Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/24/2003 - Agenda PacketAPRIL 24, 2003 APPROVED PB &R AD HOC TREE MEETING AGENDA • 0 • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission AD Hoc Tree Committee Thursday, April 24, 2003 — 7:00- 9:00PM City Council Chambers 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach AGENDA 1. Call to Order — Chair Allen 2. Public Comments on non - agenda items within the limited subject matter jurisdiction of the Ad Hoc Committee. Comments are limited to 2 minutes per person. 3. Minutes of the meeting of April 10, 2003. Waive reading of subject minutes, approve as written, and order filed. 4. Reports: a. Report from the Deputy City Attorney regarding the history of illegal tree removals and the applicability of Ordinance 13.08. b. Report from the General Services Director regarding current tree replacement policies and an update on the City of Costa Mesa tree replacement program. C. Report from the General Services Director regarding increased tree maintenance activities including annual trimming and root pruning, and root barrier programs. d. Report from the General Services Director regarding staff suggested changes to the G -1 Policy. 5. Public testimony regarding the general areas or specific issues the Committee should consider during its review of Council Policy G -1 and Chapter 13.08 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Testimony is limited to 3 minutes per person subject to extensions granted by the Chair for persons who represent, and are speaking on behalf of every member of a group 6. Committee direction to staff regarding the items for the next agenda. 7. Adjourn to the meeting of May 8, 2003. (9:00 p.m.) H:U0P3\a 03WD Hoc Tae Cov tm ASe doc I +-Cm 3 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH L+ 1.141 kvo3 • Ad Hoc Tree Committee of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission April 10, 2003- 7pm 1. Called to order at 7pm ROLL CALL DRAFT Commissioners Present: Allen, Skoro, Tobin Staff: Marie Knight, Recreation Et Senior Services Director David Niederhaus, General Services Director Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney John Conway, Urban Forester Teri Craig, Administrative Assistant Public Present: Barry Allen Alan Beek Jane Brown, SCE Linda Grant (BAS) Virginia Herberts Tess Lier (Cameo Shores HOA) Diane Meyer (Harbor View Hills HOA) • John Orr Larry Porter Mark Tamura (Harbor View Hills HOA) Jan Vandersloot (BAS /SPON) 2. REPORTS a. Report from Assistant Citv Attornev regarding the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement with the Balboa Arbor Society that are relevant to the duties and responsibilities of the Committee Assistant City Attorney Clauson read the following memo from City Attorney Burnham into the minutes: TO: Debra Allen; Val Skoro; Tom Tobin FROM: Robert Burnham RE: Balboa Arbor Society Settlement Agreement Ad Hoc Committee Duties DATE: April 9, 2003 As you know, the City of Newport Beach and the Balboa Arbor Society (BAS) were involved in litigation regarding the removal of the Ficus trees on Main Street in Balboa. This litigation was resolved pursuant to a Settlement Agreement that among other things, obligates the City to appoint a committee to commence a public process for the systematic review of the City's G -1 Policy with respect to the preservation and removal of trees within the City." The City also committed to consider in a timely manner the adoption of a city Tree Ordinance that would make removal of trees the city identifies as protected trees a violation of the City Municipal • Code. On March 11, 2003, the City Council decided that the committee identified in the Settlement Agreement should consist of three members of, and selected by, the Parks Beaches & Recreation Commission. The Settlement Agreement does not define relevant terms but we believe the Committee would conduct a "systematic review" (and comply with the request of the City Council) if it evaluated • Ad Hoc Tree Committee April 10, 2003 Page 2 each major element of Council Policy G -1, received input from all interested parties, discussed each element in light of comments from staff and the public and forwarded recommendations to the City Council. The Committee should also receive public and staff input regarding the adoption of a city tree ordinance and make a recommendation as to whether the City Council should consider amendments of the existing ordinance or consider the adoption of a new ordinance. We encourage the Committee to consider the initial meeting as a fact- finding session that will, hopefully, allow interested parties such as BAS to clearly articulate the specific changes to G -1 and the components of an a tree ordinance that they believe are in the best interests of the City of Newport Beach. b. Report from General Services Director reearding Council Policy G -1 and Chapter 13.08 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code Director Niederhaus introduced Urban Forester John Conway and noted that Parks & Trees Superintendent Marcelino Lomeli was unable to make the meeting because of a family emergency but would be attending the next meeting. Director Niederhaus reviewed Council Policy G -1, Municipal Code Ordinance 13.08, tree removals from the last 10 years, and noted that the City of Newport Beach will be recognized as a Tree City USA for the 13`h consecutive year and presented a special growth award at the Council meeting on April 22. 3. Introductory Comments by Chair Allen • Chair Allen introduced herself and meetings had been also scheduled for April 24 and May 15 of the Ad Hoc Committee. The Committee will hear the public as they voice their concerns regarding tree policies and will give direction to staff. After the Committee has heard from the public and concluded their deliberations, they will present their findings to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission, who will then forward a report to the City Council. 4. Committee Member Discussion Commissioner Skoro stated that he had been part of the previous 18 -month discussion of the G -1 Policy and hoped that it would not take that long this time. He noted that the G -1 could be improved and hoped that everyone would listen, so that recommendations could be made and move forward. Commission Tobin stated that he has an open mind and willing to hear all issues. 5. Public Testimony regarding the General Area of Specific Issues the Committee should consider during its review • Larry Porter stated that there seems to be problems with enforcement of the G -1 Policy and that it could be enforced more easily if it was an ordinance. He noted that he does not want to see another Main Street Ficus fiasco. Barry Allen stated that views are extremely important to homeowners and the • homeowners association CCEtR's. He stated that the G -1 Policy has worked well in the past and would be concerned with changes. He stated that the tree trimming does not always work with the sporadic growth of trees and that by planting such small trees as replacements that homeowners will experience removal problems in the future. Mr. Allen stated that if the Balboa Arbor Society (BAS) has a problem P • Ad Hoc Tree Committee April 10, 2003 Page 3 with the G -1 Policy then they should submit what changes they feel should be made and the Committee and the public could start from there. John Orr thanked Urban Forester John Conway for his professionalism and expertise. He stated that he echo's Mr. Allen's comments. He reinforced the fact that views are extremely important for the homeowners, the association but also for property values. Tess Lier from Cameo Highlands stated that she also worked on the G -1 Policy and that a good compromise was reached for a view City. She stated that she appreciates the trim cycle. She asked that BAS or Dr. Vandersloot submit their suggestions for change of the policy. She stated that the G -1 is there to protect the trees and views. • Alan Beek commented that the City's replacement numbers of tree removals is much too high. He noted his surprise that the trimming cycle was ok with the last witness. He stated that there really is no protection of the public view and that once a tree is named special it becomes a "holy" tree. Mr. Beek stated that taking out 42 trees and planting 487 is just too high. He stated that the City should worry more about the poor homeowners than the trees. • Jan Vandersloot, BAS /SPON stated that the City should have public members on the committee and it was a condition of the settlement with BAS. He stated that BAS does not want to change anything in the G -1 Policy having to do with views. The major concern is reforestation. He stated that when a tree is reforested it should not be replaced with a toothpick of a tree. Chair Allen asked Mr. Vandersloot's thoughts on tree trimming for views. Mr. Vandersloot stated that trees should be trimmed in accordance with the Arborist Society, trees should not be topped off. He also noted that trees should become part of a view for residents. Mr. Vandersloot asked for more time. Chair Allen stated if there was more time after everyone else had spoke he would be allowed more time. • Virginia Herberts stated that she was part of the committee that first applied for the City to become Tree City USA. She also stated that the Special Tree List began when she was part of the Commission and that they started this list as a response to the community when a specific tree lent a certain kind of ambience to the neighborhood. She also noted that some trees that are planted do not respond well to the Newport Beach climate and suggested that more study be done before a tree is selected. Mark Truman thanked the Commission for the G -1 Policy. He stated that he lives in a view community and that he does not want someone to tell him what his view should be. Lynn Miller, BAS stated that the G -1 Policy was not observed in the removal of the Main Street Ficus trees. She stated that those fcus trees were "Special" and should never have been removed. Chair Allen asked Ms. Miller if her problem are with the G -1 Policy or that it is not always followed. Ms. Miller stated yes. 9 Ad Hoc Tree Committee April 10, 2003 Page 4 • Linda Grant, BAS, stated that Mr. Porter had just handed her a card displaying the Main Street ficus trees and that it just makes her want to cry. She stated that we need an ordinance to protect City trees. She stated that she believes in trees. She stated that John Conway should be on the Ad Hoc Committee. She stated that our town has been destroyed. She stated that she sued the City because she had to. She stated that she is not going away and that the City will need to get use to the BAS. • Diane Meyer commented that it would be helpful to know just exactly what BAS wants. She stated that she loves trees, views and John Conway. She stated that a reforested tree should not be replanted if it is going to cause a problem with views. She suggested that more funds are needed for more frequent trimmings. • Bill Simons stated that he lives in Jasmine Creek and do not have City trees but appreciate the G -1 Policy as it protects their views and that all Association should adhere to the view policy. Discussion ensued regarding the settlement. Deputy City Attorney Clauson stated that the City won at the superior level but it was appealed; a settlement was discussed rather than continuing with the lawsuit. • Jan Vandersloot stated that this committee cannot possibly review the policy in three months. Ms. Clauson stated that instead of rehashing the settlement, why doesn't the BAS put in writing what they feel should be changed. • Mr. Vandersloot comments are as follows: City needs a more effective Tree Care Ordinance that deals with retention and removal so that enforcement can be done There should be better mitigation of tree values and functions. City should review Costa Mesa's 3 to 1 tree replacement policy for possible adoption. - G -1 needs better reforestation criteria (he brought up the Singleton's letters that were never answered); should only be done when there is repeated damage - Too much trimming defaces the tree. - Better maintenance procedures are needed before removals are done (maintenance suggestions for the Main Street trees by the SPON Arborist were ignored) - Special City Trees should be protected forever and never removed for any reason. - City needs to establish a Tree Committee as the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission do not necessarily always like trees. • He again commented that the City should not be receiving the Tree City USA award. He noted that BAS members would like to be part of the Tree Committee. Ad Hoc Tree Committee April 10, 2003 Page 5 • Chair Allen stated that this committee has waited for 6 weeks for the BAS to put their comments in writing and suggested that the Committee would like to see it earlier rather than later. 6. Public Comments on Non- Aeenda Items • Virginia Herberts stated that she has concerns about Council Policy G -6 — Maintenance and Planting of Parkway Trees as she believes that tree maintenance should not have been privatized. She noted that City trees would have a better chance if they were cared for by people that care about them and planted in the correct manner. • Alan Beek noted that he believes that little trees are far more interesting than big trees. • Barry Allen asked the Commission how the City of Newport Beach had been selected as Tree City USA. Director Niederhaus stated that the City applies for this and has been designated on an annual basis with the approval of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission. Linda Grant stated that trees make this City better. She again stated that she sued the City to save the trees. She noted that she is tired of people badgering her and the committee because of their love for their trees. She stated that she is aware • that the Council has made jokes of them but the bottom line is she and the Balboa Arbor Society are not going away. • John Orr asked what are the benefits of being know as Tree City USA. Director Niederhaus stated that signage is provided with a plaque and flag that is flown. The distinction of Tree City USA is not so much an award as it fosters inspiration urban forest care and growth. • Jan Vandersloot stated that he supports the City being Tree City USA and reminded people that don't like trees that they were initially planted to help rid cities of smog. He commented that Newport Beach should not be a City of pygmy trees. • Tess Lier asked what is being done for the Eucalyptus trees on Balboa Boulevard. Urban Forester John Conway stated that those trees are being treated for lerps and that the injections will clear away the disease. 7. Committee Direction to Staff Chair Allen stated that she has learned from the public that John Conway does a wonderful job and that most of the problems with the G -1 policy are enforcement concerns and not the language. Chair Allen stated that the enforcement issue is basically because of the Main Street Removals and believes that it was an isolated incident. She asked staff to confer with the City of Costa Mesa regarding their 3 to 1 replacement policy. She also stated that this Committee is not ready to discuss Special Trees and does not believe that is a item that should be discussed by this Committee. n U U Ad Hoc Tree Committee April 10, 2003 Page 6 Chair Allen asked staff to return with a staff report on how well the City mitigates the maintenance of trees re: their health; and a report from staff regarding any issues or concerns they may have with the G -1 policy. Director Niederhaus commented that the Council had augmented the tree maintenance budget for more tree barriers and trimmings last year. Commissioner Skoro stated that he also would like to see a written statement from the Balboa Arbor Society outlining their concerns and would like staff to review the monetary aspects of more care and tree trimmings but reminded the public that the City does not have an infinite source of money and like all things money is an issue. Commissioner Tobin stated that he also would like to see something in writing from the Balboa Arbor Society. ADJOURNMENT - 8:45pm Submitted by: Teri Craig, Admin Assistant i • • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Ad Hoc Tree Committee of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission April 10, 2003- 7pm 1. Called to order at 7pm ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Allen, Skoro, Tobin Staff: Marie Knight, Recreation it Senior Services Director David Niederhaus, General Services Director Robin Clauson, Deputy City Attorney John Conway, Urban Forester Teri Craig, Administrative Assistant Public Present: Barry Allen Alan Beek Jane Brown, SCE Linda Grant (BAS) Virginia Herberts Tess Lier (Cameo Shores HOA) Diane Meyer (Harbor View Hills HOA) John Orr Larry Porter Mark Tamura (Harbor View Hills HOA) Jan Vandersloot (BAS /SPON) 1144 iJ REPORTS a. Report from Deoutv Citv Attornev regarding the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement with the Balboa Arbor Societv that are relevant to the _duties and responsibilities of the Committee Deputy City Attorney Clauson read the following memo from City Attorney Burnham into the minutes: TO: Debra Allen; Val Skoro; Tom Tobin FROM: Robert Burnham RE: Balboa Arbor Society Settlement Agreement Ad Hoc Committee Duties DATE: April 9, 2003 As you know, the City of Newport Beach and the Balboa Arbor Society (BAS) were involved in litigation regarding the removal of the Ficus trees on Main Street in Balboa. This litigation was resolved pursuant to a Settlement Agreement that, among other things, obligates the City to "appoint a committee to commence a public process for the systematic review of the City's G -1 Policy with respect to the preservation and removal of trees within the City." The City also committed to consider in a timely manner the adoption of a city Tree Ordinance that would make removal of trees the city identifies as protected trees a violation of the City Municipal Code. On March 11, 2003, the City Council decided that the committee identified in the Settlement Agreement should consist of three members of and selected by, the Parks Beaches & Recreation Commission. The Settlement Agreement does not define relevant terms but we believe the Committee would conduct a 'systematic review" (and comply with the request of the City Council) if it evaluated Ad Hoc Tree Committee April 10, 2003 Page 2 each major element of Council Policy G -1, received input from all interested parties, discussed each element in light of comments from staff and the public and forwarded recommendations to the City Council. The Committee should also receive public and. staff input regarding the adoption of a city tree ordinance and make a recommendation as to whether the City Council should consider amendments of the existing ordinance or consider the adoption of a new ordinance. We encourage the Committee to consider the initial meeting as a fact - finding session that will, hopefully, allow interested parties such as BAS to clearly articulate the specific changes to G -1 and the components of an a tree ordinance that they believe are in the best interests of the City of Newport Beach. b. Resort from General Services Director regarding Council Policy G -1 and Chapter 13.08 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code Director Niederhaus introduced Urban Forester John Conway and noted that Parks It Trees Superintendent Marcelino Lomeli was unable to make the meeting because of a family emergency but would be attending the next meeting. Director Niederhaus reviewed Council Policy G -1, Municipal Code Ordinance 13.08, tree removals from the last 10 years, and noted that the City of Newport Beach will be recognized as a Tree City USA for the 13`h consecutive year and presented a special growth award at the Council meeting on April 22. 3. Introductory Comments by Chair Allen Chair Allen introduced herself and meetings had been also scheduled for April 24 and May 15 of the Ad Hoc Committee. The Committee will hear the public as they voice their concerns regarding tree policies and will give direction to staff. After the Committee has heard from the public and concluded their deliberations, they will present their findings to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission, who will then forward a report to the City Council. 4. Committee Member Discussion Commissioner Skoro stated that he had been part of the previous 18 -month discussion of the G -1 Policy and hoped that it would not take that long this time. He noted that the G -1 could be improved and hoped that everyone would listen, so that recommendations could be made and move forward. Commission Tobin stated that he has an open mind and willing to hear all issues. 5. Public Testimony regarding the General Area of Specific Issues the Committee should consider during its review Larry Porter stated that there seems to be problems with enforcement of the G -1 Policy and that it could be enforced more easily if it was an ordinance. He noted that he does not want to see another Main Street Ficus fiasco. Barry Allen stated that views are extremely important to homeowners and the homeowners association CCFtR's. He stated that the G -1 Policy has worked well in the past and would be concerned with changes. He stated that the tree trimming does not always work with the sporadic growth of trees and that by planting such small trees as replacements that homeowners will experience removal problems in the future. Mr. Allen stated that if the Balboa Arbor Society (BAS) has a problem • I Ad Hoc Tree Committee April 10, 2003 Page 3 with the G -1 Policy then they should submit what changes they feel should be made and the Committee and the public could start from there. John Orr thanked Urban Forester John Conway for his professionalism and expertise. He stated that he echo's Mr. Allen's comments. He reinforced the fact that views are extremely important for the homeowners, the association but also for property values. Tess Lier from Cameo Highlands stated that she also worked on the G -1 Policy and that a good compromise was reached for a view City. She stated that she appreciates the trim cycle. She asked that BAS or Dr. Vanderstoot submit their suggestions for change of the policy. She stated that the G -1 is there to protect the trees and views. Alan Beek commented that the City's replacement numbers of tree removals is much too high. He noted his surprise that the trimming cycle was ok with the last witness. He stated that there really is no protection of the public view and that once a tree is named special it becomes a "holy" tree. Mr. Beek stated that taking out 42 trees and planting 487 is just too high. He stated that the City should worry more about the poor homeowners than the trees. Jan Vanderstoot, BAS /SPON stated that the City should have public members on the committee and it was a condition of the settlement with BAS. He stated that BAS does not want to change anything in the G -1 Policy having to do with views. The major concern is reforestation. He stated that when a tree is reforested it should not be replaced with a toothpick of a tree. Chair Allen asked Mr. Vanderstoot's thoughts on tree trimming for views. Mr. Vanderstoot stated that trees should be trimmed in accordance with the Arborist Society, trees should not be topped off. He also noted that trees should become part of a view for residents. Mr. Vanderstoot asked for more time. Chair Allen stated if there was more time after everyone else had spoke he would be allowed more time. Virginia Herberts stated that she was part of the committee that first applied for the City to become Tree City USA. She also stated that the Special Tree List began when she was part of the Commission and that they started this list as a response to the community when a specific tree lent a certain kind of ambience to the neighborhood. She also noted that some trees that are planted do not respond well to the Newport Beach climate and suggested that more study be done before a tree is selected. Mark Truman thanked the Commission for the G -1 Policy. He stated that he lives in a view community and that he does not want someone to tell him what his view should be. Lynn Miller, BAS stated that the G -1 Policy was not observed in the removal of the Main Street Ficus trees. She stated that those ficus trees were "Special" and should never have been removed. Chair Allen asked Ms. Miller if her she believes that the problem with the G -1 is that rules are always followed. Ms. Miller stated yes. Ad Hoc Tree Committee April 10, 2003 Page 4 Linda Grant, BAS, stated that Mr. Porter had just handed her a card displaying the Main Street ficus trees and that it just makes her want to cry. She stated that we need an ordinance to protect City trees. She stated that she believes in trees. She stated that John Conway should be on the Ad Hoc Committee. She stated that our town has been destroyed. She stated that she sued the City because she had to. She stated that she is not going away and that the City will need to get use to the BAS. Diane Meyer commented that it would be helpful to know just exactly what BAS wants. She stated that she loves trees, views and John Conway. She stated that a reforested tree should not be replanted if it is going to cause a problem with views. She suggested that more funds are needed for more frequent trimmings. Bill Simons stated that he lives in Jasmine Creek and do not have City trees but appreciate the G -1 Policy as it protects their views and that all Association should adhere to the view policy. Discussion ensued regarding the settlement. Assistant City Attorney Clauson stated that the City won at the Superior Court level but it was appealed; a settlement was reached rather than continuing with the lawsuit. Jan Vandersloot began to discuss the lawsuit Ms. Clauson stated that instead of rehashing the settlement, why doesn't the BAS put in writing what they feel should be changed. • Mr. Vandersloot comments are as follows: - City needs a more effective Tree Care Ordinance that deals with retention and removal so that enforcement can be done - There should be better mitigation of tree values and functions. - City should review Costa Mesa's 3 to 1 tree replacement policy for possible adoption. G -1 needs better reforestation criteria (he brought up the Singleton's letters that were never answered); should only be done when there is repeated damage - Too much trimming defaces the tree. - Better maintenance procedures are needed before removals are done (maintenance suggestions for the Main Street trees by the SPON Arborist were ignored) - Special City Trees should be protected forever and never removed for any reason. - City needs to establish a Tree Committee as the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission do not necessarily always like trees. He again commented that the City should not be receiving the Tree City USA award. He noted that BAS members would like to be part of the Tree Committee. I* Ad Hoc Tree Committee April 10, 2003 Page 5 is Chair Allen stated that this committee has waited for 6 weeks for the BAS to put their comments in writing and suggested that the Committee would like to see it earlier rather than later. 6. Public Comments on Non - Agenda Items Virginia Herberts stated that she has concerns about Council Policy G -6 — Maintenance and Planting of Parkway Trees as she believes that tree maintenance should not have been privatized. She noted that City trees would have a better chance if they were cared for by people that care about them and planted in the correct manner. Alan Beek noted that he believes that little trees are far more interesting than big trees. Barry Allen asked the Commission how the City of Newport Beach had been selected as Tree City USA. Director Niederhaus stated that the City applies for this and has been designated on an annual basis with the approval of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission. Linda Grant stated that trees make this City better. She again stated that she sued the City to save the trees. She noted that she is tired of people badgering her and the committee because of their love for their trees. She stated that she is aware • that the Council has made jokes of them but the bottom line is she and the Balboa Arbor Society are not going away. John Orr asked what are the benefits of being know as Tree City USA. Director Niederhaus stated that signage is provided with a plaque and flag that is flown. The distinction of Tree City USA is not so much an award as it fosters inspiration urban forest care and growth. Jan Vandersloot stated that he supports the City being Tree City USA and reminded people that don't like trees that they were initially planted to help rid cities of smog. He commented that Newport Beach should not be a City of pygmy trees. Tess Lier asked what is being done for the Eucalyptus trees on Balboa Boulevard. Urban Forester John Conway stated that those trees are being treated for lerps and that the injections will clear away the disease. 7. Committee Direction to Staff Chair Allen stated that she has learned from the public that John Conway does a wonderful job and that most of the problems with the G -1 policy are enforcement concerns and not the language. Chair Allen stated that the enforcement issue is basically because of the Main Street Removals and believes that it was an isolated incident. She asked staff to confer with the City of Costa Mesa regarding their 3 to 1 replacement policy. She also stated that this Committee is not ready to discuss Special Trees and does not believe that is a item that should be discussed by this Committee. Ad Hoc Tree Committee April 10, 2003 Page 6 Chair Allen asked staff to return with a staff report on how well the City mitigates the • maintenance of trees re: their health; and a report from staff regarding any issues or concerns they may have with the G•1 policy. Director Niederhaus commented that the Council had augmented the tree maintenance budget for more tree barriers and trimmings last year. Commissioner Skoro stated that he also would like to see a written statement from the Balboa Arbor Society outlining their concerns and would like staff to review the monetary aspects of more care and tree trimmings but reminded the public that the City does not have an infinite source of money and like all things money is an issue. Commissioner Tobin stated that he also would like to see something in writing from the Balboa Arbor Society. ADJOURNMENT - 8:45pm Submitted by: Teri Craig, Admin Assistant • 14-em qA CITY OF NEWPORT B ACH . CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO AD Hoc Tree Committee and PB & R Commission FROM: Daniel K. Ohl, Deputy City Attorney SUBJECT: Thursday, April 24, 2003 Agenda Item No. 4A, Illegal Tree Removal DATE : April 18, 2003 The City Attorney's Office has worked in conjunction with the General Services Department when City trees are illegally removed. We have used Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 13.08.040 as the basis for recovery. That Section provides: "No person shall trim, cut down, damage., remove, destroy and tree growing up any public park, beach or playground, or the grounds of any public building, or a public street right -of -way, without written permission of the City Manager." In the past, if an amicable resolution could not be reached with the property owner, subject to approval of the General Services Department, our office would institute a lawsuit is Superior Court. Unfortunately, the Courts were less than receptive to our efforts and restricted our ability to recover damages to the cost of replacement as opposed to the value of what was taken. Because of that reception, our office no longer pursues complaints in Superior Court. Instead, we now gather additional information, use digital photographs provided by General Services, make reference to digital orthotic overheads through GIS and obtain a detailed breakdown of the value of the tree which was illegally removed. We have meetings with the homeowners, thoroughly explain the process and attempt to amicably resolve the matter. If we are unable to reach a resolution, we now proceed to Small Claims Court. Our office prepares a brief for the Court, cites relevant authorities, assembles and marks the documents upon which we rely and we meet and confer with the General Services Department before their appearance in Small Claims Court. We have found a greater success in doing this and it is a much more efficient use of our time and resources. AD Hoc Tree Committee & PB &R Commission April 18, 2003 Page: 2 • We did submit one illegal removal case to the Orange County District Attorneys' Office for prosecution. After several months, the District Attorney's Office, somewhat reluctantly, prosecuted the matter. The Court accepted a No Contest Plea, but no fine or penalty was imposed. The Court did not order restitution either. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have. Dan el K. Ohl, Deputy City Attorney DKO:cp F:Susemsmf shared lcp\DantrnemoWDHocCommittee.doc 0 • a9 :: f i T 1= Agenda Item No. 4.b. April 24, 2003 TO: FROM: Ad Hoc Tree Committee PB &R Commission General Services Director SUBJECT: City Tree Replacement Policies and Practices Recommendation None, background information only. Background • Staff was requested by the Ad Hoc Tree Committee to provide an overview of the City's tree replacement policies and practices at the April 10, 2003 meeting. In addition, the Committee asked staff to obtain more information regarding the City of Costa Mesa tree replacement practices and policies. The City of Newport Beach tree replacement practices and policies differ depending upon the policy and ordinance. Typically, the tree replacement ratio is 1:1, requiring the replacement tree to a 36" box tree. The following is a brief overview of each policy and ordinance that determine City tree replacement: G -1 Policy (Retention and Removal of City Trees) The G -1 Policy determines the tree replacement size based upon the tree removal category, therefore, the planting criteria differ within the Policy. The All Other City Trees removal category requires a 24" box tree replacement, 1:1. The Reforestation removal category requires a 36" box tree replacement unless the parkway space will only accommodate a 24" box tree, and a one for one replacement. Staff has recommended retaining the replacement size and number for All Other Tree removals to a 24" box tree, one for one replacement. Staff is recommending changing the replacement size from a single 36" box tree to a 24" box tree on a 2:1 ratio for reforestation requests in a subsequent staff report in the current agenda. • G -6 Policy (Maintenance and Planting of Parkway Trees) This Policy applies to the maintenance and planting of parkway trees, although, the standards and specifications for planting parkway trees actually apply to the planting of all City trees. Under this Policy, trees shall be a minimum container size of 36" box, unless market availability necessitates the planting of 24" boxed specimens with the number of trees planted determined by the planting criteria. Prior to January 24, 1994, all tree replacements were 15- gallon container size. However, due to the increased Council and public interest in the beautification of City parkways, staff recommended an increase in tree container size to 24" box minimum. Additionally, this Policy was amended July 23, 2002 to further increase the tree container size to 36" box minimum when possible. Staff has experienced, however, that many of the required tree species designated for a particular street are not available in the 36" box container size. Additionally, budget limits, site restrictions, and adaptability prohibit the planting of a 36" box size tree. Staff is inclined to recommend the return to a 24" box tree replacement for the G -6 Policy. A copy of the G -6 Policy is attached. Municipal Code 13.09.010 and 13.09.020 (Parkway Trees Required) The attached ordinances apply to the required parkway tree planting whenever a person constructs a new building or causes an increase in the original floor space of 50% of its original size. As a result of a dramatic increase in new building construction, both the City Attorney's Office and the General Service Department requested that the City Council amend and/or modify the language of these ordinances. The modifications, which were approved by the City Council in July 2002, provided additional tree planting as a result of new building construction. The property owner is required to provide for one 36" box tree or for the cost of planting a tree elsewhere when tree planting is impractical at the abutting parkway. The Planning, Building, Public Works and General Services Departments enforce these ordinances as part of the property development process. Property owners are prohibited from occupancy until this ordinance requirement has been met. A property owner or contractor must apply for an encroachment permit for the planting of a new tree and if applicable a demolition permit for a tree removal. The G -1 Policy dictates that a reforestation request be submitted as well, which if staff recommendations are accepted, will result in the planting of 24" boxed trees on a 2:1 ratio. LL6 ((Private Encroachments in Public Rights -of -Way) This Policy describes categories of private encroachments and improvements within the City Right of Ways that require a permit and review by various City Departments. Tree • planting is only briefly mentioned, requiring the public to obtain an encroachment permit and approval from the Public Works Department and the General Services Department • (Copy of L -6 Policy attached). A request for the removal and replacement of a City tree usually requires an encroachment permit (replacement tree), a demolition permit (tree removal), and a reforestation request. This process is cumbersome and staff is recommending the exclusion of a reforestation request in the development process. In the past staff have approved tree removals on an infrequent basis outside the auspices of the G -1 Policy. Other City Tree Replacement Policies /Practices The City of Costa Mesa has a 3 to 1 tree planting/tree removal ratio for specific tree removal categories. Trees listed as Nuisance Trees (Shamel Ash, Ficus, Carrotwood, and Brazilian Pepper) are subject to the 3:1 tree replacement ratio. The property owner requesting the removal of a Nuisance tree must pay a reforestation fee of $277.50 plus the cost of the tree removal. The reforestation fee includes the cost to plant one 24" box tree and two 15- gallon trees. If the affected property does not have adequate space for the trees, the trees are planted elsewhere. The City of Costa Mesa has four tree removal categories; sewer, nuisance, property development, and others. Established criteria for each category determines the tree removal process and tree placement ratio as follows: Sewer — Not subject to Parks, Recreation, and Facility Community Review. 2:1 tree replacement ratio, 15 gallon • Nuisance — Not subject to Parks, Recreation, and Facility Community Review 3:1 tree replacement ratio, 1 -24 box tree, 2 -15 gallon Property Development — Not subject to Parks, Recreation, and Facility Community Review. 3:1 tree replacement ratio, 1 -24 box tree, 2 -15 gallon Others — Subject to Parks, Recreation, and Facility Community Review and approval. 2:1 tree replacement ratio, 15 gallon The City of Costa Mesa conveys authority for tree removal to their Public Services Director. The following is an overview of tree replacement and practices of all adjacent cities: city Tree Replacement Ratio Size City of Costa Mesa 3:1 and varies 1 -24" box, 2 -15 gallon City of Huntington Beach 1:1 1 -15 gallon City of Irvine 1.1 1 -15 gallon City of Laguna Beach 1:1 1 -15 gallon • In summary, the staff has provided the background of City and adjacent municipalities' policies and procedures related to tree replacement and recommends that any changes to • the above noted policies and ordinances reduce the minimum container size to 24 ", but increase the quantity of trees replaced to a minimum of 2 for 1 for reforestation requests. Other tree replacements should be on a one for one basis. Very respectfully, David E. Niederhaus Attachments: (A) City Policy G -6 (B) Municipal Codes 13.09.010 and 13.09.020 (C) L -6 • • n LJ • TO: FROM: =V717711 1 !. Ad Hoc Tree Committee PB &R Commission General Services Director Agenda Item No. 4.c. April 24, 2003 SUBJECT: Tree Maintenance, Annual Trimming, Root Pruning and Root Barrier Programs Recommendation None, background information only. Background The proper management of an Urban Forest requires a multitude of tree maintenance practices that protect existing trees from disease, insects, decay, urban abuse, property development, and deliberate acts of vandalism. As noted in the Council G -1 Policy, regular care, trimming, maintenance, and programmed replacement are necessary to preserve the urban forest and meet the needs of an expanding and ever changing urban development. The General Services Department, Street Tree Division is responsible for the maintenance and care of over 33,000 trees with an estimated asset value of $70 million. The Tree Division is staffed by an Urban Forester and a Tree Maintenance Service Technician and has a current budget of $717,000. A complete inventory of all City trees is being completed that will include location, species, and value. The goal of the City is to trim all City trees within three years. In addition, planting, removal, inspection, response to fallen limbs and hazardous situations, and specialized services are performed. Specialized services such as root pruning, root barrier installation, and microinjection of fertilizers and pesticides are specific treatments utilized by staff to retain trees before tree removal is considered. Additionally, during normal sidewalk, curb, and street repair activity, root pruning, and root barrier installations are implemented,unless root pruning methods are not practical or safe. . The following is a brief history and progress achieved in implementing the various tree maintenance programs: 1. Root Pruning Projects Many of the trees throughout Newport Beach have reached maturity and provide a unique charm and character for specific streets and neighborhoods. Unfortunately, a large majority of these mature trees were planted years ago within small confined parkways and under, or near utility conducts (sewer, water, electrical, etc.). This situation has generated sometimes overwhelming reaction from residents who submit claims against the City for property damage and incurred costs because of intrusive tree roots. As a result, General Services Department staff has been working extensively with the City Risk Manager and the Deputy City Attorney, to resolve these claims and seek alternate maintenance practices to retain the tree when possible. Tree removal is considered the last resort to resolve a claim and mitigate intrusive tree roots. The following paragraphs describe specific root pruning projects: A. Clay Street — Irvine Avenue to St. Andrews Avenue At the request of General Services Department staff Council allocated $19,500 during Fiscal Year 2001 -2002 to mitigate intrusive roots from the 21 Indian Laurel Fig trees • ( Ficus Nitida `microcarpa'), which had caused extensive public and private property damage, sidewalk repairs, and trip hazards within this one block section. Additionally, the adjacent residents and the local Councilperson expressed a desire to retain the trees at any cost. A combined joint effort by General Services Department staff (tree and concrete crews), West Coast Arborists, Inc., and TruGreen LandCare Company undertook an extensive parkway renovation project in August 2001. This included tree trimming, root pruning, root barrier installation, as well as sidewalk repairs, and sod and plant installation on both public and private property. The trees were retained, intrusive roots were removed, and the adjacent properties were protected and repaired as needed. The community was highly pleased with this effort and to date tree roots have not caused noticeable damage. The total cost of the renovation and improvements for the Clay Street project was $60,000. B. Citywide Root Pruning City Council allocated $50,000 in the current fiscal year for Citywide root pruning projects, primarily, as a result of the successful project on Clay Street and in an effort to reduce damage to private property as indicated by the increase in tree claims against the City. This project has been highly successful in claim resolution and in the retention of mature trees. Some related costs: • Tree Trimming — 673 Ficus Trees - $26,247 (Required before root pruning) Parkway Renovation — (30 sites) - $23,753 (Included root pruning and root barrier installation) 2. Tree Maintenance Programs Although tree health, view concerns, and aesthetics are tree maintenance considerations within the City Urban Forestry Program, mitigating hazardous situations and protecting public /private property are also the primary functions within our tree maintenance program. In addition to the City programmed tree trimming the Urban Forester directs annual tree trimming and supplemental tree trimming, mitigates hazardous tree situations (broken limbs, decayed branches, traffic obstructions, etc.), addresses view concerns, and processes reforestation requests. a. Annual Trimming In addition to the programmed tree trimming (trimming by grid or block trimming), 4,300 selected trees (primarily Mexican Fan Palms, Coral, Ficus, and Eucalyptus, etc.) are scheduled for annual trimming each year beginning in September and continuing through February. The above noted species of trees are prone to storm damage and by trimming these selected trees each year prior to the arrival of the winter storms and Santana winds, tree failures and fallen limbs are reduced to a minimum. Annual tree trimming reduces • tree service requests and allows the retention of numerous mature trees. The public response has been very positive as a result of this program. The City Risk Manager has indicated a significant reduction in claims against the City as a result of storm related damage since this program has begun. b. Supplemental Tree Trimming The G -1 Policy established the Supplemental Tree Trimming Program as an alternative to the City periodical tree trimming schedule 2000. The current tree trimming cycles represent the minimum feasible frequency (3+ years) and extent of trimming given fiscal conditions. However, an individual or an established community association can request more frequent trimming of certain trees if they incur the full cost. The General Services Director has established procedures to implement the supplemental tree trimming provisions of this Policy. This includes the submittal of a request and remittance of a check for $39 per tree. Once received, the Urban Forester will schedule the request within 60 days of submittal. To date, communities such as Eastbluff, Broadmoor, Harbor View Hills, Harbor View Hills South, and Spyglass Hills have extensively utilized this program. This has been an extremely successful program to address view and aesthetic concerns since many trees have rapid growth and require more frequent trimming then the current tree trimming cycle allows. This program also has reduced the number of requests for tree removal. The G -1 Policy requires that Supplemental Tree Trimming be utilized at least twice within a one year period at the expense of the requestor before reforestation is requested. Supplemental funding by the City Council for the combined programs of annual tree trimming, supplemental tree trimming, root pruning, and the installation of root barriers have greatly reduced the number of annual tree trimming requests and number and value of tree claims. Very respectfully, David E. Niederhaus LJ • • Agenda Item No. 4.d. April 24, 2003 TO: Ad Hoc Committee PB &R Commission FROM: General Services Director SUBJECT: Council Policy G -1 Amendments Recommendation Review Council Policy G -1 amendments as proposed by staff. Background The G -1 Policy (Retention and Removal of City Trees) originated in May 1966 and has been amended seven times. The last major revision was February 22, 2000, which was approved by the Council after a study of over 18 months that included much public input. During the past 3+ years since the G -1 Policy was last amended, various scenarios or difficulties have arisen with the understanding or interpretation of the Policy. Staff has compiled a record of the various problem areas or suggestions to improve the Policy. Staff s goals in providing the recommended changes to the Policy are to make the Policy easier to understand, clarify removal and reforestation procedures, and increase the tree planting ratio for removed trees. The majority of the changes are self explanatory and have been formatted in the City manner, i.e. an item to be deleted is lined out and an item to be added is underlined. A copy of the amended Policy is attached for your review. Some of the major changes or highlights include: • Definitions such as for the categories of Special Trees • Clarification of tree removal and reforestation procedures • Increase in tree replacement for reforestation to 2 x 1 • Decrease in size of replacement trees from 36" box to 24" box size Staff is prepared to address any of the recommended changes in detail. Very respectfully, • David E. Niederhaus Attachment: (A) Council Policy G -1 (Proposed changes) I. \USERS\GSV\MLmdeman\2003\apr 03\G -I Amendments AD Hoc Committee Agenda Item 4.doc n LJ G -1 RETENTION OR REMOVAL OF CITY TREES The purpose of this policy is to establish definitive standards for the retention, removal, maintenance, reforestation, tree trimming standards, and supplemental trimming of City trees. City trees are an important part of the character and charm of the entire City. Regular care, trimming, root pruning, maintenance, and programmed replacement are necessary to preserve this charm while at the same time protecting views and public and private property. The City classifies public trees in one of two categories: Special Trees and All Other Trees. SPECIAL CITY TREES It is the City's policy to retain City trees categorized as Landmark, Dedicated, or Neighborhood trees, which have historical significance, and /or contribute to and give character to a location or to an entire neighborhood. Landmark, Dedicated, and Neighborhood trees are individually identified erg by Attachment 1, and shall hereinafter be referred to as Special Trees. Trees within these categories shall be • identified established, mapped, recorded and administered by the Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission ( "Commission "). Landmark Trees are identified as those individual Special Trees that possess historical significance by virtue of their size, age, location, or species. Dedicated Trees are Special Trees donated for or in the memory of specific individuals. Neighborhood Trees are Special Trees that by their unusual size, number, species, or location lend aspecial character to a residential area. Special Trees shall be retained, unless there are overriding problems, such as death, disease, or the creation of a hazardous situation, which require their removal. Prior to consideration for as removal of a Special Treefs the General Services Director, or designee, shall prepare a report identifying and implementing specific treatment to retain the tree(s). If specific treatment is unsuccessful or impractical in retaining a tree(s) then a full staff report shall be made to the Commission before any further action considering removal is taken. Prior to any removal of Special Tree Us the City must comply with the noticing provisions of the Removal of City Trees section set forth in this Policy, unless a tree Special Tree is considered hazardous that and necessitates an • emergency removal. Any such removal must be recommended for removal by the 1 General Services Director and the Risk Manager and app •� roved by - ^ ^ir^° the ° ^ ^r G -1 ^•= °t of the City Manager. During normal sidewalk, curb, and street repair activity requiring root pruning, all steps shall be taken to retain Special Trees. If tree roots are to be pruned in association with sidewalk, curb, and gutter improvements, sufficient timing in advance must be planned to ensure that pruning will not destabilize or kill the tree. If both sides of a Special Tree's roots are to be pruned, one side should be pruned 6 months to a year in advance of the other side depending upon the species and other related factors. If root pruning methods are not practical and /or critical to the health of the tree, then alternate or special hardscape improvements may be considered shall be instal4ed by the City in order to retain the tree. All proposed root pruning or other tree treatment shall be assessed coordinated by the Urban Forester. ALL OTHER CITY TREES Tree ". It is the City's policy to retain All Other Qty Trees unless removal is necessary for one of the following reasons: • A. The City tree has had a proven and repeated history (defined as two or more occurrences within a 121$ -month period) of damaging public or private sewers, water mains, roadways, sidewalks, curbs, walls, fences, underground utilities, or foundations based on City records or other competent and reliable authority despite specific treatment by the City to alleviate repeated damage. Water or sewer stoppage that results from tree roots and causes significant documented private property damage (greater than $500) shall be sufficient criterion for tree removal. Regular drain or pipe clearing shall not constitute such damage, nor shall damage attributed to a failure by the property owner to perform such preventive maintenance. B. The City tree has had a repeated history (defined as two or more occurrences within an 121$ -month period) of significant interference with street or sidewalk drainage, despite specific treatment by the City to alleviate repeated damage. C. The City tree is dead, diseased, dying, or hazardous, and presents a significant liability to the City. A dead tree is one that has been assessed by the Urban Forester and found to have deceased. Diseased trees are defined as those trees that cannot be cured by current arboricultural methods, are in an advanced state of decline, and have no prospect of recovery. Dying trees are those that have no • prospect of recovery. Hazardous trees are defined as those that are defective, 2 G -1 have a potential to fail, and would cause damage to persons and property upon failure. The Urban Forester will perform a hazard assessment whenever a tree is identified as hazardous. The assessment will identify: structural defects of the tree, parts of the tree most likely to fail, targets where imminent personal injury or property damage may result with tree failure, and procedures or actions necessary to abate the hazard. After assessment, the Urban Forester will convey his written findings and recommendations to the Risk Manager for evaluation. D. The tree(s) have been requested to be removed in conjunction with a City Council- approved City, commercial, neighborhood, or community association beautification program. E. The City Manager, upon the advice of the General Services Director, City Attorney, Risk Manager or the Traffic Engineer, shall have the authority to remove individual All Other Trees trees to resolve claims or safety issues. REMOVAL OF CITY TREES The initiation to remove any City tree (Special or All Other may be made by the staff of the General Services Bepartment, and/or Public Works Departments a legally . established community association, or a private property owner by making application to the General Services Director, utilizing the City tree removal form. After receipt of the application, a Tree Inspection Report shall be prepared by the City's Urban Forester (Attachment 2) to determine if the tree(s) meets the criteria outlined in the above All Other City Trees section for consideration for removal. Simultaneously, the Urban Forester shall provide a notice of the proposed tree removal to the affected property owner, the owners immediately adjacent to the applicant's property, and the appropriate community association if applicable, (not applicable to the emergency removal of hazardous trees with trees under Item C above nor to trees that meet the criteria of Item E). The Urban Forester shall determine whether in his /her judgment additional specific treatment can be initiated to retain the tree. If a tree(s) is to be removed, the tree(s) will be posted at least 30 days prior to the removal with a sign notifying the public that they have the right of appeal. The sign shall also note a staff contact. Once a recommendation is made by the Urban Forester and the Park and Tree Superintendent to the General Services Director and the General Services Director or designee concurs, then the applicant, the adjoining owners, and the community association, if applicable, shall be notified of the decision to remove or retain the tree within 30 days of the proposed removal. The General Services Director, or leis a designee, shall prepare a staff report for a regularly scheduled PB&R Commission • meeting of all trees recommended for removal. using the Trees PA44en Aetivit' 3 • G -1 except for those trees categorized in Paragraph C. (dead, diseased, or dLg trees ) or Paragraph E in the preceding section on All Other City Trees. An applicant, an adjoining property owner, or any interested party may appeal the decision of the General Services Director not to remove a tree to the Commission. The Commission, in considering any appeal, shall determine whether the removal meets the criteria outlined in this Policy, as well as any unique factors which may be pertinent to the removal or retention of tree(s). The decision of the Commission will be considered final unless called up by at least one Councilmember or the City Manager. The General Services Department will delay any tree removal(s) for at least 14 calendar days following the date of the Commission decision in order to allow time for a Councilmember or the City Manager to call the item. The City will endeavor to replace all trees removed in accordance with the All Other City Trees removal criteria on a two for one basis. Replacement trees will be a minimum of a 24" boxed size. REFORESTATION OF CITY TREES The concept of systematically replacing Special or All Other Trees which are creating • hardscape and /or view problems and cannot be properly trimmed, pruned or modified to alleviate the problem(s� they create, or those which have reached their full life, and are declining in health, is referred to as reforestation. • It is recognized and acknowledged that City trees were planted many years ago and in some cases locations were planted with specific species that when fully mature cause damage to curb, gutter, sidewalk or underground utilities. In certain neighborhoods, City street trees may encroach into blue water views from public and private property depending on the length of time since the trees were last trimmed, or the age and height of the trees. Arborists continue to develop lists of tree species which will grow in restricted parkway areas without causing significant damage to curb, gutter, sidewalk, utilities or views. As a City which understands the importance of trees and the beauty they bring to a community, the City desires to continually improve the urban forest through reforestation. In areas where City trees have been removed through City initiation, the City should expeditiously replace them with the appropriate designated City tree. Reforestation may also be initiated by residents private property owners utilizing the process outlined below. F11 • G -1 Individual private property owners, as well as community associations, may apply for single or multiple tree reforestation in their respective area by submitting a request to the General Services Director for consideration by the Commission that meets the following requirements: A. The proposed area must have clearly defined contiguous boundaries that include the tree(s) proposed for removal and replacement, street address(es), block number(s), or other geographical information. This section applies to individual and group requests. B. Residential communities, neighborhoods, or business organizations who apply for reforestation must submit a petition signed by a minimum of 60% of the property owners within the area defined for reforestation. The Retition content must be approved by City staff prior to distribution by the petitioner. The staff - a]2proved petition must be distributed to all property owners within a one block distance in each direction from the location of the proposed reforestation. Signatures by non-property owners are not acceptable for petition purposes. A neighborhood is defined for the purposes of this policy as ten or more homes in any given area of the City. As an alternative, areas represented by a legally established community association empowered with CC & R's _, may submit a • resolution of the Board of Directors formally requesting a reforestation with a statement that all members of the community association having their residential views affected, have been officially notified and given an appropriate opportunity to respond before the Board voted on the request. Individual private property owners living within a legally established community association area empowered with must petition for reforestation through their respective association. C. Individual private property owners not residing within a CC p R based le�aH established community association area may submit individual requests for single or multiple tree reforestation. The applicant must submit a petition signed by a minimum of 60% of the private propertyowners residents residing on both sides of the street within a one block distance in either direction from the reforestation site as well as the endorsement of the appropriate homeowners' association, if applicable. As noted earlier, the petition content must be approved by staff prior to distribution. D. A written agreement must be submitted to the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission by the petitioning sponsor (individual private property ownero or group) to pay 100% of the costs of the removal and replacement of the public • treeUs in advance of any removal activity. The actual removal and replanting 5 • G -1 will be coordinated by the General Services Department. The total costs shall include only the contractor's removal and replacement costs and be paid in advance of any removal actions. E. The replacement tree(s) for reforestation shall be the Designated Street Tree(Js as prescribed by City Council Policy G -6, or the organization must request and obtain approval from the Commission of the designation of a different tree species prior to submitting any reforestation request for a tree species other than the designated street tree. This section applies to individual or group requests. F. There shall be a minimum of a two one for -one replacement of all trees removed in reforestation projects. Replacement trees shall be a minimum size of 24 36" boxed trees, unless the parkway space will only accommodate a single 24" boxed tree. If there is not room for the replacement treeW within a specific site as prescribed by City Council Policy G -6, then the replacement treeW shall be planted in a public area in the same neighborhood. This section applies to individual or group requests. The decision of the Commission on reforestation requests will be considered final unless called up by at least one Councilmember or the City Manager. • TREE MAINTENANCE The City shall require the proper care and watering of replacement trees by the reforestation petitioner to ensure their proper growth and development as outlined in City Council Policy G -6. Furthermore, no person shall tamper with replac-eme QLty trees in violation of Section 13.08.040 of the Municipal Code. Further, the Ci will endeavor to fund the care of the Urban Forest to the highest level possible through the use of regular tree trimming, root pruning, and root barrier programs. ENCROACHMENT AND DEMOLITION PERMITS All encroachment permits (permits for private property development which are has pro osp ed to encroached upon the City right of way) or demolition permits that involve the removal or replacement of City treed must be specifically noticed by the property owner to City staff prior to the building and /or demolition permit process whenever possible. The proposed construction plans must indicate preservation of existing City trees wherever possible (exempt: dead, dying, or in an advanced state of decline). If the proposed development, as deemed by the General Services Director, requires the removal of City trees, the property owner must ffki-y submit a reforestation request and 0 G -i shall pay all related tree removal and replacement costs as indicated in the previous paragraphs. TREE TRIMMING STANDARDS/SUPPLEMENT-AL TRIMMING nNG The City Council has adopted tree trimming cycles for trees of different ages and species. The i Tree trimming cycles and trimming standards shall represent the minimum feasible frequency and the extent of trimming given current fiscal conditions. Except as provided in this Section, trimming shall be in accordance with the standards of the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA). SUPPLEMENTAL TRIMMING The City will consider, and as a general rule approve, requests to trim certain trees more frequently or to trim trees consistent with practices applied prior to the adoption of ISA standards (to enhance public and private views, preserve required sight /distance standards, or other public purposes) which are submitted by affected residents or the board of a legally established community association and the request is accompanied by a completed "Supplemental Tree Trimming Form' and full payment for the requested tree trimming. However, since these practices often require 'topping' . or osp Bible severe disfiguring of a trees and are often aesthetically displeasing and injurious to a tree, reforestation shall 2n1y be considered once supplemental tree trimming flids prae#iee has occurred more than twice within a one year period. The costs of the two supplemental tree trimmings must be borne by the reforestation petitioner. The General Services Director shall establish procedures to implement the supplemental trinuning provisions of this Policy. An approval must be obtained from a legally established association by the requestor of supplemental tree trimming in areas with an active homeowners' association if the requested trimming is to be undertaken within the association area. L 7 • [Attachment 1- Presefvatien Special Trees] [Attachment 2- Tree Inspection Report] Adopted - May 9,1966 Amended - August 14,1967 Amended - November 9,1976 Amended - November 12,1985 Amended - November 28,1988 Amended - March 14,1994 Formerly I -9 • • 8 Amended - April 11, 1994 Amended - February 26,1996 Amended - July 14,1997 Amended (Administratively) - November 24,1997 Amended - August 10, 1998 Amended - February 22, 2000 G -1