Not everyone in Balboa Village supported ficus removal

Lynn Miller

How many times have we heard from Newport Beach Mayor Tod Ridgeway

and some members of the council, staff and associations that “all of

the area associations voted to remove the ficus trees on Main Street

in Balboa Village?” Well, here is the inside scoop.

According to the minutes taken at a Balboa Peninsula Point Assn.

meeting held April 23, the members and board that were present in the

early part of the meeting voted to keep the 40-plus-year-old ficus

trees. It was a 13 for and six against the trees. The final vote,

however, after several call-ins, ended up being 20 for and 15

against.

I believe it should have been a yes decision for the trees because

of petition of 124 residents who were against removing the trees. If

the association would have counted those voters it would have been

144 for and 15 against. The president of the association said he

didn’t feel the petition should be counted.

There are about 1,000 homes on Peninsula Point and when this

petition was taken, the majority of the residents were not home. If

the effort had been continued, there would have been many hundreds

more. The city was notified of this injustice, but it chose to ignore

the facts and the will of the vast majority of the residents.

Only the board of directors of the Balboa Merchants and Owners

Assn., headed by Dayna Pettit, voted on the tree issue. No one on the

board even rents any property on Main Street, let alone owns any

property there or anywhere else in the village with the exception of

only one.

They also don’t allow any of the property owners on Main Street or

businesses on Main Street or residents in the area to vote.

The Central Newport Beach Community Assn. never even voted on the

tree issue.

The Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission held a May 7 meeting,

where it voted on whether to keep the ficus trees. The vote was three

for and four against. Those voting against keeping the trees were Tom

Tobin, Debra Allen, Ray Englebrecht and Val Skoro. The commissioners

who voted to keep the trees -- Pat Beek, Marc Franklin and Stuart

MacFarland -- said that the city was not following its own policy for

removal of “special city trees” and “all other city trees.”

Special city trees are retained if they contribute to and give

character to an entire neighborhood. Prior to consideration of

removal of the tree, such as disease, death or a very dangerous

situation, they are identified and specific treatment is implemented

to retain them.

If any sidewalk, curb or street repairs are to be made and root

pruning is necessary, sufficient timing in advance must be planned to

ensure that pruning will not destabilize or kill the tree. Only one

side is pruned at a time with an interval of six months to a year.

If root pruning methods are not practical and/or critical to the

health of the tree, then alternate or special landscape improvements

shall be installed by the city in order to retain the tree. All

proposed root pruning shall be assessed by the urban forester.

In August, three urban foresters analyzed all 24 designated

special ficus trees on Main Street and declared them all very

healthy, safe to people and the environment, with the majority of the

roots growing straight down under the tree. The few small laterals

growing close to the surface could be safely severed without harming

the tree. The history of these trees is never watered, fed, roots

pruned or root barriers installed.

In the mid 1990s, all 25 of the Main Street ficus trees were

designated as “Special City Trees.” Some years later, either through

clerical error or deliberate intent, only the trees between the bay

and Balboa Boulevard were on the city’s list of “Special City Trees.”

The trees between the ocean and Balboa Boulevard showed up on a list

titled “All Other City Trees,” which do not have as much protection.

The fact remains, list or not, all 25 are still “Special City

Trees.” There are witnesses alive and well that were at the city

meeting when this designation occurred who will testify to this fact.

Concerning “All Other City Trees,” it is the city’s policy to

retain them as well. They can only be removed if there is extreme

damage to the infrastructure and landscape of public or private

properties, and then only despite specific treatment by the city to

alleviate repeated damage. Also failure by the property owner to

perform preventive maintenance.

This would include, in the village, replacing old sewer lines

leaking raw sewage because the cement holding the joints together has

disintegrated. The roots are attracted to these sites. Regular root

pruning and root barriers installed; deep water so that the roots

don’t rise to the surface. None of the above has ever been done by

the city with the exception of some sewer line replacements on Main

Street and a parallel alley way.

The street and sidewalks on Main Street are believed to have been

installed in the 1930s. The bayside sidewalks were replaced in the

mid 1990s with no problems since. But the ocean side could be 50

years or more. Here, you can see some damage caused by only a few

trees on the street, curbs and sidewalks. Keep in mind, the trees

have never been watered or root pruned, and roots will rise to the

surface in search of water. This ocean side of Main Street is where

Ridgeway and a few business owners that don’t like the trees have

taken newspaper reporters and camera crews from channel 0 and 50.

The impression that has been given to the public is that all of

Main Street (including the bay side) and all of the 25 trees were a

problem.

This situation all boils down to a total lack of responsibility

and maintenance on the part of city officials. They are desperately

trying with falsehoods and, at best, exaggerations to take the finger

of blame off themselves and point it to the trees. They are denying

that cause equals effects.

When the voting on the ficus trees finally reached the City

Council on May 28, one of the council members, John Heffernan,

requested that the voting be continued at a future meeting. He stated

that he was informed that people did not receive appropriate

notification, were unable to attend the meeting and were unable to

have their experts attend. The request was denied.

A large number of residents were then given an opportunity to

express their own personal reasons for keeping the trees and asking

why the city needed to legally follow its own tree policy. Two of the

council members, Heffernan and Norma Glover, also gave many reasons

to retain the trees.

When the final vote was taken it was two for and three (Ridgeway,

Steve Bromberg and Dennis O’Neil) against the trees. Keep in mind two

of the council members were absent from the meeting. Also, the

majority of the community was not informed of some of the city

leaders’ and associates’ decision to try and remove the trees in

their revitalization plan for the village.

When the trees were finally posted for removal, the notices were

placed about 12 feet up in the trees, so they could not be seen, let

alone read. Out of 21 stores on Main Street, only seven wanted the

trees destroyed. They were Castaways, Main Street Surf, Balboa Inn

Restaurant, B.J.’s Pizzeria, Ultra Violet, Vivianna’s Restaurant and

the Balboa Pavilion.

* LYNN MILLER is a Balboa Peninsula resident.