Item 15 Additional Material posted 4-15-21M EM ORAN DLJ M City of Poway
ADDITIONAL MATERIALS
(Agenda Related Writings/Documents provided to City Council or Staff after distribution of the
Agenda Packet for the April 20, 2021 Council Meeting)
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
CONTACT:
April 15, 2021
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Vaida Pavolas, City Clerk V?
(858)668-4535 or vpavolas@poway.org
SUBJECT: Item 15 -Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) Advisory Group Update
Attached please find correspondence received after the agenda posting deadline.
Reviewed/Approved By:
��1jas�
Assistant City Manager
Reviewed By:
Alan Fenstermacher
City Attorney
Approved By:
Ch�
City Manager
1 of 13 April 20, 2021, Item #15
From:Gail Narevsky
To:City Clerk
Subject:Item #15, April 20 City Council Meeting
Date:Tuesday, April 13, 2021 8:13:59 PM
April 20 City Council Meeting, Agenda item #15
My name is Gail Narevsky and I live at 12773 Treeridge Terrace, where I have lived for the
last 28 years. My yard backs up to Twin Peaks and the LMD. I recently discovered that I own
property – almost 22 feet of property - on the other side of the sound wall, as I always
assumed that the wall was on or at least near the property line. This property has become an
issue as the City has examined issues regarding the LMD.
I have real concerns about some of the findings that have come out of this examination.
1.The land itself - As I said, I own approximately 22 feet on the Twin Peaks side of the
sound wall. I have measured the rest of my backyard and it is approximately 60 feet. My yard
would be 27% larger with that extra property – which is mine. Of course, I also have no
access to this land from my backyard as there is a sound wall and a hill - which takes up
another 15 feet of my actual backyard - created specifically to accommodate the sound wall.
In addition, I can only assume that I have been paying taxes on this land that I cannot use for
all these years.
2.The trees - There are 9 or 10 eucalyptus trees on that property on the Twin Peaks side of
the sound wall. Most are “volunteer” trees – growing from seeds dropped from the original
trees. When I moved into my house, there were some eucalyptus trees in the actual backyard,
which I had taken out. And, I have had some “volunteers” try to grow in my yard, and I have
removed them all. If I had known back then that this land “over the wall” was mine, I would
have removed the trees then and never have allowed “volunteers” to grow.
3.The actual sound wall – As stated, the sound wall makes my backyard substantially
smaller than it actually is. When I heard that I owned this land beyond the wall, my first
thought was to take the wall down. I have been told that I cannot do this because it is part of
an EIR that requires it. This is very interesting to me because I would think that something
like that would be recorded on my title report, but it is not.
4.The “giving back” of the property – One option being discussed is to eliminate the private
property from the LMD and “give it back” to the actual owners when the LMD does not have
enough money to maintain them. First, hasn’t this whole process started because the LMD
does not have sufficient funds? To me this means that there are plans to “give back” this
property as soon as possible. Second of all, I would say that for the last 5-7 years the trees
have not been maintained or maintained at a very minimal level. There is a liability issue
should one of them fall and injure/damage someone/something that would not be my fault.
Third, if I become responsible for maintaining these trees, how can I do that? I know of no
way that I can get sufficient water to the trees to keep them healthy as long as the sound wall
is still in place. So my only option would be to cut them all down – and of course they have
been growing all these years and are much taller than when I would have taken them down if I
had known about this issue, and there are more of them because of allowing the “volunteers”
to grow.
2 of 13 April 20, 2021, Item #15
Because of these issues, I oppose the recommendations of the LMD Committee/City Staff. If
you have any questions or wish to discuss this further, I can be reached at
Gnarevsky@gmail.com. Also, if anyone wishes to come see how this impacts my yard, a
meeting can be set up.
Gail Narevsky
3 of 13 April 20, 2021, Item #15
From:David Narevsky
To:City Clerk
Cc:Dazio
Subject:Item #15 - April 20th City Council meeting - Email #1
Date:Tuesday, April 13, 2021 8:35:17 PM
Attachments:Poway City Council 4 20 21, Parrt A.pdf
Attached please find my comments on item #15 for the April 20th City Council meeting.
My comments include 7 pages, which I needed to include in two seperate emails..
Thank you
David Narevsky
4 of 13 April 20, 2021, Item #15
Mayor and Council
City of Poway
12773 Treeridge Terrace
Poway CA 92064
April 13, 2021
Re: Agenda item# 15 -April 20, 2021 Council meeting
I am a 29 year Poway resident, 28 in our home within the Rancho Arbolitos subdivision.
currently serve on the City's Landscape Maintenance District Committee appointed by the
former City Manager to address funding issues for the Rancho Arbolitos (83-1) and Espola
Road (86-1) LMD's.
LMD revenue has been impacted by the adoption of Prop 218, which precludes a tax increase
without a vote of those being taxed. While I am hesitant to support a tax increase, the cost of
labor and water for the LMDs has clearly increased, and it is unreasonable to think the LMDs
could continue to provide the same level of services indefinitely without increased funding.
Approval of future annual CPI increases for the LMD Districts, along with a modest catch up
amount would be supportable.
However, the proposal before the Council also approves the potential of elimination of services
to the area between the LMD boundary and the "Wall" behind resident homes, if revenue is
determined to be insufficient. The Committee has been advised that revenue is insufficient and
the City states on its website that the LMD is "underfunded". This approval will allow the City
to abandon its prescriptive easement over these areas and will return maintenance
responsibility to the property owners.
Many, if not most residents whose property share a boundary with the LMD along Twin Peaks
and Espola are likely unaware they own this sliver of land, ranging from a few feet to 22 feet or
more. This property has been maintained by the City since inception of the LMD, including
watering, cleanup, and some tree maintenance. At a recent LMD Committee meetings, with
the City Attorney present, staff indicated that the wall cannot be relocated or modified due to
the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the subdivision.
The City has provided a number of changing interpretations of tree removal on these private
properties (Attachment 1 ). For many years, the answer was absolutely no. More recently the
City has "allowed" residents to remove trees from their own property, but only through a permit
process requiring the contractor to post a $3,000,000/$6,000,000 liability policy, which most
tree companies do not have the capability to obtain (Attachment 2). A request to remove trees
on private property by going over the back yard wall and not crossing into the LMD was also
denied without the required insurance. Yet the proposal before the Council would saddle
residents with the full responsibility for these trees after years of inability to remove them. They
have grown considerably over the past 30+ years. There are numerous other reasons to object
to this proposal which are included as Attachment 3.
5 of 13 April 20, 2021, Item #15
Homeowners directly along Twins Peaks and Espola will likely oppose being saddled with
additional responsibility and cost once they become aware of the City's proposed action.
Residents cannot easily access land beyond the Wall. Again the City has indicated that the
Wall must remain. Who will be responsible for the cost of repairs to the Wall? And does the
City really want to encourage division among neighbors? And all of this effort in order to plant
flowers at the subdivision entrances? No specific details of planned expenditures have been
outlined and there is no language to guarantee additional funds raised by a tax increase will be
earmarked and reserved for the LMD.
Staff's recommendation combines a funding increase for the LMD's with a fundamental change
in which properties are maintained. Accordingly, this recommendation is unlikely to be
approved by residents and will result in neighborhood dissent. Rather it is recommended that
the Council recommend a CPI increase for the LMD to residents. Restrict these funds to use
for the LMD exclusively. If approved, the City can demonstrate good faith by creating visible
improvement of these LMD's over time, and as a result further modifications can be reviewed
along with a detailed plan of what these increased funds will be used for.
Attachments:
Thank you for your consideration. ' ·\DJi� N�:et't 01
1.City insurance requirements
2.City letter rejecting any tree removal within the LMD
3.List of other objections to staff proposal
6 of 13 April 20, 2021, Item #15
Print Form Clear Form
TREE REMOVAL PERMIT APPLICATION
For Tree(s) Growing on City Property, Public Right-of-Way, or a City Easement
I Official Use Only: Date Received
Contact Name:
SECTION A
Phone Number: Date: ----------
Street Address of Tree(s) Proposed to be Removed:
Location of Tree(s):
City Property D Complete Section B
Public Right-of-Way 0
Complete Sections B and C
SECTION B
Other City Easement D
Complete Sections B and C
Please Provide the Following and Return to the Public Works Department for Approval:
1.A detailed site plan on an 8-½" x 11" format showing exact location of tree(s) to be removed, labeled "Attachment 1 ".
2.A statement demonstrating need for tree removal referencing a reason listed in Chapter 12.32.11 0 of the Poway
Municipal Code, labeled "Attachment 2".
3.A picture of tree(s) being proposed to be removed. The photograph must be signed and dated by the photographer
and labeled "Attachment 3".
4.The required Tree Removal Permit fee (please see master fee schedule).
5.Species and size(s) of tree(s) being proposed to be removed and of the replacement tree(s) (if required, see below):
Number of
Trees
Tree Species Trunk Diameter(s) Replacement Tree(s)
Species and Size(s)
NOTE: Replacement tree requirements -If a tree is 1) a Native Tree or 2) on commercial or industrial property and is
greater than 3" in diameter, it must be replaced by a similar sized tree (see Poway Municipal Code, Chapter 12.32.130).
A Native Tree is one of the following: Canyon Live Oak, Coast Live Oak, Englemann Oak, and California Sycamore.
SECTION C
1.ls/are the tree(s) being proposed to be removed in the public right-of-way of a residential street? Yes D No D
If YES, list the property's Assessor's Parcel Number (APN):
2. Is the applicant the property owner?
If NO, Owner's Signature:
FOR CITY OF POWAY USE ONLY:
Yes D No □
SECTION D
If tree(s) is/are growing on the public right-of-way of a residentially classified street, attach confirmation that a Notice of
an Intent to Remove a Tree has been sent to adiacent propertv owners within one workinq dav of receipt of form.
APPROVED □ Public Works Supervisor (if applicable) DENIED □
APPROVED □
(With Attached Operations Manager or Assistant Director Director of Public Works
Conditions)
7 of 13 April 20, 2021, Item #15
WAIVER, RELEASE, HOLD HARMLESS, AND AGREEMENT NOT TO SUE
I, ______________ ("OWNER"), reside at: __________ ,
Poway, CA ("LOCATION") and fully understand that my hiring a tree service contractor
("CONTRACTOR") with an active C-61 and D-49 license from the Contractors State License Board to
cut down and remove City-identified tree(s) located on adjacent City property, exposes me and/or other
individuals to the risk of personal injury, death, or property damage. I hereby acknowledge that I am
voluntarily conducting this tree removal and agree to assume any such risks.
I hereby release, discharge and agree not to sue the City of Poway, its officers, officials, employees,
volunteers, and agents ("CITY") for any injury, death, or damage to or loss of personal property arising
out of, or in connection with tree removal on City property from whatever cause, including the active or
passive negligence of CITY. The parties to this AGREEMENT understand that this document is not
intended to release any party from any act or omission of "gross negligence," as that term is used in
applicable case law and/or statutory provision.
In consideration for being permitted to remove specific tree(s) adjacent to LOCATION, I hereby agree,
for myself, my heirs, administrators, executors and assigns, that I shall indemnify, defend, and hold
harmlt3ss CITY from any and all claims, demands, actions or suits arising out of or in connection with
this action.
Prior to causing CONTRACTOR to commence work pursuant to this AGREEMENT, OWNER shall
obtain from CONTRACTOR and provide to City evidence of the following types and amounts of
insurance:
-,::::.��==-..,...;::.:.n.:..::e::.:..ra::::..:I--=:L.:.::::ia""'b.:.:.:ili=t: minimum coverage amount
eral aggregate, including Primary/Non-Contrib
esignating the following: "City of Poway, its
er occurrence/
itional Insured
Is, employees,
volunteers, and ag
2. ;.::.;.....-�"""'11111,,,.,·_ owned hired and non-owned vehicles: minimum
single limit.
its with Employer's Liability coverage in the amount of
and Waiver of Subrogation endorsement in favor of CITY.
I HA FULLY READ THIS RELEASE, HOLD HARMLESS AND AGREEMENT NOT TO SUE
AND FULLY UNDERSTAND ITS CONTENTS I AM AWARE THAT IT IS A FULL RELEASE OF ALL
LIABILITY AND SIGN IT ON MY OWN FREE WILL.
Owner's Signature
Date
8 of 13 April 20, 2021, Item #15
From:David Narevsky
To:City Clerk
Cc:Dazio
Subject:item #15 - April 20th City Council meeting
Date:Tuesday, April 13, 2021 8:35:18 PM
Attachments:Poway City Council 4 20 21, Part B.pdf
Email #2
Thank you
David Narevsky
9 of 13 April 20, 2021, Item #15
MICKEY CAFAGNA, Mayor DON HIGGINSON. Depurv lvi;;\-c,r BOB EMERY. Councilmcmbcr JAY GOLDBY. Coundmernbcr E,E'TTY REXF()RD, CJuncilmcmbcr
.Septen1ber 14, 2004 -
Mr. i\ilicha.e! Aviano •1' ?JC.,[:, T1·0 ::>�1alnw '1 C/·1·,�,�e.- , \.JV • V '-" I • ,:;, ..._.,. ,_,. l (_.. V
Poway C/\ 92064
RE: Rancho J.vbolitos Eucaiyptus Trees
Dear !Vlr. Aviano:
Thank yc1u for your letter dated .l--\L.!gust 3 �j; ��()04-conct�rning the Euc;ai11ptus trees along
..,.. • � ' -, ' ' C 1 ' . ' f-' I ' . h' ,, 1 vvn1 �-'G21<S ��oao. ! an1 sure iv r. Laspisa nas s! 1areo n--iy :ast res}Jonse ro i _;rn i'"egarc;n"'igthis subject, but vvould also like to shai'e these in a \Nritten response to you addressing your concerns as �/OU have stated them.
o F1ersistent Piob;erns: 1-rees have� a life cyc!e - they renevv \1v ith nevv leaf
grovv1:h; anci shed C1ld Ieaves j create polien and berries 1 �Jut also is habitat fJrsmai! birds and animais, and creates photosynthesis.
S' f ' ' ,.- ' i:: ! • I ., -- 1· f , • . a ·erv issue: dince ,..ioway aooptea 1i:s i i·ee uro1n8nce, we 11ave a roLrune
. . . , . '. . . ,. ' "'h' .• c-, • I 'h tree--cnrnn#1ing progrc.rn ror rr10.1nvairHr-!g t!1e -crees \Arre: lir: 1:ne ;-ctri<S J a ong ·t! ie street rigf-rts-of-,.ri.1cy, and vvithin the District. !r tr!e past ten }rears: vve have eYperience tv-Jo E! f\Hnos vvHhc;u·t 1·-najo( tree loss due to our c;n-golng tree rnaintenance: efforts. Ths routine iT1a!rrLen2nce cd!Ci\f\JS fer both stciff and contracted ai-bodsts to revievv trees for any concerns, and we aiso ;·evievv repoi-Ls frorn residents fai� fc)ur1cic1.tior: io e:ther trirn out c!f the norrnal
maintenance cycle, rn-re1-r1ove 2 tree.
0 Laroe Branch Dov\.1n on /Auqust 30. 2004: /�CCiJrd[ng to Cfty recorcis 1 r·10 one received 2 can or tool<. a. report of 2.n obstructlo�-1 c:ri --rv\.dn Peaks Rc1ad on this
da�/-
·,/our Request to Ren1ove ! Entireh/1 i\11 Trees: l'hese trees \Arere put in duringti1e tirne of development of Ranchci /--\rbolitos and \fl/ere a selling point frJr theilorries. /J\s Jong as tr:ey i-en1atn healt!--1y; they vvi!i not be i-err1oveci and the area
l'enovated \Nithout a !Jal!ot of ti1s enti;·e Distrlct. When the time ,:'.Jmes to ballot
t-ie District p;ope1iy :J\f\Jners rJr an it1crease in a.ssessrnents (rec;uired under
�• • ' ' • J" ' . 'If . 0 f I " 1< I i' • • ' ·;• �Tats L2\JV_L venous r-enOV8Ll<Jn ptOjf':GtS VVHr iJ 19 H7ClU08Cl on 1Tl8 oai!()l, inc:!ua;ngthe trees and irrigation along Tv,1in Peaks F.:.oad. Ho\:vever ) yc.:u and fv1r. Laspisaare only t"tJvo of ·l 1 2,96 property crvvners vvithin the O!stricL !t t1kes a sirnpiemajority of votes cast to pass Special District ba!!ot measures. At this time, ,:vedo not anticipate baHo·dng tl1e District until 2007 or 2008.
T!'1e !a tter portion of /OU:'" �)referred solutii:)n letter's nurniJered iterns outlined belo\:v:
. ' \ : .,, .is aoaresseo vviD7Hl
Cir:v 1--Iali L.ocated at 13325 Civic Center D1�ive
M2iling Address: P.O. Box 789, Powav. Caliiun,ia 9207.c:-0789 ° rnc;,cn 74x-f.r�nn r,Q,;_ 1 .:1n11
...................
10 of 13 April 20, 2021, Item #15
Mr. 1Vlici1aei Aviano September ·10, 2004 Page 2
·1. /\nnuai Toppino to a heiciht lirnit of 25 feet: Ls tf-1ere anv1f7inc� ti1at preventstile Cit\1 fro111 to�JDinq trei'.ss? \(es. The c:�it�1 1-·12s adc)pted a -rre·e Orc!inance soecifically· adclressecl this issued. Tree toooina is no !onqer 2 method used I : I .. _.. .__. to trim trees and is in violation of Poway 1\/lunicipai Code Section '12.32.070 \/r'on;/ Pq,-:lo�eri'1 lij.�o �::::pr:iv��-::t�ri is an info,�r,,1:::-;tionqi sh�01' ti1�t e•vni�fnc: \fith\/ .._, r-•.; '-'; .._, .._.;, �--,• • � '-' _/'. 1"'-'l· '-,.-,,.'-,!, · ! <l ••, • I,.._.., •. , .·--. • ,,..,,.,_,,_ • t._., �✓,;----._.i • ,._. I', I,, tree topping is darnagin[J to -trees.
2.Hazard Assessmenc Reoortino: Incorporated vvith the continua[ treerr:2inten2nce orooram is the 8bilitv to take aooroprlate action to address anv; _. �' : I • ✓ identified h2z:::1rds. This is e d:/narnic assessri1ent that incorporates bothsafetv anci llabilit\/ concerns 2nd is cooiclinated vvith the t::it\/1 S RJsk J .I .,
'1\fl�-,n0.nai� ,\ilC!t C:i�\. • .-1. 21 • R.esiclents \Nhc, \!Vatil 7-hese Tre(3S: ()ur ,::ity:s -rr2e C1rcHnance vvas acic1ptecl,. ,1 •• ,.. , •.•I ,1 •, •• _.. .1.•• • • TC}l Ine tJreserva1:1011 OT -crees \rvnn 1ne cons1oeraDon cq� const11 1-1ecrcs ar10
\;viici!tfe. :c�rnoarino this .Situation to Lioi1ts in -?.:: 1-:1 ark: TI·--iete is n 1J comparison. Ttees offer homes to various bird species, a shaded waik,contribute grE:;atiy to t!�e O)(ygen/carbon dioxide cycie - sornett-dng th2tcannot be ·Lun1ed off vvhen no·t in use.•�L '"Junk:•) raininc; dovvn. . .1-1orneovvner Drobierr (? lJnfortunately, yes. Ti1eEucalyptus trees existed prior to residents purchasing hornes "INithin t1~1e
r�ancho /l\rbc)/itos cu�t3.3_
The !ast concern mentioned !n you( !e tte1" refers to the ne\1vest pl2nt!ng of trees along Ted \/Vi!Harns Parkvvay. -�hese, as Vtre!! as those !n -u-ie n1edians st.irround!1--:g Twin Peaks Plaza, are Geljera pa1vifior2 ( .. L\ustralian Wiiiows) and l<oelreuteria bipinriata ((:hinese f=12n1e 7-rees ), ncrt �uca!yptt.Js.
Ur.ti! the District has ba!icteci -favorably, or a grant o-ffemd sno. obcainec:1, i'or i:he
i'enovation of Twin Peaks Road, anci the �rees pose no immediate hazarc! or
becorne unhealthy, the trees will stay.
J { (.� t�r u·v��1
\ . ..) Patricia S. [,)e!son Assassmsnt District Specialist
Enclosures c: Derinis Qui!!en 1 .A.ssistant Directc)r of Pub!k: \i\Jor�{S Robert \/\Jillcox, Assessrnent Dlstrtct Specialisi:
11 of 13 April 20, 2021, Item #15
Attachment 3 -other objections to staff recommendation
►Consultants for the City have determined that other properties outside of the LMD
derive a special benefit from the LMD. These properties were not initially included in
the LMD, and the decision to not add them now is for political expediency. If other
properties receive a special benefit than they too must be included into the LMD.
>Trees in this area will be difficult to maintain, and present a fire and safety hazard.
Tree removal should be prioritized for fire safety, consistent with the County
recommendation of 100 feet clearance from homes.
►The City's recommendation could lead to gardens, sheds, outdoor decorations,
political signs, and more in this "private property" area which will be distracting to
drivers along Twin Peaks and will be less than attractive for this gateway into the City.
►The City's contribution to the LMD for general benefit is woefully insufficient and not
supported by rational justification.
►The Committee recommendation was not unanimous and was never formally
approved by the Committee as a whole.
, Alternative suggestions for funding proposed at Committee meetings and were not
adopted by the Committee, leading to the conclusion that a tax increase is the only
solution. It is not.
►The City has relied on an EIR as justification for retention of the wall, when this
document does not appear on title searches. There is no way a subsequent owner of
a home would have any "notice" of these restrictions and of this ownership sliver.
►The City failed for several years to notify homeowners that there was a looming
funding issue and has allowed this funding shortfall to continue, and brought it forward
in a crisis mode seeking to have homeowners fix the problem.
►Improving the entrance landscaping is certainly welcomed, but does not justify a tax
increase ..
12 of 13 April 20, 2021, Item #15
From:Mary Whitehead
To:City Clerk
Subject:Trees #15 April 20
Date:Thursday, April 15, 2021 12:37:13 PM
City council members,
The city planted the trees along Twin Peaks Road and when we bought our property we had
no say in the matter as to what happened to them. The leaves fall onto our property and if not
raked up, will poison the ground for growth of other plants. Years ago, when talking to a city
employee about the trees, he said the city regretted planting them and wished they hadn't done
it.
The city has been given a grant to take care of dangerous trees. Why don't you use that money
to remove all the dead trees, some of which are behind our property. Haven't you made it
illegal to top eucalyptus trees?
The city made a mistake and I feel it is unfair to now ask the property owners to pay for poor
decisions made by the city council.
Sincerely,
Mary Whitehead
13 of 13 April 20, 2021, Item #15