Trees considered a threat

Fire authorities’ recommendations to reduce what they characterized as the greatest natural danger in Newport Beach include drastically cutting trees and shrubs in Buck Gully.

At a study session Tuesday, Newport Beach Fire Marshal Steve Bunting gave his recommendations that would expand existing codes and would remove about two-thirds of the trees within 100 feet of the back of properties at Buck Gully to meet new standards.

Regulations don’t ask for trees to be separated, which is where Bunting says the current code fails.

“Until we reduce the fuel, we can’t really reduce the hazard,” Bunting said.

Shrubs would also be affected by the recommendations if put into law by increasing separation between shrubs that are also within 100 feet of the back of property.

All recommendations, if applied, would be paid for and the responsibility of property owners, costing up to $1,000 per tree and about $200 per shrub, Bunting said.

Affected properties would be those within the city’s hazard-reduction zone, which is Buck Gully, Morning Canyon and some parts of Newport Coast.

“I know how frustrating it must be for the people in Buck Gully,” Councilwoman Nancy Gardner said. “But we have to be thinking in terms of overall safety.”

Buck Gully has been a concern since the early ’90s when Southern California wildfires — such as the one in Laguna Beach — brought the danger to light.

The major concern is that a Buck Gully blaze could spread to homes in Corona del Mar rather quickly if given the proper help from Santa Ana winds.

But the Friends of Buck Gully organization fought to maintain some of the area’s aesthetics with lighter restrictions to keep some trees and shrubs, and a compromise was reached between the city, the organization and the Newport Beach Fire Department in 1997.

But with more wildfires in recent years, the issue was brought up at a council meeting last year, and Bunting was asked to recommend changes.

“We’ve got a plan [in case of a Buck Gully fire], but it is no good to us if we can’t get equipment in there,” Bunting said about the large amount of shrubs and trees in the area.

After presenting his recommendations Tuesday, the only residents to comment expressed support for Bunting’s recommendations. Bunting hopes public support will continue.

“This still leaves a lot of trees, probably a couple of trees for every piece of property,” Bunting said.

The City Council asked Bunting to return as soon as possible to present an ordinance based on his recommendations.

Other plans for the gully, such as the possibility of goats being used to clear brush, will be presented at a later date, Bunting said.

The study commissioned last year to evaluate the use of goats should be ready for public viewing in about a month, Bunting said.

In other news, the proposed settlement between Newport Beach and Sober Living by the Sea was presented for the first time to the public at Tuesday’s council meeting.

Opponents of the city’s handling of sober living homes and the settlement, such as Dan Welden and Denys Oberman of Concerned Citizens of Newport Beach, criticized the agreement.

Welden argued the city did not negotiate a good deal with bed caps at 204, when Sober Living is only using about 160 beds.

City officials have consistently said in prior reports they are happy with the settlement because it will not allow bed caps to rise to previous levels that they say were much more than 204 beds.

Prior to being approved, the settlement will be presented in public hearings three times, once in front of the Planning Commission and twice before the City Council before council members vote on it.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Trees on a 0% to 20% grade

  10 feet of separation from branch tip to branch tip

Trees on a greater than 20% grade

  30 feet of separation from branch tip to branch tip

  No trees within 10 feet of the back of a structure

Shrubs on a 0% to 20% grade

  Separation two times the height of the shrub

Shrubs on a greater than 20% grade

  Separation six times the height of the shrub

DANIEL TEDFORD may be reached at (714) 966-4632 or at daniel.tedford@latimes.com.