HomeMy WebLinkAboutParkway Improvements Beautification - 1966 - 1984 QU c�_—' FOR CITY COUI CI" 'ACTIO s —.�.
i. cak
Date October 22 , 19.84
1-7 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Counc�ll cj'�y LoUJ
Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrato
Prepared b J
6� Y� Paul E. Cook Director of Public Works �,,"_ - /-C,�,S,tu;
Subject: Street Improvement Damage Caused by Trees ' n P`ru n i ht-of-Way
Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments:
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
Street trees in public right-of-way are damaging the street improvements .
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt street tree removal/replacement policy.
ANALYSIS:
There are approximately 36 , 000 street trees in the City and many are
causing or will cause extensive and costly damage to public improvements,
Many of the trees can be maintained in place through maintenance
practices such as root pruning, tree trimming and concrete repairs .
However, there are some specie/variety of trees that do not lend them-
selves to cost effective maintenance and should be removed.
Replacement planting after tree removal can be accomplished in public
property with very selective and limited specie/variety choice. Also,
tree replacement could be located in private property when resident is
in agreement and with certain conditions as stipulated in policy.
Planting in private property will be similar to City tree planting
requirements for all developmentssince 1972 . There are substantial
cost effective advantages to this procedure such as elimination of all
maintenance costs by City, less right-of-way damage and less vehicle/
street sweeper obstruction problems.
ALTERNATIVES:
Do not adopt policy and continue existing practices which are less cost
effective and less acceptable to residents.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Adoption of policy is no cost. However, future cost to implement policy
will have to be budgeted for when projects are identified and funding
is available.
ATTACHMENT:.
Policy
CWT:PEC:DS : jy
s �
0
PIO 4/81
STREET TREE REMOVAL/REPLACEMENT POLICY
1 . PURPOSE :
Th ► s policy provides the City a method/procedure for solving
the on-going problem of street tree damage to public right-
of-way improvements .
2 . APPLICATION :
This policy applies to resident request for tree removal as
well as City staff designated removal projects .
3 . DEFINITION OF REQUIRED TREE REMOVAL :
3 . 1 Tree removal is required when one or a combination of
the following occur :
a . Tree is dead .
b . Tree is diseased beyond cure .
C . Tree is causing damage to right-of-way improvements and
repairs cannot be accomplished without tree removal .
d . Tree is or will cause damage to right-of-way improvements
and maintenance procedures such as root pruning will not
prohibit future damage for a substantial period of years
that justifies maintenance costs .
e . Tree is damaged beyond reasonable repair costs .
f . Tree is found to be public hazard and removal is neces-
sary for health , safety and welfare of community .
4 . RESIDENT REQUESTED TREE REMOVAL :
4 . 1 Resident request tree removal will be considered for
approval when one or a combination of the following occur :
a . When any one or a combination of the categories listed
under 3 . 1 of this policy defining required tree removal
occur .
b . When item a . above under 4 . 1 occurs and a minimum of
75% of the residents living on a specific street have
petitioned the City for removal .
C . When resident has proven 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 .
( 1 �
STREET TREE REMOVAL/REPLACEMENT POLICY `
d , When a , b or c above under 4 . 1 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 removal may occur within the cate-
gories , scope and intent of categories 1 through 4 including
all sub-categories . Once removal and all right-of-way re-
pairs are completed , tree replacement considerations will
include the following :
a . Available budgeted funds .
b . Whether or not the resident desires a replacement tree .
If the resident does not want a tree replacement , no tree
will be planted .
C . Tree replacement specie/variety shall be determined by
the City .
d . Tree replacement location may occur , with property owners
approval , in private property no closer than six feet
from back of property line and no further than ten feet
from property line to maintain a street tree effect .
e . When tree replacement is to occur in private property
City will provide a list 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 resident if the resident so requests .
Once decision has been made to have private property
tree planting in lieu of public right-of-way planting
no tree will be planted in public right-of-way without
City approval . However , the resident will be required
to plant tree within ten 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 be responsible for all related
costs and shall decide what specie/variety of tree is
to be planted .
(2)
I
•
I
Huntington Beach Design Review Board
P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648
3
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Design Review Board
DATE: March 11, 1974
RE: Brookhurst Service Road Median Landscaping - DR #74-9
ATTN: Bill Hartge
Daryl Smith
Dick Harlow
The Design Review Board had the opportunity to review the above
project at its regular meeting of March 6, 1974.
The Board' s principal concern was to the treatment of stamped
concrete on the median. The general consensus of Board members
was that other medians, specifically along Beach Boulevard and
Brookhurst Street, have a much higher priority for stamped concrete
treatment than service roads.
The Board does recognize the unfavorable existing condition of the
subject median and suggests that perhaps the median could be fully
landscaped as an interim step.
However, the Board' s final action and recommendation is to approve
the design concept and materials with the understanding that the
priority of the project be secondary with respect to the treatment
of stamped concrete on any major arterial median.
Respectfully submitted,
e�molw/z4ot
Carole Ann Wall, Chairwoman Al Montes, Secretary
Design Review Board Design Review Board
CA 74-14
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
COUNCIL - ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION
HUNTINGTON BEACH
To HONORABLE MAYOR AND From CITY ADMINISTRATOR
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Subject Brookhurst Service Road Date March 14 , 1974
Median Landscape
The Meredith Gardens Homeowners Association has pledged $2, 500 to
the City to cover a portion of the cost of landscaping the median
in the service road east of Brookhurst Street.
The subject area is comprised of two islands with a total area of
16 , 800 square feet. The total cost for landscaping the median
would be $26,373 :. if stamped concrete is used in the non-planted
walkways and $15 ,448 if reliable rock is used in those areas . The
cost for landscaping alone , leaving the non-planted .-areas -without
surfacing, would be $11 ,647 . The Homeowners Association has in-
dicated a preference for stamped concrete . It should be noted that
there are at least 20 similar situations throughout the City and
if the City approves this project it could set a precedent for the
other areas . Current City standards require new developments to
provide block wall and landscape treatment on service road medians .
The -pledge of $2 , 500 would finance less than 10% of the project cost.
There are no other funds currently budgeted for this project. Since
the $2, 500 donation leaves a considerable amount to be financed by
the City, the only way the project can be undertaken is for the re-
quired amount to be budgeted at some future date .
The Design Review Board reviewed this project and its final action
and recommendation is to approve the design concept and materials
with the understanding that the priority of the project be secondary
with respect to the treatment of stamped concrete on any major
arterial median.
RECOMMENDATION:
1 . Accept the $2 , 500 pledge but do not approve the project until it
is reviewed in conjunction with the 1974-75 Budget and 6 Year
Budget.
2 . Do not accept the $2, 500 pledge until the project is reviewed
in conjunction with the 1974-75 Budget and 6 Year Budget .
Respectfully submitted,
R �C
avid D. Rowlands
City Administrator
DDR/gbs
HOME COUNCIL"11~ou"M MOW and NZWOM counar
P.O.BOX 1601,HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIF.92647
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, the members of the Huntington Beach HOME
Council have in the past supported civic beauti-
fication projects in our city; and
WHEREAS, members concur with the Huntington Beach
Environmental Council in deploring the asphalting
of the median strip on Beach Boulevard:
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that HOME Council urges:
(1 ) proper planning and installation of landscaped
median strips along major arterials in our city, and
(2) The City Council to direct the city staff to
plan and install a landscaped median strip on Brook-
hurst Street concurrent with the completion of the
Orange County Sanitation District pipeline project.
Adopted by HOME Council at its
regular meeting on January 26, 1972
Lorraine "Faber, secretary
V
J� City of Huntington Beach
�{���� • P.O. BOX 19O CALIFORNIA 92648
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
September 27, 1971
Honorable Mayor
and City Council ,
City of Huntington Beach
Attention: Brander Castle
Acting Administrator
Subject: Beach Boulevard Landscaping
Gentlemen:
Transmitted is a resolution that will initiate the landscaping
of Beach .Boulevard within our City.
A landscaping plan is being developed which will result in a
low first-cost and require a minimum of maintenance.
A preliminary estimate of the entire project indicates a con-
struction cost of about $110,000.00, however, we have no experience
with this type of landscaping project and the estimate is subject
to revision.
It is recommended that your Honorable Body adopt the resolution.
V truly yours,
ames R. Wheeler
Director of Public Works
JRW:ae
Trans.
• f
INFORMATION ONLY
COPIES TO b6UNCIL_-"'
August 25, 1971
Dear Mayor and City Council Members :
This correspondence is in regards to Talbert Avenue . Fully
realizing that this subject has become a festering wound to
the city, I have not brought the issue up again even though
I firmly believe that there have been misrepresentations
of information concerning the -possible deletion of Talbert
Avenue at Gothard Avenue from the City's Master Plan. An
article in the Daily Pilot on August 24, 1971, accents this
subject as a. critical issue once more . Owing to our finan-
cial difficulties, Doyle Miller stated that we can not consi-
der spending $1,000,000 dollars to realign Talbert Avenue .
I assume this to mean that alignment of Talbert is once
again straight through our central city park.
I also believe that we must not waste a $1,000, 000 to realign
Talbert Avenue . It should and can. be stopped at Gothard Ave .
I realize there are several reasons for not wanting to elimi-
nate Talbert from the Master Plan of Highways: (1) Jeopardi-
zation of AHFP funds if an "indiscriminate" change of highways
occurs in a city, (2) an extremely heavy congestion of traffic
on existing arterial, (3) access .-to Bolsa Chica lands, (4 ) fire
and police access . The rest of this letter will try to shed
some light on solutions to these problems .
To begin with the studies completed by the Director of Public
Works have failed to consider a very important alternative '
for Talbert ' Ave . I believe that Ellis Avenue should have been
given more consideration in the studies; in "Report on the
Extension of Talbert Avenue Through the Central City Park"
it was stated. that :
". . .although any discussion of traffic circulation within
the Central Park area should possibly include consideration
of the contribution off Ellis Avenue to the total transpor-
tation picture and its affect on surroundings land use;
no discussion is presented regarding the extens9n or ter-
m na on o lis Avenue in this report to allow more
study on the function and effect of Ellis Avenue . "
"it has basically been agreed that Ellis Avenue can be
rerouted around the-..park. For that reason we have not
included a study of .that highway in this report ."
I realize there is a possibility that the city might - build
a municipal golf course near Ellis Avenue and that the city
might not want a gold course bisected by a major arterial
highway. I do not believe that the city can think of tackling
any more expensive projects . If there has to be a decision
2
made, though, between a major highway through our park or
through a golf course., I would hope that the decision would
be through the golf course .
Ellis Avenue is planned to be a highway, 801` wide; Talbert,
a highway, 1001 wide . It seems possible- that at this time
Ellis could be master planned to be 1001 . Talbert and
Ellis were master planned long before there was to be a
Central City Park - On May 31, 1956 the County of Orange
adopted the Master Plan of Streets and Highways . The City
Council of Huntington Beach subsequently adopted the same
plan on June 6, 1960.
Our city receives money from the AHFP as aid in constructing
certain major arterials in our city. A city may jeopardize
this funding by "indiscriminate" changes in the Master Plan
of Highways . I spoke with the Orange County Division of
Highway about this matter. Mister Storm, assistant to Mister
McConvi ll of the Orange County Road Department, said that he
would agree that Talbert Avenue should remain and not be
eliminated if the. decision had to be made based upon the traffic
flow information that was given in the report on the "Extension
of Talbert Avenue" put out by our. Department of Public Works .
I asked him if a new traffic flow study showed that elimination
of Talbert at Gothard would not cause excessive congestion was
presented, could justification of the deletion of Talbert
Avenue from the Master Plan be done without jeopardizing
future funding from the AHFP. He felt that this was a very
possible accomplishment . . He also agreed that a central park
V of the magnitude of the one planned in our city is very possibly
just cause for changes in the Master Plan of Highways, and
not considered an "indiscriminate" change .
In studying the report of Kimmel and Associates (See Figures
1 and 2) there seem to be 'discrepandies between their findings
and those presented by our Traffic. Engineer concerning these
same findings . Kimmel and Associates are traffic engineering
consultants . Correspondence from the Traffic Engineer on
April 20, 1970 says that :
" . . .if Talbert were deleted, traffic volumes on *Goldenwest
would exceed 50, 000 vehicles per day while volumes on both
Slater and Ellis would reach 40,000 vehicles per day.
These volumes are far in excess of the practical design
capacities for the ultimate widths of these highways . In
addition Gothard would carry exceedingly high volumes for
a secondary highway. "
According to the figures presented by Kimmel and Associates,
Slater would have a maximum of 28,000,. not 40, 000 vehicles
per day. Goldenwest will have 24, 000 vehicles until- it
reaches Ellis and .then for one block, up to the interchange
.with the _propsed freeway, it will carry 63, 000 vehicles per
3
da This last figure is very important..for two reasons;
(1� There is good reason to believe that this freeway may never
be built, (2) it is entirely possible at this time to request
that a freeway interchange be placed at a different location,
such !as Ellis. Talbert Will have between 13, 000 and 28, 000
cars for most of. its. length. At the location of the freeway
interchange it will have a- large volume' of traffic - 52, 000
vehicles per day. Gothard will have 14, 000 cars a day down
to Talbert and then it will carry 30, 000. This volume of
traffic is also made up of traffic generated by the freeway
interchange .
This traffic flow study was based on expected Master Planned
uses . Our Master Plan has had numerous changes this last
year which I do not believe are reflected in this study. It
was expected that we would have a high industrial area near
the proposed freeway, and in the Bolsa Chica area. The
freeway, as already mentioned, might not be built . The.
current request for zoning in preparation for annexation of
Bolsa Chica lands calls for less than 15% high density instead
atf the original 90%. There has also not been much industrial
zoning in this area yet .
The traffic flow study does not show that Gothard ' s alignment
is going to be straightened out between Ellis and Main and
that traffic coming down Gothard might just as well continue '
down Gothard rather than turning on Ellis and then on
Goldenwest to get to the beach or on the proposed freeway.
Roger Slates, the Planning Commission Chairman, told me of the
realignment. plans for Gothard . It seems that if the Planning
Commission knows of the change our traffic engineers should
also know of it .
I believe that a new traffic flow .study is needed,.,and it is
needed right now, reflecting our Master Plan .as it is' now and
also considering the stropg possibility that. the Pacific
Coast Freeway might not- be 'constructed.-
Access to Bolsa Chica lands has been an important consideration.
Ellis Avenue could be an important access route to these lands .
I realize that a potential population of 50, 000 is going to
need a way of getting in and out of this area. But Talbert
is not the only access road to this area. In reading reports
on this subject one would come to the conclusion that Talbert
is the one and only road to this area. The Master Plan shows
several roads that are going to used for- access here . Talbert
is not indispensible . I believe that more discussions with
Signal Oil may be fruitful in solving the problem of access .
The Fire Department report of June 9, 1970 urges -that Talbert
Avenue be built as proposed in the city's Master Plan. . They
base their opinion on information supplied to them by the
4
traffic engineer. The fire department stated:
If Ellis were'_;built to arterial standards, passed
completely through the city, and a freeway interchange
was constructed at- Ellis'
t Ellis, .this would be a satisfactory
fire lane . -However, the traffic en ineer tells us
that Slater and Ellis cannot handle the diverted volume due
to the number. of _ left and right turns required off and on
Talbert . Also, that all intersections in the area could
be jammed during high traffic periods . This would signi-
ficantly retard the movement of emergency traffic and would
be completely unsatisfactory. .
The department also mentioned that as an alternative, they could
build another fire station in the area so that dependence on
this arterial is not necessary. It would cost approximately
$250,000 dollars for a new station and $150,000 dollars to
maintain'.it .
The Fire Department based their opinion on the access to and
from the coastal freeway at Talbert, access to the proposed
regional shopping center at Talbert and the Coastal Freeway.
Need more be said about this. freeway? They also based their
opinion on the information of the traffic engineer .
The Police Department based its opinion that Talbert Avenue be
extended through the Central City Park on the. following
information (Letter from Earle . W. Robitaille on May 19, 1970) :
"Considering the facts available, and the projected land
use of the Bolsa Chica area, the Police Department considers
the extension of Talbert Avenue through the Central City
Park desireable to facilitate the -free transition of
emergency traffic into the Bolsa Chica and adjacent areas.
The coastal freeway plans reflect on-ramps and off-ramps
at Talbert Avenue with a regional shopping centerR:>at
this intersection. The obvious inherent traffic problems
in the area would be. magnified by the closing of Talbert
Avenue ." The Police Department agrees with the Department
of Public Works that alternate routes such as Ellis or
Garfield will not satisfactorily handle the traffic
problems that will be created by the park, freeway, and
shopping center.
It is evident that most opinions about the extension or
deletion of Talbert Avenue are based on reports of the traffic
flow and the coastal freeway.
I strongly believe that the traffic congestion that might be
generated by the deletion of Talbert Ave . is more than o fset
by the benefits to be gained by not extending Talbert . It
will cost the city $27 0,000' just to extend Talbert in a staight
alignment . (Extension of Talbert Avenue Through the Central
City Park, Public Works Dept . ) This figure does not include
any pedestrian bridges that will be needed to cross over the
100' wide road with traffic flowing at between 40-50 miles
5
per hour. 'If we are going ,to cut up our park into four
separate entities by having Talbert go through it, either
by the curved or straight route, we are going to need these
pedestrian bridges even though it may mean additional costs .
Advantages of the elimination of Talbert at Gothard are
numerous . Our park will benefit from not having massive
amounts of traffic driving through its center. This amount
of traffic will create noise, traffic exhaust fumes, and
safety problems for children and other pedestrians usually
found in or around a park
Realignment of Talbert .would require .17 acres of land; a
straight alignment .would require 6 acres, but elimination
of Talbert will require 0 acres --of _ park land: We cannot
. use HUD funds for purchasing these acres if they are going
to be used for building. highways . But we can use HUD
funds if they are used to build a park.
The 'atmosphere surrounding our park and library must not be
imposed upon by a highway which is based solely upon an
outdated traffic flow study, and a "proposed freeway" which
is most likely not going to be built .
The people of this community are going to spend $10,000, 000
or more for these combined facilities and Talbert extended
can add nothing, can only subtract from the worth of these
notable undertakings.
Sincerely,
A Citizen and member of
t1jp Environmental Council
Caro D.. Oemo ris
7131 Stonewood Drive
Huntington Beach 92647
842-15U
WARNER AVE.
. y
ci
w a
:d w o m
D _
O '
SLATER AVE. m
:s ar
r
Ono� 03I ) TALBERT AVE.
i
ELLIS AVE.
a e
14
10
wa
a
GARFtELO AVE
TRAFFIC FLOW
CENTRAL CITY PARK- AREA SCALE:1 SO 000 VEHICLES,
NUMBERS ARE IN THOUSANDS CF
VEHICLES PER 24 HOUR PERIOO.
NO HIGHWAY DELETIONS
CITY of HUNTINGTON BEACH
WARNER AVE
ci
c►
� w
a
W m l
S TER AVE. q I
Cam) �ag�
R N
TALBERT AVE.
i
C33)
ELLIS AVE. !
((03) 1� H
- A� __
�r b N
pp(/ll P��► a a
• J I
URFIELD AVE i
TRAFFIC FLOW
CENTRAL CITY PARK. AREA r,.LE R3 AR 000 VEHICLES
NUMBER, ARE IN THOUSAND!OF
• VEHICLES PER 24 HOUR PERIOD.TALBERT AVENUE DELETED
CITY of HUNTINGTON BEACH -,��;,Q�
To : Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
From: Margaret Carlberg, Envirorimental Council
Date : October 4, 1971
Topic : Beach Boulevard Landscaping
The Environmental Council is studying ways that the visual
aesthetics and the total environment can be Improved In our city.
W'a.. ,,sK-ave, been very anxious to make a formal recommendation to you
regarding landscaping of Beach Blvd. , and other median strips. In
preparation for such a recommendation, we have asked some questions
about median landscaping of other cities, and we have not yet heard
from all we. wished to.
At this time, may we let you know of our Interest in initiating-
the Beach Blvd. landscaping program now while the highway is under
construction. The costs of asphalting, removing of the asphalt a
short time later, and replacing with topsoil would, we feel, be
unnecessary expenses to incur at this time since there Is great
public interest in the landscaping soon.
We feel that there is need of some tall, large trees--but
that simplicity should be the rule. All trees and shrubs should
be selected because of their proven growing ability in Huntington
Beach, and their ease of maintenance. There should be unified
landscaping along this length of Beach Blvd. , through the selection
of planting materials, and interesting placement. We feel that
there needs to be more stringent sign control, parking regulations,
and perhaps eventually landscaping along the sidewalks, to improve
the overall appearance of this highway.
Presently Beach Blvd. is under construction from Adams Blvd.
in Huntington Beach 8.7 miles north through the cities of West-
minster and Garden Grove. (Beach Blvd. in Stanton was upgraded
within the last few years. ) These three other cities have already
provided electricity and water lines in the median strip for their
landscaping which, In their words will be "full landscaping, using
state-approved trees, and carrying a unified theme through their
city. "
We have not yet analyzed the landscaping and maintenance costs
from the seven cities we have heard from, but the proposal of
$110, 000 for initial landscaping seems more reasonable than earlier
estimates. (Newport Beach says $. 50/sq. ft. is average for land-
scaping, and Fresno quotes $2-5/lineal foot--both of these include
irrigation, and indicate actual installations have been done within
our limits. )
In Garden Grove there was initially resistance to the land-
scaping by the property owners along Euclid--but the result was so
successful that they are satisfied, and the merchants along Garden
Grove Blvd. are initiating the landscaping efforts of the median
strip and the sidewalk areas, :`donating right of way, and sharing
the installation costs with the city.
We have communications from Erik Katzmaier of Eckbo, Dean,
Austin and Williams from August 4 onward, with suggestions of
planting combinations, and ways to develop a community action
project to use donated materials and labor. Other landscape firms
would have ideas as well, and should be contacted bef ore a decision
is made on precise plans.
We of the Environmental Council very much appreciate the present
recommendation of Mr. Wheeler that landscaping along Beach Blvd.
be initiated from Adams to Edinger. We hope that you will endorse
that recommendation.
FAs
mar
TO: The City Council of Huntington Beach, California -
JA N 17.1966
---------------
RE: Specifications for the improvement of the Heil Avenue
Island for the purpose of Safety and Beautification.
SPECIFICATIONS:
I. The first necessity is a four foot high barrier consisting
of a masonry wall starting at the west end of the Heil
Avenue island and running continuously along the island
until meeting the existing block wall at the eastern end
of the island. The masonry wall will provide material
that is compatible with existing structures in the
neighborhood.
II. Trees are necessary which are to be placed on thirty foot
centers. The first tree to be placed fifteen feet east
of the first easterly property line adjacent to Trudy
Lane and then every thirty feet eastward until the end of
the island is reached. This will provide two trees per
house. The city has already granted fifteen gallons size
trees, and we feel these are adequate in size.
III. Low maintenance shrubbery for beautification purposes is
mandatory along the full length of the south side of the
aforementioned masonry, wall. Shrubbery should be placed
every five feet between trees which will provide five
shrub minimum between trees. The total cost of the
shrubbery is to be borne by the homeowners of the area
involved.
IV. We feel the proper design is to remove the center three
feet of asphalt surfacing of the nine foot wide island,
and locate the masonry wall in the northernmost section
of the aforementioned three feet with the remaining
southerly space to be used as the planting area for trees
and shrubbery. o
The preceeding specifications are presented by the authorized
spokesman of the homeowners on the 6200-6300 block on Heil
Avenue who is:
Mr. M. L. Bonnanni
6362 Heil Avenue
Huntington Beach, California
847-0268
►, /%:i� ; ��Z�./J U .ems-f'v.: .- L� :�= .. _.X�
TO: The City- Council of Huntington Beach, California
RE: Specifications for the improvement of the Heil Avenue
Island for the purpose of Safety and Beautification.
S 'EC IF ICAT IONS:
i. The .first necessity is a four foot high barrier con.sistin�
of a masonrlT wall starting at the west, end of the Heil
Avenue island and running continuously along the island
until meeting the existing block wall at the eastern end.
of the island. . The masonry wall will provide mat-erial
tr_, is com,,atible with existing structures in the
ne'. hborhoodl.
II. Trees are necessary which are to be placed on thirty foot
centers. The .first tree to be placed fifteen feet east
of the first easterly property line adjacent to Trudy
Lane and then every thirty feet eastward until the end of
the island is reached. This will provide two trees per
house. The city has already granted fifteen gallons size
trees, and we feel these are adequate in. size.
III. Low maintenance shrubbery. for beautification purposes is
mandatory along the full length of the south side of the
aforementioned masonry. wall. Shrubbery should be placed
every five feet between trees which will provide five
shrub minimum between trees. The total cost of the
shrubbery is to be borne by the homeowners of the area
involved.
IV. We feel the proper design is to remove the center three
feet of asphalt surfacing of the nine foot wide island,
and locate the masonry wall in the northernmost section
of the aforementioned three feet with the remaining
southerly space to be used as the planting area for trees
and shrubbery.
The preceeding specifications are presented by the authorized
spokesman of the homeowners on the 6200-6300 block on Heil
Avenue who is:
.Mr. M. L. Bonnanni
6362 Heil Avenue
Huntington Beach, California
80-0268
TO: The City Council of Huntington Beach, California
PE: Specifications for the improvement of the Heil Avenue
Island for the purpose of Safety and Beautification.
SI'EC IF I CATIONS:
I. The first necessity is a four foot high barrier consisting
of a masonry wall starting., at the west, end of the Heil
Avenue island and running continuously along the island
until meeting the existing block wall at the eastern and
of the island. The masonry wall will provide material
than is compatible with existing structures in the
neighborhood.
Ii. Trees are necessary which are to be placed on thirty foot
centers. The first tree to be placed fifteen feet east
of the first easterly property line adjacent to Trudy
Lane and then every thirty feet eastward until the end of
the island is reached. This will provide two trees per
house. The city has already granted fifteen gallons size
trees, and we feel these are adequate in size.
III. Low maintenance shrubbery for beautification purposes is
mandatory along the full length of the south side of the
aforementioned masonry. wall. Shrubbery should be placed
every five feet between trees which will provide five
shrub minimum between trees. The total cost of the
shrubbery is to be borne by the homeowners of the area
involved.
IV. We feel the proper design is to remove the center three
feet of asphalt surfacing of the nine foot wide island,
and locate the masonry wall in the northernmost section
of the aforementioned three feet with the remaining
southerly space to. be used as the planting area for trees
and shrubbery.
The preceeding specifications are presented by the authorized
spokesman of the homeowners on the 6200-6300 block on Heil
Avenue who is:
Mr. M. L. Ronnanni.
6362 Heil Avenue
Huntington Beach, California
847-0268