City should have waited on ficus removal

Jan Vandersloot

As a 20-plus year resident of Newport Beach, I must say that Sept.

18, 2002 -- the day the city of Newport Beach came down and cut down

the 23 ficus trees on Main Street -- was the blackest day for naked

abuse of power that I can remember.

On this day, the city showed a blatant disrespect for its

citizens, its policies and ordinances in a rush to cut down the trees

and destroy the resource before citizens could mount an appeal of a

Superior Court decision to the Appellate Court.

As it turned out, the Appellate Court issued a stay of the

destruction at 11:15 a.m., but by that time, the city had managed to

cut down a tree every 10 minutes, removing 23 trees in a four-hour

time frame. During this time, from 5 a.m. on, the city had mobilized

its police force and staff in a stealth maneuver to hide its

operations in a manner worthy of Desert Storm, acting like any other

sleazy developer who takes advantage of the lag time between courts

to ensure the natural resource is gone, no matter what an Appellate

Court could decide.

I’m sure the general services director, the city manager and the

mayor are gloating over this subterfuge, but it stinks to high

heaven. This was nothing to be proud of, and speaks volumes toward

the attitude of this city’s leadership toward its own citizens.

The city was disrespectful to its citizens because we were in a

negotiating stance to save the Special City Trees on the north side

of Main Street and enough of the trees to still have a canopy while

removing the problem trees on the south side of the street right up

to the time the city took its precipitous action to remove all the

trees.

On Friday, Sept. 13, the city had made an offer to preserve the 10

Special City trees, which it was supposed to do anyway under the

city’s tree policy, and a grand total of two trees on the south side

out of 15 trees on the south side -- clearly not enough to maintain

the arbor or canopy on the south side of the street toward the ocean.

The Balboa Arbor Society was evaluating this proposal and did not

reject it, but was asking for a week’s more time, enough time to

continue its due process rights and polling of its members, and

enough time for the city to still remove the trees if we could not

arrive at a settlement. The society asked for every other tree on the

south side, but this was flatly rejected by the city and was told the

city’s offer was take it or leave it -- the negotiating stance that

the city had assumed throughout our mediation and discussion.

Meanwhile, the Monday court date loomed, and once the Superior

Court decided in favor of the city on a technicality, the city

pounced. Forget the citizens, forget the trees, forget the settlement

discussions. Get the police out there, don’t tell anyone, use

deception to spread the false word that the trees would be removed

next week, ignore the noise ordinance, start work before the courts

opened and get rid of the darn trees once and for all.

The rapidity of the tree removal the morning of Sept. 18 was

astonishing and showed military precision. It showed that the city

could remove the trees at any time along the way within a matter of

hours, ultimately not making a whit of a difference in the timing of

the Balboa Village Improvement project, which will be ongoing up to

next June. Clearly, the trees could have stayed until the process

played out, a compromise was in the offing, and a win-win was

possible, without the city acting like Big Brother and creating a

holocaust. The city simply did not show respect and abused its power

to bowl over any citizen opposition.

In the meantime, the Balboa Arbor Society was uncovering evidence

that disproved the liability, sewer blockage and property damage that

was being claimed as the reason for necessity for removal of the

trees. Sure, there were specific merchants that had significant

problems and, sure, the trees that caused these problems could be

removed or the roots pruned to eliminate the problems. This was

acknowledged by all who were involved in the discussions.

The Balboa Arbor Society was also finding and educating the city

on treatments that could preserve the trees while minimizing the

hardscape problems caused by the roots, applications that could be

used in other areas of the city as well, to solve the problems caused

by tree root and infrastructure interactions.

These solutions are needed to solve future problems as the urban

forest matures. We don’t need to cut down our mature trees that exist

to benefit our air quality, water quality, aesthetics and general

ambience. We do need to find solutions because trees continue to grow

and do need to be properly maintained, including root maintenance, to

reduce liability, sewer blockage and property damage.

The city needs the help of its citizens to be engaged and

cooperate in problem solving. If the city leaders cannot work with

its citizens as shown by this ficus tree fiasco, we need a change in

leadership. The city leaders come and go. The citizens stay.

* JAN D. VANDERSLOOT is the vice president of the Balboa Arbor

Society and lives on the Balboa Peninsula.