m—
0
m
K
0]
F'
^
0J
0J
M
O
W
O
a(.
07
O
O
M
O
O
W
CO
W
W
O
O
O
O
W
W
0
M
M
M
M
M
n
M
M
M
d
F
Q v
y
_
C
v
U
O
0
O
0
O
0
pp
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
C.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
E
t .-.
0
U
O
0
0
0
0
O'
O
u
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
R
n
d
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
N
N
N
O
N
N
N
N
1
1
CO 1
M
J
CO
CO
N
f y
A
fA
f9
W
t9
t9
f9
fA
M
f9
CI
f9
C]
f9
C
IA
1A
f9
M
f9
fA
M
M
M
M
f9
C
d3
f9
t9
%
O
0
O
0
O
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
tO
0
(O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
0
tp
0
tD
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
yp
�
b
(O
t0
b
O
N
10
O
N
N
O
ID
fD
10
IO
ID
tp
�
F p
IA
f9
fA
W
iR
IA
i9
f9
f9
df
19
iA
CA
fA
IA
i9
f9
M
d!
fA
fA
d3
�
lA
fA
N
n a
U
d s
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
V
9
Y
Yl
L(1
Il)
IU
°�
l(1
rn
U
1n
IU
IU
ll1
�
K1
N
�[1
Y1
2
r
N
N
N
N
N
N
V
N
O
N
N
r
N
O
N
O
O
N
N
N
N
N
h
N
N
�
m
m
m
m
m
rn
rn
am
m
m
m
rn
a
rn
m
rn
m
rn
m
m
rn
m
rn
rn
m
LL.
LL
tL
ILL
ILL
lL
LL
LL
LL
LL
Z
4.
LL
LL
LL
LL
IL
LL
LL
LL
LL
lL
lL
LL
lL
R
R
@
@
R
R
J
J
J
J
J
J
R
J
R
J
@
J
@
J
@
J
R
J
R
J
R
J
R
J
@
J
@
J
@
J
@
J
@
J
@
J
@
J
@
J
R
J
@
J
C
R
C
@@
C
C
R
C
R@
C
C
R
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
s
@@
R
R
R
R
R
@
@@
R@
R
R
R
R
R
5
R
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
-5 C
C
C
C
C
C
C
c C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
R
R
N
N@
R
R
R
R
@
@@
R
R
R@
R
@
@
@
@
@
@
@@
C
CCC
C
C
C
CC
C
C
C
CC
C
CC
C
C
C
C
C
C
CC
F
R
@@
R
R
R
@
@@
R
R
R
R
R@@@@@@
R
R@
R
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
y
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
t3
•E
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
m
E
E
E
EEE
E
EEE
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
•EEE
•EE
E
•E
U
N
J
N_
y
7
°_l
N
J
Vi
N_
N
7
VI
J
y
J
y
J
y
J
y
J
y
y
N
y
✓I
✓�
Vl
y
VI
N
N
y
a
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
p
U
p
U
J
U
J
U
J
U
J
U
J
U
J
U
J
U
J
U
J
U
N
ILL
IL
lLL
LL
LL
ILL
LL
lL
{L
LL
lLL
4.
IL
IL
li
lL
li
LL
li
LL.
LL
ILL
li.
ILL
li
o_—
N
M
V
tO
r
0]
rn
O
'-
'
M
V
N
f0
r
m
rn
N
"M
N
N
N
IN
0
CL
N
0
L_
C_
N
0
d
(9
Ul
Q1
® M � � � if � � r r � . .
Q
a
b
d
Oi
d
C
a
b
m
`m
4
d
o
v
4 v
Q
W
h
�
u
i
i
6
a
o
ly
o
�
z
ti
v
77-7; i.
y-
.t.,
a
3. a
ca
e
Z
d o
m
h �
�U
w �
c �
W
O
1
1
t
1
1
i
1
1
v�
4 v
rA
f�
E
,.
U
w
�
j
^
4
`i
i
4y
Q �NWCmti
Oii �6
r
^d_
Vl
_
y
�
O
I
c-
Op
y
0
v U
o
N � F
O
\
)
§
�
_
�
§
°
\m§
{
\�
-
3
| ... : -.
./ �.
: .
o
\ �!�
\
�
)
|\
\\
m)3
]¥g
K
) }
g
§
�
2)
^
-
.....
/�`
�
%
§E
\ / \
- «t.
]
) \
)�
)\
)/
>k\
/\)
�
I
1
1
1
b
d
F
m
SU
A � i
O
tl
O
.aM N
I
i
mmm
mmmmm
M
M�w wmmm=
mmmom
j
U
tl
N
1
i
0
H �
�U
U_
C �
h 5 �
O w
y
I
I
I
1
1
I
� � h
F
9 N o
q A a
z
W � z
Fr i
F o
t v
ors
i
v _
=E'
` RR
V
0.
� U
O
y o
y�
a�
C
a
H
i
I
I
I
1
a
d
Wm
Q=
ai
F
- C F
m p
� 3 °y
111 O N
s, � _y �' • � i O U �
.. II
i
i
yFy, iii
O_
e
3
w
c �
P o
�C
d
O �
o
h °� c
i
I
k
h
a
v �
C W
`Z h
F
U
a� s
�N o
Fy a t a
1 � m
y � N
• ,�� w ji O J °.
V
S
h
i-
r
U
x
0
cs
3 ,r
m
cs �
i
v °
� o �
h
U
C c
s
C
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I. EXI5TIN6 FICUS TREE OR
NEW STREET TREE.
2. CONTINUOUS ROOT BARRIER
PANEL AT BACK OF CURB
AND TO SURROUND TREE ON
ALL SIDES. 12" DEEP OR AS
SPECIFIED.
5. ROOT BALL
4. NATIVE SUBGRADE
5. ADJACENT SIDEWALK
b. CURB AND GUTTER
SIDEWALK -
CURB
5'
BUILDING ` ROOT
BARRIER
N.T.S.
NOTES:
INSTALL ALL BARRIERS FM MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS.
IF THE CITY OECIDE5 TO INSTALL ROOT BARRIERS, THIS
DIAGRAM REPRESENTS A WS&E5TED PLACEMENT AND DOES
NOT GUARANTEE THE STABILITY, HEALTH, OR SURVIVABILITY
OF THE TREES.
ROOT OONTROL
5A IER FLA0D�EI T
1
1
t
1
1
1
SOIL AND PLANT LABORATORY, INC.
Orange Office
Lab No. 30768
January 25, 2001
Integrated Urban Forestry
23382 Mill Creek Dr., Suite 225
Laguna Hills, CA 92653
Attn: Carrie Pryor
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Attached is a data sheet for analyses conducted on two samples received for the above project on January
16. Both samples are from Ficus nitida trees. Sample 1 is labeled Tree #3 and sample 2 is labeled Tree
#14.
Tree #3
The soil pH is slightly acidic in reaction and is favorable. The lime content, which has a tendency to
buffer the pH, is low. Salinity (ECe), sodium and boron are safely low and pose no threat to normal plant
growth. Sodium is well balanced by calcium and magnesium resulting in a low sodium adsorption ratio
(SAR). Available nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium are well supplied at this time. Calcium and
magnesium are adequate. The micronutrients copper, manganese, and zinc are well supplied with iron
moderately low.
Data indicate no chemistry problems and this soil should be suitable for the current plant material
provided that proper horticultural practices are being followed.
Tree #14
The soil pH is slightly alkaline in reaction with a medium lime content, which will buffer the pH in the
alkaline range. Salinity (ECe), sodium and boron are again safely low and pose no hazard. The SAR
indicates that the sodium that is present is well balanced by calcium and magnesium. Available nitrogen is
low with phosphorus and potassium in good supply. Calcium and magnesium are adequate. Copper is
elevated and higher than ideal, but likely not a potential hazard. Zinc is also higher than required for
proper nutrition. Manganese is low with iron near optimum.
Overall the data for this location is acceptable. Copper and zinc are higher that necessary, but probably
not a threat to normal plant growth.
P.O. Box 6566, Orange, California 92863 -6566 ! (714) 282.8777 FAX (714) 282 -8575
P.O. Box 153, Santa Clare, California 95052.0153 / (408) 727 -0330 FAX (408) 727 -5125
P.O. Box .1648, Bellevue, Washington 98009 -1648 1 (425) 746 -6665 FAX (425) 562.9631
6655 Palomino Circle, West Unn, Oregon 97068 -2505 1 (503) 557.4959 FAX (503) 557 -0713
1ZSOILAND PLANT LABORATORY,INC.
1
Page 2
' Integrated Urban Forestry
January 25, 2001
If desired an application of a nitrogen only fertilizer can be made for this tree. One option for supplying
nitrogen would be to uniformly broadcast ammonium sulfate (21 -0 -0) below the drip line at a rate of 5
lbs. per 1000 sq. ft. followed by a thorough irrigation to move the fertilizer into the root zone. If this tree
is installed in turf, the routine fertilization of the turf should be adequate and no additional fertilizer is
necessary.
' If trees are to be replanted at these locations the following installation guidelines can be followed.
1
1
1
1
Tree Planting Guidelines
Excavate the planting hole at least two to three times the diameter of the root ball and wider in areas of heavy
clay or compacted soil. The planting hole should be excavated no deeper than root ball itself. The root ball
should be situated slightly higher than final grade, a practice known as planting "high" or "proud". Organic
matter is not required in the backfill; however if desired, a soil blend consisting of no more than 20% organic
matter by volume can be placed in the upper 12 inches of backfill only. Soil below this depth and below the
root ball should not contain any additional organic matter. Slow release fertilizer tablets can be placed in the
upper 12 inches of backfill soil at the manufacturer's recommended rate. An alternate option for improving
the fertility of the backfill soil would be to uniformly incorporate 2 lbs. 6 -20 -20 per cubic yard of backfill
soil. Do not cover the top surface of the root ball with other soil. A temporary soil berm is often constructed
around the outer edge of the root ball to help channel water through the root ball then into the surrounding
soil. Ideally a weed and turf free zone should be maintained just beyond the diameter of the planting hole. A
2-4 inch deep layer of coarse mulch can be placed around the tree; mulch should be kept a minimum 4 -6
inches from the tnu k. During the establishment period the soil moisture of the root ball and surrounding soil
should be routinely monitored
Please call if we can of additional assistance.
� A�
J CK DAMONTE
A N f a N N O i M
A M N W M N
�moN�mao
N A NA I�
V ^W N ^M
W O Yl N M O
N N � tm0
NI N O O
m o o r
of N m m
m c m m U
� L
w U m c H
} J
yI N W O
c U i 3 w o W
m m m ai w in S
G.
n m U 2 O
N m H
xo x x O O F7 U
Co CI N
m m a
O O O
a a a m
C.3
m
q m
0 El
w Qpo
G. E 4
Q�\ H O V
0 V
V
N
N
N
S Y
�� worn
coo
b U m U
•-i
W
x 0
x o
m Y
Zm U
H N L] f
O
Y N
4
C
C
\
w 0
N O
N
� m
ui
l0
tib�
Y
w II
o
0
m
X0
-,01
0
W 0
0 00 In
Y
N
N
04-H G
a
H
F
m m 0
u
m
a m
,�
smi
Y Y U
N
Y
Y
O x x
,-°1i
m
m
G row m
m
6.4
fv
WA >.N
A� W
tJ' 0
N c-I
N .�
W
z U
U
E
O ti
X O
rl 0
0 0
b 0
W N
IN
\
Y
OWN
O1N
ZN Cb
N
N
N
N m
~
I
NN
mm
w U .i
I
NO
NO
1 W
O1 m u1
•�
I
., a -• W
G Y Y
I
rl
o
m W U ro
N
w
p,
I N
rl
N
7 M x .-1
X
.-I
ch
m
C C N m
NE
`°
0
vmNa
m
C,r
�nN
ro m m o
mci
N
O
NNti
V m
q
A
O
�O W
Nr
mmA
U N
Y £
ti O
O
N m
A z
m
N
A
a
ti
(a
o W
o°
[0
O
O
O
rn N
C
U
0 N
Y O W
m
•N
✓T U
m
A
W
--
rl
U m \
9 0
a
mwaaa)
°•
W
aO1+ o L4
N
ti
0 7.40'
ro
axz
r
v�ao
N
Oro w
w o N
I
O
O
W•i•i z
rn
w
I O z
r+
m U'
z
o O N
j
— —
W x m
--awu
01
W
r
ro
o e o
W
o
0
U G 0 0
x m E
rn 3
N O
aa�
w010o
tea°
E
U W
ti Y V
O N
m �D
N Y
m m W
N m
N N
x m H
u
° W'
m
w w m
m Rim
N
N
x A
[