Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
City Tree Removal and Replacement Policy 9/7/99 CM: 1/5/04
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH gp City Council Interoffice Communication To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members From: NG' Coerper, Chair, Beautification, Landscape and Tree Committee-- behalf of`Mayor Pro TernJill Hardy and City Council Memberve Sullivan Date: March 8; 2004 Subject: C-ITEM FOR MARCH 15, 2004, CITY COUNCIL MEETING— CITY TREE REMOVAL/REPLACEMENT POLICY STATEMENT OF ISSUE: The Beautification, Landscape and Tree Committee (BLT) has presented revisions to the City Tree Removal/Replacement Policy to the Environmental Board on February 5, 2004, as requested at the January BLT Committee meeting. The Board approved the amendments to the Policy and submitted a letter outlining their support as well as areas of concern. RECOMMENDED ACTION: In summary, the recommended revisions to City Tree Removal/Replacement Policy will allow residents to remove street trees that are diseased or causing damage; repair and replace the adjacent sidewalk, curb and gutter as necessary; and replace the tree with one of the City's approved species. All work would be at the homeowner's expense and a public right-of-way encroachment permit will be required. The permit can be obtained without a fee from the Public Works Department. Attached to this report is information detailing the options and discussion regarding the proposed revised policy. Attachment xc: Ray Silver Bill Workman Connie Brockway Robert Beardsley / c , ��VEE � 0 i CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Beautification, Landscape and Tree Committee REQUEST FOR ACTION TO: Chairman Coerper and Members of the Committee VIA: Robert F. Beardsley, Director of Public Works SUBMITTED BY: Paul Emery, Deputy Director of Public Works,/ DATE: February 24, 2004 SUBJECT: City Tree Removal/Replacement Policy BACKGROUND' r At the January 27, 2004, Beautification, Landscape and Tree (BLT) Committee meeting, staff was directed to review the revisions to the City Tree Removal/Replacement Policy with the Environmental Board and report back with any comments at the next regularly scheduled BLT meeting. On February 5, 2004, staff presented the proposed revisions (Attaclunent 1 w/attaclunents)to the Environmental Board for their comments. The Board approved the amendments to the Policy and stated they would draft a letter outlining their support as well as any areas of concern. As of February 19, 2004, staff has not received this letter. The general areas of discussion focused on the selection of replacement trees and the approved species list. RECOMMENDED ACTION Recommend that the City Council amend the removal/replacement policy as outlined in the January 5, 2004, Committee report to the Council, with the addition of the replacement variety selection process outlined in the January 27, 2004, BLT item (as amended to reflect "people on the block" in lieu of adjacent residents). PE.jg 02 feb-staff report-City Tree Removal-Replacement Policy CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD February 24, 2004 Mr. Paul Emery Department of Public Works City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject: Huntington Beach Tree Removal/Replacement Policy Dear Mr. Emery: At the February 5, 2004 meeting of the Environmental Board,we discussed a proposal to modify the Huntington Beach Tree Removal/Replacement Policy as you presented. This letter is to document that the members of our Board discussed the modifications and voted unanimously to concur with the proposed changes. In addition, during our discussion, several issues were raised that we believe should be considered to supplement the current proposal. I. We believe that the proposed revised policy changes should not become the City's only way of completing tree replacements. Understanding the current budget concerns, the citizens of Huntington Beach do pay for such basic services as tree replacement as a part of their property taxes. It should be made clear that this revised policy is there only to expedite the current way the city does business. It is not meant to be the only way the city does business with regard to tree replacement. The City should continue to expedite the replacement of trees that have been on the priority list the longest. 2. vY e reconmzend that the percentage of neighbors requiring agreement in the petition process be reduced from 75% to 66%. This percentage would be more in line with other voting percentages used in the legislature. 3. We would like to encourage the use of native and drought-resistant trees in our city as is written in the city's charter. Yours truly, A.T. Hendricker, Chairman ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD 03/15/2004 13:51 9498247 UCI-APEP PAGE 01 March 15, 2004 Good Afternoon Mr. Beardsley, Since I am unable to attend tonight's council meeting, I would like to make a few comments on agenda item C1a-City Tree Removal before you cast your vote.This is an issue I am quite passionate about since it directly affects my neighbors and myself. I live at 6761 Melbourne Drive in the north part of town in GoldenWest Estates,a tract of homes built in 1962. Half of my street is planted with huge 42-year-old Jacaranda trees and the other half are newer trees of a different variety. My home has one of the Jacarandas and it is the source of my problem_ My tree is one of the largest and is leaning at a pretty good tilt toward the street. I have three main issues I would like you to be aware of: 1.The large roots have raised the sidewalk.This is the least worrisome since Public Works is more than happy to come out within 48 hours of my call to patch it. 2,The roots have infiltrated my sewer line.There is nothing worse than raw sewage backing up in the morning while trying to shower for work. In the 3%years I have lived here I have repeatedly paid a plumber in excess of$100 a call to snake the line from my roof to the street,all to no avail-the roots are too large and dense.Yet,my clay sewer line has not cracked.The roots simply seeped in from the connectors.You see, someone years ago had the bright idea to plant the tree nearly right on top of my sewer line and less than 10 feet from my driveway—which I've replaced at a cost of$1200.The tree is less than 8 feet from my water meter and I worry it too, may also be affected. In January, I spent$4000 to replace my unbroken sewer lateral from the sidewalk to my house. I was told to have the tree removed and replace the lateral all the way to the center of the street.This way,the problem would be forever fixed. Please realize the repairs just from the sidewalk to the street alone were quoted in excess of$10,000 plus permits.But the City would not approve my request since they had no money to remove the tree. I was told by Public Works I could petition the entire street for tree removal and wait in excess of 98 years since there are 98 petitions waiting for progressing. Or, l could keep my fingers crossed the City would change it's tree removal policy and then I could pay an estimated$800 to remove the tree. Incidentally, I was also told by a Public Works employee to poison the tree and if it died, he would immediately come out and remove it. Herein lies my problem—I am not a tree killer and one of the reasons I bought this particular house was because of the tree—it was in bloom at the time and the entire street was beautiful awash in purple. Of course, I have learned over the years that the tree is VERY messy. It Is always dropping something and those purple flowers are a sight to behold when tracked into the house and eaten by my cats but I figure it's the price I pay. It is also a VERY smelly tree;those blooms are really nasty in standing water,which leads me to my next issue. 3. The tree has raised my gutter_Yes, Public Works has patched it but it only makes it worse.When it rains,water from around the corner on Yorkshire Drive travels down Melbourne and deposits itself in front of my house and stops dead. My neighbor,whose driveway is next to mine, is also affected and she has lived here 35 years.After every rain I have to get out into the gutter and push the water down the street with a broom where it collects in the center of Victoria Ave. It takes well over an hour and is a very exhausting,filthy job. If I don't physically remove the water it will stand for a week or so until evaporated. In a day or two the tree droppings start to smell and I can't open my windows because the stench Is so bad.The wafer has on many occasions flooded onto the sidewalk and into my yard. I can't even pull out of my garage without flooding the bottom of my car-the water sits so deep.Once, I was pulling into my garage and I actually tapped my garage door because I could not stop my car—the brakes were wet. I can't wash my car or water my lawn.the street sweeper can't clean my gutter and I have to do it myself. L � On C •J CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH �-- Beautification, Landscape and Tree Committee REQUEST FOR ACTION TO: Chairman Coeiper and Members of the Committee r�C)z � SUBIMITTED BY: Robert F. Beardsley,Director of Public Work ',� DATE: January 27, 2004 SUBJECT: City Tree Removal/Replacement Policy STATEIMNT OF ISSUE At the January 5,2004, City Council meeting, the Beautification, Landscape and Tree (BLT) Committee presented a Committee Report recommendnig that the City Council direct the Director of Public Works to allow removal of parkway tress without the location necessarily being on the Petition list. The City Council referred this item back to the BLT Committee to address the issue of the selection and planting of replacement trees. ANALYSIS The BLT Committee originally reviewed the issue of amending the process for tree removal on November 25, 2003. As a result of that meeting,the Conunnittee presented a report to the City Council on January 5, 2004,that recommended amending the removal replacement policy to allow property owners who have not gone through the petition process, yet meet all other criteria of the policy, be allowed to complete the necessary curb, gutter, sidewalk repair and tree removal and replacement at their cost through a City-issued no fee permit. Some of the Council Members expressed concern that a selection process for the replacement tree variety had not been addressed. Property owners who wished to proceed with the improvements in front of their residences had the potential to set the standard for tree replacement by the selection of a specific variety. The Council expressed a desire for an amended process that would facilitate a neighborhood consensus for the selection for the replacement tree. One opportunity to address this issue would be through the permit process. Currently,the petition.process requires that the property owners agree on the replacement tree. Should the . Committee continue to recommend that property owners,not on petition streets also be allowed to remove and replace their tree as well as complete all of their concrete repairs at their expense, then an amendment to this process is proposed. The property owner will be required to obtain a no fee peanut as well as select an insured, licensed contractor to perform the tree removal and concrete repair work. The property owner would also be required to pay the statutory fee for the planting of a replacement tree. Upon the issuance of the appropriate permits, City staff would select a minimum of.three potential replacement trees from the approved species list in the adopted Tree Management Plan, send a survey to the adjacent residents, informing them of the scheduled work by their neighbor, and y • 1J CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH City Council Interoffice Communication To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members ' From: Gil Coe er, Chair, Beautification, Landscape and Tree Committee on alf of Mayor Pro Tern Jill Hard and City Council Member Y Y Y ave Sullivan �` = Dat March 8`, 2004 Subject: C-ITEM FOR MARCH 15, 2004, CITY COUNCIL MEETING - DOWNTOWN STREET TREE REPLACEMENT POLICY STATEMENT OF ISSUE: At the February 24, 2004 meeting of the Beautification, Landscape and Tree Committee (BLT), the Committee recommended approval of the removal of 44 Majestic Beauty street trees on Main Street in the downtown area. Queen palms, or a similar palm variety, will replace the trees. The Downtown Economic Development Committee (DEDC) and the Design Review Board (DRB) have also approved the proposed action. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Replacement of the trees is necessitated by the death/disease of eight of the Majestic Beauty trees. At this time, the reason for the decline of the species cannot be determined. Each of the advisory bodies recommends replacement of all of the Majestic Beauty trees in order to promote the appearance of continuity along Main Street. This action did not require an amendment to the Downtown Design Guidelines; however, it did require an application for approval. Attached to this report is information detailing the options and discussion regarding the Main Street tree replacement. Attachment xc: Ray Silver Bill Workman Connie Brockway Robert Beardsley l � 7 - 0 (6) 0 March 15, 2004 - Councel igency Agenda - Page 6 Motion to move Agenda Item E-7 forward Approved 7-0 C-1. Council Committee/Council Liaison Reports C-1a. (City Council) Approve the Beautification, Landscape and Tree Committee (BLT) and Environmental Board Recommendations Re: City Tree Removal and Replacement Policy for Residential Homeowners (100.10) Communication from Councilmember Gil Coerper transmitting the following Statement of Issue: The Beautification, Landscape and Tree Committee (BLT) has presented revisions to the City Tree Removal/Replacement Policy to the Environmental Board on February 5, 2004, as requested at the January BLT Committee meeting. The Board approved the amendments to the Policy and submitted a letter outlining their support as well as areas of concern. Attached to this report is information detailing the options and discussion regarding the proposed revised policy. Recommended Action: In summary, the recommended revisions to City Tree Removal/Replacement Policy will allow residents to remove street trees that are diseased or causing damage; repair and replace the adjacent sidewalk, curb and gutter as necessary; and replace the tree with one of the City's approved species. All work would be at the homeowner's expense and a public right-of-way encroachment permit will be required. The permit can be obtained without a fee from the Public Works Department. Councilmember Coerper reported on process. Public Works Director Robert Beardsley reported re: trip hazards Approved 7-0 C-1b. (City Council) Approve the Beautification. Landscape and Tree Committee (BLT) Downtown Economic Development Committee (DEDC), and the Design Review Board (DRB) Recommendations Re: Downtown Main Street Tree Replacement Policy by Removal of Diseased Majestic Beauty Trees and Replace with Queen Palms or Similar Variety (100.10) Communication from Councilmember Gil Coerper transmitting the following Statement of Issue: At the February 24, 2004 meeting of the Beautification, Landscape and Tree Committee (BLT), the Committee recommended approval of the removal of 44 Majestic Beauty street trees on Main Street in the downtown area. Queen palms, or a similar palm variety, will replace the trees. The Downtown Economic Development Committee (DEDC) and the Design Review Board (DRB) have also approved the proposed action. Attached to this report is information detailing the options and discussion regarding the Main Street tree replacement. Recommended Action: Replacement of the trees is necessitated by the death/disease of eight of the Majestic Beauty trees. At this time, the reason for the decline of the species cannot be determined. Each of the advisory bodies recommends replacement of all of the Majestic Beauty trees in order to promote the appearance of continuity along Main Street. This action did not require an amendment to the Downtown Design Guidelines; however, it did require an application for approval. Councilmember Coerper reported. (7) March 15, 2004 - Counci-Agency Agenda - Page 7 Public Works Director Beardsley reported on the removal of healthy trees not conducive to street uses. Deputy Public Works Director Paul Emery informed not to exceed cost$15,000 to remove 36 trees within 60 days. Substitute Motion: Fund$7,500 on contingency that Downtown Business Owners would match with $7,500 (out Redevelopment Funds.) Approved 5-2(Boardman, Cook- No) C-2. City Administrator's Report - None C-3. City Treasurer's Report C-3a. (City Council) Review and Accept Shari Freidenrich, City Treasurer's January 2004 Report Titled City of Huntington Beach Summary of City Investment Portfolio, Bond Proceeds, and Deferred Compensation Activity (310.20) Communication from City Treasurer Shari Freidenrich transmitting the Monthly Investment Report for January 2004. Recommended Action: Motion to: Review and accept the monthly report. Following review of the report, by motion of Council, accept the Monthly Investment Report Summary of Investment Portfolio, Bond Proceeds, and Deferred Compensation Activity for January 2004, pursuant to Section 17.0 of the Investment Policy of the City of Huntington Beach. City Treasurer Shari Freidenrich reported PowerPoint slide presentation Approved 7-0 •�� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Beautification, Landscape and Tree Committee REQUEST FOR ACTION TO: Chairman Coerper and Members of the Conunittee VIA: Robert F. Beardsley, Director of Public Works SUBMITTED BY: Paul Emery, Deputy Director of Public Works DATE: February 24, 2004 SUBJECT: Downtown Street Tree Replacement BACKGROUND Eight (8)Rhaphiolepis `Majestic Beauty' trees located in the first four blocks of Main Street are either dead or'dying. Those in decline represent 18% of the 44 total Majestic Beauty street trees in the first four blocks of downtown Main Street. On October 28, 2003, the Beautification, Landscape and Tree (BLT) Committee reviewed this issue (Attachment 1) and recommended that the staff present the item to the Downtown Economic Development Committee to determine the preference for replacement trees. On December 5, 2003, the Downtown Economic Development Committee(Attachment 2) recommended the Queen Palm be the replacement tree and all Majestic Beauty trees in the first four blocks (44) be replaced. The recommendation of the Downtown Economic Development Committee necessitated approval by the Design Review Board since the proposal changed the tree to be planted in wells directly adjacent to the street club, as identified in the Downtown Design Guidelines. On February 12, 2004, staff presented the recommendation of the Downtown Economic Development Committee to the Design Review Board (Attachment 3). The Design Review Board recommended replacement of all 44 of the `Majestic Beauty' street trees to the Plaiming Director, with a review of alternative species of palms that may be less susceptible to disease, yet have similar growth and appearance characteristics to the queen palm. Staff is currently reviewing the options available for any alternative palm variety. Upon approval by the City Council of the queen palm as the replacement tree, staff will be proceeding with the tree replacement program utilizing fiulds available in the FY 2003-04 Redevelopment Agency budget. RECOMMENDED ACTION Recommend that the City Council approve the ultimate replacement of all 44 Majestic Beauty street trees with the queen palm, or similar alternative palm variety, in the first four blocks of Main Street downtown. 02 feb-staff report-Downtown Street Tree Replacement -ne CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION TO: Chair Kristin Stilton, and the Design Review Board FROM: Robert F. Beardsley, Director of Public Works David Biggs, Director of Economic Development DATE: February 12, 2004 SUBJECT: Removal and Replacement of Street Trees on Main Street between Pacific Coast Highway and Acacia Street Analysis: Eight Rhaphiolepis 'Majestic Beauty' trees located in the first four blocks of Main Street are either"dead or dying. Of the damaged trees, those in decline are located at 102, 104, 211, 215, 221, 316, 318, and 410 Main Street. These eight represent 18% of the 44 total Majestic Beauty street trees in the first four blocks of Main Street downtown. Maintenance Operations personnel have performed soil tests, but have not been able to definitively determine the cause of deterioration and eventual death of selected trees. The Downtown Design Guidelines specify the Rhaphiolepis 'Majestic Beauty' as the adopted street tree for Main Street when used in tree wells directly adjacent to the street curbs and where medians are required. Mediterranean Fan Palms are to be used in raised seat wall planters located at intersection pedestrian landings. The Queen, Mexican Fan, and Windmill Palms are to be used in colonnade fashion or in random height groupings for accent purposes. Past discussions with merchants in the downtown area had proven that some did not like the Rhaphiolepis and wanted the city to change the trees in front of their establishments. A decision needed to be made to replace the dead and dying trees in kind, or to review other specimens as potential replacements. Staff created a report and submitted it to the Beautification, Landscape, and Trees (BLT) Committee for their review at their October 28, 2003 meeting. The options presented at that time were: 1) Replacing the eight dead/dying Rhaphiolepis with new Rhaphiolepis, 2) Replace the eight dead/dying Rhaphiolepis with another type of tree, and continuing to replace the Rhaphiolepis as they became diseased or died with the new type of tree, or to 3) Replace all 44 trees at one time with another variety of tree, thereby keeping the street uniform in appearance. The BLT decided at that meeting to refer the issue to the Downtown Economic Development Committee for further review and recommendation. A report was prepared and presented at the Downtown Economic Development Committee Meeting of December 5, 2003. The Downtown Merchants, along with the other members of the Downtown Economic Development Committee discussed the choices before them.The consensus reached was to replace the dead trees with something other than the Rhaphiolepis. The committee chose the Queen Palm as their candidate for a replacement r 1, specimen. Because this would create an inconsistent look downtown, the committee recommended the removal and replacement of all 44 Rhaphiolepis with Queen Palms when funding can be identified. While this option did not require an amendment to the Downtown Design Guidelines, it did require an application to be filed with the Design Review Board for review and approval. As such, we are requesting DRB approval of the Queen Palm as the designated replacement tree for the existing Majestic Beauty tree. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Beautification, Landscape and Tree Committee J' REQUEST FOR ACTION TO: Chairman Coeiper and Members of the Committee SUBMITTED BY: Robert F. Beardsley,Director of Public Work ; DATE: January 27, 2004 SUBJECT: City Tree Removal/Replacement Policy STATEMENT OF ISSUE At the January 5,2004, City Council meeting, the Beautification, Landscape and Tree (BLT) Committee presented a Committee Report recommending that the City Council direct the Director of Public Works to allow removal of parkway tress without the location necessarily being on the Petition list. The City Council referred this item back to the BLT Committee to address the issue of the selection and planting of replacement trees. ANALYSIS The BLT Committee originally reviewed the issue of amending the process for tree removal on November 25, 2003. As a result of that meeting,the Committee presented a report to the City Council on January 5, 2004,that recommended amending the removal replacement policy to allow property owners who have not gone through the petition process, yet meet all other criteria of the policy, be allowed to complete the necessary curb, gutter, sidewalk repair and tree removal and replacement at their cost through a City-issued no fee permit. Some of the Council Members expressed concern that a selection process for the replacement tree variety had not been addressed. Property owners who wished to proceed with the improvements in front of their residences had the potential to set the standard for tree replacement by the selection of a specific variety. The Council expressed a desire for an amended process that would facilitate a neighborhood consensus for the selection for the replacement tree. One opportunity to address this issue would be through the permit process. Currently, the petition process requires that the property owners agree on the replacement tree. Should the Com nittee continue to recommend that property owners not on petition streets also be allowed to remove and replace their tree as well as complete all of their concrete repairs at their expense, then an amendment to this process is proposed. The property owner will be required to obtain a no fee permit as well as select an insured, licensed contractor to perform the tree removal and concrete repair work. The property owner would also be required to pay the statutory fee for the planting of a replacement tree. Upon the issuance of the appropriate permits, City staff would select a minimum of.three potential replacement trees from the approved species list in the adopted Tree Management Plan, send a survey to the adjacent residents, informing them of the scheduled work by their neighbor, and requesting their input on the selection of the replacement tree by a specific date. Based on this input, the City will purchase and install a tree at the location after the completion of the tree removal and concrete repairs. This amended process would address the issue of tree replacement selection. RECOMAMENDED ACTION Recommend that the Director of Public Works amend the tree removaUreplacement process to authorize property owners that meet the criteria for tree removal/replacement to: 1) through a no fee permit issued to a licensed, insured contractor, remove the tree and repair all of the curb, gutter and sidewalk at then expense and, 2) pay the statutory fee for the replacement tree and installation costs with the tree species to be determined after a survey of the adjacent property owners is conducted by City staff. a trt 4i ji BEAUTIFICATION/LANDSCAPE/TREE COMMITTEE MINUTES January 27, 2004 A. ROLL CALL Chairman Gil Coerper Vice Chairman Jill Hardy (absent) Council Member Dave Sullivan Robert F. Beardsley, Director of Public Works Paul Emery, Deputy Director of Public Works B. MINUTES B-1. The minutes of the November 25, 2003, regular meeting were approved as submitted. VOTE: The motion carried. AYES: 2 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 1 ABSTENTIONS: 0 Councilwoman Hardy arrived at 3:35 PM. C. PUBLIC COMMENTS The Beautification/Landscape/Tree Committee welcomes public comments on all items on this agenda or of community interest. Each speaker is allotted three minutes; time may not be donated to others. The Committee can only take action on items that are on this agenda. This is the time to address the Committee regarding items of interest or agenda items other than public hearings. Jean Nag y: Spoke on the urban forest and provided a handout from the National Arbor Day Foundation. The handout provided information on using trees along streets and not interfering with business signs. This can be done with proper pruning. She , mentioned there is an area called the Grove that is very becoming with all the trees. Ms. Nagy said the City should inspire homeowners to care.for their trees as not all citizens are in favor of removing trees and seeing them replaced with concrete. She also said she is totally against the City allowing individuals to remove their parkway tree because they don't like it. Removal of a full-grown tree and replacement with a 1 Beautification, Landscape, Tree Committee MINUTES January 27, 2004 Page 2 smaller tree isn't aesthetically the same. It takes years for a tree to reach the same level of growth. Ms. Nagy shared pictures of tree lined bike paths she had from a recent vacation. She encouraged the City to develop similar bike paths within the City. E. INFORMATION ITEMS There were no information items. F. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS F-1. Tree S..ociety Request to Plant Norfolk Island Star Pines Motion by Councilman Sullivan, seconded by Councilwoman Hardy, to continue Item F-1 to the February meeting. VOTE: The motion carried.. AYES: 3 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 ABSTENTIONS: 0 F-2. City Tree Removal/Replacement Policy— Chairman Coerper stated his understanding of the City Policy is tree removal and replacement can only take place if a tree is diseased or causing major damage. There are issues with sewer invasion by tree roots, and liability issues as sidewalks, curb and gutters are being lifted. It is a misdemeanor for a resident/homeowner to remove a City tree without a permit issued to do so. Mr. Beardsley reported discussions were held with several residents requesting parkway tree removal due to sewer line, or sidewalk, curb and gutter damage. The City has a petition process to ensure at least 75%.of property owners on a street want parkway trees replaced. This issue went to Council to help those, under certain circumstances, that are not on the petition list and have a diseased tree or have had major damage from the parkway tree, have an alternative to replace such a tree. Mr. Beardsley also informed the Committee, a special camera could be used to view inside a sewer line to determine if a parkway tree is causing damage. Paul Emery outlined the process for removing/replacing a tree at homeowner expense. A homeowner would pull a no fee permit to remove a tree and to repair the sidewalk, curb and gutter. At that time the homeowner would also pull a tree replacement permit. The City would send a mailer to residents of the street with a Beautification, Landscape, Tree committee MINUTES January 27, 2004 Page 3 respond by date, requesting the selection of one of three types of tree offered as a replacement. A majority would select the variety. Chair Coerper asked how many complaints related to parkway trees are on file. There are currently 96 streets on the Tree Petition List that have gone through the petition process. There are other locations that have not gone through the petition process and are not on the list. Paul Emery said between 75-150 letters have been received related to parkway tree damage in the last year. Councilwoman Hardy asked if the tree replacement species would be known prior to the existing tree being removed. Emery responded the process would be to pull a permit, poll the neighbors, select the tree variety, hire a licensed contractor and replace,ttie:tree. Councilwoman Hardy then asked how many requests by homeowners not on the Petition List have a legitimate reason to replace their parkway tree. Jim Jones responded between 50-75% of tree removal/replacement requests are legitimate diseased trees or damage causing trees._ Councilwoman Hardy expressed concerns for homeowners who had legitimate concerns but whose neighbors do not want to see the trees removed, leaving the owner no recourse. Jim Jones responded many homeowners express interest in removing a tree, but few follow through due to cost issues. Councilman Sullivan stated if a homeowner is willing to spend their own money to replace a tree, the City should allow it, but wants to be sure City costs of replacing a tree are covered. Discussion was held on the cost of the removal and repair process, and what the City is charging for a replacement tree. Councilwoman Hardy moved, Councilman Sullivan seconded, to forward the policy to the Environmental Board for their review, and the Environmental Board to provide recommendations to the Beautification, Landscape and Tree Committee. The Beautification, Landscape and Tree Committee will then make recommendations to City Council. VOTE: The motion carried. AYES: 3 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 ABSTENTIONS: 0 f The Environmental Board will provide recommendations at the next Beautification, _J Landscape and Tree Committee meeting. Beautification, Landscape, Tree Committee MINUTES January 27, 2004 Page 4 G. COMMISSION AND STAFF COMMENTS Paul Emery reported on the Downtown Committee meeting where they voted to replace all 44 street trees with Queen Palms. This will go to the Design Review Board on February 12, 2004. H. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 4:10 p.m. Next meeting is February 24, 2004. CJ Cowncil Mern.be.r Gil Coerper Joyce Greene Chair Administrative Assistant r C.I.T.Y OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION T0: Environmental Board FROM: Robert F. Beardsley, Director of Public Work j DATE: January 29, 2004 f SUBJECT: City Tree Removal/Replacement Policy STATEMENT OF ISSUE At the January 27,2004, Beautification, Landscape and Tree (BLT) Committee meeting, Corrunittee members reviewed revisions to the City Tree Removal/Replacement Policy. At that meeting it was requested.thai staff present the 'issues to the Environmental Board and report back with comments at the next regularly scheduled BLT meeting. ANALYSIS In an effort to address concerns from residents regarding the.process for property owner funded tree removal/replacement and curb,'gutter and sidewalk repairs, the BLT Committee has reviewed:the City's policy and made recommendations to amend the process.(Attachment 1."C"Item f1. or J'a.nuary'5, 2004, City Council 1Vleetuia): The amendments to the process would allow a propertyowner not on a petition list, who has a tree that meets the criteria for tree removal, to fund the removal/replacerrient;.curb;:6--utter. and sidewalk repairs at his/her own cost. Included in the amended process, a procedure for the identification of a replacement tree has been discussed(Attachment 2 BLT Item of January 27; 2004) The,BLT Committee and City Council have requested that the Enviromliental Board review the. proposed amendments to the Tree Removal/Replacement Policy implementation procedures. RECOIVINIENDED ACTION Comment on the proposed amendments to the Tree Removal/Replacement Policy procedures for lion- petition property owner funded tree removal/replacement, and sidewalk, curb and gutter repairs. HB CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Beautification, Landscape and Tree Committee REQUEST FOR ACTION SUBMITTED TO: Chairman Coerper and Members of the Committ . e SUBMITTED BY: Robert F. Beardsley, Director of Public Works DATE: November 25, 2003 1 �v SUBJECT: City Tree Removal/Replacement Policy STATEMENT OF ISSUE At the October 28, 2003, Beautification, Landscape and Tree (BLT) Committee meeting, the Committee requested that staff return to the next regularly scheduled meeting with a review of the City Tree Removal/ Replacement Policy. They noted that residents have expressed concern regarding the challenging process that exists for removal of trees that may be damaging the surrounding infrastructure. DISCUSSION On November 19, 2001, the City Council adopted Ordinance 3518 adding Chapter 13.50 to the Huntington Beach Municipal Code relating to the regulation of trees. The Code section identifies the responsibility of establishing a tree management plan among the duties of the Director of Public Works. A City Tree Removal/Replacement Policy was formulated (Attachment 1 ) that outlines the factors taken into consideration when determining the removal and replacement of a City tree. The City has budgeted $500,000 in street funds and $382,000 in Community Development Block Grant funds in Fiscal Year 2003/04 for the removal/ replacement of City trees and the repair of concrete curbs, gutters and sidewalks. It is anticipated that these funds will address six streets on the tree removal petition list (Attachment 2). PETITION PROCESS The street tree petition process confirms neighborhood consensus by requiring= 75% of the impacted neighbors to agree with the proposed tree removal and specie replacement. Street trees are a community resource and the decision for removal impacts residents beyond the property owner directly adjacent to the City-owned tree. Requiring a petition process helps ensure that residents are in agreement with respect to the future of their parkway trees. 11 nov-staff report-City Tree Removal-Replacement Policy Individual property owners on a street on the petition list that is not yet funded are allowed to pursue the replacement and concrete work at their expense with a no fee street work permit. Conversely, residents are routinely denied tree removal on streets that have not completed a petition. These property owners are provided information regarding the petition process. LIABILITY DATA The City received 18 claims for property damage relating to trees and 17 slip and fall claims in Fiscal Year 2001 /02. The City paid $22,630 to settle these claims, and two other claims are still pending. Many of the claims were settled without payment. In Fiscal Year 2002/03, the City received i i claims for property damage and six slip and fall claims. To date, the City has paid $5,000 to settle these claims and five claims remain open as of this date. There is no clear indication that the number of claims or the amount paid in settlement will diminish by amending the current policy. Nor is there any recorded nexus between property owner requests to remove a tree and perform all the necessary curb, gutter and sidewalk repairs at their expense, and liability claims filed. RECOMMENDED ACTION Affirm the removal/replacement policy and its implementation, requiring property owners to obtain a street tree petition for the removal of parkway trees prior to the availability of a no fee permit to remove the tree and repair the surrounding curb, gutter and sidewalk of their expense. ALTERNATIVE ACTION Recommend that the Director of Public Works amend the current practice described above and, instead, authorize property owners to remove at their expense, with.a no fee permit, any free that is not on the approved specie list and meets all other criteria of the current removal/ replacement policy. RFB.jg CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH "'IJBCity Council Interoffice Communication To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members From: Gil Coerper, Chair on behalf of Beautification, Landscape & Tree Committee; Jill Hardy, Mayor Pro Tem; & Dave Sullivan, City Council Member Date: December 29, 2003 Subject: "C"ITEM FOR JANUARY 5, 2004, CITY COUNCIL MEETING— AMENDMENT TO THE CITY TREE REMOVAL/REPLACEMENT POLICY STATEMENT OF ISSUE: The current City Tree,Removal/ Replacement Policy (Attachment 1) outlines factors taken into consideration when the Director of Public Works determines whether the removal and replacement of a City Tree is necessary. The Public Works Department's Street Tree Petition process requires that at least 75% of the property owners on an impacted street agree with the proposed tree removal. The rationale for this is to insure that neighbors who benefit from the parkway trees are in agreement with the potential change in their streetscape. ANALYSIS: The process of gaining neighborhood consensus is difficult and burdensome to many residents. Many property owners have expressed a desire to remove and replace the parkway tree in front of their residence at their own expense. Currently, the only way the Department of Public Works allows this to take place is if the resident's street is on the Petition List and, then, the Public Works Department will provide a "no fee" permit for the adjacent property owner's removal of the parkway tree, repair of any damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk, and planting of a new parkway tree, all at the property owners expense. If a property owner desires to complete this work on a street that is not on the Street Tree Petition list, then the resident is directed to complete the petition process. Currently, there are over 90 street segments awaiting work that have completed the Street Tree Petition process. The estimated cost of these repairs exceeds $14 million. Currently, only property owners on these 90 street segments have the opportunity to pay for the parkway tree removal/replacement, curb and gutter and sidewalk repair. The Beautification, Landscape and Tree Committee, on November 25, 2003, recommended that this process be brought to the full City Council, for discussion and possible amendment, to allow more property owners to correct their tree issues more readily, without the necessity of the Street Tree Petition process. Included here is the November 25, 2003 staff report (without attachments) to the Beautification, Landscape and Tree Committee on this issue (Attachment 2). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Direct the Director of Public Works to allow removal and replacement of parkway trees, including necessary sidewalk, curb, and/or gutter repair, all at the expense of the property owner, without the location necessarily being on the Petition list. All other conditions of the current City Tree Removal/Replacement Policy will remain in effect. GC:PE/jg Attachments CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH r INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION TO: Chair Cathy Green and the Downtown Economic Development Committee FROM: Robert F. Beardsley, Director of Public Works DATE: December 2, 2003 SUBJECT: Options for Street Tree Replacement on Main Street Between Pacific Coast Highway and 6th Street. Statement of Issute 'Eight(8) Rhaphiolepis `Majestic Beauty' trees located in the first four blocks of Main Street are either dead or dying. The Beautification, Landscape and Tree (BLT) Committee has requested that the Downtown Economic Development Committee recommend its preference for replacement'trees. Funding Source: Funding is available in the Street Tree Maintenance budget(10085621) for replacement of the eight trees with 24-inch box specimens. The Public Works Department does not have sufficient resources for any option that would include replacement of more than the eight (8) trees, or with any trees larger than 24-inch box size. Alternative funds may need to be identified and allocated depending on the final action. Recommended Action: Motion to: Recommend to the BLT to replace the dead, dying trees on Main Street with the existing variety, Majestic Beauty. This option maintains the existing streetscape for the first four blocks of Main Street in the downtown area. The Public Works Department has sufficient funds to remove and replace the damaged eight trees with new Majestic Beauties. Eight, 24-inch box Majestic Beauties are currently available with a height of 8 feet, a crown of 3 feet, and a clearance of 6 feet. The dead or dying trees have an average height of 10 feet, with a 5 to 6 foot crown. To purchase trees which are taller than the industry standard, and more in line with the existing trees, it would be necessary to contract grow trees over the next 12 to 24 months. The empty trees wells would be temporarily filled with asphalt to ensure safe pedestrian travel. Alternative Actions: Motion to: 1) Recommend to the BLT the replacement of the eight(8) Majestic beauty trees with a palm species identified in the Downtown Design Guidelines. This option would not require an amendment to the Downtown Design Guidelines, but would require that an application be filed with the Design Review Board for review and approval. This option also would leave Main Street with 36 Majestic Beauties and eight(8) palms of a variety to be determined, altering the existing streetscape. The Public Works Department has the available resources to remove the existing eight diseased and dying trees and install eight new palm trees. If additional Majestic Beauties were damaged or were to die, the Department would replace them with the selected palm species. 2) Recommend to the BLT the removal all of the existing Majestic Beauty trees and replace them with a variety of tree species to be determined. This option would require the filing of an application with the Design Review Board for review and approval and a capital expenditure estimated at $25,000, which is not available in the FY 2003/04 or 2004/05 budgets. Analysis: Of the eight dead or dying trees, those in decline are located at 102, 104, 211, 215, 221, 316, 318 and 410 Main Street. These trees represent 18% of the 44 total Majestic Beauty street trees in the first four blocks of Main Street downtown. Public Works has performed soil tests,but has not been able to definitively determine the cause of deterioration and eventual death of the trees. The BLT Committee reviewed this report at its October 28, 2003 meeting and decided to refer the issue to the Downtown Economic Development Committee for further review and recommendation. The Downtown Design Guidelines specify the Rhaphiolepis `Majestic Beauty' as the adopted street tree for Main Street when used in tree wells directly adjacent to the street curbs and where medians are required. The Guidelines further state that Mediterranean Fan Palms are to be used in raised seat wall planters located at intersection pedestrian landings and the Queen, Mexican Fan, and Windmill Palms are to be used in colonnade fashion or in random height groupings for accent purposes. Below are photos of palm trees approved for Main Street use: 1 W p n k �I Mediterranean Queen Palm Mexican Fan Palm Windmill Palm Fan Palm RFB:jg i •J J CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Beautification, Landscape and Tree Committee REQUEST FOR ACTION TO: Chairman Coerper and Members of the Committee VIA: Robert F. Beardsley, Director of Public Works SUBMITTED BY: James L. Jones, Maintenance Operations Manager DATE: October 28, 2003 SUBJECT: Tree Replacement of"Majestic Beauties"in Downtown Eight Rhaphiolepis `Majestic Beauty' trees located in the first five blocks of Main Street are either dead or dying. Those in decline are located at 102, 104, 211, 215, 221, 316, 318, and 410 Main Street(see Attachment#1). These eight represent 18% o the 44 total Majestic Beauty street trees in the first four blocks of Main Street downtown. Maintenance Operations personnel have performed soil tests, but have not been able to definitively determine the cause of deterioration and eventual death of selected trees. The Downtown Design Guidelines specify the Rhaphiolepis `Majestic Beauty' as the adopted street tree for Main Street when used in tree wells directly adjacent to the street curbs and where medians are required. Mediterranean Fan Palms are to be used in raised seat wall planters located at intersection pedestrian landings. The Queen, Mexican Fan, and Windmill Palms are to be used in colonnade fashion or in random height groupings for accent purposes. Below are photos of palm trees approved for Main Street use: a Y , Iv - _ 1 t 1 Mediterranean Fan Palm Queen Palm Mexican Fan Palm Windmill Palm 10 oct-staff report-tree specie downtown final OPTIONS: 1. Retain the current tree, Majestic Beauty. This option maintains the existing streetscape for the first four blocks of Main Street in the downtown. The Public Works Department has the available budget to remove and replace the damaged eight trees with new Majestic Beauties. The replacement trees are required to be taller than the industry standard. For this reason, the trees would be contract grown. Replacement would occur over the next 12 to 24 months. The empty trees wills would be temporarily filled with decomposed granite. 2. Replace the eight Majestic beauty trees with a palm species identified in the Downtown Design Guidelines. This option may require an amendment to the Downtown Design Guidelines and would leave Main Street with 36 Majestic Beauties and eight palms of a variety to be determined. The existing streetscape would be altered. The Public Works Department has the available resources to remove the existing eight diseased and dying trees and install eight new palm trees. If additional Majestic Beauties were damaged or die, the Department would replace them with the selected palm species. 3. Remove all of the existing Majestic Beauty trees and replace them with a variety of tree to be determined. This option would require an amendment to the Downtown Design Guidelines and a capital investment estimated at$25,000. The Department does not have the resources allocated for this option; and alternative funds would need to be identified. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Option 1: Replace the existing dead Rhaphiolepis `Majestic Beauties' with contract grown trees of the same variety. JJ:j If.cf J� 1 =WLF- € ifs OF CITY OF HUNTINGTOg%Jl AC . CA Inter-Department Communiffil& -q A , 4 2 TO: Connie Brockway,City Clerk FROM: Gail Hutton, City Attorney DATE: November 2, 1999 SUBJECT: Department of Public Works Tree Removal Policy RLS 99-773 Please be advised we have reviewed the policy and flow chart regarding the subject matter. The Public Works Commissio is empowered to "review and comment"upon the infrastructure repair program. HHBBMC-C-2A444-.030 Decisions on these matters are made by the Director of Public Works. (HBMC 2: 0. Therefore, the procedures are informal regarding appeals and any recommendation by the Public Works Commission or decision by the Director is appealable to the City Council. Should you have any questions, please call me. Gail Hutton City Attorney c: Robert Beardsley, Director of Public Works Daryl Smith, Superintendent of Park, Tree and Landscape Division 4/s:4-99Memos:C1erk 11-2-99 . CITY Of "-'UNTINGTON BEACH RLS No. _ REQUEST rOR LEGAL SERVICES Assn To � Gail Hutton, City Attorney Pate Date: Request made by: Telephone: Department: 11-02-99 Connie Brockway x5404 City Clerk INSTRUCTIONS: File request in the City Attomey's Office. Outline reasons for this request and state facts necessary for City Attorney to respond. Please attach all pertinent information and exhibits. TYPE OF LEGAL SERVICES REQUESTED: ❑ Ordinance ❑ Opinion ❑ Stop Notice ❑ Resolution ❑ Lease ❑ Bond ❑ Meeting ❑ Contract/Agreement ❑ Deed ❑ Court Appearance ❑ Insurance ® Other: Respond to Attached Memorandum Is Request for Preparation of Contract form attached? ❑ Yes ® No Are exhibits attached? ❑ Yes ❑ No Unless otherwise specified herein, I If not for Council action, consent to the disclosure of the If for City Council action, desired completion date: information contained in this RLS to all meipbers of the ' Council. Agenda Deadline Council Meeting Signature of Deparyhent Head 1 Respond to Attached Memorandum,,dated 10-06-99, re: Appeals from Recommendations (Decisions?) of the Public Works Commissions in Regarding to Newly Adopted DPW Tree Removal Policy Routtg t= GCM t� POA CI L0 0 . Si; ® .it= AOi. SF © Ji1iI t T Thls eeuest for.LegI Serum.Ftas.ta+aen-aslgnet to aorney AU L D`tL E S S AN D R O 1%4/ 9, extension 5 15. Hislher secretary'is S a ra l a n e ,extension 5 5 5�- tr,. Qc pt+efet: NE4 Shaded areas for City Attorneys Office use only- ® 7, za, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACHI���� City Council Interoffice Communication _ To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members o From: Gil Coerper�ehair on behalf of Beautification, Landscape & Tree o c Committee; Jill Hardy, Mayor Pro Tem; & Dave Sullivan, City Council C; Member Date: December 29, 2003 Subject: "C"ITEM FOR JANUARY 5, 2004, CITY COUNCIL MEETING— AMENDMENT TO THE CITY TREE REMOVAL/REPLACEMENT POLIO' n STATEMENT OF ISSUE: The current City Tree Removal/ Replacement Policy (Attachment 1) outlines factors taken into consideration when the Director of Public Works determines whether the removal and replacement of a City Tree is necessary. The Public Works Department's Street Tree Petition process requires that at least 75% of the property owners on an impacted street agree with the proposed tree removal. The rationale for this is to insure that neighbors who benefit from the parkway trees are in agreement with the potential change in their streetscape. ANALYSIS: The process of gaining neighborhood consensus is difficult and burdensome to many residents. Many property owners have expressed a desire to remove and replace the parkway tree in front of their residence at their own expense. Currently, the only way the Department of Public Works allows this to take place is if the resident's street is on the Petition List and, then, the Public Works Department will provide a "no fee" permit for the adjacent property owner's removal of the parkway tree, repair of any damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk, and planting of a new parkway tree, all at the property owners expense. If a property owner desires to complete this work on a street that is not on the Street Tree Petition list, then the resident is directed to complete the petition process. Currently, there are over 90 street segments awaiting work that have completed the Street Tree Petition process. The estimated cost of these repairs exceeds $14 million. Currently, only property owners on these 90 street segments have the opportunity to pay for the parkway tree removal/replacement, curb and gutter and sidewalk repair. The Beautification, Landscape and Tree Committee, on November 25, 2003, recommended that this process be brought to the full City Council, for discussion and possible amendment, to allow more property owners to correct their tree issues more readily, without the necessity of the Street Tree Petition process. Included here is the November 25, 2003 staff report (without attachments) to the Beautification, Landscape and Tree Committee on this issue (Attachment 2). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Direct the blic Works to allow removal and replacement of parkway trees, including necessary sidewalk, c or gutter repair, all at the expense of the property owner, without the location necessarily being ition list. All other conditions of the current City Tree Removal/Replacement Policy will remain i-n—e-ffeet. 19 GC:PE/j r A, 8 L T V ATTACHMENT # 1 CITY TREE REMOVAUREPLACEMENT POLICY This policy provides the City with a method/procedure for solving on-going problems created by public trees and, specifically, street trees causing damage to public rights-of- way and/or private property improvements. PPLtGQTfOC�tv, "�" ' This policy applies to residents who request tree removal, as well as removals designated by City staff, on all public property. 3.1 Tree removal is required when one, or a combination, of the following occurs: a) Tree is dead; b) Tree is diseased beyond cure; c) Tree is causing damage to public and/or private property improvements and repairs cannot be accomplished without tree removal; d) Tree is damaging; or will cause damage to, public improvements or private property and maintenance procedures such as root pruning will either cause tree to fail/fall or will not prohibit future damage for a substantial period of years that justifies such maintenance costs; e) Tree is damaged beyond reasonable repair costs; and/or f) Tree is found to be a public hazard and removal is necessary for health, safety and welfare of the community. IMF R- 3 W SIRE: I=<.I�EIF�CQ�I, 4.1 Tree removals requested by residents will be considered for approval when one, or a combination, of the following occurs: a) When any one, or a combination of the categories listed under 3.1 of this policy defining required tree removal occurs; b) When item 4.1 a) above occurs and a minimum of 75% of the property owners on a specific street have petitioned the City for removal; c) When a property owners has demonstrated, to City's satisfaction, that a tree in the right-of-way has caused damage to a private sewer line or other public substructures which cannot be repaired without tree removal; and/or d) When any of the above occurs and the City has budgeted funds available or other funding is identified to accomplish all work necessary, including but not limited to, tree removal, right-of-way repairs and tree replacement. Whenever a significant number of trees or a single significant tree are to be removed, Public Works staff will provide a memorandum to the City Administrator, describing the action to be taken. This item will be listed in the weekly City Administrator's report to the City Council. If a Councilmember, within one week, notifies the City Administrator's Office that he/she does not agree with the decision and intends to bring it to a council meeting for discussion, then no action will be taken by staff until the full Council acts on the matter. Public right-of-way tree removal may occur within the categories, scope and intent of categories 3.1 and 4.1 above. Street repair and tree removal/replacement considerations will include the following policies: a) There are several options available to fund tree removal/replacement and street repairs. Any of these options will be made available as the City finds appropriate: 1) City budgeted funds 2) Property owner provided funds 3) Property owners requesting that the City form an Assessment District by appropriate State Code. 4) Property Owners notified by City to repair sidewalks per city Council action and enforcement of Section 12.28.020 of the Municipal code b) Tree replacement specie/variety will be determined by the Public Works Director; c) Tree removal/replacement and street improvement repairs will not include the replacement of lawn, shrubs, groundcover, rock, brick or other parkway improvements installed by the homeowner; d) Street tree replacement location may occur, at the property owner's request, on private property, no closer than six(6)feet from the back of property line and no further than ten (10) feet from the back of the property line, to maintain a street tree effect; and e) When tree replacement is to occur on private property, City will provide a pre- determined list of acceptable trees to the. property owner for choice of specie. After owner's selection of tree specie, City will purchase and deliver to the owner the replacement tree at no cost to the owner. Once the decision has been made to plant the tree on private property in lieu of the public right-of-way, no parkway tree will be planted. The property owner will be required to plant the private property tree within ten days and maintain the tree in perpetuity as a private property matter from date of delivery. f) When tree planting occurs in a vacant tree"-site or tree replacement is to occur in the public right-of-way, where a dead tree exists, the City will be responsible for all related costs and shall decide what specie/variety of tree is to be planted and will replace the tree as the City determines necessary. g) A petition for tree removal will be evaluated for priority listing as soon as possible after City staff has received the petition. The health, safety and welfare of the community will be the basis for establishing priorities and staff will evaluate the petition list on an annual basis. Trees causing minor damage or no damage will be removed and replaced based on City's evaluation/approval, budgeted funds available and/or funds provided by residents for purchase of replacement trees. h) As soon as possible after staff has received a request for tree removal, a field inspection and evaluation of the adopted policy/criteria will be completed.' Staff will send a letter to the residents informing them of staffs determination, with appropriate information as outlined in the matrix attached which outlines the procedures to be followed from approval of requests to denial of requests and various appeal processes. REQUEST FOR TREE REMOVAL FLOW CHART RESIDENT RECLFSTS FOR TREE REMOVAL. STAFF COMPLETES FIELD RECLEST GOES REOP MEETS NSPEC LICY �PA VALUATION NOT tvEET POlIC7 JL STAFF SENDS DENIAL LETTER WITH POLICY AM PROCEDL IDES FOR APPEAL TO PUBM WORKS FUNDS FUNDS COMMISSION •AVALABLE NOT AVALABLE ._ NOAPPEAL RESIDENT APPEALS SEND LETTER SEND LETTER TO or-,PROCESS TO PuBLJC WORKS TO RESDENT AS RESIDENT MCATNG NO . COMMISSION TO SCt EDLLE FL I DS AVALABLE AND, OF WORK I EY PAY COSTS;OR STAFF PREPARES/SENDS RECL.EST ASSESSMENT. (-� REPORT TO PLBJC WORKS EXPLAIN DEFERRAL OF 1 COMMISSION WORK INTL FUNDS ARE AVALAELE OR NOW TI EY P MAY APPEAL TO PLE L.IC IAUC WORKS COMMISSION WORKS COMMSSION ' HOLDS HEARINGS AND RENDERS OPNON Nu OF PROCESS RESJJENT APPEALS ID ENT E:TN RESS RESCTS REOL.JEST RESIDENT MICATES TO CITY COLNCL PAY COSTS FORMATION OF OISTRICT NO INTEREST N PAYING COSTS OR ASSESSMENT STAFF SENDS R.C.A.TO CITY STAFF RECEJVE5 Sl=E ATTACI-ED I AOMNSTRATOR FOR CITY FUNDS AND FOR ASSESSNtwr COINCL ACTION SC{ED 15 WORK DS I M I WORMATION S E SDEWT APPEALS S TUQN TCWO J GNS SICW OCRY P�AIDCM�TFNISTPATOP ATTACHMENT #2 HJ& CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH MEMORANDUM TO: Don Noble, Maintenance Operations Manager h FROM: Daryl D. Smith, Superintendent of Park, Tree & Landscape Division DATE: March 1, 1999 SUBJECT: PETITIONS FOR TREE REMOVAL Per our field inspection of (29) streets which had petitions into the city for tree removal which were evaluated by Rex Little, the city's Loss Control Consultant, and found to be rated 1 thru 3, 5 being the worst case for damage we found the following: Y1. Bahama Lane: Minor curb/gutter and walk damage - tree should be replaced. V2. Leilani Drive: Minor curb/gutter and walk damage - tree should be replaced. V3. Baylor Circle: Minor curb/gutter and walk damage - tree should be replaced. -K Brown Circle: Minor curb/gutter and walk damage - tree should be replaced. 45. Alhambra Drive from Silver to Rhone: Minor curb/gutter and walk damage - tree should be replaced. 6. Sparrow Drive: Substantial damage - no work at this time. 47. Valentine Drive: Minor curb/gutter and walk damage - trees should be replaced. 8. Brush Drive: Substantial damage - no work at this time. 9. Softwind Drive: Substantial damage - no work at this time. :5�-10. Prescott Lane/Kelly Circle: Minor curb/gutter and sidewalk damage - trees should be replaced. 411. Woodward Lane: Minor curb/gutter and sidewalk damage - trees should be replaced. 12. Swan Lane: Substantial damage - no work at this time. 13. Dovewood Drive: Substantial damage - no work at this time. -14. Craimer Lane: Minor curb/gutter damage - trees should be replaced. -)05. Sidney Drive/Bayside Lane: Minor curb/gutter damage - trees should be replaced. ,46. Ronney Drive: Minor curb/gutter damage - trees should be replaced. ;�`17. Nugget Circle: Tree replace only. 18. Trenton Lane: Minor curb/gutter and sidewalk damage - tree should be replaced. 19. Doriane Circle: Substantial damage - no work at this time. //2 U 1'Fe 20. Coral Circle: Substantial damage - no work at this time. 21. Congress Circle: Already done. 22. Montacito Drive: Substantial damage - no work at this time. 23. Winslow Drive: Minor curb/gutter and sidewalk damage - trees should be replaced. 24. Robinwood Drive: Substantial damage - no work at this time. -f25. Aloha Drive: Minor curb/gutter and sidewalk damage - trees should be replaced. 4126. Lisa Lane: Minor curb/gutter and sidewalk damage - trees should be replaced. X27. Weber Circle: Minor curb/gutter and sidewalk damage - trees should be replaced. ;�28. Luau Lane: Minor curb/gutter and sidewalk damage - trees should be replaced. 29. Par Circle: Substantial damage - no work at this time. We have (10) of the (29) streets which we feel should not receive work through this project because of substantial damage and major repairs are required. One street (Congress Circle) has already been replanted with new trees. 19 There are (,* streets with minor repairs needed and tree removal and replacement would also be completed. I believe we can notify residents with letter, stating that walk repair and tree replacement is all we can fund at this time and no curb/gutter or street repairs will be accomplished until funding is available and after major street repairs on other petition streets is completed. This proposal will get a big segment of our list of petitions temporarily out of the way at the least cost and save us hundreds of thousands of dollars in future damage. I suggest we meet with Bob Beardsley and review this project for resolution as soon as possible. If you have any questions, please call me. DDS:ss w� Pidblic Weeks Department Lu Tree Removal &Replcrcenient Policy �a lit —1 Al �i l3 4t .� i�`�� iq>R�L I ,4 { 4 S�,£, �y + .'* { �#'fix�V V �orp OQt�'---Wrraei C LLJ(� i LU fl-`=U-z L C3 i ree R-<e iova and 3 eplaf—l--oment policy ,8�;` 17 ' I ku♦ .F ?C 3.��5^w''}..rt� ,� €:�,}.-'Ewt+.m ni.. � iX'..�.k eLs4 Reason for Po/icy ever grown or inappropriate Cite trees can damage puhiic and private property Tree roots are the primary cause of sidewalk & street damage f\,1oi-e than 2.300 property owners have signed 106 petitions for tree removal & replacement Priority order for street repairs & tree replacements should be established !ending sources are limited a Public Works Department Tree Removal &- Replacenient Policy Residential Street Petition Summar Currently $ 26+ million in damages Costs = $2,000 - $3,000 per home for major street & sidewalk repairs Measure M. Gas Tax or General Fund have been only available funding sources FY 1999-01 = $1.3 million 19 streets (420 residences) with minor damage are currently funded 3 Proposed Policy Summary Defines street repair & tree removal petition policy Creates evaluation & approval process Fstabiishes appeals process :1 Identifies funding alternatives 4 e Public Works Department Tree Removal & Replacement Policy Proposed Residential .Petition Process 1) Trees are damaging private or public property 2) Public Works determines trees are beyond maintenance efforts 3) Requires signatures by 75% of property owners on affected street 4) Petitions evaluated for priority based on severity of need 5) Funding sources are reviewed 6) Property owners are notified that work is scheduled deferred or denied 5 N Petition Deferred Funds not Available Property Owners' Alternatives 1) Pay costs outright 2) Request formation of assessment districts per established State laws 3) Wait until funds are available 4) Appeal to Public Works Commission 6 r 1 Septemb,ci- 7. ubiie Works Department Tree Removctl Replacement Policy Petition Appeals Process Deferred or Denied �.Pro� t rs>. Peal toF+itSfG` —.r iF, rc to t�YSfc PhvC,hatdsea0&'rendazs ashuto„"_., Property owners do not appeal further Yrope3ty t3�,rt `1��79�ata C tee . ,,.,.',ter �.....�unuiw��■ i End of process �ptiric3t � Cau�eit gtvss b,�,tfori Etr C�rActrtrii�tt a�ier p�77 "�s�usbze.`.2 # a ell, f Alil� hh� .,S � �a:,.'��.��_»z .1 'h.� �� sfcnz�ai Alternative Funding Process Implementation Schedule Date Action Marc"; 2-1000 for on-call assessment district support services Sept. 2000 Firm selected & procedures established Oct. 2000 procedures & costs presented to �_ouncil Jana 2001 Assessment funding process available to property owners 8 • `�� ��.a.$s � � ,�{ t�,s�i�*` �" �� 4 DRAFT Homeowner Address Huntington Beach, CA. 9264 RE: Parkway Tree Removal/Replacement Petition Dear Homeowner: The residents on your street have submitted a tree removal/replacement petition to the City of Huntington Beach. This petition has also requested that all public improvements that were damaged by tree roots be repaired. Typically, petition work is accomplished when funds are budgeted and the petitions have been submitted, based on a "first in, first out' process. Your street is No. on our list of petitions. However the damage to street improvements on your street is substantially less severe than on many of the streets on the existing petition list. Additionally, staff has found that removal of trees typical of the trees on your street will stop major damage from occurring in the future, thereby reducing major repair costs. With the above in mind, we are proposing to expedite a partial improvement of your area, recognizing that there may be an extensive delay before we obtain funding for full corrective improvements. These partial improvements would include replacement of the trees which are causing damage, along with minor repairs to the concrete sidewalk. Permanent repairs to damaged curbs and gutters and street improvements will be scheduled for future years when funds become available. If you agree with the above proposal please sign below and return this letter to: Daryl D. Smith, Superintendent of Park, Tree & Landscape Division 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 Should you have any questions, call Daryl D. Smith, at 714) 536-5480 or Donald Noble at 714) 960-8861. Sincerely, Signed: Date: Daryl D. Smith Superintendent Park, Tree and Landscape Division DDS:ds (Frm99) Council/Agency Meeting Held: 7- FF Deferred/Continued to: Y_ �169 - 1179 a, ApprovedD Lj Conditionally Approved LJ Denied A(4 - City Clerk's Signature f 7 — 0 Council Meeting Date: September 7, 1999 Department ID Number: PW 99-095 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION C_- SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Administrator 01W PREPARED BY: ROBERT F. BEARDSLEY, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: APPROVE A CITY TREE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT-P&ICY IrStatement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: There is considerable community concern and interest regarding tree removal and replacement and property damage repairs in City parks, on public property and in the street rights-of-way. Funding Source: Adoption of this policy requires no capital outlay; however, future costs to implement the policy will need to be budgeted. Other funding sources may be identified, such as grants or property owner assessments. Recommended Action: Approve the attached tree removal/replacement policy as recommended by staff and Public Works Commission. Alternative Action(s): 1. Do not approve the policy and recommend to Public Works Commission and staff to continue existing practices which have proven to be less cost effective and less acceptable to residents, and which have contributed to substantial street and private property damage and street drainage disruption. 2. Do not approve the policy-, however, direct staff to develop a revised policy for adoption. RCOUtST FOR COUNCIL ACTIVN MEETING DATE: September 7, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PW 99-095 Analysis: There are approximately 56,000 street and park trees in the City of Huntington Beach. Many are causing, or will cause extensive and costly damage to public and private improvements. It is estimated that the City has over $26 million in street right-of-way damage caused by trees. The City now has over 100 petitions from residents who are requesting tree removal, tree replacement and street repairs. Some trees can be maintained in place through proper maintenance practices such as root pruning, tree trimming and concrete repairs. However, there are some species/variety of trees that do not lend themselves to cost-effective maintenance and should be removed. Existing policy for tree removal and replacement and right-of-way repair petitions, stipulates a first in, first out process. Based upon recent field review of damage to both public and private property, staff will request an independent loss control specialist to perform a field survey of the petitioned streets to develop a process to repair those streets in an orderly manner. A policy revision will improve the City's loss control position and eliminate worst conditions first. Additionally, the Tree Removal and Replacement Sub-Committee of City Council approved an expedited tree removal/replacement project for nineteen streets representing approximately 420 residences. The streets have relatively minor damage and this project will eliminate continuing damage and major cost increases for these nineteen streets. Replacement planting after tree removal can be accomplished on public property with very selective and limited species choice. Also, tree replacement could be performed on private property when a resident requests it, but with certain conditions as stipulated in the attached policy. Planting on private property would be similar to City tree planting requirements for all developments that have no parkway. Benefits of this procedure include elimination of (1) maintenance costs by the City, (2) right-of-way damage, (3) vehicle/street sweeper obstruction problems, and (4) most drainage problems. Expansive soil conditions (peat soil) have caused street failure (sinkage) on many streets in Huntington Beach. These failures on streets with tree root damage cause additional repair costs. Public Works Commission Review: The Public Works Commission reviewed and approved this proposed policy on August 18, 1999 by a unanimous vote. Environmental Status: N/A RCA TREE REMOVAL POLICY -2- 08/26/99 9:46 AM W&UEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: September 7, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PW 99-095 Attachment(s): NumberCity Clerk's Page . . 1. Tree Removal and Replacement Policy 2. Request for Tree Removal Flow Chart 3. Implementation of Alternative Funding Processes Available 4. Alternative Funding Processes Available 5. Existing Policy: Adopted by Council — 1/5/84 6. Ray Silver Policy 7. Municipal Code: Chapter 9.52 8. Municipal Code: Chapter 12.28 9. Tree Removal Petitions (5/13/99) 10 Expedited Tree Removal Memo (5/25/99) RCA Author: Daryl Smith, Ext. 5138 DS:jm 35954 RCA TREE REMOVAL POLICY -3- 08/26/99 10:00 AM ATTACHMENT # 1 i ATTACHMENT REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CITY TREE REMOVAL/REPLACEMENT POLICY PURPOSE:` This policy provides the City with a method/procedure for solving on-going problems created by public trees and, specifically, street trees causing damage to public rights-of- way and/or private property improvements. APPLICATION x� This policy applies to residents who request tree removal, as well as removals designated by City staff, on all public property. `DEFINITION OF;REQUIRED<TREE REMOVAL;. 3.1 Tree removal is required when one, or a combination, of the following occurs: a) Tree is dead; b) Tree is diseased beyond cure; c) Tree is causing damage to public and/or private property improvements and repairs cannot be accomplished without tree removal; d) Tree is damaging, or will cause damage to, public improvements or private property and maintenance procedures such as root pruning will either cause tree to fail/fall or will not prohibit future damage for a substantial period of years that justifies such maintenance costs; e) Tree is damaged beyond reasonable repair costs; and/or f) Tree is found to be a public hazard and removal is necessary for health, safety and welfare of the community. PROPERTY..OWNER.REQUESTEDTREEREMQ1%A ' 4.1 Tree removals requested by residents will be considered for approval when one, or a combination, of the following occurs: a) When any one, or a combination of the categories listed under 3.1 of this policy defining required tree removal occurs; d b) When item 4.1 a) above occurs and a minimum of 75% of the property owners on a specific street have petitioned the City for removal; c) When a property owners has demonstrated, to City's satisfaction, that a tree in the right-of-way has caused damage to a private sewer line or other public substructures which cannot be repaired without tree removal; and/or d) When any of the above occurs and the City has budgeted funds available or.other funding is identified to accomplish all work necessary, including but not limited to, tree removal, right-of-way repairs and tree replacement. P.OLICY Whenever a significant number of trees or a single significant tree are to be removed, Public Works staff will provide a memorandum to the City Administrator, describing the action to be taken. This item will be listed in the weekly City Administrator's report to the City Council. If a Councilmember, within one week, notifies the City Administrator's Office that he/she does not agree with the decision and intends to bring it to a council meeting for discussion, then no action will be taken by staff until the full Council acts on the matter. Public right-of-way tree removal may occur within the categories, scope and intent of categories 3.1 and 4.1 above. Street repair and tree removal/replacement considerations will include the following policies: a) There are several options available to fund tree removal/replacement and street repairs. Any of these options will be made available as the City finds appropriate: 1) City budgeted funds 2) Property owner provided funds 3) Property owners requesting that the City form an Assessment District by appropriate State Code. 4) Property Owners notified by City to repair sidewalks per city Council action and enforcement of Section 12.28.020 of the Municipal code b) Tree replacement specie/variety will be determined by the Public Works Director; c) Tree removal/replacement and street improvement repairs will not include the replacement of lawn, shrubs, groundcover, rock, brick or other parkway improvements installed by the homeowner; d) Street tree replacement location may occur, at the property owner's request, on private property, no closer than six (6) feet from the back of property line and no further than ten (10) feet from the back of the property line, to maintain a street tree effect; and b e) When tree replacement is to occur on private property, City will provide a pre- determined list of acceptable trees to the property owner for choice of specie. After owner's selection of tree specie, City will purchase and deliver to the owner the replacement tree at no cost to the owner. Once the decision has been made to plant the tree on private property in lieu of the public right-of-way, no parkway tree will be planted. The property owner will be required to plant the private property tree within ten days and maintain the tree in perpetuity as a private property matter from date of delivery. f) When tree planting occurs in a vacant tree site or tree replacement is to occur in the public right-of-way, where a dead tree exists, the City will be responsible for all related costs and shall decide what specie/variety of tree is to be planted and will replace the tree as the City determines necessary. g) A petition for tree removal will be evaluated for priority listing as soon as possible after City staff has received the petition. The health, safety and welfare of the community will be the basis for establishing priorities and staff will evaluate the petition list on an annual basis. Trees causing minor damage or no damage will be removed and replaced based on City's evaluation/approval, budgeted funds available and/or funds provided by residents for purchase of replacement trees. h) As soon as possible after staff has received a request for tree removal, a field inspection and evaluation of the adopted policy/criteria will be completed. Staff will send a letter to the residents informing them of staffs determination, with appropriate information as outlined in the matrix attached which outlines the procedures to be followed from approval of requests to denial of requests and various appeal processes. ATTACHMENT #2 REQUEST FOR TREE REMOVAL FLOW CHART RESIDENT S REQUESTS FOR TREE REMOVAL REQUEST MEETS STAFF COMPLETES FIELD REQUEST DOES POLICY INSPECTION AND EVALUATION NOT MEET POLICY PER POLICY STAFF SENDS DENIAL LETTER WITH POLICY AND PROCEDURES FOR APPEAL TO PUBLIC WORKS FUNDS FUNDS COMMISSION AVAILABLE NOT AVAILABLE PPEAL RESIDENT APPEALS SEND LETTER SEND LETTER TO END OF PROCESS TO PUBLIC WORKS TO RESIDENT AS RESIDENT INDICATING NO COMMISSION TO SCHEDULE FUNDS AVAILABLE AND OF WORK THEY PAY COSTS OR REQUEST ASSESSMENT. STAFF PREPARES/SENDS REPORT TO PUBLIC WORKS EXPLAN DEFERRAL OF COMMISSION WORK UNTIL FUNDS ARE I AVAILABLE OR HOW THEY MAY APPEAL TO PUBLIC PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION WORKS COMMISSION I HOLDS HEARINGS AND RENDERS OPINION I END OF PROCESS RESIDENT APPEALS RESIDENTS RESIDENTS REQUEST RESIDENT INDICATES ILPETIE TO CITY COUNCIL y PAY COSTS FORMATION OF DISTRICT NO INTEREST IN PAYING I H COSTS OR ASSESSMENT STAFF SENDS R.C.A.TO CITY !� ADMINISTRATOR FOR CITY STAFF RECEIVES SEE ATTACHED I COUNCIL ACTION FUNDS AND FOR ASSESSMENT SCHEDULES WORK DISTRICT INFCRMATION RESIDENT RESIDENT APPEALS WAITS TURN TO PlJBLIC WORKS - CITY COUNCIL GIVES COMMMISSION DIRECTION TO CITY N ADMINISTRATOR -- ATTACHMENT #3 ATTACHMENT #4 ATTTACHMIIRr 3 Please find below the time frame anticipated to develop alternative funding processes through Street and/or Landscape Assessment District concept as found in the City Tree Removal/Replacement Policy as an alternative to funding tree removal and replacement. IMPLEMENTATION OF ALTERNATIVE FUNDING PROCESS 3/1/2000 STAFF PREPARES RFP FOR ON-CALL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT SUPPORT SERVICES. 4/1/2000 RFP'S SENT TO ELIGIBLE FIRMS. 6/1/2000 RFP PROPOSALS EVALUATED AND ON-CALL FIRM SELECTED. 6/1/2000/ STAFF AND SELECTED FIRM DEVELOP OUTLINE OF ASSESSMENT 9/1/2000 DISTRICT ESTABLISHMENT PROCEDURES AND COSTS. 10/1/2000 TREE REMOVAL POLICY COMMITTEE REVIEW AND APPROVE ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES/COSTS FOR INCORPORATION INTO THE OVERALL POLICY. 1/1/2001 POLICY COMMENCES WITH ALTERNATIVE PROPERTY OWNER ASSESSMENT FUNDING PROCEDURES AVAILABLE. (ALTERNFUND) AZTACHMERr 4 i STREET & LANDSCAPE DISTRICT ASSESSMENT CONCEPT AVAILABLE FOR IMPLEMENTATION ONE CALENDAR YEAR AFTER ADOPTION OF TREE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT POLICY ALTERNATIVE FUNDING PROCESSES AVAILABLE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972(STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE SECTION 22500) APPROVAL PROCESS Report: Yes Notice: Yes, 45 days from date of mailing for new or increases assessments, 10 days publication for levy at same or lower amount Public Hearing: Yes Majority Protest: Yes, for new or increased assessments; by assessment ballots weighted according to proportional financial obligation of affected property Election: Yes, requires approval by owners of more than 50% of assessable area IMPACT BY PROPOSITION 218 Only properties specially benefited may be assessed Assessment can't exceed cost attributable to special benefit May not assess for general benefit Must assess publicly owned property which specially benefits from improvements or provide contribution in amount equal to special benefit to publicly owned property FINANCING IMPLEMENTATION Pay as you o: Yes Debt Financing: Notes Yes Bonds: Yes, pursuant to the Improvement Bond Act of 1915 Duration: Not to exceed 40 years Interest Rate: Not to exceed 12% per year Security: Liens against assessed parcels Spending Limitations: Yes, for operations and maintenance Other Long Term Debt(COPS) Yes, drainage or flood control facilities 8 MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1913 (STREETS AND HIGHWAY CODE SECTION 10000)/IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1911 (STREETS AND HIGHWAY CODE SECTION 5000) APPROVAL PROCESS: Report: Yes Notice: Yes, 45 days from date of mailing Public Hearing: Yes Majority Protest: Yes, by assessment ballots weighted according to Proportional financial obligation of the affected property Election: No IMPACT BY PROPOSITION 218 Only properties specially benefited may be assessed Assessment can't exceed cost attributable to special benefit May not assess for general benefit Must assess publicly owned property which specially benefits from improvements or provide contribution in amount equal to special benefit to publicly owned property FINANCING IMPLEMENTATION Pay as you o: No Debt Financing: Notes: Yes Bonds: Yes Duration: Not to exceed 40 years Interest Rate: Not to exceed 12% per year Security: Liens against assessed parcels Spending Limitations: N/A Other Long Term Debt (COPS): N/A (altemfund2) ATTACHMENT #5 ATTACHMENT #6 ArrACKMW g TO: LOU SANDOVAL, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS FROM: RAY SILVER, ASSISTANT CITY ADMINISTRATOR DATE: MAY 22, 1992 SUBJECT: CITY POLICY ON REMOVING AND/OR REPLACING TREES ON CITY PROPERTY OR NEW PRIVATE DEVELOPMENTS On Friday, May 22, 1992 a meeting was held and attended by Mayor Pro Tem Winchell, Councilmember Moulton-Patterson, Daryl Smith, you and I. --The purpose of this meeting was to follow up on the Council meeting discussion on a proposed street tree policy. As a result of that meeting the following was determined: 1) Whenever a significant number of trees or significant tree is to be removed, Public Works will provide a memo to the City Administrator describing the action to be taken. This item will then be listed in the weekly City Administrator's report to Council. If . a Councilmember, within one week, notifies the City Administrator's Office that :they do not agree with the decision and intend .._to bring it to a Council meeting for discussion, then _. no action will be taken by staff until the full Council acts on the matter; 2) Staff will bring back to the Committee that met today, a list of at least 2 to 3 other species of trees which , . '- could be used in the Mainstreet. Improvement Project which will be larger at the time of planting and will cover a larger area when full grown; 3) Councilmerbers are encouraged to provide staff with additional types of trees which could be placed on the approved street tree list. If you have any questions or comments regarding the above, please feel free to contact me. cc: Councilmembers City Administrator Superintendent of Park, Tree and Landscape Division ATTACHMENT #7 • I r�.EQU �QR C►TY CO�!�C ACT�� ATTAc rr 5 '� ,I Date October 22 , 1964 Submitted to: Honorable and City Co'2nc_l � GL'r� Go'US 01 � Submitted by: r rinyc ; +-v .-�d :. � 1 �..a_ _es W. _ :-.oson, C_ .. . _nrs _ra ..o�� ?fe by; S�D Pa„I Coo D_rector o 'ol_c o rk1= Subject: S`'ree+ "*%prove::'e• r- Damage Ca"s by ^'reel n ^' _ ' _'1T-of-Wa' Statement of Issue, Racommenciation, Ana�ysis, Funding Source, A!ternative Actions, Attachments: '�� STATE NT C= I SS•J, E SLre2.L �t,e�s p: b;iC r'c^t-OF-way re Ca ".aCi__^:Cj =}1e s'=Yeel 4-- ,• ', n RL'CO!,LME NDAT101 : ado_t Street tree re- -cva'_/replace!'e nt pCl_cv . ANALYSIS : There are approximate v �6 , 000 Street _re_.S in -'-e Ci-ty and man-,; are CaL`S_.^-^ or 'r+'i_1 cause extensive and COS tl da-mace to Dub'_ic imnrcve:^ent _''•`any o= =the tries can be ma_ntaineC in place t_^_roulgh maintenance praCt'_-ceS SL'CP. aS roOt prL`^_^Q, tree tri-_-'i"C and COnc'-e-e re airs . However , there are e ^=c _ e j " t } ^� - - e sor s_ _ /vari� _v o= trees _ .a�— do o _e _ e-. selves to ccsc e ect_ :e ^a__.tena,nce and s o`_:=d be re-:oved . T�e�iaCe- ten ' ^_a7t_T?Q a-fter tree _"e^..o:la_ Can be accomoli-shed in _JL`_^,i'_c property W_tri :ery se_eCtive a_^.0 _' _..,_teG s ecie/�larietV C 'pipe. c>_So,t tree reolaCe:%e t could be 1Ccated p ivate property W_'len resident iS in agreement, and, with Certa_n CCnditions as ated in poliCV . Planti-a _-n ^r_Vaz---e property will re c_mi _ar to City tree planting rec"i rements ,or all deve'•C-)ments Si.^.Ce 191772 . There are substantial cost -e-fective advantages to this orocedure such as e'_i1r.i anon of all maintenance costs by Citv, 'less right-o=-Way damage and less vehicle/ street sWeeoer obstruc=ion roble::'•S. ALTERNATIVES : Do not adopt _policy and con tin e}:is--.-,c ^raC'_Ces which are iess CC` e==ective and less acceotable to residen-s . FUNDING SOURCE: Adopt_on o_ xlicy is no Cost. However , =Lure cost to mole..^:.en pol: Will ha--we to be bC_-.dCeted =or W":en nro--ectS aYe identified and funding is available . ATTACHXF\^ , Policy CWT: PAC: DS : ;y 1 � t P10 </81 STREET TREE RE`tOVAL/REP LAC EMENT 'rrOL ICY 1 PURPOSE : This policy provides the City a method/procedure for solving the on-going problem, of street tree damaoe to public right - of-way improvements . 2 . . APPLICATt-O\ : This policy applies to resident request for tree removal as well as City staff designated removal protects . 3 . DEFINITION OF REQU i RE D TREE REMOVAL : 3 . 1 Tree riamova l i s required when one or a comb i nation of the fo i lo:-ri ng occur : a . Tree i.s dead . b . Tree is diseased beyond cure . c . Tree i s taus i no damage to r i eht-of-way i r.prove-..enzs and repairs cannot be acco-,pliShed without tree removal . d . Tree is or will cause damage to right-or"-way improvements and .;,a i ntenance procedures such as root prun i n g wi 1 l not prohi,_5it future damage for a substantial period of years that=j_us Li f i es mat rltenance costs : e . Tree is -r�amaged beyond reasonable repair costs . f . Tree i s .found to be pubi is hazard and removal i s neces - sary for health , safety and welfare of community . 4 . RESIDENT REQUESTED TREE REMOVAL : 4 . i Resident recuest tree removal will be considered for approval when one or a combination of the 'following occur : a . When any oTe. or a combination of the categories listed under 3 . 1 of this policy defining required tree removal occu r . b . When i tem a . above under 4 . 1 occurs and a mini mum of 75`; of the res i dents 1 iving on a specific street have petitioned the City for removal , C . Whe-i resident has prover to City ' s satisfaction that ' the right-of-way tree has caused damage to a private sewer line which cannot be repaired without tree removal . _ - S C R" E i TREE RE:"OVAL/ RE,,.,_,_ACEMEN ?GL i CY d . When a , b or c wove under 4 . ; occurs and the City has budgeted funds available to accomplish all work neces- sary including but not limited - to tree removal , right- of-way repairs and tree - replacement . 5 . POLICY : Public right-of -way tree remov-a l m2y occur within the cate- gories , sccYe and intent cf categories ; through 4 including all sub-categories . Once remove and all right-of-way re- pairs are cor;p1eted , tree rep lace,.,.-:ent considerations will include the fo11owinG : a . AvaiIabie budgeted funds . b , Whether or not t;: e resident desires a replacement tree . If the resident does not rarit a tree replacement , no tree will be � lar. ted . c . Tt=ee replacement specie/variety shall be determined• by the City . d . Tree replacement iocation may occur , with property owners approval , i ;, private property no closer than six feet from bac:{ of propert;.' 1 ir,e and no further than ten feet from. property i ine to maintain a street tree effect . e . When_:_t .ee r ez) lacement is to occur in private property City.-_ -i11 provide a 1is" of trees to resident for choice of specie . After selection of tree specie the City will purchase and deliver to resident , the replacement tree at no cost to res i dent i t'•e resident so requests . Once decision has been made to have private property tree pla-nting in lieu of public right-of-way planting no tree will be planted in public right-of-way without Ci t ; aprrova i . F;o•..•ever , t~e resident wi 1 l be requi red to piant tree within ter, days and maintain tree in perpetuity as a private property matter from. date of delivery . When tree replacement is to occur in public right-of-way City will �e responsible for all related costs and shall decide what specie/variety of tree is to be planted . Jt AZTAO]I!IIIVT 7 t(( �l 9.52.010-9.54.010 CHAPTER 9.52 DAMAGING CITY PROPERTY Section: 9.52.010 Violation—Misdemeanor 9.52.010 Violation Misdemeanor. Every person who willfully writes upon, paints upon or draws upon, defaces, cuts, displaces, disfigures, removes, or mutilates any building, street, sidewalk, street light, traffic signal, street tree, waste container fence, block wall, bench, chair, table or other property belonging to this city is guilty of a MISDEMEANOR. (ORD. 2519, 2 Dec 81; ORD. 477, 11143) e ATTACHMENT #8 "` AACEitii iIIVT 8 HuN:ngton Beach Municipal Coat- 12.28.010-12.28.060 Chapter 12.28 I SIDEWALKS--MAINTENANCE (38-1/10) - Sections: 12.28.010 Sidewalk defined 12.28.020 Property owner abutting 12.28.030 Excavating permitted 12.28.040 Rubbish and weeds--Declared nuisance 12.28.050 Rubbish and weeds--Notice to remove 12.28.060 Rubbish and weeds--Notice service 12.28.070 Rubbish and w-eeds--Nlotice to nonresident owner 12.28.080 Rubbish and weeds--Posting notice on premises 12.28.090 Rubbish and weeds--Failure to comply 12.28.100 Rubbish and weeds--City clears area 12.28.110 Rubbish and weeds--Clearance--Extension of time 12.28.120 Rubbish and weeds--Removal by city--Statement 12.28.130 Rubbish and weeds--Removal by city--Collection 12.28.140 Rubbish and weeds--Claim filed with recorder 12.28.150 Rubbish and weeds--Mailing of statement to owner 12.28.160 Rubbish and weeds--Claim becomes lien--Foreclosure 12.28.170 Violation--Misdemeanor 12.28.010 Sidewalk defined. In this chapter, "sidewalk" means the strip of land between the curb line of the street and the inside property line; whether covered with a cement walk or not. (38-1/10) 12.28.020 Property owner abutting. All persons owning or occupying any real property in this city fronting upon any public street, lane or alley of this city, are required to keep the sidewalks immediately in front of said property free from weeds and all vegetation growing thereon, except such as may be sown or planted for purposes of ornamentation, and free from dirt, filth, garbage or rubbish, other than the natural soil of the same, and to keep said s—ilewalk and said spac� e free from any hole or holes, or any obstructions dangerous to i e or limb. (38-1/10) 12.28.030 Excavating permitted. \ioth.ing herein contained shall prevent excavating through or across any sidewalk where such excavating is done in accordance with the terms and provisions of any other ordinance of this city, and in accordance with the regulations therein contained covering the excavation. (38-1/10) 12.28.040 Rubbish and weeds--Declared nuisance. Any such weeds or rubbish on any such sidewalk is declared to be a nuisance. (38-1/10) 12.28.050 Rubbish and weeds--Notice to remove. It shall be the duty of the superintendent of streets to notify the occupants and owners of any premises in this city to remove, within ten days from the receipt of such notice, all such weeds and rubbish from the sidewalks in front thereof, and that upon a failure to do so within said ten days, the council will cause the weeds and rubbish to be removed at the expense of the owner or occupant. (38-1/10) 12.28.060 Rubbish and Reeds—Notice service. Such notice shall be given in writing; by serving personally upon the occupant(if there be any occupant) and upon the owner, each copy Of such notice, directed to the occupant(if any) and the owner. (38-1/10) 1/10 12.28.070-12.28.170 _ '-iuntington Beach Municipal Code 12.28.070 Rubbish and Feeds--Notice to nonresident o«•ner. If the owner is a nonresident of this city, notice shall be given by serving the occupant personally and by mailing, by mail, a like copy in writing to the owner at his last known address as shown by the last assessment roll of this City. (38-1/10) 12 28.080 Rubbish and Reeds--Posting notice on premises. If there be no occupant, notice shall be given by posting a copy of the notice in a conspicuous place upon the premises, and serving a copy upon the owner as hereinbefore provided. (38-1/10) 12 28.090 'Rubbish and weeds--Failure to comply. If at the expiration of ten days from the sending or service of the notice, the weeds and other rubbish are not removed from-the sidewalk, the superintendent of streets shall thereupon report the delinquency to the council, with an estimate of the probably cost of doing the work. (38-1/1o) 12.28.100 Rubbish and Reeds--City clears area. The council must then order the superintendent of streets to do the work at the expense of the owner and occupant of the property, and provide for the temporary payment of the same with city funds. (3s-111o) 12.28.110 Rubbish and -"•eeds--Clearance--Extension of time. The council may, in its discretion, extend the time within which the work must be done. (38-1110) 12.28.120 Rubbish and weeds--Removal by city--Statement. At the completion of the work, the superintendent of streets must prepare a statement of the proceedings, reciting the existence of the nuisance, the description of the property, the names of the owners and occupants, the giving of the notice, the hearing by the council, the making of the order by the council, the doing of the work and the cost thereof, and the manner of making the demand; which statement must be signed and verified by the oath of the superintendent of streets. (38-1/10) 12.28.130 Rubbish and weeds--Removal by city--Collection. The superintendent of sweets shall then collect the said amount from the owner and occupant(if any) who shall be jointly and severally liable. (38-1110) 12.28.140 Rubbish and weeds—Claim filed with recorder. 'If the claim is not paid within , thirty days from demand by the council, the council may order the statement to be recorded in the office of the county recorder of Orance County, California. (33-1/10) 12.28.150 Rubbish and «weeds--'Mailing of statement to myner. If the owner is a nonresident of this city, it shall be a sufficient demand, for the purposes of this chapter, for the superintendent of streets to mail a copy of the statement to the owner. (38-1/10) 12.28.160 Rubbish and weeds--Claims becomes lien--Foreclosure. The statement, when recorded in the office of the county recorder of Orange County, shall be a lien upon the property described therein, which may be foreclosed by the city in like manner as liens are foreclosed under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure of the state of California. (38-1110) 12.28.170 Violation--N-Tisdemeanor. Failure to keep the sidewalks clear or clean as provided in section 12.28.020 shall be a violation of this chapter; and for every lot whose sidewalk frontage is so obstructed -,Pith rubbish or trash, or overgrovm with weeds as set forth in section 12.28.020 there shall be counted a separate violation of this chapter, and that or any other violation of this chapter shall constitute a MISDEMEANTOR. (38-1110) a 9/89 ATTACHMENT #9 REE REMOVAL PETITONS Arnh�r 9 DATE STREET NAME DISTRICT RECEIVED # of LOTS COST EST. l j(1. . BAHAMA LANE 475 09/14/93 29 HAITI DRIVE Tree - Crape Myrtle 2. TIGERFISH CIRCLE 426 09/14/93 17 Tree - 3. MOLOKAI DRIVE 485 10/04/93 28 Tree - Queen Palm 7�_4. LEILANI DRIVE 485 10/15/93 27 -Tree - Queen Palm 5. CINDY LANE 425 10/25/93 30 Tree - Pear Aristocrat _;(6. BAYLOR CIRCLE 138 10/25/93 14 Tree - Crape Myrtle 7. ARMADA DRIVE •188 11/29/93 17 Tree - Australian Willow �s<8. BROWN CIRCLE 138 01/21/94 18 Tree - Crape Myrtle 9. PIONEER DRIVE 435 02/16/94 16 Tree - Australian Willow 10. UNDERHILL LANE 158 08/17/94 30 Tree - Purple Plum 11. MOONLIGHT CIRCLE 251 08/22/94 18 Tree - Crape Myrtle 112. ALHAMBRA DRIVE 252 08/24/94 33 Tree - Purple Plum 13. NANTUCKET DRIVE 435 11/26/93* 32 Tree - Purple Plum 14. SUNLIGHT DRIVE 251 07/12/94* 31 Tree - Crape Myrtle 15. PLAYA DRIVE 485 07/29/94* 12 Tree - Queen Palm 16. RAMBLER DRIVE 475 07/30/94* 11 Tree - Crape Myrtle Petitions submitted by Parks Yard on 9/13/94 (,/ etition 1 ROB\WORD\LISTS\TREES revised 5/13/99 DATE STREET NAME DISTRICT RECEIVED # of LOTS COST EST. 17. THUNDERBIRD CIRCLE 117 08/08/94* 12 Tree - Purple Plum 18. SPARROW DRIVE 146 08/10/94* 30 Tree - Crape Myrtle 19. MEDITERRANEAN DRIVE 445 08/29/94* 33 Tree - Pear Aristocrat 20. VALENTINE DRIVE 251 07/18/94* 18 Tree - Australian Willow 21. OAKTREE CIRCLE 128 03/20/95 16 22. HILLSBORO CIRCLE 425 04/25/95 16 23. BRUSH DRIVE 263 07/01/95 50 24. RHAPSODY DRIVE 155 08/07/95 35 25. PRESCOTT LANE 188 08/08/95 58 KELLY CIRCLE yk26. WOODWARD LANE 425 08/22/95 24 27. MORSE CIRCLE 164 08/17/95 10 28. ELM HURST CIRCLE 118 & 128 08/14/95 19 29. SOFTWIND DRIVE 158 07/26/95 36 30. MRYTLE DRIVE 158 07/27/95 31 31. ISLANDER LANE 485 10/16/95 21 32. SWAN LANE 146 10/19/95 32 33. DOVEWOOD DRIVE 146 10/19/95 31 34. CLARK DRIVE 157 11/14/95 18 35. LOTUS LANE 435 11/20/95 20 36. SEABIRD CIRCLE 453 12/11/95 12 37. CHESAPEAKE LANE 435 12/11/95 34 *Petitions submitted by Parks Yard on 9/13/94 (8 Petitions) 2 ROB\WORD\LISTS\TREES revised 5/13/99 DATE STREET NAME DISTRICT RECEIVED r, -if LOTS COST EST. 38. CRAIMER LANE 447 01/02/96 32 39. SHAYNE DRIVE 158 01/16/96 30 40. OJAI LANE 178 01/23/96 17 NAPA CIRCLE X41, SYDNEY DRIVE 138 02/07/96 39 BAYSIDE LANE *42. RONNEY DRIVE 425 04/01/96 10 -)(43. NUGGET CIRCLE 127 04/03/96 12 44. STANDISH LANE 148 04/20/96 26 45. TROPHY DRIVE 167 04/22/96 18 46. TRENTON LANE 437 04/25/96 7 47. DORIANE CIRCLE 159 04/30/96 8 48. HERON CIRCLE 453 05/24/96 14 49. CORAL CIRCLE 434 05/29/96 10 50. SHOREWOOD CIRCLE 445 06/09/96 21 51 CONGRESS CIRCLE 423 NO DATE 6 52. LA MESA LANE 178 05/25/96 29 .53. MARIE LANE 169 06/24/96 43 54. NORMANDY LANE 158 07/07/96 23 55. MONTACITO DRIVE 158 07/11/96 30 56. ADAMS FRONTAGE ROAD 435 08/05/96 5 �L57. WINSLOW DRIVE 148 08/20/96 12 58. ROBINWOOD DRIVE 146 08/20/96 29 459. ALOHA DRIVE 475 08/20/96 32 -X-60. LISA LANE 293 08/20/96 31 61. LEE CIRCLE 271 09/16/96 14 Petitions submitted by Parks Yard on 9/13/94 (8 Petitions) 3 R0B\W0RD\usts\TREES revised 5/13/99 DATE STREET NAME DISTRICT RECEIVED �, ._,f LOTS COST EST. *62. WEBER CIRCLE 168 09/18/96 14 63, SANTA ANITA LANE 156 09/24/96 26 64. PAR CIRCLE 157 10/02/96 14 65. PATRICIA LANE 169 11/05/96 16 66. LUAU LANE 485 11/13/96 17 67. FAIRLANE CIRCLE 475 11/20/96 15 68. CALNEVA LANE 117 11/21/96 26 69. PURITAN CIRCLE 148 11/14/96 18 70. PHEASANT CIRCLE 146 12/10/96 12 71. MICHAEL DRIVE 283 12/15/96 29 72. NORCON CIRCLE 177 02/04/97 6 73. CAPISTRANO LANE 485 12/02/97 29 (sent to Parks Yard on 2/3/97) 74. JERSEY CIRCLE 158 02/13/97 10 75. QUAIL CIRCLE 146 02/20/97 18 76. EDGEVIEW LANE 128 02/22/97 16 77. CARP CIRCLE 426 03/06/97 17 78. ELBE CIRCLE 262 03/07/97 9 79. KAPAA DRIVE 475 12/29/97 26 (rec'd by PW @ Civic Center 3/14/97) 80. PILGRIM CIRCLE 148 04/10/97 18 81. IVORY CIRCLE 128 04/16/97 18 82. SHELLY DRIVE 138 04/21/97 36 83. DARSY DRIVE 283 04/28/97 15 84. CUTTER DRIVE 434 05/03/97 7 85. TROPICANA LANE 117 05/05/97 9 *Petitions submitted by Parks Yard on 9/13/94 (8 Petitions) 4 ROB\WORD\LISTS\TREES revised 5/13/99 DATE STREET NAME DISTRICT RECEIVED .. .of LOTS COST EST. 86. CLEVELAND DRIVE. 422 07/28/97 8 87- HEIL AVENUE (5501-5711) 157 08/01/97 18 88. SPARROW DRIVE 146 08/01/97 30 89. ADAMS SVC ROAD 435 08/15/97 8 90. WHITNEY DRIVE 232 09/09/97 33 91. KAMUELA DRIVE 427 09/12/97 73 92. ROTTERDAM LANE 273 09/24/97 34 93. ARNETT DRIVE 263 10/09/97 21 94. MARILYN DRIVE 169 10/14/97 35 95. GALWAY CIRCLE 136 10/16/97 18 96. ATHENA DRIVE 178 10/21/97 33 97. CRAIG LANE 159 11/12/97 20 98. GENOA CIRCLE 139 12/02/97 14 99. AULNAY LANE 148 04/10/98 49 100.AUDREY DRIVE 156 04/14/98 27 101.MUNSTER DRIVE 443 06/04/98 32 102.RUSHMOOR LANE 232 06/09/98 24 103.HOLLYWOOD LANE 156 08/04/98 27 104. WALLEYE LANE 426 12/04/98 14 105. CLUBHOUSE LANE 157 03/11/99 8 (5711,31 Heil 5711-32 Middlecoff 5712,32 Marshall) 106.KINER AVENUE 293 . 05/13/1999 11 (8252 — 8322 only) TOTALS 2,375 Petitions submitted by Parks Yard on 9/13/94 (8 Petitions) 5 ROB\WORD\LISTS\TREES revised 5/13/99 ATTACHMENT # 10 .,, ATTACHMENT 10 JAB � CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH •� INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH MEMORANDUM TO: Tree Removal Sub Committee of City Council VIA: Ray Silver, City Administrators FROM: Robert F. Beardsley, Director of Public Works Daryl D. Smith, Superintendent of Park, Tree & Landscape DivisionAv DATE: May 25, 1999 SUBJECT: Petitions for Tree Removal Don Noble, Maintenance Operations Manager, and Daryl D. Smith, Superintendent of Park, Tree & Landscape, completed a field inspection of specific streets on the Petition For Tree Removal List, which were identified by the City's Loss Control Consultant, Rex Little. Staff identified nineteen (19) streets (see attachment), per Mr. Little's survey, which have minor damage and trees should be removed and replaced as soon as possible to stop further damage and allow for minor repairs to the sidewalk. Past procedures for this work were based on resident petitions which were scheduled for work on a "first in—first out" basis. This proposal is a revision to that process which staff believes is an appropriate change, to leverage the limited funds available and remove the most streets possible from the 106 street petition list. In the recent past, we have expended our entire budgeted funds on one or two streets because of the tremendous amount of street damage encountered on many of the streets. This proposal will stop further damage to the minor damage now existing in the right-of-way on nineteen of these streets, thereby reducing liability issues and future increased damage repair costs. DDS:ss Attachment