HomeMy WebLinkAbout0352.095TO:
ATTENTION:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
RWllEST
, .'
@
City of Palo Alto
City Manager's Report
HONORABLE cm' COUNCIL
l'OLlCY AND SERVICES COMMITTEE
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Public Works
July 17,1995 CMR:352:95
Palo Alto Tree Task FOITe Interim Report Analysis
The City Council bas directed !WI to review !he recoounendatloos proposed in !he Palo
AIIo Tree Task Force (TIP) Interim Report and respond with analyses 0{ !he TTF
recoounendations and !he policy implications 10 consider for tbeir implementation.
RECOMMENDATIONS
This report recommends that !he Policy and Services COOllnittee:
I. Review and discuss !he following staff evaluatioDs 0{ the Tree Task Force
recommendations, N<> specmc reronum:ndations for implementation are proposed
at this time. Staff will prepare a subsequent report for !he P<>Iicy and Services
Committee'. consideration at the August 8, 1995 meeting which ",ill cooIain
recommended implementation a<:tions,
2, RequeSlthe Tree Task Fore.: to provide additional information including: (a) a
proposed budget and work plan for !he oonprofit tree group; and (b) supporting
information IlIat identifies tangible benefits the TTF proposed tree program could
provide 10 !he Electrlc Ulility in the area 0{ line clearlng,
), Refer the Tree Task Forc.:'s response for additional information 10 the Utilities
Advisory Coonnission for its recommendation regard'tng Electric funding 0{ the
proposed tree program.
POT lev IMPJJCATIONS
There are 00 policy implications 10 be considered at this time, Furore policy issues for
Council coosideration include !he following: expanded se!Vir.., levels for contract
Pag< r of IS
------:----, -.------
'"
~ • , • j-
\ '
,,/,.'
o
trimming, tree !ellXWal. and plaDling; adoptioa of !be industry standard for pruning cycles;
updates to \be tree tnventory data base; addition of two StAir posiOOns (L contract
administtarot: and office specialist); adoption of a tree protection ordinance; creation of •
nooprotiI tree group and addition of a staff liaison position 10 support the nonprofit; and
appointmelll of. tree advisofy commission.
EXECJmvE SlIMMARY
On March 6, 1995, Council directed staff \() evaluall: and respond 10 recommendations
made in !he Palo AI10 Tree Task Force (ITF) Interim Budget Report.
The first st.ep was 10 separate the policy issues from the firumciaJ elemeIll5 of the report.
Staff from Public Works, Finance, Utilities, and Planning departments w,,<'ked togeiber
to identify the specific elements and the appropriate committee assignment. Staff has
estabfuhed • process for reviewing the issues OVer !be n<:xt several months as shown in
Attachment A.
The majority of the recommendatiol:s from the TIF are primar:Jy re1.a1ed 10 service levels,
and as such will be reviewed first by the Policy and Services Committee before bel.~
discussed by the FIIWlCe Committee as to funding requirements. 0.;., particular issue, !bat
DC po4entiaI fun<fmg from !he Electrk Utillly, requires additional information and review
from bo!h!he ITF and Ih<> Utilities Advisofy C<XI1IIliMioo (UAC).
The Policy and Services Ccmmitlee review oflh<>se issues has been scheduled in two
phases due Ie the volume and complexity of the items. Comminee review and discussion
of the Tree Tosk force report and staff analyses COOIJIined in this report will occur on July
18, 1995. Staff will r.!urn to the Committee on August 8, 1995 with any follow-up
information wbid! the Coo1mittee may request and also a supplemental staff report
COOlainiag specific recommendations.
'The funding issues will be scheduled for the FInance Committee meeting of July 25, 1995,
beginning with the issue cl a llOIlprofit group for the tree planting acti,'ities, and then
resuming in September with \be major funding isStJes, S1Jbsequelll 10 Polley and Services
JeCOOlmendatious 00 \be J>roSlOSCd activities.
Staff has identified the fclIowing issues 10 be considered by the Policy and Servlces
Commitlee: . implemelllation 0( an Hughes-Heiss recommendations for expanded service
levels, which include a 38 pe~1lI increase over the approved FY 95-96 budget levels foe
ooruract trlmming, adop6on 0( the industry standard for prurung cycles (average five year
cycle), increased levels for tree removals and planting, and updates 10 the tree iuver.tO<)'
data base; .ddition 0( positions to the Tree Section (a COQtract coordinato< and office
specialist); adap60n 0( a Tree Protection Ordinance; creation of a publicipriva!e
partneIShlp in the form of. nonprofil Friends 0( the Trees group and adI'..idon of a staff
CMIl:3S2:95
;-' ;:--. :~-::-:. ---"-, '7'--'---------,-:.-~ -
.• ~).o __ '-.... -_.--
<-.~":-":?}:-.. : .. .' --. -,,:, :.'. ....~ .
-.
Fog. 2 oflS
. ~ .-. e·, ......
.: ."C
" ,'"!, r
Iiaisoo ~ilion 10 SUppo<1l1le DOq)I'OfIl; and appointmeDl 0(. tree advisory commission.
Al>o, included in thls report is !he infonnatioo submitted 10 !he Finance Committee
reganfmg !be TIl' proposal for Electric Utilily funding 0( • tree program.
The 1TF recommended increasing cootract ttimming from !he approved FY ~96 budget
of $195,000 lOa lOla! 0($311,900, whicb would provide trimming services 10 a 1O!al 0(
7,000 n= and would reduce !he curren! H)·year tree trimming fre<jUency 10
approxill!alely 4,9 YeaI'!. Staffcoocurs with the TIF assumpOOn that increased trimming
fiequency would result in long-term beoefils !o !lie urban forest and !lie community.
The ITF bas endorsod fun implementation 0( an the Hughes-Heiss recommendations. The
r=endation 10 conven five ~ilioos from in-house crews 10 • combination of
increased cootnct pruning and tr... trimming and creation of a tw{}-~itlon crew
designared 10 pari< trees was accomplisbed in !he app! oved FY 1995-96 budget. An
additional $100,000 was added 10 the FY 95-96 budget !O be used foe increased coctract
trimming and proning. and SIS.OOO was added for addi!iorul1 tr ... planting.
HUGHES-HEISS RECOMMEND ... TIONS:
IIlf"J'f'Sftd RemoV.2I and PJamJol
Hughes-Heiss (HH) measured !he City <>f Palo All<> staffing and work accomplishment lO
industry standards 10 determine bow much work was accomplished annually compared 10
an industry average. HH coocluded that Palo Alto was trimming n= SO pen;en! less Ihan
!he industry average, 0< at a frequency 0( approximately ten yean ve(SUS an iDdustry
stmdard averaging five years for a111ypes of trees. To m..Tease the frequency 0( trimming
to !he indusuy s!alldard (1DC1uding 0(\ Street trees). staff would bave 10 increase !he
mnnber 0( trees !rim:ned by 4,400 trims per year for • lOla! 0( 8,200 trims annually.
Trimming street trees and pari< n= by in-house staff was more expensive tllan the cost
0( rontra<:Itrimming. The amount 0( "oon-trim. work incinding iospections, irrigation.
planting, removal and problem respooses required 4.7 Slaff and ~Ied .fJons from
trimming. HH idenIified areas in tbe tree seclion which would be bod! more efficient and
less costly if contracled. By coottacting certain work, staff in-house efJons could focus
on emergency response, irrigation. and other tree work that .rod not lend itself 10
comractini·
HH further Slaled that !he combination of a lad: 0( trimming and planting services
c:onsistenl with industry standards would affect the long !enn bealth and rondition of the
urban forest.
To achieve industry standard foe a comprehensive tree maintenance pcogram, HH
recommended that boIh funding and staffing levels be aOJ1lSIed 10 marimize resource use,
CMR;3'2;9, Pilje30rlS
--~~---,......---------
··'c.· "'-. ;... "
• 1
'Ik fllDd"mg of !he cootract pt"<>g-o-a!IlS is SUlllIruIlized below. along witllTfF recommended
Mding. &lid !he funding approved in !he FY 1995-96 budget.
'Ik Cu.."TeDl FY 95196 Tree Section operating budget includes fuOOlDg to accomplish
removal of approximately SOO trees a.'!d rep\a<:emeDl of approximately 600 DOW plantings.
The proposal by !he Tree Task ruce would incr~ tree remo,·aJs acd replacemenl
planting b, 34 perrelli or to • new lOW of 800 each per year.
StIff is in ~nI with the HH acd 1TF recommendations that the replacemelli rate of
trees should increase. The n..Tban 1O<est is mature acd de<:lining. Increased rep!acemeDl
would relieve haur<lous <:O!lditi<ms an:! high. mainteruul<:e associated witll declining trees,
althoogI; mainletlllllCe would also proportionalely increase due 10 the hig!! frequency cf
structural p.-uning required for !leW. young trees. The 1TF proposal for creation of •
nooprofit tree "group" assumes ilia! !he "group' would develop a goal 10 pI.in! an
addiIional 400 trees, as wen IS care 10< !hose new trees.
ActIUII HIlgh .. -Htus Tree Tut AdlJpted
1921-94 B(COIBarnltlntjnn FRrR FY ;995-96
Conlmct Wort '375 '500 o8(}t) *375
RemDvol $75,000 $]00,000 $1(j().000 $75,000
ContrrJct Wed '''5() '1100 *8()() *6lJ(J
PIIInting S45,(}()() $1l0,400 $!J(),OOO $60,()()()
PruniIIg SO $374, ()()() $317,91)0 $195,000"
TOTAL: SIOO, ()()() $584,400 $557,900 $330, ()()()
Number of TrUJ • •• Does NJ/ include 144,500 /(J lJe added wilil 1M attrition of OM position in the Tree
Secti01l-
Sraffin, Rf'9lWmegdarions
HH recommended that • IOIal of five tree trimming positions be reduced from the Tr""
Section, and I:lJe resulting salary saying. transferred 10 contract trimming services. Staff
proposed transferring two of I:lJe five positions 10 wod:. on off-street &lid park trees and
reduce three positions through attrition. Effective July 1,1995, two po5itioos in the Tree
Section Ilave been identified and assigned 10 lIUllntain trees in all City pam and an «her
City facilllO except the golf course, Water Quality Control Plant and Foothill Pari;
aIIriIioo of two vacancies in the Tree Sectioo during last fiscal year resulted in $95.000 in
CMR;lS2:9S Page .. of I.S
o \J!
-. .
salary savings being lNDSfetted 10 cootr3CI trimming. and • third position will be vacated
in early FY 199>96, resulting ill an aMItional $45.000 being added 10 the contract
trimming fund.
HH wen! 01110 identify the level of staff'.ng necessary '" carry out increased ~ntract
planting and IrImming of City trees. The TfF also reviewed the re<:OOitneDdatioos t<x
staffing and coocurred with HH. Below is the summary of the additional positions
<eCOIIUDCoded and I swnmary of the duties which would be assj~ 10 ea.:h position.
A<kfitiqnaJ Stamn, Remmmendarinns
The HH analysis derermined thaI any expanded planting program would be beyond the
capacity of current sla.'f. given WI Ihe program requires selection of sites, working with
!lie residents 10 select tree spe<:ies t<x planting, and conducting poSI planting and puNic
tducatioo on tree care. HH weill ro 10 stare thai any potenliaJ developmelll of • vo!unreer.
program foi pIan!ing and tree care would also require aMttiooaI staff effort.
The 1TF report went inti! greater detail OIl the additional adm joislralive staff needs of the
tree seclion. including defining duties and responsibilities for two aMttionaI positioos
required during the first year of transition 10 increased oimm!ng and planting programs.
The 1TF recommeodatioos include one additiolLal 'coru:ract coordinator' and one 'oftU
specialist. •
The contract coordinalor positiob would be responsible for increased inspections 10 identify
"acau sites for planting. trees for moovaI. posting notlces on trees slaled for removal,
bandlmg citizen inquiries related 10 planting and removal notlces. and finally. the
adminjsttatioo and supervision of cootraclS for relIlO\'al and planting. CoocurrenIIy. the
addi600al tesoureeS in the FY 199>96 budge! for roruract trimming require an increased
level of inspection of contract work, 00DIraC1 preparation and administration. Two
additional responsibilities !hat may also be required woold be serving as the liaisoo for
outside oooprotiI pIanUog and pruning activities, and the admiDist.'1Ition of contracts related
10 the tralJSfer of landscape maintenance in the puNic right of way transferred from
Community Services 10 PuNic Works in FY 1995-96. This aMttionaI wori:lood of
inspectiIJg COIl!r.ICt work for la""",""," mainll:DaDCe in the public right of ..... y historically
has required two ruD days per week.
The second position (an office specialist) would be responsible for updating and
maintaining the tree inventory database. 'Ther. is currently a dara entry backlog of tree
removals, tree planting, rontrac1ed street tree mainrenance work and line clearing that has
00( been entered into the tree inventory program. Proposed increases 10 tree trimming,
removal and planting ... ill significantly increase \he wOOdoad and the backlog 0( data entry
requirements. 'The oftU speciarlSt would also prepare wO{k orders generared by caDs
from \lle public. d'lSIribute infoonation 00 tr.., planting and yooog tree care, and provide
general infonoation on City tree programs 10 \he pub!lc. The .. "lgnmetll of. specific staff
04.:152:95 hge S of IS
. , , .
o
support persoo 10 tree related activities provides !he opportunity 10 train !hal individual 10
deal '.Iith more specific re.:hnical tree questio:ls generated by callers, whicll in IUrn redt.us
!he number 0( tan. thai need 10 be returned by !he Arborist. This position woold aIs<> be
responsible for word processing ;lC1Jvities generated in !he Tree Section and !he preparation
0( w_ documents Klatei! 10 the increase in conuact activities assodaled with the
addiIionaI funding is ~YI99S-96.
Specific detail, and duties for the two positions are included in the TIP 'ln1erlm Budget
Repon' 00 pages eight and Dine.
INTERDEPARTMENTAL SUPPORT
Primary support for most tree rela!ed issues is CllrTenll)' being provided by Public Woe;';.
Utilities and Pl:mnlng. Tbe Ii>ll<Jwing infO!lIlation is a brief overview of practices
. currently being li>ll<Jwed,
In !he Planning Depar1men£. most tree issues are hand1ed through the Developmenl Review
and 1nspecfioo processes. Tbe past and currelll pncti;:es for tree removal. protection and
enforcement are based legally 00 differelll sections 0( the code, depending on whether the
frees are: I} publk:, or 2) private,
I. hblic Trees: The Municipal Code. Section 8,04.040 provide,; the City with the
ability 10 regulate and contro!. the removal and damage 10 public trees by private
parties. Pelmlts from !he City Arborist are required for removing, topping,
mun1oring. paving. trencbing. etC, Permits are 10 be issued wilen the work will not
be llazardoos, will not interfere will> approved street trees. and is consistent with
the private deve!opmenl's planling plan.
2, Private Trees: Tbe ARB Ordinance. Sectioo 16,48, is the primary authorily for
regulating trees on private property for all bul single-family projects. In theiJ:
standards for review. Sec. 16.48,120 (II), !be ARB mUSl find thaI the proposed
develcpmenl preserves natUral features and integr.teS them ",1111 !he projecL They
review builcfrng siting and landscaping elemeots. They have the ability 10 place
cood'itioos. such as tree planIing or preservatioo, on a project which are enforceable
over the 1008 term,
Other code sections also provide authority. e,g" !he Site and Design Ordinance. Sec.
18.64 and the Zoning Ordinance Sec,18.83. provide tree planling standards for parking
lois. Trees can be prOlecled or planting required for single family developrnenl ooIy when
()Ihef approvals, IlIaI is ".rllmces 0{ Home Improvemenl Exceptions, ;are requested.
Devcloproom Review Pmcet;s
t. Public Trees: Before and is development permits are submitted, Planning staff
requiJ:es thaI frees within the public right of way be delineated in !he submilted
plans. or on air pholos, so that it can be determined wbat the impact of the project
CMR:3S1:9S Page' of is
.-.-.~
will be on !he trees. This is pan.lcularly De(;eSS."'<ry Wbell new curb cuts or driveway
openings are ~. The project. o."ren has an impacl on an existing tree or on
. Vacan! tree sites in theoe cases.
During !his re\n, measures for preservation or replacemelll are prescribed, and
srandard coodi!ioos are 1I5ed 10 assure preservation, protection and replacemell1 0(
public trees. The Planning Division coordir.ates with the City Arborist regarding
any replacemenl or permits for removal. The Pf.anning D;vision also advocates
against permits for relIl<lVal oll>ea!:hy street trees; and many projects have been
modified 10 retain streeI trees, as I resul! ol!his early coordination bel'-"ten Public
Works and Planning. Otherwise, Public Works would undoubtedly be at •
disadvantage of delaying an already approved project because 0( a street tree
conflict.
'2. PrivaJe Trees; Will! every apptication !O the ARB, trees on private property are
required 10 be sIlown 00 plans and evaluated by an aIborist if proposed for removal.
The ARB standards fur review require WI the projecl be designed 10 iIltegrale
nar.ll1l! features, i.e., healthy mature trees. Removal 0( important trees is
discouraged, and replacemelll tree p/an'lngs are always required as a standard
cooditior. wben trees are ~ved. Tree protection measures are included as
standard coodltions in deve10pmenl approvals.
Inspection pmrrss
I. Public Trees: Tree protection and replacemenr wi!bin the public rlght of way is the
respoos.ibIlity of !be Public Works Departmenr. To dale, cooditions for proIeCtion
during coostruction have been enforced passively on • <00lpIaint bas;s ocly, bul
new planting requirements were ottively enforced at the time the other public
improvements were 'signed off.'
2. Privak Tr-ees: Prior 10 1995-96, Inspection Senices enforced standard or spetifi<:
conditions related 10 tree prorection or planting on a tompIailll basis ooIy. These
conditions nsuaIly include the fo!lowin&: I) requirements for COIl..<lnk."tioo impacl
prorection such as fencing 10 pro!ect trees against roo! damage during grading, over
CO!Il!'""tion of soil around !be root zone, impacI by coostruction vehicles, el£ .• and
2) landscape plans showing !be size, specimen and number of trees 10 be installed,
irrigation lecbniques. etc.
Beginning in FY 1995-96 ",.ith the addition 0( another COOe EnfO<Cemenl Officer,
Inspection ServicN ",ill have resources 10 insp< ct tree preservation and installation
conditions actively, routinely and on an ong()ing basis. rather !han on a comp!ainr basis
only.
The review of tree relatecl issues. whicb is usually part of coostruction plans generaled by
Planning, Public Worn Engineering, Utilities, and Transportation, constiru!es a
significanlllIlbudgered workload for the Mar.aging Arborist. Addirional support for tree
CMIl)SHS Page-7 of IS
o
coosulting issues is critically needed in some of Ibese departments. ~'hiIe Utl1itie< has
recently hired • part-time landscape architect. the specific experience prO\ided by •
consulting aIborist is DO( usually provVled by landscape architects. Ccosulting arborist
services could be pro\ided in • number of ways:
!. ConlraCting for outside coosulring arborists.
2. In-house staff could obIain training and berome certified arborlsts through the
ln1ernaDooal Society of Arooricul.=.
3. A new permanent position could be added 10 prO\ide Ibis serv~.
A person wiIh !his level of tecbnical knowledge could also provide support for • program
mated 10 the indigenous oak population in Palo Alto's streets and parks. Sucb. program
could irx;lude !he following;
I. R.oot crown inspections 10 identify problems associated with disease, decay and
pooc drainage.
2. Simple treatments 10 alleviate these problems would include: turf and ivy removal,
grade cbanges, soil aeration and I fertilization and mulching program.
3. ~ Iho<e residents 11100 have street oaks aboot pr<lpCr maintenance practices
for areas a."OUDd the oaks irx;luding irrigation. compaction. pavemen!, el<:.
Upda1e Tr«; lnyenlO[J Dara Base
In 1989 • physical inventol}' of an City trees was completed, however the infOllllAtioo
CUJTeDtly available in the system is outdated due 10 staff. inability lO keep up with data
input as maintenance and repia«ments cootinue 10 occur. The system has the abilky 10
generate wort: orders and update Ibe data base simultaneously. However, the lack of
support currently Ilv:illable 10 the Tree Section makes this nearly impossible 10 a=>mpIist.
AddidooaI clerical support would provm the ability 10 generate work orders and update
the data base at the lime: work req!leStS are received. Some of the benefits that would be
realized would be tnlclting the ronditiou 0( the urban forest. r=tablishing maintenance
priorities, and assisting in determining. costIbeuefit r.ltio.
pI ECTRIC mUlry-FUNDED TREE PROGRAM
The APPA Tree Power program requires the planting 0( one tree for every electric meier,
or 29,000 trees for Palo Alto. Since the TTF recommends far less 1ilan this, Palo Ah:>
would DO( be eligible for participation in this program. Therefore. it would be best 10 refer
10 this program as the City 0( Palo AIW Tree Program designed by the TTF.
Any decision concerning the Electric Utility fund"mg 0( Tree Task For"" recommendations
rDUSI be guided by the legal requirements regulating !he Enterprise Funds. Essentially, the
Electric Fund mUSl; receive some tangible benefit in return for the expenditure 0( funds.
Although !he intang.,ble benefits of good customer relations, aesthetic>, improved air
quality, and windbreaks em, !hey alone would probably not fulfiU the legal requirements.
CM1U5295 .... <10115
._-.----~--
, .
".-,
j
I
i
--
",-.
Since Palo Aha enjoy. a relatively mild climate with • snuill air cooditioning load (less
1han I pe=nt), the = for any tree prog..ram can neither be funy justifJed nor quantified
as a demand-side managemen! program in the .bon-lerm.
In the case 0( the Tree Program, the ciearest benefit is in Ihe area o(tine clearing. As
repor1ed in the Electric Power Researclllnstitute (El'Rl) publication. 'Technlcal Brief,'
'Today" utility customets, who rely Ileavily OIl computers and <>!her higlHechoology
equipment, are demanding more and more in Ibe "'''Y 0( reliable, high qIlaIity se~, and
ooc way lba! the utilities are reducing the cllance 0( se~ interruptions is by paying close
attention 10 keeping power line rights-of-way clear of vegetation.' Efforts 10 encourage
the wise p!aDliI\g of trees which will not interfere with or damage utility lines are "learly
in the best interest 0( the electric ",te payers. The electric utility would support with
funding and staff assislaDCe the educatiooal activities related 10 line clearing and some 0(
the COSI3 associated willi the planting 0( trees in easement areas. However .. <ince the 1Tf
report did DO! specilically idenriJY !hose COSI3 associa!ed with line cle4rlng in the proposed
program, more =11 is DeI!ded.
Currently, the Electric FlUId budgets $571,000 for line clearing. This COy"" the cost 0(
the cootract ($400,000)., 0 .. 75 0(. Contract Coordinator, and S27,OOO for administrative
,werne:.d, for a IoIaJ 0( S571,OOO. Bod! the proper planting 0( trees and the COO!inuatioo
ol the undergroum progrun will eve]llUally reduce the need for fme clearing. Future Cily
trees, planted in undergrounded areas, will be encouraged 10 grow 10 natural heights 10
preserve the bountiful canopy of trees. At this time sixty pol .. per underground district
are removed per year, and approximately 40 percent 0( the City now has underground
wiring. In essence, the undergrounding prog ..... m serves 10 mitigate the damages caused
by the Ileavy pruning of trees in easement areas.
In December 1992, the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) reviewed !be American
Public Power Association (APP A) Tree Power Program. This program was much larger
in SCOi'" 1han the one presented by the Tree Task Force. Much of the discussion at the
December =eting concerned the fact that • tree plaoting program bad merits, but that !be
APPA program was. force-fit for Palo AIto~ A suggestion .... as made 10 design. plan
more specific 10 Palo Alto', needs, ... ith the possibility of some financing by the Electric
Fund. At1east 0IlC Commissiooer expressed cooc<=rn regarding the use of Utility funds to
fiIl.ance • General Fund responsibility_However, no motion was made 10 approve or
moatfy the plan. Instead, !be motion was made and passed (4-1) 10 refer the APPA
prog."31Il 10 the Finance Committee alO!1g with the UAC comments in the minutes.
The Finance Committee ,..,iewed the program in !Wo meetings. Discussions "entered
around the policy isOlle of Utility fuooing 0( • General Fund program and modifications
10 reduce Electric Fund financing. The motion was made and passed which recommended
lIlat Counc~ refer the program 10 the Tree Task Force (If formed) and that the Task Force
mah recommendations on the possible use of Electric Utility funds wilb three conditions:
CMIU5;HlS Page. tons
""
, .
. .-o/~:;.~ ....
.-•
'. -
.... -.
i<.
I. Utilily funds L'" 00110 be used merely 10 shift co<ts from the General Fund 10 the
Electric Utitity;
2. It is not ~ 10 satisf)o the requirements 0( the APP A program; and
3. Some roonections !!lust exist between the tree planting aclivily and the mission 0(
the EIec!ric Utility.
On Man;b 3, 1m, represenwives (,"001 the Tree Tosle Force spoke to the UAC as part
0( Ora! CommIlllicaOOns. Sever..! Commis.ionen expressed an interest in studying !his
issue in the futu...,. if Council makes the referral to the UAC.
As the Tree Task Force continued 10 finalize their report to Council. the Utilities
Department institule<! some cbang .. ",hicb reflect an increased awareness that public
ownership of utilities carries will! it public responsibility and obligation 10 the
envirornnent. Educational efforts whlch encourage long-range planning in the types and
location of !r<es planted are coosistent with the departmenCs resource management
phil<>sopby. Among the changes recently implemented is the limamg, at the rate of 50
percent or 520,000, too: a landscape archlll:c\ 10 rev;.,w an city projects, including utl1ity
projects. N<>w. as • matter 0( policy. all ClIpital projects include funds fur landscaping. This
amounts to approximately $100.000 per year. After poles are removed in an underground
districl, • landscape architect delennines what new trees and adler landseaping is 10 be
planted in podmount areas. Rather than only backfilling the holes, once poles have been
removed, the lJtJlities Department will DOW pro>>de ftmding too: the planting of. Ifee or
shrub. The Cily Amorist will designate the appropriate species !Or Cily street trees
replacement with some input from the resident Rear easement tree replacement may be
considered in the futu. ... as part of an expanded program.
It is requested that the ITF provide • detailed proposaI with the associated costs, identifyiog
the specific elemeIJfs 10 be bJmdIed by the proposed nonprofit group and bow Ibis ties 10 the
existing line clearing program. It is also possible L""! VIllities staff may be a ..... ilable 10 assist
with some pubflC outreech activitie<. Re<:ommendatioo for any additiorull fim<flJlg by the
£k:ctrie Uulity unnot be made without this detailed information.
TREE PROTECTION ORDINANCE
In Jill, 1992, Council QlIected slaff to investigate the issues relate<! 10 a heritage tree
ordinance (HTO). Staff provided a repon 10 the Council (CMR.:3S6:92) swnmarizing
surrounding communities' heritage tree po!icies. The repon further dis-.-ussed the
advantages and issues related to adopting and enforcing a heritage tree ordinance. The
report was reforr"" to the Policy and Ser;jces Committee for discussion and
recommendation of elements 10 be included in a proposed HTO. Staff prepared I second
report (CMR:423:92) and inclllded specific !Jmguage for various elements of an HTO.
When staff had more than one alternative for an clemen! 0( the onfmance, these were lisle<!
too: coosideratioo. The Policy and Services Comminee further directed tlla1 the language
was 10 be dral\, and that it would 00( he reviewed by the City Attorney', office until more
Page 10 of is
--.-, -----. ------:------
, .
.c::\.-'iJ
·-.
definitive elements bad beeli selected. After review of the issuet and elements proposed.
the CommiI2e recommended Illat the newly formed Tree Task Force (TTF) develop an
HTO after completing its review oC staffs recommendations .nd proposed olemenlS for
.... HTO.
'The lTF researched the issues relale1llO establishing an or<f1!l3llCe for tree protection in
the community and has propo5ed tbe elements tbey believe should be included in an HTO.
'The report from the TIF is tided • Tree ProIection and M ..... gement Ordinance' and is
Attac1lment B 10 !his report. The report identified activltiei critical \0 the process of
creating and implementing a successful onfllla1lCe:
I. The Onlinance sboold be <XlOOfmated ",;tll other regulations protecting tr=
(zoning) and integrated inll> each step of the plarming and review process for
de>'elopments and coostruction.
2_ The Ordinance would require a commitment of sufficient resources and staff 10
implement.
3. Dovelopment of the Ordinance must involve developers, property O"''DCTS, CiIy stiff
and tree prof=iooals.
The TTF recommendations were:
1. Require a permit and .., aJborlot report for two classes of trees: (aJ twO native
species. the ('{)OS! Uv. Qil and Valley Qil with a diameter III breast belghl (DBlI)
0{ II.S incbes {36 inches clrcumfereta} or grea~r; and (b} specific individual trees
designaUd as • Heritsge Trees.' If the two specifIed oak species were within the
fooqxin! of a proposed non-variance R-l buikfmg site, they could be approved for
removal wllh .... arborist's report and wkbout appeals.
2. Require • permit on!y for remova/ of any O!ber trees baving a DBR of 1I.s incbes
or grea~.
3. Require a permit and arborist's report foe the removal of any tree required '" be
pIa!llfd as a condition of deveiopment, preserved as a condition 0{ deveiopment, or
r~red as a repIacemenr: for an unlawfully removed tree.
The TTF also reoommended certain processes be adopted 10 notify the wmmunity of
impen<fmg removal of trees that met the criterIa foe protection. OI:ber elemenlS included
protection at trees from severe or excessive pruning (loWing), whick could lead 10 the Joss
of the tree. The draft language, defInitions and ordinance elements are described in
Attachment B 00 pages 21-28.
0I)e key aspect the TfF recommendations ",is<: is the review of certain trees on single
family properties. Except foe the impa<t of single-familj properties on public trees am
in cases wbere • variance or Home Improvement ExrepIion is being requested, no sing1e
family tree presel1lation review is !lOW COIlducled. WRhouI a survey 0{ the number at
trees which fall into the categories identified by the TTF, it is <ftfficult to estimate the
C'MR:3S2:9S Page Il ons
-~--.
>;C ••
'.
., -~ .,
.' ,
o
.impact cl tI:is proposed regulation on !be Cily in terms 0( reso<m:e commirmem. or on !be
Individual property ov .. ner in tenns 0( pr=o' impacts. E~cept for designated beritage
trees, !be requirements recommended by tbe TIF for posting and permitting do DO! seem
"'lImInIed, because !be effect of the recommended ordinance is \0 allow the tree removsl
in any case. An education program. would be preferable 10 regulation. if !he objective of
!he ordinance is only \0 raise public awareness.
Anocher significant ~bru!ge !!Ie proposed onftrulDCe ""ould impose is !be regulation of
private tree removal that is 00( associated with a development proposal. The City
currently has 00 autboci.')' OVet tree removal in IIlese instanceS.
OIlIer aspects of !be recommendations are less significant ~Ilanges 10 wbat is 00'0' being
dooe lbroug!J. current practice. The requrremeru for an arborist's report. City review of
the report, and field ~hed: 0( the trees are current practices for ARB and Zoning
Adminlstralor appllcations. The changes recOmmended by the TIl' set some dimensional
criteria oot currently .vailab~ for determining which trees are significan( and which trees
are Icss important. ie., Levell. Level 2. and Level 3.
In one ilb-tance, the T'fF -wears 10 be recommend'mg tful! trees within the oon-v~
buikrmg footprint be exempt frem the tree permit requiremeDts. It may be coDfusing 10
bave conflicting autborily between a new tree oromance and the current authority of the
ARB 10 amend building footprints in order 10 preserve significanl trees.
bl general the TIF recommendations, as depicted in their report. are complicated.
Simplification would be warranll:d.
The City Attorney offers the 1OlI""''ing comments on !be regulalOr)' approaches spelled out
in the proposed T'fF ordinaro:e. As a preliminary matter, the City Attorney suggests tfult
the Policy and Services Committee direct preparatioo of an ordinance by the City
Attorney's office following policy deliberations. The City Attorney's office would then
be in a position 10 evaluale which provisions 0( the TIF ordinance would be workable, in
,iew 0( the policy dire<otion. and which areas might need new appcoaches.
The proposed T'fF oofmance 'would establish .weeping Cily regulation 0( boIh tree
removal and pruning. With respect \0 removal, while the TIF ord'mance strictly regulates
removal 0( heriIage trees, iI also requires a pennillOr !be removal 0( any • protected tree ••
Protected trees illcJude "all trees emtir.g wiUlin 18 mooths on • \0( prio<\o submlssion 0(
pIan.<," II appears !bat a permit would be required lOr virtually evel)' tree relOO\'al. While
the TIF emphasizes tful! the permit issuance would be "free,' "ministerial" and
• educatiooal.· the requirement nonelheless creates aoo!ber Cily process with attendant
lime and COS! bcIOrs. The policy question may be framed as follows: "Does tree removal
proteCtion in Palo Alto require this much governmental involvement?"
CMR:352:9S hge120fiS
-"
, '-.'-'
WlIIl respect 10 tree pruning, Ille TTF proposal mandau:s thaI an tree pruning in Palo Alto
satisfy spe.:ified s!andards, and further forbids "severe" pruning. This provision would
require very brge public education efforts in order 10 be effective, and would certainly
result in major new costs for Ille City _ W. see Ille potential for widespread inadvertenl
violations by memben {)( Ille public who "..oy be unfamiliar with the "National Arborist
Associalion Standards for Pruning 01 Shade Trees,' which are incorporated by reference
into the proposed ITF ordinance.
The TTF propo>al also outlines procedures, inclll1fmg appeals. The ITF proposal calls
for creation 0( a "tree advisory group.. Staff does not recommend creation {)( another
advisory body with tree-ooly jurisdlction. We believe this approaol! would aImost certainly
magniry the cost 0( tree processes. and would lead 10 an e!lbanced likelihood {)( legal
errors by yet ano!her advisory body •
Our finallIOIe about Ille ordinance. The City Attorney'. offiCe is generally impressed with
the obvious care and attention 10 detail !hat the ITF put into the proposal. Most 0( !he
language fits lOge1her properly and meets legal requiremenll; for ordi~. Tho difficult
question from a legal standpoint is one we ask {)( ourselves 011 an ordinances: Is this
ordinance as simple as it can be? We would strongly recommend beginning tree regulation
from a clear. simple and e:dS'j point, and adding complexily only as I!f<!ded in future
iterations of I!l ordinance.
CREATION OF A NONPROFIT TREE ORGANlZA TION
SWf aclmowlcdges thaI nonprofit SlJpport groups can be viable resources 10 City
programs. However, creation {)( such a group would require addiOooal funding and
staffing 10 support a fledgling effort. OlrrentJy the workload for suff in the Tree Section
is alJeady beyond stllffs capacity 10 accomplish (le: additional tree planting added 10 the·
IT 1995-96 budget and Ille bacldos for tree inventory data base updates). At Ille curren!
level of staffing, no support is available 10 assist in I s!art-<lP effort for a noopro6t group.
During the May 25. 1995 Council budget bearing, Marge Abel, Tree Task Force member,
made ~ request 10 COlIJlCil for funOrn8 in order 10 hire • coosultalll 10 develop a business
pIao for !be proposed oooproIiI treeorganizatioo. This business plan is needed 10 respond
10 comments made at Ibe Marek 3, 1995 UAC meeting by several Commissioners who
expressed an interest in a tree program, but who also indicated !hat more specific
information would be needed (le: what type 01 budget would be required 10 run the
nooprotit, and wbaI is the justifICation for Electric Utility fundIng) before the commission
could make any recommendations 10 Council ( .. noted in the above seglllent ·UtiliIy
fUnded Tree Program").
The C"lIy Manager appcoved the expenditure of $1.500.00 for Ille ITF lOr • COlh-ultanllO
prepare a repon defming the costs associated wilh providing planting of City trees by a
nonprofit groul'. The scope of services included a descripOOn {)( duties, staffmg and
hg~1J DOS
.< -~ >.
! -" -..
_. -, . ':'
. ," .
, -~
-.. ',. -".
-','-,
o
funding opIions thaI would be ne=;;:uy 10 SUpport the effurt. The scope of services
prepared by the TIF wa.; reviewed by the staff of the Public Wor'" and Utilities
Departments. Staff expects IhaI this report will be submin~ 10 the City and the TIF
within the neXl.S days.
APPOINTMENT OF A TREE AD'rlSORY COMMlSSION
Staff does not concur ,.it!! the TTF recommendation III estabflsh I Tree Advisory
Commission. The City Man:l.ger bas infonned O:Juncil that ,be is re<:ommending no
additional commissions be appointed al this time. "I"Iili; is partiallJ prompled by concern
regaIding the ability of staff 10 support any new bodies. The TIF proposal suggests
involvement of an advisory coourJssion in daiJy administrative and regulatory
responsIbilities which are currently, and appropriately, being handled SOlely by City staff.
The 'ITF identified tasks the adviso<)! group would handle such as providing
commanicatioo between the Tree section and the public, assisting in the generation of
regular reportS on the state of the urt>an forest, assioting the City Arbori.<t in
communic'Oting tree plJms 10 the publ"lc, and receiving public inf."'! reganfmg tree reJal~
~. Sla..1J reels thaI these types oflasks, if needed, could be handI~ by the nonprofit
group. Staff is also coocern<d IhaI the resources thaI wouk! be necessary 10 suppor1lhls
. level of outside participation would take significanl dollars away Crom the very services
IhaI are in need of increases. As previously stated, this measure would have significanl
staff. budget, process, and notification responsibilities and imPIJCations for the City. It
would also bave process lime fuJe ramifications "" private devcl<Jpmell! applic.a.nts. One
way of inIegradng the TTF KCO<llIIIeIldation with curren! practices and proc<:dures would
be 10 uliIiz.: the existing ARB and Zoning Administrator processes 10 implement the tree
preservation recommendations, ir.stead of setting up • new process and O:Juncil appointed
COII1IDissioo for this purpnse.
Staff does believe that. should I nooprofit group be eslabfubed, the board of cflreclOrs of
that group cook! serve as advisors 10 staff as suggesto<l. by the 'ITF.
Staff bas revjewed pre1iIrllnary ,,"'ork done on the Community Sen-ices Commission
propooal and finds thaI the criteria used 10 support the creation of thaI commission does
DO( exist for the creation of I tree advisory group (le: the wide variety of organizations IhaI
represent specific interests within the Community Services DeparttneOl su<:h as Friends of
the Library, Friends of the CbiIdren.·s Theater, The Cultun1 Cemet Guild, The Recreation
Foundation, The Friends of the Junior Museum, etc.).
Based OIl the TTF proposal, staff bas <:OOCems thaI there might be duplication of effort
between the nonprofit group and an advisory commission. Staff beliefs that creation of
both • nooprofi! group and an adviso<y commission would undoubledly take funding away
from the existing tree program in order 10 provide for a staff liaison, clerical support.
printing costs for minutes, etc. In IigbI of the study being proposed by O:Juncil Members
'ag~ 14 of IS
'".",
".
to _ 1M effoctiveJIeSS, needs and costs 0( existing commissions, it _= premature
10 establish any DeW rommission.<.
nscAL BfPA<:r .
Then: is 00 IiscaI impacIlSSOCiated with !his rcpo<1.
ENYJ1I0NMF,NTAI. AS'ifS'SME!'o'T
There is 00 envlromnenlal assessment required in ronjunctioo with this report.
AUMJIMENTS
A·~260:9S
B • Tree Task Force Interim Report
C • Hughes-Heiss SIaffing Re<:ommendations
PREPARED BY: Shari Reynolds, Public Worb Administralor
OEP ARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: --:-hL-"""''''=-=-::==:-::-J,:::-.:-:-=:1iLr......c.-..I''--_. __
GLENN S. ROBERTS
Direclor of PUblic Works
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: _-:~~~.~ .. 1), .!::.1~~ru:w'lll!l"""" ___ _ ~G i"'-
Cily get
----""'-,-~,-,:~' -'~-"77-. ---.---~-:: ~~;c:----.~. =,-.. -..... ~"...'!""".,...~'!"'!"
-.::.~ ."--.' ,~~
--."
'.
TO:
A1TENTION:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
-BEQUEST
~ ~ ;, -'>.--. \,. . , '"'. , :f":-'"
BJjD&£T ~5-96
:' City of Palo Alto
City Manager's Report
HONORABLE CI1Y COUNCIL
FINANCE COMMIlTEE
CI1Y MANAGER DEPARTME."IT: Public Worl!.s
May 15,1995
Palo Alto Tree Task Force Report Analysis
This iJem is infonnatiooaJ only. in response to CouncB Olfe<:Oon to staff ~? review the
rtcommendaoons ~ in !he Palo Alto T= Task Force (ITF) Interim Report and
respond with an analysis of !he issues associated with implementing the TTF
r<=IllIlle ndaOoos .
·BJ1!X)MMp.'DATION
NO.3cOOn is requested at this time. This.report is provided 10 serve as a bas is foe futur<o
COIIimiuee djscussions.
POUCV IMPI.ICATIQNS
There is no impact"" .~ policy at this time.
BACKGROUND
On March 6, 1995. Council <fl!ected staff to evaluate and respond 10 re<:ommendatioos
made in !he Palo Alto Tree Task Force (ITF) Interim Budget Report. The firs: step was
to separale the policy issues from !he financial elementS of the report Staff from the
Public Works, Finance, and Utilities Qepartments worked JOgetller 10 identify !he specific
elements and the appropriate commi!lee assignment. Staff has established a process foe
re\oiewiDg the B.<ues over !be nell several lllOIlths as shown 011 Anacbment I.
The majodly 01 the m:ommendatioos from the TIJ' are primarily related '" servi<e levels.
and as such would first be reviewed by the PoUcy and Services Committe. befm. being
discussed by !be Fmaoce COOuniltee as 10 funding requirements. One Jl'iIOOlIar issue, tlllit
01 potential funding from !he Electric utilily, requires additional infO<1ru!oon and re"jew
from 1lOOllhe TTF itself and the Utilities Advis<xy Commission. The Policy and Services
Page t of9
•
) -. --,
·-! .
.. ~. ,
._~./J~.':~ .
;"':'';:
<
n ---,
Comminee meeting 10 begin discussion 0( !heir issues is scheduled fur July S. 1995. The
funding ~ will be scheduled for the Finance Cornm.inee in late summer or early full.
Staff will p'.u>.,. devekipmenl 0( a p!lased implementation 0( fundl.,S alternatives sucb as
the one proposed recently for the school alStrict playing field !ll3lntenance projecL The
fin! pbAse woold begin with the interim funding proposals contained in the FYI995-96
budget, continue with addi!ional fwl<fmg reqniremeniS resulting from Polky & Seroices
recommendations 0[ any recommeudations r=ived from the Utili!)' Advisory
Commission, and finally. return 10 Committee with the de\'elopmelll 0( detailed
iDfOCl1l3lion on !be cost. legal. and admini3trative requirements for e!'tablishing • Ughting
and J :ar<lsca~ Assessment OistricL '
EU;CUTIVE SljMM.4RY:
Staff klentified !be IOllowing issues 10 be referred 10 the Pot'cy & Services committee for
consideration: imPlemen!a!ioo 0( ;ill Hug!ies. Heiss reco=-euda60ns for expanded
servlce levels including an incr...., of 38 per""nt over the proposed FY 95-96 budget
levels lOr cootract trimming. adoption 0( the indusuy standard for pnming cycles.
increased removals and plantings. and tree inventory data base updates; addItion of
positivns 10 !be Tree Sectkm (an office specialist and contract cooraU'.lI!Of}. and addition
c( a staff liaison 10 the prq>OSed oonprotil group; crea60n o(a publiclprivate ~rsbip -
oonprofIl Friends c( !he Trees groop; appointment 0( • tree adviso<y gWl!P; adoptiOn of
I Tree l'rotecOOn Ordinance; establisbment c( • process 10 enhance (lvcraU cOOrdination
0( all Cily activities involving trees; and Unlity funding of. tree program. • ,
The f'.nancial elemeDlS identified and evaluated in this report inclu<le the following:
Organizational ReYlew staffing implementation; life cycle costing; • utiliry fuoomg of a
tree planting, trimming and public education program; applications for grant funding;
pub!lc fuOOlDg alternatives sue" as revenue bonds, assessment districJS (lighting ~
landscape). property assessments, new C<)I;StruCtioo as30Ssments. and estabtisbing • peiinit .
system; and private funding option; which would be handled through the creation of a
nonprofit groop.
I. BUDGET ISSUES
a, OrpDizaQonal Review tmpWnenJation
The ITf has endorred full imple.mentatioo of all the Hughes, Heiss
teCOIIIIIleIlf1. The phased imptemelltltion 0( those recommeudations begins
with the proposed 1995-96 budgoL The Hughes. Heiss recOlIL-nendation 10
C<lIIVert IbIee positions from in-bouse cre .. ·s 10 contract pruning bas been parfuIly
implemented in the curreDl 1994-95 budget utilizing two existing vacancies. The
third position will be convened 10 contract as future attrition occurs. The creation
0( • tw~position crew designated \0 park trees bas also been implemented and
will be focmafued in the proposed FY 1995-96 budgeL
!'a&< 2 or,
• __ • ___ , __ .:: ____ ~' _____ c
. .",
In addition. the Cily Manager bas proposed augmenting ilIe 1995-96 Tree budget
w;m an addl600aI Sl00,OOO to be used for increased contra<:t trimming and
P"'lnlng. Therefore, th, FY 1995-96 as>eratin6 budget r.!leets a tc\alloctease
to contract servic« of S19S,IX.'O ($95,000 as I result of attrition of two of the
Ehree po<itioos in the tree section recommeooed be conversion to contract. and
$100.000 added to the (leneral Fund bOOget for additional trimming). This
represents 62 percent of the ITF proposal for contract trimming. The TTF
recoouneooations 10 further increase COiltraet trimming from the Foposed
$195,000 to al<>'.Al of $317,900 would provide trimminpervices 10 a IOIal of
7,® treelJ and red'.lc~ the current J()·year tree trimming frequency 10
approilinately 4.9 Y"'fS. This issoe is ~oposed for referral 10 the P~-y and
Services Committee.
b. i995.-9(j Rodger Apgmtntation _
The proposed addition of $100.000 for increased cootract trimmlng services in
the FY 1995-96 budget is a first phase of fund"mg IoWard the full prog= which
is ultimately approved by Council. Additioilal funding = be incrementa..lly
added either In fu!llre years' bOOgets oe by Budget ~ndnJCDl Orcrmance duririg
the 1995-96 fiscal year, if the Commi~ reeommendations proceed 00 • time
fme betwe;,n bOOge! cy<Ies.
II. LIFE CYCLE COSTING:
. The CO!lCept of tree life cycle ~ is a IOO!. used !o compare Lie estimated lifetime·
costs 0( mainJenance 10 treeS. Life cycle <-'<>Sting is basically a model which assistS;if
the selection of certain species of trees, locations of appropriate sites and scheduliog
decisions for main!eDJlllCe and replacenren! based on maintenance experience and
costs.
The abilily 10 develop life cycle costing for the urban forest is a>"llilable through the
use ot the computerized tree inventory, p<ojections of fuMe labor costs, and fil1
established frequency of maintenance (i.e., trimming or pruning cycles). The ultimate
wantage of life cycle costing is the ability 10 identify ,,,,d eliminate those tree species
that provide only minimal benefit at hJgh maintenance expense. Using this
inf<><mafion in combination will! knowing how many trees exist of. specific spec.Ies,
their size, and require! malntena!1ce, allows staff 10 not only predict the work that will
be necessary, but can also fairly accurately predict the cost of the woek.
Below is an example of I generic life cycle estimate for. !ree planted this year, and
WM! !be expected costs of maintenance would be OVer the estimated 5Q..year life.
CMR:26!>095
EXAMPLE:
ur" cyc:e ccst fo< species ·X·
Assumptions :
• Tree life cycle 50 years
• lntlation 3" per annum
I. Plant
Tree Cost
Spraying &: Speciaflly Service: 10% of Iota! or
2 . ,
'YEAll SDtVlCE HOURS
I Prune .6
2 Prune .6
3 Prune .6
4 Prune li
S Prune .6
1 Raise 1.1
10 Raise 1.1
.15 Trim 6.3
17 Trim 1.1
20 Trim 6.3
25 Trim 6.3
30 Trim. 6,3
3S Trim 6.3
40 Trim 6.3
4S Trim 6.3
50 Remov-ol NlA
, Subtotal
@
IABORi'HR($)
41.00
48.41
49.86
5 \.36
52.90
56.12 -
61.32
71.09
11.6Il
85.58
99Al
115.48
134.14
155.82
181.00
NIA
S50.00
$50.00
$735.00
CosT
28.SO
29.05
29.92
30.82
31.14
~.4O . . 104.24 ' ,
441.'87
132.06
539.15
626.2~
121.52
845.08
981.67
1140.30
1565.66
$7355.00
S8!9IJ,00
Pag~ of oft
Development of such a data base ",culd be contingent upon i""plemeQtaticn of the ac-tivities,
senk. levels. and staffing issues "hich are I>< in g referred I<> the Policy and Se .... kes
C<>mmittee.
ru.~GAL~A~S
a.. tJti)ipr -Funded Tree PrQiIfUD
The APi' A Tree Power program requires the planting cl 0!lC tree for ;:very elect';c
tneIer, or 29,000 trees for Palo Aho. Since the TIF recommendation is 10 plant only
an additiooalI5.000 trees, Palo "''to would not be eligibie for participation in 1hls
program. Therefore, iI would be best then.}O refer 10 1hls as the City or Palo Aha
Tree Program designed by the 1TF.
Any clecision concerning the Electric Utility funding of the Tree Task Force
rec~dations must be guided by the legal requirements regulating .Lie Enterprise
Fund;. Essentially. the EJectrlc fund must receive SOme tangible benefit In return
for the expenditure of funds. Although the intangible benefits of good customer
relations, aesthetlcs. improved air quality, and windbreaks niSI, they do no( fulfill
tll<! legal requirements. Since Palo Alto enjoys. relatively tnlld climate with "SrO.aIi
air coodi!ioning load (less than I percent), the costs for any tree program can neither
be ju..<tified nor quantifie.d as • demand-side managemenl progum in the short~term.
In the <== of the Tree Program, the clearest henefil is in the area affine clearing.'
As repor.ed in the E1ectrlc Power Researcb lnstitute t1:·PRJ) publication,""T ec~al
Briet;' or oday" utility customers, who rely bea>ily 00 computers and olher high-·
technology equipment, are demanding mo.:< and more in the way of reEabre, high
qualily ",rvice, and one way that the UIllities are reducing the chance of ",rvice
interruptions is by paying close attention 10 keeping power line rights-of·",ay clear
of vegetation.' Efforts to encourage the wise planting of trees which will ~ .
inler".ere with IX damage utility !lnes a.", clearly in the best interest oflh. electric rate
payers. The electric utility would support "ith fdnding and staff assistance the
educational activities related to line clearing and some of the costs associ .ted ",itt,.
the planting of trees in easement areas. However, since the TIF report did 00(
spocifically identify tbose costs associated with line clearing in the proposed
program. more research is needed.
Currently, the Electric Fund budgets $; 71,000 b line clearing. This covers the ro5I
of the cootract (~OO,OOO), 0.5 of the City Arborist and 0.75 of • Cootract
Coordinator, and an additional S27,OOO 1$ budgeted k<: administrative overhead, foe
• t()(aI of 5571,000. Bo!b the proper planting of trees and tile continuan.m of the
underground program will eventually reduce the need b line clearing. Future cil)'
trees, planted in undergrounded areas, will be encouraged to grow to natural heights
to pre.erve the bountiful canopy of trees. Jo.J tIlis time sixty pores per underground
d"lStrkt are removed per year, and approximately 40 percent of the cil)' now ha5
Pa~e S of'
, .
underground wir'.ng. In essence !he undergroondlng program ~rves to mitigate Lie
damages caused by !he hea,y pruning oflreeS in easement areas.
WMe awaiting. decision !Tom !he citizens' CO'tII!1ittee =ernlng th. APPA Tree
Power Program, !he Utilities Deparonenl instiMed some changes which refloct an
increased .... ..,.euess iliat pub['C o"nership of utluties carries with it public
~ibility .Dd chEgalion 10 the environment Ed""ational efforts which
encourage long-range planning in 1he types and location cl trees planted are
consisW1t with the depa.-tmenr. resource management philowphy_ Among L'>e
changes recently implemented is the funding, at !he rare of 50 percent or $20,000,
lOr a landscape architect 10 !Cyiew aD City projects. indoomg utility projects. Now,
as a maaer of policy, an copital projects indude funds for landscaping. This
amounts 10 a.'proximately $100,000 per year. After poles are removed in an
underground district.. • landsc.ape archited determines wbat new trees and other
landscaping is 10 be pla."ted in p.dmount areas. Rather fr.an only backfilling the
boles, once pores bave been removed, the lJtJlities Department "ill oow provide
fimomg fur !he planting of a tree or sllrub. The City Arbc<ist will designate Ibe
appropriate species fur City street trees replacement ",jib some input from the
=ident. Rear easement tree replacement may be coo.sidered in the future as part of
an expanded program.
It is requested lila! the lTI provide I detailed proposal ",ilb the asSOciatec! ccsts, .
identifying the specifk elements 10 be handled by the proposed """profit" group and
bow this ties 10 1he existing line clearing program. It is also possible that L'tJli6es
staff may he a .. ail.ble 10 assist with some public .outreach activities.
Recommendation lOr any additional funding by !he Ele<:tric lJtJuty ca"not be made
withoot this detailed WOrm.lion.
b.~
Wben grants are avallable from State and federal agencies, they ~an be csed 10
supplemenl Palo Alto's tree programs. The "Cooperative forestry Assistance Act"
(public LPW 95-313) provides funds through tl:e f ores! Service. Staff applleiJ foe
a state lOrestry gran! during the current 1994-95 fiscal year, but did no! receive any
funding. The process of grant applicalioo and funomg should be coosidered ooly as
supplemental funding, and no! as I basis lOr ongoing programs, due !o !be potential
lOr los! offimOmg in subsequent years. Additionally, grant applicalion requirements
may also dictate that Ibe City contributes matching funds whkh may nltimately offer
ooly • limited net increase 10 ilie existing funding.
c. Pub[re Fundini Alternatives
The tree task force has identified several alternatives 10 traditional General Fund
financing of tree care. They include the k>Dowing:
Rrvem4 Bonds
ReventlC bonds are sold for projects associated ",ilb • SOUtce of funding. The Iree
progra,-:.. has DO indepe!ldent source ofrevenutto pledge in. bood sale.
Property Assessments! hsessment Distrku
Thi3 is 1he funding S<>IlIU that staff prefers if Council wishes 10 augment the tree
program. It is discussed in ",ore detail under "Preferred Alternativt Fund'mg Option"
below.
!lew CoM~ion Assessmer.ls i
Presumahly, this would be. type of "mitigation fee" appUed tD new (<>I1.>"ttUCtioa
projects. D.!e 10 tl>e cyc!ical nature of new con.strolCtion, this would probably nol be
a reliab!e or consistent ongoing soorce of revenue for an augmented tree care
program.
Permil rysteJ1l.
"''bile property owners could be charged for permits in order to plan! new trees, this
would undoubtedly be seen as onerous and bureaucratic by the publlc, and would no(
likely raise much new fun<frng.
d. Preferred AIJ!:rnative Furnlin& Qpfun
Tree Task Force rerommendations IoIaI almost a S.s million increase in funding over'
1994-95 budget levels. While tl>e City Managets proposed budget includeS: ~
additionaI $.1 milIioo for an augmented tree care pro,gram, that;till leaves a funding
gap ofS.4 nnllion. In order 10 fund. gap that large witb • reliable, roosistenl source
of funding, sl3ff belic\'es that creating 2 Landscape and Ligtting Assessment
District (llAD) would be the best allernative. ---~
The assessment is payable by property 0'0.'0= 00 meil property tax bills. There are
certain procedural and legal requirements involved with setting up a district,
inclU<fmg public ootiGing and the rigbt 10 protest. Among other things, the
determination 0{ cf1Slricl boundaries is defined by "benefit.· Setting np a district
requires a ,'ote 0{ Council.
1be concept 0{ cte3ting an u.AD was I=nt!y l"=t~d I<> Council in the
Community Sen1«s report on the Palo Aha Unified School D'.strict (p AUSD)
playing field rnai ntenance program.
If Council so directs, staff will report back 10 Council within six months ... ith more
information on the cosI, legal. and administrative requirements for setting up an
lLAD Iix either an augmented tree clIre program, additiontil playing field support,
orbolh.
Page 7 off
.~. Pdyate fundina
The Tree T.sk Force also descn1led other potential "private" fJlld"mg of tree
programs, including nooprofil tree trusts, memorial tr.~ fuOOs, philanthropic
foundations and local business. Staff suppocts investigating thest as potential
enhancements 10 our programs. but not as l basis M ongoing f.m<fmg. These
alreroatives would be important ingredients :fa< the tree program. and woujd result
in inv.olu2.bte assistance from the public ond private se<:'.or. but would be unlikely
10 result in the amount of ongoing new funding needed 10 :.mplemen! task f=
recommendanoos. The TfF has suggested creating I nooprof,t organization Illat
woujd include nlairJDg a fuR time position (mitially paid M by the Electric
Utility) to solicit this type of funding. •
ft5C&J·IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact at this time.
DiVIRONMENTAL A.SSF.;;$MENT
There is no environmenlal assessmenl required in conjunction with this report.
. ----
ce: Tree Task: Foree
--. --"-
A1I "CHMEN1' I
ASSIGNMENT OF TREE TASK FORCE R£COMML''DATIONS
FOR REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION
REVIEWING BODY AND SEQUENCE ,
RECOMMEND" noN Policy &. Finance Tree
Services Ccmmittee Task
Force
Hughes Heiss: 1 2
A<lop( ."erage S year trimming cycle
Hughes Heiss: 1 2
Increase levels of removal &. planting
Hughes Heiss: I 2
Add one cootract COO!'<fmator
A<ld one office specialist 1 2 ..
Update Tree lnventO<)' Data Base I 2
EiecIric Utili(y Funding 3 1
Funding Alternatives I
1995-96 Budget Issues I
• Organizational Re,iew Implemelllation
• AdditiooaI funding >or trimming
Ufe Cycle C<Jsting I
Tree I'r~n Ordinance I 2
Creation of a Nonprofil: tree group and 1 2
addition of ODe staff liaison position
Appointment of a Tree Advisory I
Committee
.. ?
-~> ... '"'-.... ""'"
UtJ1ities
Advisory
Commission
-
2
"'~-.
-
Page' oC'
, ..
--------'tI~· .'<-.. AttachmelJl B @~-------
Palo Alto Tree Task Force
Interim Report
Tree Protection and Management
Ordinance
Febnlary 23,1995
2
~~------~~~----------~~~-----------
Ccnsid" IN rift « ......
kiM"",,, rN IU, wfI4t .... OOlWn from "' .. is _"..wte
1I'IIal .... ""'Y ""'I"ir? ""'" ""'" "Vr-""""","w..
F_ tM"n"ufonns Wr<fW'.l$ 'F '" sil_ .
• Ioody scuM ""'_.0>1 Ii< _"" ., """i
W1rIz1 pt«t amws b) :host ~rr rf the ooia' lUId !1ei:Iri1fg tf trees!
n'ee Ie J1Dt sere/un. Jar oIIttentioJt.
A or ... , rocJ; "" "" pmma, only' rt1I! raw'" at<t of as-It
fit dC5t com;nu,u01l rvitll Ow M~ SYoril.
Palo Alto T",-e Task Force
MMgeAl>e!
Lynn Chlapell.
l!etsy Fry!>e'll'"
Marc :Kramer
Bert V.anriquez
David Schrom
Arnold Sofuenko
[)avid Sartdage
City 'iNfo Alt' NOO""
)
---~------
Table of Contents
COMP.I>JUSON wm-/ stAIr PROPOSAL
OVERVlFfl Of GENBi:Al efFECTS Of PROI'OSED OROW.'.. '>leE
~rn fD.,"DrNGS
C011'.tTH,UUty·.".";di: 't~efits. 01 o\'era!t tret CM.Opy
sPEClFlC PRClPOSED ORD!N&,"CE ELEMEN1S
,
<, '--' ,
,
pas' 8
page 11
, .
; j.;'
----------~~~---------~Or----------
Summary
The Tne Task Foro!' was given h ::nand.a.t2 kl
c~er .~ .pprcpriatenes.'i ... "ld elemeots 01 an
ordina..'lCe' 10 protect treeS 00 prlviltt property~·
Ha'..;"g ,tuc!i<d .... need Ie> pro""" and manage
trees~ local' (O(Iditions, and taking into consideration
I!w! need 10 ...wmize "'" hrd"" boOh ., the c.ty
and;ilia to prO,pert)' owners, w!' ao recommend an
crd1:nanc:1!' w'ilh:s.on'le modIfk:a6oN to the Gty .staffs'
original proposal
Existing P robiems
Many signifiCanllrees 00 private property
lla ve r,een k>sl or erodangered and ou(
overa! tree canopy is n decline.
Trees. do JIlOl take care-of Q\em.~ves in an
wbi1f'lenvir~l
FOr ~p1e.. 5tnce It,-early 1980s I!t2 inO'e.ase
in bciJdir~ ac:livities 'has resulted in d'\e ever acc:eleT
atlng loss olnative oU.s and ~ iindivid~
unique b"ees.. Unlike most r.eighboring oties, the
CIty ~ Palo Alto heretolor has ~yen t'IO spedai
recognition Of' pro~"'tion. 'lO fhese privai.eJy-cwned
trees.
Tn!es in ~ .,. being "pped ond "",erely
p<ured. Uusing majo< damage Ie> !he ..... and
-.tIy erelting hazardous .... condioons. Respon
,ible arboriSts will no! do"..,. jobs. Unfortunao.ly.
!he responsiI>le..boriS ... re penoliud by losing
wor. Ib irresponsible ~ wl\olen the tree
0"--INt!here ... no problem> with "'Pl''''& and
se-."ereJy pnmmg trees.
We have no IonnaJ mecharu:sm 10 driemline
now many trees an! being remwed and why.
•
Currently, Iree prolecti"" is not COf\slsteroOy
pa rt anQ parcel c! !he entire development
review and inspection p-ocess. resulting in
many ~ opportunmes I<> prevent damage
and loss c! Irees andlo< 10 replant
Some df\"eJopeo halO'e cIear<ut trees Oil private
pa.""CeIs prior to S1J"bmitting.a deve:lopC'\ertt appo..OJ
non.
To Kill a Tree
.. AWl ...... '1'0Mnt. atCl'I _tanah i.IIIII ~
~aa1h 1b>;,I',.). into.
:~~ ..LJ
.. 't~M:h ch....,.",ch t'3Gt ml'o~ . .....u'IIC'" ">UJ\:'
i.a'l:"" roeu = ~,lb;"
,
,.--,-.
-----\t1-7',,),.--------0
WlIhoula tree ordinance reqlili\r'tg tree protec
lion and plan<lng. .,.",~u of Ihe Planning Depart
....... and h A.'<l! haYe be.... easily cha!l.nged 10<
... y .... ~on and l'lanling requitemen" !hey
may Nve rea>:mmended. The lad at a tree ordi
~-.. '1d tree standards (as weD as ~ and
experience o(.!aff) "",erely _ .. Ihe .bility to
nego6ar.e d\et'lges in deveJopmenl plans.
Even 1:ees that are -saved." du"ing deve'topII'e'tt
oc landscaping oiWt die within iI f.e'"v years due 10
poor pfanning. constructiOn d.ln"\a!ge. inappropria f!
or :inadequate landsapttlg a.~ irrigation pl~ and
destruction of h;U)itat.
Inspections and rolJow-up 10 assure compliance
'With existing tree protec6on and ;>1an'fing requ;~
~ _ oed by"''' !'laMing Departrnen~ ARB,
and Planned Conununity oroll\al'\Ces are ~ not
doni! or <!Me w\lhout lree-related e><pe>tise, result
big ill In!quent disregazd lor !he requitemen ...
Proposed Solutions
Develop e.n Orcf.nance Focused on SpecifIC
Goals:
• Protect D'YItu..'1! naUve oab .and sfgnfficanl:
'1Ieno.se" ......... prtI"ld< I"'blk benefi.
'NauH' oIlhil ~pecies. age... OC' hislDriat vafue.
• l'JoIed h oreWI tree aropy in :mJer 10 obtain
"'" COO\munioy-lo'ido _" of vees; ecologkal, .", .. ,,,,,1<. and -..ac.
• 'StructuN: the ordina:N:t. Nt is .~pt'Qpria\i: IP
c:u.rrent loaf conditionf W OW' le-.·ef 01 bowl-
edge w1Ule mirJmiz"" Ihe ."'" "'" rrooey
lnlpaclS lor _ Ihr CiIy ... if ond Ihr l'ubr".
~ ","
~ .. ~ -~>~~~ ", :
The Palo Mo Tree Task Force
R5commends an Orcll1ance !hal Would:
• P,otect. Few Specific Types of Tr ... Now .
Profect mature specImens ollhe two native oal::
i 'p<des (Coast live Oak ond Valley Oak) and
oCher indivi<!ually spKified "Heritage" ..... by
requiring rev1ew of removal requests.
Initia te O .... erall T rE>e Canopy Pw...ectlon in
Order 10 Ob>.ain the Community-W>de
Benefits ol Trees..
Through I jrl!i!. permfl process, pl"O'o~ fOr: educa·
60n of iN hcmeo .... -ner. data ptnering on how
many trees are being cut do:"'"Il and why.,a
irlgger mechanism ID VI tdJ. the dear'<utti.."g Ol a
lot ;efore subm..ission foe b uf]~U1g pa:mits.
P,ovk!e roc Tree Protection in all Develop
menl Activities..
Creali!' an orcfinance-lhat is coord"mated' wirh
o!he:r reg-.... Tations prctecting trees (such as
zoning regollat:ion:s} and ".as tree protecl:ion -
in'regTated into every step of the planning and
review processes rOf" an de"elopme."t. consln:!c·
tlen and inspections.
).wst neighboring COmInuruUes hil\'e an ordi
nanc-e; developers hav~ CGme \() expe...'1. it.
.,
5
".-.
----------~~~---------~o~--------
Comparison with Cily Staff P,oposal
PC(\tected trees
The Oty proposed protoc""g.u ..... 16" '"
dWnea!r.t '0 ...... beigt.! (&h~ ""lumng '.~
penM one! an owner-suppt!ed ",,"lied arl>oris(.
"'I"'" in III """"-
The Tree T.ask Force proposes th."ee levels of
~ trees.. While Ihls i5 initiaDy more comptex
tNn iimpty ',:'01rering, an trees over a. certaL"'t size.~ the
multi "'''' opollPproaclo provldes for aexlbility iL'ld
b:rirl~ &e Unpact of 'Ihe OtUll"Iil..'"'W:t on both
lilt Cily one! _ owners.
I) ~ One Pro~ Tre<S
Require I permit "rut an arbor.st: report for only
two m.!ivt trees (Coast Uve Oak and Vaney Oal..)
liS' dNa (d"rameter <tt breast hetgl'l.f].md over (36'"
dmomleno'oce) and "" ~";gnalO<l "Heritage" "...,..
Uhf ~se tf'u:tI., V withi", t1u /<Jofprbtr !Jf. pro
po$d • .,...t'anllUlU B-1 fnn1tti"z, w<aitd be tppr~4
for Mtrootd witlrtnlt ~qvirbl'.d .a:rloorist's rqorf
ttn4 rvit:1uNd .nowbrl YFIlTs ftora aDa-mil ownns.
The "H<rl!ago ..... ~[gnafi"" (gfVer1 by ItIe
City Cowd upon approval of !hi> owner) maybe
-applied to any tree w'hidi meets any cf the klUO\t,'ing
rn"leria:" unusually beautiful or distinctive. age. I rare
or unusual species b the area,. , tree whkh provides
• a1ual>1e l>ab'ta~ hislOricaDy valuable., !he CiIy.
2] Level Two Pro!eCfed Trees
Ftw any o!ber Irees u.s-dbh or-greal2t. noqu ire
• pemu"'\ a-..at is free and. is alwa)'l approved. This
&eTVfS multiple purposes:: plovide an oppoctuni~ b
give edualtionar rnalerial' LJ the tree OW1"Ier, provide
opporturu~ 10 discus, alt:ertIaS .. ·es, gather data on
private tree removals and prrJvid.e iI medoanIsm to
","" cIear-<utting.
The size of the proteclecf trees is reduced (16" to
HS'\ in \he _ or p"'I>Ceng \he OYo<alI
anopy-an 115" dbh tree i5 stiD. significant:!y sized
tree. Howetlerl requtring only. simp~ permH ix :he
Ta5t majorily 01 trff reJroval$ ptly reduces fhe
.costs to bolh abe tree owners and' to !he City. It also
6
reduces time spe:nl on appeili since' tf-.ey only appi,
k) natIve oaks and "Heritagi!" trees..
3) Level Three ProtEcted Trees
A desigru:tion C'O'.'ering.til trees subject: to
development
-all trees eristi.ng within 18 mcnths on. lot pricx ""
su"bmi5ston of p1aru. 10 !hoe Plar.n1r.g Department 0r
b' ARB review;
-an tr~ required to be proteoC'..ed~ saved, W /fX
planted. includIng street tr'et'!;~ as part of AR)
-approval of .. proJ€ct Of j5 iI condition of deve1o~
men~
---any t::re.?{s) requ"fred to be ;-ran!:ed .as
repTOtCement(s} fur an un!iI\"\fuIly removed tree-
Tree Pf\J(\ing
Bolh proposals rec.o mmend prohiblti"g If"Ie.: .
lOpping and st?vere pr.ming of trees.. ~ ~. ~
Administration & Enforcement
'The Gty had tree protection meas~ ;md:
enfo:cemer.t residing pw.ari.l'y in tf'Ie Tree Sec~ _
The Tree T as'k Foret recC'.c:;mends they be co."1'lpIetely
integrated within the p!anning ~ development
processes .
Ciry staff reco~ded 1hat It\e PIaMl"g
Comlt'.J.ssion hear appeals. We recommend lhat ..
tree advisory group hear appeals.
We recommend that (N ordinance.itself be
'kept ol$ basic as possible .. -rule the techn1Ci11 stan
<lMds and de .. il:; whid. may be periOOkaDy revised
should be located in i separate TecMka:1 Tree
ManuaL
City staff asked klf' O\Ore d'treaion on enforce
~ c;easures. We !'-ec~m..>nend itrong b\J.t Oexi"ble
enforcements ""hrIe ~1so offering positive incenoves
for compliance.
Education
Bo~ pro~!s ernphasize education.
----------_.
•
TREE REMOVAL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
I perm", IArboAA\ Repon ~ Review f~~.J IDn be ~I
t Original city pfO!'OS'lll
Io.LL Ireei 16" dbb' .. '" 0"'-~ yes yes ? , ~-ANYONE
FEE ()""zY'J's Planning Commissioo
eJlpen5e City Cooncil
IT ... .., Tm f'on:e p<up<1S3l I
Levell Trees ~ yes ~-LIMf1EI)
f C<la.orJ Uve Oat FREE owner", Tree MvUory BeW
Valley Oak .expense Heri!Ago _s ~
EXCEPT within ycs DO ye, no yes DO
OOQ-varlance R· t (as P"" 0(
hklg (00Iprin! ('ICrm it process)
uve12Trees yes no
AD ot1le< trees I J.so dbh
no no ~ no
and over
EXCEPT cTear-cuuing yes -possible yes possible
'dhh: OiJImeletof!he IteC wnk 81 BreaSl Height j4'-6" up rr~ ";[uroll ~",tIe level)
Overview of General Effects of Proposed Ordinance
1-Effect 00 a tree c>wner wanting 10
remove a native oak 0(' "Heritage'
(level One) \fee r;:,t connec!ed with
any buikfll'19 activity.
'The tree owner pa'y'S Xlr" certified iiOOrist's
report and submIts it: with the free permit applica
tion.
The-City revlevo"! !he .pprkation and' notifies
the_owner.
I( "pproved, fhe tree o\\'ner posts. the pemu1: for
lOday5.
Urnlted appeals are heard t>y a treE" advisory
group. -
bbjecifVes gained by above process:
Trees ~ unfque vaiue to Palo A!to are
cIeM!y prolectl!d.
TIll more detailed w.-iew proces5 gives maJoc
opportunities lOr PI'OVlcJ.."'8 tile bee owner with
alternatives to cutting down :he tree ""tkh most
like!y is, D'li!Ijor asset 10 Ihe value ollile site.
•
2-Effect 00 a tree owner wanting 10
remove a native oak 0(' 'Heritage'
tree (level One) tre.e connected with
any tiu TIding activity:
IF THE ~E IS WITHIN A NON-V ARlA."ICE
BUILDING FOOTPRINT, !hen Ihe only requlren>enlS
are:: a permit. city l1!\'iew as part ol the nonnal
pianning process, a..-.d' postEd noti!ic.a tion. No
.Iborist report. No appea1s.
IF THE TItEE IS CUTSlDE Of THE .!lUl'..D!NG
FOOTPRINT, rhen if is SlJhje...'11O Ihe" fun rev~
given in number 1 and is to be ,protected duri:n~ t!"e
.cOf'lSttu<:tioo process by methods IlO be'dearly·
d.efined in.a separab! j~.kaJ Tree Manual.
Otljectives gained by al:>ove process:
Property owners <UI:' anowed Ihe fun economic
enJ::.yme:nt of 1heir property 1!oithout Nving an oak
oc '1-!eritage~ tree undu.'y restrk.."1 opportunitiesJOI"
oo"l!'lcpment. --:---
The trees are included';t$ Ol[\ integral part of the
p1a.Ming and buiJding process, provkting opportuni
ties for saving and'!oc mitigating da:rn<tge to trees..
. . , '. '-~ c.
----------~~r-----·-----4C}~----------
~Effect on a tree Ownef wanti."l9 \0
remove level Two trees {trees other
!han native oaks or "Heritage" treesj
11.5' dbI1 or la rger and not connected
with any oo11d'1fI{} acIiWy.
The .... owner oOlaW • __ step free penni'
by filling 0"" form Si'ing baH: da Ia 5Udt as why
!he .... is!>eing removed one! wl>elhet any repJaa>.
men!> are planned.
The pe:mit is posted Sn a c:onspicuous ~!fan
usiJy visible to Ihe pubnc kIr 7 days after w'hkh c-.e
tree b"IiiIy be remon~a.
Thars it fat lip to 2 trees from • lot wi thin a
year. No fee. No arborist r.eview. No appea~ .
• the owner wat\ts tl retncNe three. Ot I:'>!Ore
trees from a lot within one year~ Chen the P".arlfling
0ep0t1men! shoal<l uv1ew ll>eapptiC300n 10<
posslhle abuse 01 C\l.tting down trees before ;II $1,Ib-
mlss$on fix a deve10pment appDaltion.
ObieCUves gained by aboYe process:
Oi.ta is obtained on how many 1reeS ar'El ~if',8
removed and why.
During the penru"' prCJCe5s, information wiD ~
provided 10 tf'It' tree owner Of! afte:rrull';es to cuttil1.g
clown". .....
City staff would be able., catcll """ slop 11>.
dear-cutting of illct before submiSsIon for building
pennits.
The ",,"ling of !he penru1 .n""" neighbo<> to
dixuss 1ree reIJ'IOVill between Ihernselves lNi~u't
involving '!he City in b~rd d1sp'Ut:2S.. Unresolved
disput2S could be referred 10 medla Don..
In other cities wt-.ere Q;!I trees over .. c:ertUn stu.
all' protected MId requite city and arborisf. rev~
Il'0'l01,,. .ppnca6ons are approved. Unfortunately
it is a:D 'I) comm:m to have 10 lemc7Ve a Iree lhat was
p:kted in the wrotlg ptaci! &0 'begU\ ,,1m. (sum: as too
dose L:J !he l\ouseL pIanted ill an overcrowded
situation. Or Ifte t:"ee is just dead or dying.. None of
these-siblatio.'.S should ircuI undue ti~ iIIl.'\Cl effort
by'" O<y or"" owner 10 ,",vo d>e tree removed.
By usir..g It.e .arove pro..."t'SS,. C;e Iio1e and money
Unpact on bom ,h. C">' and .... ownen is greolly
red· ... ...!.
, -~;----
________ ~e~'-----.-----~ewc~-------
4-Effect 00 a tree owner wanting 10
remove a level Two ex Three tree
that Is comecfed with any bulldirg
acfMty.
All ~ tequireJ;nmt.J. ren'lain. In ridiUOfi
opp!ica601\3 ilr cre.eIopmenl or redevelopment 01.
puNk or plivat2 property musl rooc!e a silt tree
suntey sf\owirIg .. D trees on Ihe ~"l2..}.J!he time of
the fina1lanc:&capc review submitted Ie the ARB.a
simJIar i$t sMD be ",bmitted _ inOudes the " ....
..... to be pLwIed.
The effect of Ibe development on !!'Ie b"ees will
be: part ollhe l1om1a~i buDdIng permir review pro-
ass.
foe those trees e.at cannot be s.a\·ed __ 'len.
.uffid<n! soil conditio", JOe beollhy gro><''''. "'""
penni'> will be ;'$Ued "" _ removal
Where canopy loss is,;gniikant ond im!pI..: ..
able tlexI"'ble aJtemati"ve are proposed, such itS ..
4:ontributioo 10 some type of a Ot)' tree canopy lund
rocld be ....oe.
-The !lees are included .. '" in1egl>! part of tie
planning and building process,. providing opportuni
ties for .. Ylng lrees.
10
5-Effed 00 developers and bonding
contractors
l
Tree i'ro"h!(fiOl"',.and tra"lagement Of"dinaJ'\oCe5
,re cornm:ln !n cities in IItu! 'Bay }.rea; Ihey are not
.-nything new 10 developers .and buud1ng c-ontrac
.,.,.. By "'" Oty of Palo Alto having dear and
consistent tree protection meASures, ",rf' provide ..
level ptaying field whidl teWill"d5 CDn5dentious
builders iNtead d encouraging buuders wbc take
s1lork:uts ""~ damage' I1Ii!:Joc asset or Out com-
tnU!'ury •
6-Effecl 00 tree companies
In gene<al.n lOpping an<! ,.,.,.,. pnming of
trees, public: and private.. would be: banned. The City
would notify 10al ~ companies of this new .. - --
regulation. Tt-.is is not anythirlg new to t:ee Compa
nies who wor\ in olhe:' 10caJ cities with such a ban.
1'1ili: provides iii ~el' playing field fOr-coru.cien60u:s
bee companks inst2ad of encOUtaging. those 'Wh.o do
irresponsible wort. which damages iii. major asset 01
our rommurJty_
--~------®~----------4G~--------
Research Findings
Members oIlbe Tree TilSk Force hive stud"Jed the rarest literature.,1horo'Ughly reviewed ordinanc6 of.
"umbez: of c$er dCes..and intero.'iew"ed city .staff in. neighboring cities i'1 Cr!OeI 10 benefJ: from !heil oper:
era.. !esldes leam!ng wnat ~b!nd' doesn't woc\ in creanr.g aM impl~ting tree protection iU'\d
mat'lagemenl ord"ltIanCe5, this edLKAlIWo expanded our ttr.de;stand-'ng of Ihe many oIddltior.a1 benefits of trees
ihal argue foe ~ need 10 protect ptivate trees.
.first pro1ec1itlg the overa11 canopy of trees wbich produces communi ty-",,;.ae benefits, and
second. pro!eCting notewol'fly "herilage" trees that Me unusuaDy beautiful or distinctfve, or .. r.tre spKfes, or
historic:;t1jy vo:1'uabl.e 10 1he Qty. or native 001:5 ,.,i1icJ'o1 Ien.:f character to a neighborhood.
Community-wl<Ie benefits 01 overall' tree ca nopy
A minlmum catIOpy coverage of trees Ihrough
.out fle enlire Oty can~te;, to Q5 in mary aruu-
!iced ways. .
Reduce Air PoDutioo
trees act in two. majOt: ways tc improve air
qu.anty. F_1I1i!J ","",ve aubon dioxm and o!her
pollutant p;e; fro .. "",.i<."d then '*"" oxygen
whidl helps dilute poDu!oW: concentratioN, further.
Moreover, by Icwer!ng _per •• ures, they Ml'
reduce "'" fomIo6on of sroog. ~o"", they aid in
"'" """""aI ofaU-l>orn< pankulales !ike sand, dUSl,
pol!er1. and .mob b, lrapping these marerials on
CheIt IeaYe!li~ twigs, and branctles. Trees al90 ajd .,
~ removal of airl>oau! parIid<S by increasing
humidity \lu=gh Im\Spintioa """'" hell" w>sh
_ patfide$from the air.
Water COnservation
T""", planted 01'0I1J>d Muses can ind'lI'O<dy .
save huge ~ of water". Wlthout I grftn
canopy, f\omeowne,s inaease their use 0( ... ter,
piU"Ciclirarry b laWN'. Trees he!p reduce the amount
of slormwater runoff (and con.seque:nt erosion).
making more water aYal1a!>te for aD !tie plants..
Enviroornenlal Moderation
Urban Ara.,; wju\ little veget:i6or!. can experi.
encl! .tempenhJres of up 10 seven deg-retS rugher
Chan ~ with hc!.a\)' tree c:wer.
Trees reduce 1he wind inlerb"ily-d'efmiteIy ~ _here.
Trees dampen noise from streets and high
""-ay5-
Comnooity-wide Economic Benefit
T~ ILl'E' an important elements of '!Iutlamg a
posieve overall coc:ununity image.. key facto£ in
Iocationa! decisiCl~ being made by busi"rlas ~ecu
lives for their comparues..
Reill es~te \'aIues rise on 5ites with'mat:.lre .......
Mea Ith EleP.eflls
Studie are beginning 10 estabrLSh just 'haw
mud! diffe:rwce ~ can ma'ke. "study by 1he
11
': __ --'~~~ .• 'd'-~·--~. ~-":-":-"':'--"" ..... "-~----.--
. ~",
",---. .
-:---
Ul"lve.'"'Sfty (If De~<lIe found tloat hospfta! patieI1ts
who 'cDu.ld ~ tr~ outside their w'.ndo\l\.'1 iro..5~ad of
oil bta.;,k. ~'3n ex~~ more rapid rt'COvety and
that !hey requ:1red fe""et pai...ooDers. For tho!;e of us
not ~ ~pi~1s at 'he moc;et,t,. few lio'culd d~"'\j the
restorative po\oO,:ers ::.fvie\o.1ng and UYing ",'!tn
beautifoll mature tr~.
,'.
----~<:>~----------
Community kfenrity and Character
Our trees are il ~jor camponenr of thi: imagl!
of f'aJo Alto.
Wildlife Habitats and Ecosystem
Prolection
Ob"'icusly. tr~ pr.:ll.id.e-il \O.'1de .. a.."'lC'ty of
ha~itil~ inr aD 5o:)rts of t-irds, D1d.mma!s, a..rd ct."'ler
.... i1.:f!ifE. C(\!"",~""'ationists re..:ogniz.e the i."port':'!'I.:e
of ma.:.nt?lni;:'lfj i~C:'·e ec:Cls:";,~.;:-ms.
"----._--••• _---.,---,,, .... >,---"'-----.~-----
"::. ~
":--
~-'-:;-~>~
; ... -'.'-"..-.
;-'-,>" -:"::
.----~~----------..... 'J
Research Findings·
Heritage of native oaks
A sense of priW!-
A sense of comrrn.lru"ty~
Many of '-1S Jivmg in PaTo Alto mme frcm other regvx-.s 01 !he country and tf11!' desire k) recn:ate the
ta.,dscape of one"s, home Gl\ ~ surprisIngly po ..... erful Yet there is also.a sense ~t we can. ieam 'to appredate
the natural endowments. of the pla<-e ",'he..F'i! ure now Ii-... e, In this rart cl Califomia's coastal vaneys the r.atu.tal
oa): forest is a doefintng vi..sual element. Beu1.u.se nati\'f!' oaks :al:e ge'-""'r.!tJons 10 reach their full' majesty, tt .... ·rn
take genera60ns 10 (ep-tacO! a."y I1\.at we lose.
They belong here
Pate AltO has beer'l 'he:e fo£ 100 years. The
Ntive oaks t."we been h~!'i!' fO(' eons. T.'1ey harbor"
!he r~l iency to tIve for <::erW_u1es and p,o\'lde a
liv'ing heritage enjcya1 h1 many gen.er.\tions.
t.eg~ has "it that Palo Alto was named for.a
Iar.dma.rk l0dwood tree under wNc.'h f..e PortcT.a.
rxpedition encamped in 1769 on the banks of San
Fra.r.cisquito Creek. 1'he
Coast Live Oales a...,d Yaney
Oates. whkh lrufy domInated
tf>.f landscape. were perl11lrs
therl..as now, taken· for
War1ted.
In fact. tWO species Of
naove trees., Coast Uve Oak
!Que«us agrilolia) and \'an.y
Oak fQue::cws Icibatl). N.ve
since prelUstodc tlrru5. been
Ihe ll'Iost abundant: and visibTe
livil1g fuarure of Ihis regfol\. ill
rn.aj:x natu.ra! cNrac'"..eretic of
ks appearance and its a p peaT.
Traditio(\' C\.l1ture.
written ind" photcigraphk
records demonstrare d1.1 t
arUma! and: b urnan tife M\ 'e
coexlstf'd .... i.th ozks'Jbr thousa.""lds of years. from the
days of California 1J1dians fru-ough over or.enund.-ed
years:)( Euwpean and All1""T;can settl"ernen(,. o<'_\:.s
prol.i"ided shelter, food, fu~ and de.'!'a!'k~ fet~le
pa.:-tur~ .... "11 farms.
By d1e time Palo Aho was ~ncDrporated , _
hundred years ag(l, oak tre0;5 stiTI domlnated the
spacious landscape,. yet as t11l cen tu.ry progre;5ed,
. ----.
~-~~,~. __ ~·~"_~'~.~'A' ____ --_
-:-~...;. ,.~.;,
.'< '-' '." .
. "-:'
-.,,,-
-----®r---.. -----0---.---
'Ill1I;JI\ization has at ~ ever-acce1e:riiti."'lg rate ttken a
lOA 0tI native cab.
Palo AllaM NV'!.. at times. l'ECogr'.h.ed the va.ke
of ow cab. In 1902, sc:OOoIchJldren _paigned 10
save some ollhe 1<tg' oaks which W1!n! ,cr,edule<! 10
be rem<wed I.S hazards lOr earry aUlO1nobile trafflC.
SimpI)' by paWing I!lelrunks ",hI"" Palo Alto
maJVgEd 10 ret.lin thr oaks,. many 0( whkh W'e stIn
<r1joJlOday. In 1976, tI' .. publlofion 'The Tn'<S of
Polo AI"'" photographed and celeb",,,,,, ',"e .bu..,.
dant oaks,. 50 cf-wracteris6c ollhe Palo Alto land
scape.1gradng] '!he ~6at area!> of olde1 Palo
AI10 and par" of downh>WJ\. '
Solled to local climate
o,.er '!he D'linencia.1ht native oaks t-.a';e
sW'vived and Wived because ihey are perfectly
adapted to our Mediternnean type climate a.,d our
particular IyjlE5 of soli. Before wl>anlza !lon, ""Y
grew in conditions olwinter raIn and summer
drought. often wi~tand'"mg wind. fire,. n"&.""t aftad
and dise6Se to ive foe two centuries or rrore.
By asing na live ods appropriately in (lur
landsc:.aping, we reduce !he need foe irrigati011.,
/ertillz.en and pestlddes. A susl>.inoWl. Ioca! eoologl
.cal ~ if reinforced .... Uf'l every nallve oak we
Flant and F"""<'-
Problems
-'lOday a_ "heritage 0.,," ..
adding..rue" OliIlioo-dollar homes. Yet "'ere
remaitJs wideipread 19norar'\Ce' about !he ~$ 0(
\tee native '-ees. Few resident!. can "identify 'them,.
iP!' a1.VoltE' of their impressIve age. or rearae what
dley contribute 10 our dly in aesthetic dwacter;
ecoIogic.aI baIanc .. or property .alues.
1n 1980, SheiJa Darr. ,J horo..~1t-.... ra1 consultant
hIred by lhe city to study pubficIy-ov.'Nd oab.
srat:ed in her report that Palo Alto was 1csfl"lg in oab
due to iJ7"OtanCe and laci of prDleCtion. ~eve1". when.
munkipaIi ties recognized the val'-ue (If the large oak
trees ir; Catifomla~$ arid summer cfUT\.ati!;, ignotar\C~
of the detrimental impacts of common construction
and hortinilhl raJ: yctCtkes on fhe nan"!;'!' oaks re
:ru.1ted in rapid de:eriorafion ofmarure trees sud
derUy sub~..f'd to the urbanizatio<t process~. She
rt'C..Jmrr.end-ed' stEps lO slow WI-"ffl IT-..e process of
deteriQfiHi')[", ar.d to ~·urage regeneration and
refOrestatiOIi c{ ~ese Sfedes.. Sadly, ~("pl for" some
urgent care of park oaks, tlu! cit)' did r,et foflow her
~omrr.endations. The Parl.::s Departrner'f cOhtlr,ued
un.hl lIet} recently 10 use irrigation pra.<;tices ult;"--:
D"Ul:te1y fatal to ancien! oaks. The targe ~"id beloved .
Rinconada Par .. ook lost m 1992 ·",:as the "'iI.:;tim of oak
FOOl fungus .... hidl c"I.'erwhelmf'd ir after yean;. of :
!-\lmmer mga-non.
The 1951 Tree Task Forc~ recommefl.ded specif'k
measures to protect Ihe oId oaks, such as O"oCn.~g
pavement away '&00\ the liunks, m..~':.ng irtiga tlOn""'i"t .
le.a....c;t 10 feet cr,Jm the trunks. improving draInage.
and reducing soil cDmpiKtion. However, re::ornme:n-
da60m were again 19r.Dred, more and InCiria' Nuve
o.aks on pubrlC property have UIU1eCe.S-SariJy died or
been reotm,ed .
l'\IHh !he .increasing rate of constr .. cticm and
remodA&ing since the early 19S0s~ our city has.1ost an
equal .. n.x greater I1umber of oaks on private
property, and ll"\Mly InCIre are dectw.ng. Some of this
loss is c!ue 10 .simple oM age. :However, CilTE"tesS
corutruc'lion prac5ces and inappropriate landscaping
""'ill continue to take a major mit unless the dty gives.
concerted attentiOn and an c.r.gomg program of
education and sensiti ..... e regulatioo SO we <an pre
serve and regt!Oerate 0 ur valuable oak rarest.
":. .. .' ./
,
..: _.
'-
•
;-
------------~D~------------~~~.-------------
Research Findings
Tree myths (or why trees need PfOlection)
TIle stn.lcture 0( tree roots mirror the
lop of the tree: deep and within the
drip rme.
MoM .ctive tree roo~ are witht. .... 12 to i~
iN:hes of the S'.1rUc't. ar.d ha"'e a. !oot ~ far beyond
1tw! drip line of !be lree--typiCaDy .reachlng out I
dI..;.tance of ~ to nvo times the ",.eight of Ihc-~ It
you .s.evetp!y da.mage iN! roots. you risk the health
and evet the-fife of Ifle tree.
Trees do not need oxygen, espedany
underground.
Trees produce OlC'~ above ground. but they
rnl1M 'have. o~ undergrolJ.t'\d in ordet roc die
<hemicaI p rocesses 10 tUE place whidl. enab Te !he
rOots tJ. »bsoE\l vita! ['Iutrlen'tS. Compacted' soil
.s.eVefeTy restricts th.e ;1, ... anabtli!y 01 oryger. .... 'NcR in
fum results in poet tree fleallh ..
If the SOa becomes ~cted. it
can be easily fIXed.
~ trea,tments reduce but do not e!imi·
na t2 soU COmpiKtlon. " Oournal c,( Acboricuiture. Iuly
1994,. p. 2(8) It is t-etter 10 !2'ke measures lO p!'!.'t)ej1J
soil cOtTtpac:fiao fhatI '"' 'rj \0 flX it loiter.
Insects and microorganisms a re the
pfimary cause of many tree
problems.
These organisms-are often secondary i!ger'I!S
that attack weakened. '\VOul'.ded .. improperfy aeated,
.Mg\ected. 'lI\d geneIaIly l.l!\heilhhy tre6.. F>ghMg
Ihe secondary ilgents lhat are often 'i'e!}' obvious, cr
!he 5ympWInS or pool 'he;l1 th. will not solve the basic
problem... The primary probiem orgaftisms are
people ar.d an the ~Les.5 dafl"\il:ge w",e do d'1e b'"ee5.
Topp":Jg trees doesn'! nurt them.
TOf'ping trees. i~ il $erlcIus. injury reg.ud~
how it is done. A vuid it if possible ~)" starting 10
ptune eari)' 'in the' h!£ of !he tree '" regulate its sa!!
a..,d shape.
Tree toppUlg is d1e most COiOtJy mooey
was:ti."'Ig tr~ tre.itment in the world. Money is
""a:.-ud ttorhen trees are topped and mutilated
because ~ trutn'leni I.lsuaD'j 'm'~s;. be repealed
several ti.rnes and in tl'1c end Ihe trees become very
dangerous, Then .more !l'"l0ney ~ need~ Joe
u-<!a t:rnent:s that red\.Ice IIhe high l\az.ard risk.. If.l
tr~ mu5t be tc>ppi!d. then .it is tJ me for .II new tree.-
15
G ~ ________ ~ ______ ~_~ _____________ ~ ________ ~~~~------C ________ __
A tree should look pruned when it has
been p!'IJfleO.
Sometimes people think.. if ! don '"I: see ;& .p ile of
wood and' sawdust at Ihe !bot of !he tree af~ d1e
rruner is &.:IN!!. why am 1 Faying this &'Jy7 Some
PfOP!e aIso Irur,11hey should be abr.e 10 ~ !he
interior of '!he b'ee an c~ up wilh 1ea"'es. ;.Jst 0('.
:he O'Utside edges 01 d-.e brdl'lChes. Tr.ees don't h"l:.e a
Shod anycrore fhan you do, SO you 'ha"e to go
8!'aduarty and even iflen r'le'\o'er comFle!eTy oper1 "'P
lhe:lnrerlor of iI tree-Q\'EUpruning 5rgnif;c~ntly
w-ea'kens a tree. rr.akfng it susce-pb'bte 10 il'~ and
disease:.
A good prunirog is lib a good hairC\.It-I'Iot
OVel"OOne.
T feeS cIo no! get suoOorl1.
~run1."'\g 'J.sually tl5utts in branct.es
getting sunburf\.QuSing bad damage INt is an
open invitation 10 oj'LSeaSIi! and ~
T fees are so big and tough, nothing
ca n injure tt'.eml
AI (irs: gance .ill 'IIeff-prur.ea tree often bcics like flO
wo.'i': was done a! all e\-"en aIIer an arfloriS hBs spern
a good amount of firr.13 removfng f1ume/'OUS carefuJ1y
ssrect9d bt:817Ches. Like a good hairclL
•
.j
.~::; . .:: -:~
.-.
' .. -
, " .
~. <~-;;.!:. , .
---------~~------.----~@~--------
Research Findings
Common damaging p!'uning p!'actices
Topping
The c.Jifuo-.la t.g;slaru", """,ay enacted •
law, Governmenl Code ...,';;'0 S3{J67, whi<:h strongly
cli..cQ,uagos III< practice: "iopptng i> th£ p"",tk. 0(
culting _large-dia_ b<an<lles of I .... ~
.... '" stubs ""d is. par!icululy d .. trudi" pruning
pcactia!. It is stressful 10 tN:ture ~ and Ny resu1t
in reduad vigtx .. decrme., or even. datil or trees. In
addition. N!:W"branc:hei dli;t forlI! be1o",,-1h2 cuts are
0.",,>, weakly.'-'" III< ,,,. and are in danger of
splitting out. Topped h"ees require ronsfanl maitile-
l'Ii!nce to prever'\t this from 'happening and it is often
irnp<:Jsiib!e: ~ rP.:Store ~ str1Xture of the tree ClO1o<o'n
_ftc< lopping."
Severe prunIng (Of <lea tIl by a
IhooJsand Ctrts}
The proud bftowner shows off his or her
.newly pruned trI!e ~ has had an !he interior
fall!ral b.-.ndl<s removed, exposrng!he ~.andso"",
lree SInKture:. U'lfortur.areJy. this Is a prime ~pte
of severe prunlng wrua. an darr.a,~ h health 0{ a
!tee.
M'wtipTe wDUnd"mg and associated' redllCl:ion in
pOObynthetic area an leave trees wide open to
disease. Over-ll'liruUng can be th£ beg\IInlng of.
cycle cl events lhat mly cause a ttee to star\le to
dea!l\.
1be o\,e.r-thinrung produce; a.. grow:h re
sponse. \!:Sing ~ tree'" energy resources that hav!,
'beer. stored from previous se~ growth 'in '!he
trunl: and !he roots.. The;e ate !he te:SOUrQs !fJ.eo treE!
ub .., wa.ptj off ClS€a5e and (cmptl.t"bnEntanu the
decay caused by woul"'K:fing. Decline typkaDy
occurs, rad""KaIly decreasing roe viabte life span and
dramaticany increasing the lik.eUhood of pac6at (K
1Ota1 tree faD ute.
The excessive remDval of limbs aIs.o :introduces
Struct> .. nal problems. For exampTe, !he removaJ of
inferiot brancl"1es along .. limb SO that the only
leaves iL"'l! at the end ollhl n~ (tJ-lis is a~
'ioo"s .. t.;.ilirogl crUt2S a conditiOn that O'o':e:r time
an reslllt in the br,1.rw:n being so .end~ lhat it is
susceptible to brea"kage.
Multipie pruning wound~ cari result iii iI •
cootin:Jous coJUD'.n of dealy along iii limb. Overex ..
posure to sun GlJ\ ca~ bumir.g and rupturing of
~ bar\..1aying \he tree o~ to insE>ct Of funp1
infecti..:Jn.
In a healthy, ma ture tree, no more !han 25% 0(
the fun...-tioning leaves and sL:!m; should be re.
moved iiJlf one time.
J1.e;pon.,bfe.roon.\s will not lOp <>< 5<Verely
prt1l""le trees.. But the typE: of pruning ~t e..""1Sure5 the
long-tam he.lI11 of a ".. !ypi<:aDy costs mot;! -
mitial1yand rhe treeowner goes tOr the lower bid of
'!he irrespons.ible-tree "surgeon". The-treeowner wiD
evenr:wny pay more in the lang run as. remedial
action is needed 10 ;ittempt 10 repa tr Ihe damage
dorte by tht bad pruning.
17
> -
'j >.10
-'.
-----"G>~,; ---·-~O
Research Findings
Criteria for a successful ordInance based on
actua I experience of other comm un1tl es
It is critical thaI parnes affected by
tree proIection and managemen!
regulations be irnolved in t'1e creation
0( !he regulations.
N..1o interest,group should be feft or..t The best
onfmance in Soe wodd witt not be e..'1t>oetiVE if -.here is
no coma>unlly support ror it.
The program is cuslOm-la ilored 10 !he
corTYTlOOity. reflecting wecrrlC and
measurable goalS and objectives 01
the commuoily.
~ is no one right ¥nt] 10 do it.
It is based on rear probr2ms experienced by the
community.
Identify ".>hat Fs most important,. avoid the
nilpkklng &yri<IrOmE.
Use. nrfety of tools. 511Ch as zonIrlg codes,.
guidelines. and o,cfman.:es.
Education and COfM'\Ui1!cation
sigoificaotIy ease the process
Education should be directed to .... "al'd aD parties
affE.cted by or Kwolved ",,"itn the tr2f: probKtioo. ilnd
managemenl measures:-
• developers know what is required of tf-oem.
proolems will be greally redoced.
'9
Covemrne...,1 needs to rnalu! an effort to under
sEimd how tree protection requirements un be make
to mesh most: effidenl1y with Ihe de\.·eIorment
procCSf
Inform !he citizens ai)..)ur tree pro~ noo
~2:S\.lriS SO they de not inaC .... ertently violate
~L!1a6ons.
A precorutruC'tion c.OI",f~renc~ betweer. city sUff
and' fhe develop€!',i!1d the con tractors has pr\.W~
US<fu1.
Training sessions can be given 10 cons~1ion
employC'eS. .
Oe!{elo~r5 a..""1d (or .re.aJ'tors ro~ld prm'ide .
brochures. such as.an "'Oak Tree InfouTlltion Pad:.et~
to buye.Ji; of property. • .•
--. A critical step is idenVfying the
reasons lor preservation end
estabftshing the va!ue.s-aesthetic.
envirorrnenlal. and erooomic-of
tree COO5eI'Vatioo.
Successful tree protection is an
ntegral part 01 corrprehensive
CO!T'lThJoily planning and
envirormental protection. as an
overaR tree management plan for \he
CO<'I'IT'Illnity. w~.h \he plaming process
being iocorpo.-ated directly into the
.~ .
------'----~------
IancI deve1opmenl: process,
TIft $Ul'\Iey5 and tree pro!:ecDOrl pTans are
required and reviewed oIons wilh "'"'" penni!
<crutru<5on drawings ...a. ... groOmg W dr."'''g<;
eroslort controf.. underground ub1ities. at'd ~d
!mpnwements. i'tUs review process is s\lpp1emen:ed
by an 0<Hib! anaJys!s.
Provide for flexible implementation
but according 10 clear standards
The ordinance itseY is bpt.as brief ilS ~SiDIe.
A separate 1ec:hnkaI' manual provides detailed
standards,. muscrations~ and gvidelities.
Provide.a prescribed' de"\$iry of trees per .acre
upon proJect completion ~g ill combination of
saving ItreeS and rep!acing SOmE' trees.. a course.,
saving as many ~ as po5sible is €lhphasl::ed,
Enforcement is crltical. utinzing a
blend of both incentives and
penarties,
PtOlection of existing trees can count kJ\.o,'a!d
the landscaping requirements..
Extra creaK can be given t)ward!. on-site tree
cover requ~ Nt aze sa tisfied ~)I preserving
existing trees.
Special c-edits could be offer.ed rot protec6cn
provided beyond me requirement>-
0---------~<)r-------------------
AWlrds and plaques can be used in helping IkJ;
marl<e! "'" develop'" and pro'j!d
~ The real' chattertge is desigrung incentives lha.t
are valuable enough to ~k.! ex2mptary treE' pt'otec·
tion efforts worth~1e. 'The n;1w in most zonltLg
n:entives is !hat they are often designed .... ;thoot
ilSking the deve1op~t oommamity what would be
.an e:ffeclfve boous or !hey ront1:in such complicated
procedl!re5.and criteria to quarry that the incentives
go unused.
T WQ vf!he most po~'erluJ en.furcemenJ: toors
have been up-born cfeposits in escrow accounts 10
guarantee perfocmar\l,.-e 0( tn.-e "oroserviilion plaJ1s ..
and denial' of c.e.rtdkates. o( occupancy at ~ tail-er-.d
of the development prOCI5> ~nen tree conservaJion
plans bav~ not been complied' with. An ane.m.ative
~y be "0000 !he tree protecticn ~.;.. but
dlere may bE-diffICulties in coOecong on the bord.
"k:i d1e penaTly to IlIe "alue of !he trees re
moved.
. -----.
8asertne informatica ,;oout si te conditions and
StDp work orders have proven useful
The posi.tions respansibte fOe code enforcement
have in genera:! proven to be il more effICient. less
lime-consuming aitem.!lfive in al1 aspects of zonln...g
and land -use 0ld'i1'li11'lC.1! enforcement.
Tree mar.agemen! ordinances are
evoMionary in nature,
"Poan for rev"tew oitId le'li'ision.
•
, "
______ ~@~··~---.----~o~-------
Proposed Ordinance Elements
SectiOn Contents
I-ntie
2-Pwpos< and In_
~~T""
t-Definitions
5--I)etermination O{DefitUtion ~ a Tree
Hurisdktion
7-Nomlnatfon and Usting of Hsrl<>ge T,ees
~
'-ProIubitions and I'roIe<tfoos
)Il-I'runlng
ll--RemoVal. and No6ces hquired io< Removal of
F.-T ....
l2--Appeals
I.3--Prolection Measures and No!lces Requcn.! lor
Woric Signifio:andy Alfecling A.~ levels of Pr<>feCled
T,...
14-Tree Canopy Requirements and Reforestation
15--Incentives for' CompIiatKe'
16-Per.al1ies Soc NonrornpUance
l1--Hetp b: Otizens. in Meem.g ~uire~!:S
l!\--E:11OO:ement
l'l-Designa'" MmlnWra6v. hsponsib<1>ties
20--C00per>tfon Between ~""'"""ts and Agon
tie>
21-Perforrnanae E-vafWl6on 01 OrcltnanCE'
22-UabDity Disdalmer
2.>-Sev ... billly
l-Trtle
TREE fROTECllON AND MANA(;e,{fNf
ORD!N.'.Ncr
t
2-Purpose and Intent
The Crty or PaTo Alto is endov.'ed" and fOrested
,",,'iih a variety olvaJuabre tr~ whld'l must hi!
protected .atlJ preserved in order 10 retain the
benefits 0( tree canopy itS wen IS IN! vaTu.: of cer1ain
irldlvidual and" native trees. The preserva lion of a
minimum o\'eral'l tree caMpy is essential w the
1lealth,. wl!lfare, quality of tife and eco~mk bel.'efits
of '!he cltizet'ls ri Iht o!'j beoa1.l5e 'these ~i!5 pteser-·e.
W s«nk. Qea.uty 0( the dty. matn~fu ecologkal
bala"-lce. prevent erosion of top soil, <:ounrer..ct .... ir .
potiutiQn and oxygenate !he afr, absorlJ noise,.
maintain dima tic a~:mkJodj mark batance,.. help
blod. ",·ind, and provide wde and color. For dlese
same r~ns, 1he requirement of;l: minim.um tree
canopy co· ... erase. e)!du:sive of dly-owned u-ees.oL1-.
e<'e!)/ re5idetltiallot ilI'l!,"I parking lc~ in the city
s~u'd be part 0:1 the pe.nrUt process. for MiY ron
strucrioo or remOOefmg. W,-l'\eed IiO establish atld
maintain a rrUnlln um. stlndard of !fee cover on
pubt>e and pti\o-ate Ia.nd~ in ltIe Diy" The sta.ndard Es
lei be described in Che separa t2 T echniatl Tree
Manual.
The City 01 PaJo Aho ~ also endowed with
ma:gnlfici!1'l1 individual tr2'es.l es-peciaD, O\lf Ntiv~
oaks, Nt make STgnificar.t oontri"bu6or-.s to the
strong sense of place lhat dermes the d\aracter 01
P .. lo A1lo.
It is the in~ of this cNpter k):
(a) Es.~brlSh re"g\J1aoons ar.d standards f..x the
removal of protected trees and ihe p1antitlg of trees
in r.ew ronstrucnOl.' and' de>:etopment consistent
-.".
wi'" thes.ep~OhIIII>e ,....".,ble"""""mic
~ of pc .. ,. property.
(hI &labTJ5h :egWati"" Il'Id standards " b&n
deslr"dive 'pnming' prac6<a Nt "''''' ..nous
injuzy '" _. ofto<> resulting'" d.,;i deiolll 0< fl>e
ou.cion al ~ rond\1l0r6-
3-?ofic!es Regarding Trees
It shall be !Iv> p<>liq <>f I!.! Oty '" maximlu
ihe planting of trees<X\ Y1J.blic J.nd private 1ar.ds in
the city. planting n.ative o.1ks ~here appropriate.
A Technical Tree Manual snaUaa.orflpany this
Of'd""1t'IanCe containlng dear standa-r& for reviewing
tree removal penni!s, Tree Frof£lc'tioo. Plans during dev.Iop""""""" pkolins-iL"<llor de1onnWng.
mlnlrnum require~ fcI: tree <:~ef" IX GaJ'IOf'Iy on
.1 site..
4-Oefnftioo$
Ca} "Di!H"';, \he 0iameU!r of 1I>e .... trunIc.,
_ Heigl\! 1Whlclt ;, 54' alx>v,1ho natuJal grade.
1») "Dov.rop""",' '" 'redevelop"""" .... n
.".." any won upon any property in the City 01
p~ Ano tIt'hid1 requires ill subdiviSion. va.rlaN;:-e..
.... pmru'l. bullOlng penni>. '" 0_ .pproval oc
which involves e:cuva.t3Ot\. tan~pinS 0(' construc-
!iOtl in Ihe vlclruty of lIJ\y proleCli:d tree. lnduded
ir. the defini:t)ot\ is the c%e:ftwlition of a. structure.
«) .~ ..... , 'LevelOoo' protected
tre<san:
(l} 1'wo speaes 01 native o.;..'ks~ Q.lel"CUS
ogrtfolla !Co.., Live Oak~ and Q.<.""" lob ...
{V.TJeyOaklof 115' in 0 .......... (36" in dzrumfer
enc:t=} or 1rot'2 wben m£.aS'\.ttE'd 54" above r.atutar
g<ade.
J
(2) "Hal1>ge" ...... so de>1ll"Oiod by !he Ci<y
Council upon !:he recommendation d. h Tret
.... _dvisory Boaraj. ~tage" is any tree,. grove Qf
"..., shrub or g.oup of shrub> whkh """,IS one of
t1'.e fonowing alteria:
-ul"'IYSU.illy beautiful ric distinctive-
-"se
• a ~ or W'lUsu.aJ species roc the areac
-a tree ~hkh provldes. t;aiuabte Mbi~t
-h~ncany vatuable to die pty
ld) 'P,ote<:\i!O 1<""' "uvel i;wo" pror.cted
trees U'e:
(l) .All trees 0111 S in d"tame~ (36'" in Cir
cumfer-enc:t) or mort wN:n measured.54'" above
""'l'ml gt>de-
'"---
(~) 1'rotec1ed .... ·,"Level Three' proW<ted
tr'Ii'E!S are:
(l) AIl trees existing within IS months on illot:
prior 10 submlssion or plaro "'..., PlaMing Depart
ment or klr ARB ltvlew.
(2J AI trees requi.-ed to t-epfotected, sa'je:l,
w /ot. planted, including SI:r@eHI'~ as part of
AAB .appro,,'aI ofJ. project ot: as a coodition of
deveIop~l
(Z) Any tree: requil'~ 'I) be planlEd .as nopJa<:e.
ment{s) fof-.an lJ1'Ilawfuny removed tree.
21
""'
; ---.: -" ". /".
-----'tiIiG'----.. --Q~----
<I) "Pmon' meaN any pmon. flnn. partner
&hip, associ>tion. corpond"" rompill')" <>r <><giUll .. -
lion olany kirid,
19) "i<omov>l" o;!,a1\ mean cutting It> !he
groun<j. __ on. killingby spraying. gin:I1ing. 0<
any o81er means. Remov-d! shan i'dude.. bwl not
_., darnag. inflkl<d to !he ,00< SYS"'" by
machinery, sforage of materials Or sea compacliOl\.
~g the naMal gr..ru. above '" below"'" roo<
system or irOur.d tl\e trunk; damage ~ on !he
~ pertnil1ir.g fungus infectfon or-pest infestation.
severe or PCeSsi\.-e 'pruning; paving.r;th concrete.
asp"hah. or other impervious materiaJ within SU<:h
pwdnu"ly"'" be MnniuJ to eu, tree,
(hJ "Sev-ere or excessive' pruning-is Ih£
remoyai ofrr.ore than 2S 10 33 per.cent 0( lfle rune
Ijoning1eaves and sli!-ms of Ii J'n1!;ture b'ee.
(il "Topping' is Ihe P""'''''' ol cutting bact
1arge-<rwneter 'branches of a m.tIture b'ee to stubs..
ID"T"", Ted\nical "'"",uar, the sep.rately
pubri:shed manual wpported lry Ihis orcrlN.JlC't that
oon!alns'pedIic t2chnkal 8"ia.1lnes and spedfia
tiora to implement !he prO\'isions of It.is ordInance.
~Determination of Oefillition of a
Tree
Theclty arborist shaD ),;;ye Ihe righ' ., deter
.rune _ any spEdfic woody planf WJ! be
~.sidered it Ute or 'shrub, Sud-. defmill<Jn shaB be
final and not subI£'Ct 10 appeaL
/: "-.-:~ ~-:
c , __ :
&-Jurisdiction
To set forth tI'Ie jurisd1ctior. of the city over
f
The current language in t70e Oty 01 Pato alto
MunJdpal COO. Se<tioo s'o4.015 (Autrcruy of Ot)')
es!abUshed ccntrof over iD trees 00 any .s.treet. par'k,.
IX pI.I:'bIk rt..ce within 't'It Ot)'. The defu'lltlOn of
,treet -L'lcludes ail tand lying between the bound
.aries c(property i!l'uttLrIg Ol'l an plJbIk streets"
boulevards, iJneys, and wah"
This 5e<':lion of ihe OIrrent ordinance wouid be
modHied to 'ir'lcotpOrilte li!nguage to blend ~
aufhotity 01 IDe Gty 10 include prote,.;ed: trees: on at!
pri'/ate pro~ty in Para Alto. .
7-Nomtnatlon and Listing of
Hen1age Trees
(aj NoO'lina tion. Nomination for Herita g!;(-.
tree statvs maybe It\ade by any dtlzeI'l Wlth \he
<on.ser,t of the t"ee ""'''ner. A tree .ao!vi30ry group
s'haD review sud! nomi.ru nons and pre"Serl1 Ill's
recommendatiOl1S 10 the City Counc:Q for designa
tion.
(b) Listing. A listing of ""'" so &esigna'ed,
including Ihe specific locations the'"'" sfulD "" k"P'
by !he Tree ~artment and sTl.iiI] be iyaiJab!i! roc
distribu Iicn D interesl£od' dti.zens.
~) RlmovaL The Ot)' Counci!' may remO\"e
a d.es1gnalion tree from the list opcg1 its OlNIl motion
or upon request. Requests foe sud actioo maJi
originate :in lhe same man..1'\er oilS noml1"\atior; foe
prol.t!Cted tree sti!.rus.
. '
,
... . '
" ..
--------------~~r--------~--------~GJ;-----------------
~Emergencies
... the event lhat L'l emergency condition arises
~ _'" octiJn;, """"sal)' beCJluse 01 cnse-. or dar.,.. 1D!lie or property. a prolB<l<d tree
maybe n.rnovd or ol""ed by oro", 0( • city
amorist,.«, _be or $he is UN.'Va11abt~1 respcnsib1e
croember of the pOOce. fire. or parks d.rartment. DC.
by. Cf!t'tiIied'.tlborist In sua. event. iI report :iha1I
be mode ID the P\arvUJ1g (lop"""""t;wl .....
iIIdvisocy group desaibing !he conditions a.1'\d
necessIty of s~.an order.
9-f'rooibltbns and Protections
(al fIsmovaTs
No pro!eded tree (a!1 Le'lels) .ihat! be removed
from any parcel wichouf iI pennJl except as :1ored in
~
~ P1Olec!ion during development
Specifit. protection ~ 3...""e \0 be detailed
m .. Tedtrtk:a1 Tree Manual. The Ted\rIkal Tre-e
Manu.aJ will indude !he following-conditklns to No
oOsenred juring the construction or development 01
publk De pdv.", proper.y-.
(l} AI p",la:O!<!"'" az,., be 'un1lon<!.., by
oil ~ I'ence ,I dle mirilmum distance of the
drip1lne anc! the """.1> ID be maintained ... n
lima.
(2) 0\emkaIs .. or od'ler cons;tuctlon material.
or Mly vehicle shan not be slOred "dthi:rllht '-'esig~
I'Io1ted prob!c6on WIle fmir.imurn zone within the
ddpllneJ 01 IIny proTecO!<! tree.
(3) Signs,,..-ires. Ol similar devices shall not be
atLKhed to protected tre6.
, (() Mer coostruction Ion period of at te.st 5
years. an trees 01'\ the sHe must be inigatW and
rna ihtained in good hea1th by Ihe property 0WI"Ie!'.
Vnhealllly and dead frees must be repL>ced as per
the landsape plan appn:wed by the Planning
~utmenI art<i/or!he ARB. Changes., !he land,
.sope plan must rE! requested of Ihc P1anrUng Depart
ment and II record of !he approv~ cha..r.ges. ri1 u.st 't;e
iltUched tc the 1M.dscapiT'l& plan.
1o-PI1Jfling RequiremeOts
{a) P'rw'Ung Stmdards. All property owners
Of lheic designees and pubnc Ubliries, govemniehttl'
agencies, and iheir subcontr.tcllxs.shaD comply with
the Na6ona1 A:boI-N As.sociaI'lQrt StandaTds ior
Pr.mlng of Shade-Tre-es" -wt.en pruning trees on
p\lb5c. or pOVilte property. Th.e standard, are 10 be
inclu.ded in the r~ Tr~ Ma."'IuaI. -... --.
(b) PJ'Ol"t..lbit Topping oi Trees. No pUbrK Of'
priVilte tree is k; be lOpped that is 5" or more in
diameter Q1(;:jSured at S4:~ above Ilu! natural grade
.except ti required fiX' u tHHy line deara.ttce.
i<:) Prohibil Se\lere Frunlr,g. No tree of
estabUshed stu for that tree is to be severely pru.'"\ed:.
_. _.~~, .. r~. ___ ~"' __ -__ --
-'-
, ~'.
•
--------~G~· ------
11-Perrni'ts and Notices Required lor
Removal of Protected Trees
(a) level One protected trees. (Que"" ..
agtf<lia and Ouen;us !OOa1. of \1.s" db!> 0< more.
one! "HoriIage" "-]
(1) Oblairling Ohe remit Owners 0' II>eU
ilulhor'fud repcese:lfative ~ [..evel One protec!ed
trees an pubDc or-priv311! property sl\an obtaln a
permit 10 remove.l prot..eded tree. 'Th.e aFpIkafi.On
shall be on alonn fuInl;;nod by the Planr.ing Depa,t.
ment and .shan ~ta~ among o6ler things. the num
ber iltId location of the trees to ~ removed by types
and' the reason foI' renx:r:,,"aI of eadt The application
shaD .abo lndude.l certiFIed arOOrists report and
pIlorog"'fh with ",rrect oo .... -,kal iden, r>Cafion of
tht subjed tret! or trees.. An authorized representa
tive of 'tie Tree Section shall mab.an 'it'l$pection of
the ~J ti\d snan file il written report and. his or
Nt recommendarioos 10 tl-..e Pbnning Depart7nenf
and T ... AdviSofy Boani.
EXCEP11ON: If the pro~c! ~ is lOCJ:fed
within the buiIdinl foof'prinl of oil non~".uiance
hi14ing. Iben the pe:nn.iJ will be-,ufumafica111
~te4. The I:rH owner neK 01'11 "pply lot ..
penru'"t (withom an uborisf'1 rtpotU H'lcS pD!>t the
.ppro:ilK. pennit lD. .. coo.s.piOlOUS loo.liob UJily
risible So the pubIlc for 10 "'o1y • .after whick !he tree
dUlJbe RDlov-ed.. N a appu!.a .are .allowed from ...,...., ........
(2j Mua60n Conference Before Work Com
mences. A certified arbori$l from the TRoi:! Section
may requlre an educational conf~ to inform. Iile
OWNS' cl potential alttmatives to N pro~
=>oval.
(31 Criteria for rev~.t1g applka tions. In
revIewing oiIppIicatioru;~ the P.lanning ~anme:nt
24
-.
".' ~. " .-.
o
!oM! g~vt" p6crlty to those ba::>ed on t.nard. or
dange< of disease. In ,eviewir>g ead> applkation.lhe
PIann"'g Deportmenl and/o< !he Tree ~p_
wI! determine:
(i} The COI'ldition of ~ Iree or treES wi!h
respect " d~ dang ... of hlling proxlmfly "'
existing Of" proposed sl:nKtv res, yardS. ddv~'il}'S
and Oelt:r tte-es and interference 'With pUbrK u.tHity
servkes.
(ii) The: n~essily kl remove the tree or trees in
order to col'l5tn.lct any proposed improvemems to
anow KOnomic cf the properly.
[i") The "po~pny of Ilu! land and on..f!ect
of the renv.>vaJ or the tree or ~ on erosion, '!>Oil
retention and dl. ... ers:Qn Or ~ f\(IW of Sl.Il:fKt!
waters.
Ci~,) The ntrfl'lDel 01 trees existing in ltIe
neighbod100d on improved property and the effect
IfIe rerr-.)\'ahvouJd have on lheestWrished stan~ .
of !he area and property \'alue. Neighlxxhood is
defined il5-h area wjtl-tin a 300 foot radlll$ of the
property on.taWng 1he tree or trees in q\J.e<ition.
(v) The ecooomlc <OnSe<i"ences and obfiga
lions of requiring,a tree '" remain.
(4) Noti/ka6on. A decision s!>all be ren
d",ed hy "'" l'Iannlng Departmenlloo-.. d> appflGt
tion.. Writleh notif'Katlon of the dedsion shan be
glVaI to the i!.ppna.nt and al:-utting property O .... T.ef'S..
(5J Posting. The SpecifK trees ID be removed
shan be conspklJously indicated and the tree re
movil permJt application shall be posted for 10 days
in oil cons'pk~ous loi:atioo eastty Y\£ib!e 10 the public.
(6) Vandl ty Period of Permit. The detenni·
Ntion of 1he Planning Oepartrner.t shaD become
-, .
~ '..:.-'
>'.,
-------,~ ~----~o~·---------
IinaI and conclUSiv.e withIn ]0 days d notiIic:atioo.
and po<D.'8 it no .ppeai is ru.d. A pmnI. wD be
• .nd loc six """,11-6 on.. "'" dale t becotre finaL
Vi Approved.""" c:f Rolroval During "'_
Dey. ~-.Is shall _ plaa only dw.ng
rerogiUzed busi'nes:s ooW'S. tbJO a.m. 'io S:OO ,pm.
Mooda-"j O!u-ougll Sahuday.
(bJ level Two Protected Trees
(1) a>Olining "'" P ..... jt. Owners '" II><tr
authorized representati\'e of Level Two F101ecte<i
trees on private' prorert"j $hart OOf4"lin a free permit to
:emove up .f.tl rwo Levet Two prOtl!deO tt-ee within a
yur. The appbtlonshoD be 00 .lc<mfurnished
bylhe PlaMing Department and shaD ....... among
o!her 1hlr.gs.1he >pedes and _800(') 0/ !he lroo(.)
to be re:rncJl.-ed ... lt1e reasor.{s) tor rem(w.!. and if any
repr.c.",.". 1r00(5)'" planned. The PIannlng
Oepart:menf wiD approve up 10 two tree removal
penN't(s) without review" .. give the applkanl: inJor·
l'I\ilo6on on If-e val'IJe and. benefits or trees~ $O-uros lo
..:anlact for more information. send .a COpy or Ifle
per-mille i lref advisory groop. and place, copy of
the permit in h property fJe.
If more Iitar.. t\IttC Level Two b'ee{s) are Ie ~
removl!d Yt.a single yt:o!t.1Jw FLJnnIng Department
tNy review 1he .ppfilClltioo ilS per enter .... kH' te-..:ej
-Qne. trees and tr,~ renew the-appIiation 't!!"Ore
than 25% ollht trees. on the site are 10 be removed.
(2) PO<litog, The specific ..... ., be re<roved
shaD be mnspicuou5ly indl.cated and IIfle tree re
moval permil apptkatiort shaD be posted in .a con
spicuow.loCiI lion easily visibte kJ.1he pUbrlC foe 'J
day> _...ruch !he ........ y be lemoved.
(:ll Approved rune 01 Removal [lu.'ing Ihe
Dey. Rett<WaIs.nan lake placo only "",;"g
rec~-oni.%ed bu:s.lness ho urs, 8:00 .un. 10 5:00 p.rn.
Monday llu-ouglt SalUm.y.
. (e) level Three Protected Trees
(1) if tnore than 25% of the Level n-.r~ trees
are 10 N! remoyed, I fee permit is required Es.!ing the
species, dbh., height. canopy, and reason foe remol,'aL
1l-.e P"oannit'.g o.:.piiL'::'i:ner .. p1ares a copy of d'le
iPpro ... ~ permlt m the a.ddress file.
POSMg.. n,r~tty of 'pp...riod of pennit. and
. apprm'ed ti1"f'of' or p"JnOVitr are the same 2.S for Level
Two tre-es...
12-Appeais
(a} level One Prolecteo Trees
The penrJt a.ppIkant CK a.buttmg neighbors
may appeall!le .decision 01 the Platming.r~'partment
by filing"'1 .appeal in writing with the Planlli~ •
Department no later than fi"'e p.rn.. of Ib! tenth
caJendoJ.I day I!.<~ ChI? dedsiO(t. The appeal .shaD
,ready specify !fit reasons for which • 'hearlJlg ts:
""l ..... .at The P!ann;"g Dopartrnerl shaft ... 111e
mltter tor t"e'o'te<.aI by &e tree advisory group at its
next regular rneetir1g and pn;wide notice by mail of
II>< llearlng 10 !he appellant and appllcant .. 1east
five days priot tt-ereto. Destruction. removal Of oll1er
.... ·ori: en I protected tree shan nor corr.mence until
after the review and decision 0{ the tree advis.ory
group. The dedsion cl1he tree adv1socy group wn
be final
fbJ level Two Protected Trees
There t5 no forma! appoealli:x Level T .... o tre<i!5
e."(c-='pt for lob that are hadng more lhan 25% of d'leEt
25
-~,~. ~ ....... ----.----_ . . ..;~.
\leeS """""ed. Neighl>on ~-ho object to tho ....
JemOYal moy oI>Iain &om tho b eo .dvlsaty poup
information OC b'ee5 and med"'Jatior. fa[ If'Ieir own
.... If I .. ppea. .. Ihat.1ot is bMg deu<u\, citizons
are _god "call on. Pl.uWng DepartmEnt
iaun<dia!e1y"'.:.Oedt en fh> permll>.
13-Pro!ection measures and notices
required for worK signifICantly
affecting a I levels of prOfected trees
Ie} Site Plan
(l) Appllant Prov".,j", Si'" Plan. "'N!n
apptKatio.1 for development or redevelopment of II
pubfic Or private pro~e:,'!s flied if', aroy office or
~ of tho tity. tho i'<""" making sudl
.pp1ka!icrl sIlalJ filea site plan showing tho loa ,on
ofbYikrU'lgs 01 :;.ttuctures or of proposed sire dlstur
banc:i!s,. and .. !iite ~ survey s}u:rwlng:he location.
specie$, OOH. ii<1d canepy ci an ""'" .ffected by tt>o
P"'l"""d wod<. The project Mbcnst/1andSc,l'"
archn.ect 01 designer wD sur-lTJt ill signi"d statemud.
~t ~ tn!eSoo. fie sll;e are shmlm cOO'ect!y_
(2) Approval ofRem''''a) 01 T .... "'thin :he
Buildlng foo<print. Subject" fie repTacemeru
proYisiol.iS,. the Pla.....rung Clepartrnenf sha:G ilppro'll:
the removal of alllevefi. of protectaJ trees ~ithIn 1he
footprint of approved constr..Jction.. whidt construc~
'tier:. does not lequire a vaNn<;.e or special permit.
(3J De~6on 01 T recs ., be Pro"""'"
During: Consbuclion. In addItion 10 exi:;;ting code
requirements. the Planning Department shalt .dd the
Level Three protection to all trees to remain on '!he
Sill!.
26
.-.
" :"
;:j~-' i~.
·----~o~---------
(bJ Tree Prolection Plan
Prior 10 iswoiiJ?oCe of I building penn.L"t for
deve10pment activIties-covered by iliis orornance. I
Tree 'Proet(60n plaJ\ shan 'be s:ubmitted and ap
proved. A pl'i'(~"'tior. coruew'(:t shan take
ptK~ hJ w.'lew-procedlJ.r-~ fOe protectiona.."'Id
management or an protected fanc1scapE elements
identi F.ed on the Tree PI'Dtecion P.lan and to desig
nate one or more pe:rsons. as lAnd'$CiJpe Frotection
Sul'eNi""('~ Training may be provided. PholD
graphs of d"le site prior 10, during. and after construc
fion are to be 5upptled by IJl.e> devek>per J O¥o'1\ef.
(e) Enforcement Mec/1anlsms
[I) Deposits. ll-.e building r.emut appfKa.1.t
shan provide up-front deposits in escro-w KCDun~ to
guarantee performance of !he Tree r rotection Pla..,. If
'tht agreed--upor. treas1.ires iU'1!' N>t compfled With..
d-.e city CM\ use the fu.'"Ids to ~rfOrm !hE work. The
escrow amoUId is negotiated beM~ t!1e app1katlt
and !he Planning Depa.rt::me!lt? at the outset o( tlU! --+
project.
Cn) Stop War-X Order. Thedty may issue a
Stop Work Order when .. ~ or continuing
vk;.1/1t1on is noted.
ern) Certificate of Occupancy. A derua1 of
Certificate of Oa:-l.Ipancy s1'l.an be applied' until the
Tree Protection Plan lslulfmed.
tdJ Technical Tree Manual
SpEdfic..dtflmS for: p:-otecting tre(S during
.construction, &1Jidefines. for 6O'ow aJT'OUlllS and the
successful implementation of the Tree Protection
Plan sfoan be 10cared in IlIf Ter..hnkal Tree Man1.1at
"
~-----------~G)~----------
14-Tree canopy requIrements and
ref()(es!ation
(a} 1r~ Canopy RequIrements
Whenever the cSeYetop~ or redevelopment
of a stngl!!amlly l-.ome., d'LOp~ apartment house Of"
candomW:u.'TJ res.Wb ;".II\Y ir~ i"IlDt cove:ilge
cw /labi .. blo '1'_ !he property snan b< required b
meet minimum canopy <coverage requi:remen.ts oI:S
described in 6te Tedmk:aJ Tree Martual.
(b) ReforeSlafioO
Permits for pro1ected tree n:mo"ar s1lan b'\clu.....-\e
re.pli.ntingoonrufions usU\g guidefU'\e!. in. the Ted\rii
<ai Tree Manual wftid:I s.~ include the for-owing
gukle1111.,
Planning Der.artmer'tt will f\av~ !he QtSO'etlan !O
specify h size of the tree from 15 ganOrl ID 36" box
depending on good' horticulru rar prc1Ctices. aesthetic
(:cnsiderafil:xu.: and the spedes..1ocadOO and value of
Che-tree-~mo\'ed.
(e) Technical Tree Mancal
Spedfi<'au.ons k!c: planting. inctl)ding. irrigation
lim])s around exls5ng: and new natj,'e oaks, nUni
roum soli' volume a.nd canopy spilICe, 'ihaD be in
cluded in Ifle Technk:aJ Tree J.{a:nuat
15-lncentives klf' comprlClnce
. The -tree advisory group, wodir.g with L"'lter
es1ed p.trtk!s. will develop .. varie:y 0( incentives for
<:ompfiance with Ihis oral1\MW::e. Possibilities are
educ:a.6onat rrcgrams. a .... '3l'ds af'rd plagues, zoning
bonuses~ e.dril credia tpwMds on--site tree cOve>
requlre1ne'lts ~.at are-satisfied t.y .P~iJtg ~ting
trees, reduction Of aJU!ratlon ol par1cing require-
~ts, and !'ed1J'Ced' property tal( as~mertts.
~
16-?enalties ior ~ance
in addltion t:J any .other ,penalties anowe-j by
law, a."1Y pet"'.n'I rerr.oving a tree 1n v'iclatiotl 01 thiS
ordinance ts-6able to trebkdarnages as set £<x~ in
$edlon 733 of the Code of Ovil Procedure of the
s.. .. of Califo-. no. basis So< dainages fo< IIu.
purpose sh.1n be repJacemenI vaTue of the tree is
determined by (he mtemaMn.tJ So6ety Of
ArOOricu lture $(andard:;.
17-HeIp fa( citizens fi meeting
requirements
Types of assistance! to be prov"k1ed. ___ _
Method of .pplylng and Qualifying ix...r.
lance
Authority charged wl th gra.r:'llng ilSsistana!
Source of funds. (Jines from violations agaImt
crdin1l:f'l(:e)
18-EnfOfcement
Desig'1ates positions resp005ible lor enforce
ment il1ld reporfing. Bunding inspecto..~ should' also
have lno~rIed'ge of tree requirements.
27
";":"
---------~~~----·----~<;>r----------
19-Oesigoale Administrative
Respoosibllities
P""rMlns _pons,.!. for lmp!emen Mg prov!
SiOM 01 ordinance
~"bilid .. assigned ., ....:k position
Confinnotion ol.u~ ill cany "'" spe--.lfied
dulles
2Q---(;00peralioo Between
Departments and Agencies
It. is dle re5,poosibility oh.n \1!l1i.t)" a."'\d m\.1llid
pal ~ra.rtn"\e!1f5 to, coorouoa b! any activities affecting
public trees tw1th fle T tee Se .. ,.'110n and the lI'ee
advisorY gro'Jp. ConsuIla tion and' negoliatioo tnav
:res.uh in I ~ of p1.1,ns in or'd;:or to prevent ~
1:U\neCeSsaty damnge II) trees..
p~ in the pubfic realm '&hat. S'ignjfkar1t1)1
affect trees and 1a:rtdsc:apTng must be subml"tted :0
ARB apprcwoil~ iNs app'Ues to private contractors
and any public or qOOL<i-pubfic .. gency proposIng
won. in dle pub&: realm. The Oty of PaJa.Al1o wiD
as~ liabw.ty fer al\d main!ena.nc:e 0( ~ ARB
approved areas.
21-Pelformance Evaluation of
Ordinance
Position respor.so,lc
Ac50ns required in ca .. of unsatisfaclO<y
~
28
22 ... -Uability Disclaimer
TI,js sectioo protects ~ Cit) frorn 1<t:epting
&ability /(>r personal injury or property damag .. as •
.result O{ .. protected tree b.Dlng.
Nothing in 'his oroUWlCO shaD be deemed .,
impose any "Eabllity fuf damages.« a. duty of ~
and' tna1ntenance <lpon the Oty or U}-Vn an)' of its
OffJCeC5 or emptoj'ees.. 'The person in possession 01
F'Ubilc property or dte-oW(!et cl in)' private property
shdD ~ve a d ut)i to keep frotected tt'eei upon tI"..e
property and urxf~ their control ir-. ii safe and
healthy condioon.. Arly person 'Who £ee!s. a tree
ioc:ated on property ~. owned or controlled
by IIhem is a danger 10 the :;.aJety of th.emseJ';~ .. ·
others or structural improvements on-.iite of off-site
shaJ! flave an obligation \'J 5eClJ:r1! Eht are .. around
the tree or 51Jpport the tree,. 015 appropriate 110 safe
guard boch perS()r"-.s. and impro ... ements from. h.nin.: .
23-Sev8-rabitity --~-
T~ prevent dle whore ordinance from becornlr'.g
itwaTKi iI any part of it is declared invaJid in the
courts..
,
AlIacbmenl C
2. STAFPlNG. CONTRACTING POTEl'ITlAL. AND SERVICE LEVELS
REJ.,.ATED TO THE TREE MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
!!!!IS. Overall "tamng III 1M Tree Maintenance SectioX! of the Operations
Dlv1S'.oo: adequacy of current servl<:e levels .elated \0 tree planting and tree
trlm.-n!ng; and the appropriate roll< <!l tn-h<><lse slafi' and <:ontractservkes
cooskler'..ng needs \0 respood 10 emergency and unscheduled wock and the
comparative cost-dfectiveness of ""ark accomplished by private CODtractocs
or In-bouse staff.
FmdfngiJ!
(l) Cump,t 0peFati0l!! and WDtI<!Oad oC the Tree Sectiou
Palo Alto currently deploys 15 staff 10 plan. coordinate. and accompllsb
tree maintenanc.: ""rvlces for the urban forest of 41.000 trees. That
staff In<:lu<res 1M fo!low!ng'
Position Reopoll.llbDlty
Managing Arborlst • 1 PIanIdlrect all aspects ol 1M urban forestry
program. DetermIne pIan!ing needs including
meeting wah cust-omel"S to select trees for
planting. MaintaIn tree Inventory and schedule
removals. trims. other malntenan« actiVlt1es.
Negotiate 1II1lh!se1ect prtvate contractors for
rem<wal. planting. and trimming. P\anlScbedule
work of tree maintenance personnel. POS!tloa
50% u funded by Utilities funds.
Coo<dlnatoc·} ManagementilnspecUon of an cootract serv'.ces
for utruty line clearing. Also assists With
management of general fund supported tree
malntenance contracts. PosItion 75% Utilities
funded.
Tree Trim StaIJ flve. two-person trim crews. Leadpersoa
Lead Wock~ -I assists Arbonst With field Inspection. work
Tree Tt1rnmcr -4
Tree Trim AssIstant-5
scheduling. field supervision as required.
Tree Maln!e.rumce Plant trees; low trtms. maintain young trees:
Persoo-l mtscenaneous support work as required.
Tree Maintenance
Asslstant • I
7
, .
--, .
"-.. ,~ .' J _~~, . . ~ ~> .. ,
o
Equipment Operator-l Water. trees durtng SWI'.JIle.r irrigation season.
Dar1ng remainder or year. asslsts{works wlU!
trim crews.
Ov-.r the last 19 months. Une s!a1f work or duty time has been allocated by
map work I>CUV!ty or service !un<:tion as sbO\>'ll In the table whlch foIk> ... 'S,
t1tiliAtJoa of Line SLdTimc-
A<tMt7 n.cal Year S:a-93 Fia-e&! Year 9.S-H'"
Peraoll Houri Pc:::ro=.tofTot.l I't:hod Boon PCtcc:nt ttl TDtal
TrlmmlDg ]0.338 51.9% 5.707 SO.O"
Plan"", 1.320 6.6'1. 425 3.7'"
lrrtgaUoa 1.2.2S 6_2~ 687 €.O'L
R<movaIs 418 2.1" 182 1.6%
Tree Care 711 3.6" 690 6."'"
Response to 1.958 9.B" 1.055 9.3"
Problems
lnspecUon 1.299 6.S" 806 7.n;,
Admln/L!!e [My 2.645 13.3'" 1.862 16.3'%
To<a! 19.914 100.0'lI0 11:.415 100."'"
Review of the dala shown In the lable above leads 10 the following conclusions,
• The trtm p<ogram &C=1s to< about 50% or lola! crew!slalf time.
• NOlI-field time ranges from 13.3% to 16.3% oflotal time. ThIs time
rellecls a cost of doing bllslDess and ""eds 10 be allocated to the
variOuS field activ1tl-.s to show their true or tun cost
• Problem response, !Deluding inspectiOn. but aclusive or trimmlng
actiVities stimulated by complaint or service request. accounts fer about
20% lotal staff time.
-ExoJudes Arborlst: Coordinator; Tree Trim Leadworker
-July 1. 1993 -January 31, 1994 (7 monthsl
8
-, -:
..
" .. -~ .
(21 &:tIm'tcd ~ by ActMtt Lad Serylcf;
Foe the current FIscal Yo.,. 11993-1~4). expected costs or tree sect!<>n
operatloDS are as follows,
'IIl-BQUH Se:rrice
AxoO&U:l1t
<»mpo~
Stafr Sa:1ar\e.sISeDef! t:s $618.482
Con""ct CI<r<caI 1.500
SuppUe.sIMate.:1alslfes~nct EquIpment RepaIr lS.3Cl
New-'t'rtts to Plant (boa, Contract and In·House) 2C.5OO
VchJcklEquJpment • MaIntc:n.antt &; Depredation In.602
Total Ia-Rou.e 8894.385
CoDttact &ervIce
ADoc..atloc lot n:movtng and planting excluswe of cost or lren \0 $106.500
plant
T..w 81.000.885
• In-House Services can be broken doWD as follows Sol" analyUcal
purposes 10 determlne the estimated unit cost of services
accomplished by In-bouse staff_
CompaDeZlt Ad","" ~
SupcnlaloA FIeld Total
S~ Sal.ariesJBt:nef\l$ $$2.557 $825.825 8678.482
Contract ctuteaI 1.500 -1.500
S'appUeslMate.rfals -16.301 16.301
VdUcktEquJpment 7.000 170.602 In.602
5ab-Total 861.151 8812.728 8873.885
• The allocation shown abo"" rellects: t 11 Removing the Managtng
Arborlst as PW Cocrdlnator from direct field costs given
respective allocations of 50% and 25% 10 General Fund
supported Tree MaIntenance cperauons: and. (21 Estimating
costs for 1\110 utilily type vehicles to "PP'"ox!mate the costs of
vehlcles employed by management and admlnLstratIVe staff.
9
.,;-.---
• These results can then be employed to develop estimated un1t
cost 0( field actiVitles accomplished wttl, In-bouse staff as
follows,
Annuat h:eid sta1f HOUrs
from Wock Order Reports (IT 92-93)
FleId Wock ActiVity Related
Mrnln!Non-FieldiLlght Duty Hours
Diiect hid service COSt
Div<.ded by Net Actual Field Hours
Equals Loaded Cost Per FIeld Hour
17.269
2.645
$812.728
11.269
$47.06
Por Person Hour
• EmpJoytng !he unit cost dala from above. and output da Ia from
the: section's wo..-k order reports. costs for In-house acti"ities are
estimated to be as follows on a unit cost basts.-
Ac<M<7 A....,.. Lo.dcd' Colt Uaft. Colt of
Penon BoU!"l Per ID-BPQse
7/lI92-1/31/'04 P~DBoQ1' Wo<1<
Prun. .5 547 $28
RaIse 1.7 47 80
Trim 6.3 t7 296
Deaaw_ 4.8 '7 226
.RemOval
• Given an estimated CO<ltract cost of $150 to S200 per trim. It Is
dear that the In-house cost of S296 IS weU above contract sen1ce
costs. Based on two year average 0( about 950 Irees tr!mmed ~
In-bouse crews per year. the Impact 0( the estimated cost
<liffereDtial Is as follows:
Avernge In-1iouse CosttrrlIn
DiffcrentlaJ per Tree: Trunmed
'Trees Trimmed by lD~HOUK Stalf Per Year-
Mn'J.aI Cost DUfert.ntlal -Collb.~ Vtrsus In-House
$'50
$296
&'45
$950
Sl38.700
'Estlmated based on recent contract t() trim ash trees at $146 per tree.
10
• 11" oon-tree work and bght d"ty t1rn< Is allocated by fun<tloo.
basic wa<k actMtles consutm the IOllo ... 1og In terms 0( peTSOO
hours and FTEs (based OIl 11 filled posltloos coo!r1butlng • total
0( 19.91( work hours during FIscal Year 1992-\993 0<' about
1.~ hours pee staff perSOll after !!me off for v:acatloo. sick
lea"". holk'.ays. dlsal>!llty leave. allocating and pos!tloo ''''<oanq
15 consldered!_ Thts Includes pcopoctJooaDy allocating n<m-tree
work and l<.ght dUty tirJl.< 10 the various field wo.-k actMties to
fully cakulate time required loc1udlngyard time; safety meetlngs;
and time lost due 10 the factors noted above. AppeodlJ< A. at the
end 0( thf.s section. sOO".-s the cakulatloos employed 10 allocate
DOD-field lime.
AolIoIt7 ~, Loa4e4 BolSft rr&
Tr<mmlJ>g 11.922 7.2
PlanI1ng 1.52J .9
kTlpUOIl l.<1l3 .8
ll<!moval. 481 .$
Tree Can 819 .5
~IoProbl ..... 2.257 I .•
lnspectiou 1.50, .9
T ...... 19.914 12.0
• Based on the above. the i"ollowlng conclusIons can be drawn.
Noo-!rlm activities eo.."1Sume abaut 4.8 FTE. ThIs \neludes
all the DOn-trim components noted above !.n<:Iudlng
emergency complalnl respaQse'resolutioo for all actMtles
""copt triInmlIlg. ThIs excludes leadworkee ttme or
pcogram management as wen.
Of the 7.2 FTE devoted to trimming. the estimated
lxeakdown Is:
Activity FTE
Prune .. 47
RaIse 1.65
Trtm 4.31
11
Thus. about 5.0 FTE an Involved In ~ ac\M.\1es 10<
whlcb the cost cUlfereotial between In-bouse services and
contract tree maintenance Is most sIgnllkanl
(3) Serricc Le!da Sued on CUm;pt R!!!!!!!!rCe Allocatlon
The sectloD which follows S".m.troarlzes the current status of servlce
levels related 10 major Tree SectIon sen"ices. and Identme. Issues
involving !hose servlce levels.
Measure Cmtent Service Level
Tree Tr!mming Based on current wcrldoad dislIibulion
Fr~uency and In-house staff resources. the sectIOn
trtrn.. about 3.800 trees annuany Ioclu<!-
Ing Irlms of an types (e.g .• prune. trim.
raise. ro""", .. deadwoodJ-With the excI'-
ptIOn of a recent one-time contract to
Irlm a I!mlted number of ash trees.
trimInIng has been accompl!shed with in-
bouse staff.
Thl.. represents an average trim freq-
uency of once every 10.8 years gIVen
estimated tree stock of 41.000 trees d all
types. To reach 5 year cycle. would need
ID Iocrease annual trIm volume to about
8.200. Average 5 year frequency trlms of
an types and trees of vazylng maturlty
npresents industry' standard.
41.000 trees includes 35.000 street trees
and 6.000 off-streel. primarily park trees_
Currently. DO r",-";"-,-tng trlmmlng d park
trees occurs With ~ exception of some
limited recent c=tract wo:-k. As a result:
12
f..'
...... ute . Current Senice Level
Tr"" Trtmming • Str""t tr"" !rim cycle Is about once
Frequency every 9.2 years compared to Indus-
[coctinutdJ try standards 0( an average 0( ooce
evtry S years.
• Th6e Is 1>0 recurrtng !rim p;ogr2lI!
. f<>c park trees. also a major devlati-
"" from service levels Ideo tlfIed as
p;eferred by Industry standards.
Tree Planting Current ~et allocates about $20.000
Program for II('W trees (trees plus planting malerl-
alsi and about sas.OOO f<>c contract labor
Supports about 500 trees planted per
year, Industry slandartVlarget rale would
be 2% replacement 0( !be 41.000 tree
ucban f<>cest annually. Current 500 trees
per year level falls about 300 units year
per year sbort 0( replaeement st2ndard
and also ralls to account f<>c !be greater
than a~t tree death rate resulting
• I .. form !be drought nor p;0IIldes addltlonal
new trees to gradually IlJl unplanted spac-
es f<>c !Tees In the City. A p;actical S year
target to adequately repi;ice the existing
forest and to start to address !be bacIdcg
resulting from the droughl would be
about 1.000 10 1.200 new trees planted
annually.
(4) Conclasku,. Related to Cam;nt Open.tiolLl
• Trimming by In-bouse staff Is slgniflcantly moe. cootly than by
contract staff.
• Non-trim workload. which Is not Sulted 10 contract operations
coosumes tbe .. ~Ulvalent 0( about oJ.7 FTE tree maintenance
staJr. If minor trim related actiVities are Included. recurring
workload suited to In-house staJr averages about 7.6 FTE.
• Current resources allocated f<>c and "vallable to support both
planting and trimming servSces ran short 0( p;ovldlng service
levels consisteot Wllh Industry standards and long-term beallh
13
'r-:' -.
•
_ "" . .r" . ,--
-' ..
and cond1tlon 0( the urban forest. The abseoce of resources to
address a contlnulng trim progt am r:oc park treests an tSpec'.ally
significant service deficiency.
Rnnmmendatfoy:
(1) &taM"' and Opy:at!on..
, ,
• Slructtu"e In-bouse stalfto focus on those actlvltles whkh Involve
tree program p!annlng aDd management; delivery of servl<:es
requlrlng rapid response 10 complaJnts. emergency Situations,
and tree woo-k whlch cannot be rosHifectlvely "packaged" and
scheduled for accomplishment under contract; customer service
on tree plant1.~ removal. and r~1ated =vlces; and cootract
management including lnspectioo.
• Expand contracting for tree trimming and tree planting to the
extent resource are freed ex made avaOable for Increasing service
levels as addressed below.
• Given thIs phJ!osophy. targel core staffing for the tree sectioo
would be as ootllned below,
POliitioll Ra..mbet ...... ctIo"
M~ I' Program manage:menl dtrect/scheduJe In-bcuse
Atboc!st stat[: .:ontract ~lJ1ent In conjunction With
Coordinator; coctract negot1&:tloo; progx-am plan-
nIng.
, .
\ PW .-Manage/ltlSpect One clearing program as currenDy;
. j Coordt.natm' asslSt wUh toolrad serviCe in&pecHon. . t T .. < Trbl( 1 1i.'OTldng f1o!1d SupuvbOr and. bac1c-up cre.w mem-
LlncCkar bel" for tri.rn/inSpeC'ti0!l1l. In additloo to tree trim
Lt. 'lIdworkes aod cquIpment operanng stall' noted bclow. prCN1d'!S
capabllity 10 eoctlnac k:; d~pIOJ three. two-pe.rsOQ
crews whea s-taff ar~ unavanahle d.,e \Q vacation.
sfc]c kaYe. hgbl duty. etc..
'50% of position cost covered by Utill= for line dearing program; related
servlces.
-75% ofPCSitioo covered by Utilities Fund.
14
@
Poaftloa
Tree Tr1m/
LlneC1ear
PerSOQ
Tree Tr1mI
Llnt:C1~
AssIsIall.
EquIpmeot
Opera",,"
lI'am_
3
3
1
,,'" " -:'"; .
' .. -,.-.'
Provide upa!)IDty to d~ploy iUec: tw'O-PUliOD crews.
Wben eoOS!due~ LD c:.oc.Ju»,=,t\.Q.C. 'II1tb i.ead;worker
and e:qulpment operator. prOVIdes I.a~housc labor"
~.P&blli.ty or 8 FTE. c:.ons.~ru. 'II1tb need to ha.n
about 1.6 f7£ to han dle wockload oat funy SU!ted to
~Dtn.efing.
Tree lr'rtgar:lOO as C1UTently~ BackupJasSistlfu'CcCoo
as part or tree erews wben oot k'rigaan.g.
Once Implemented. thIs revISed r.taffing plan wocld have the
follolo1ng Impact on Ja!>or costs related to Tree Se<:tIon
operations. Salaries are refl.ec!ed at top step and benellts are
estimated at 35% of salarles; and the Arbor1st and Coordlna!oc
costs reflect net cost aller Utllitks Funding.
SOWyI SOWyI ...,,-BeD_
c-to POS!UoD ftumb;::z Coots
$36.560 Managlng Arbor1st .5 S36.!>60
.25 1&,091 PW Coordinator-.25 16.091
Tree Tr1mILC L4 I 53.576 TTe1; TrimILC-Ld 1 53.576
200.264 Tree Trun/t.C Pen 3 lSO,]98
49,582 Equ'p Opera",," 49,982
".820
Tree TliaIJLC Asst 5 235.810 Tree TrtrnILC Asst 3 141.522
'3.552
ToC&l 13.75 $083.721 8.75 $4.47.935
In addition 10 the potential reduction In In-hour.e staffing and related
costr., the adjUstments pcoposed above would reduce equipment needs.
Estimate Includes ooe aerial truck and 1 chlpperlchlpper truck
combination fa< an er.tImated annual cost savmgs of about S2S,<XlO por
year In operating and depceclatlonlvehlcJe replacement costs. Tolal
cost reductions would be about $261 ,<XlO annually.
At reduced stafllng levels. some p"O\'ision wocld need to be made to
!nCrear.e contract services to accomplish tr!mmtng p<e>'Iously
accomplished by In-hour.e stafr. At an estimated 950 run trims per year
and a potential per tree cost under coo tract of $150 to $175,
15
, ,
8pp<OJ<1rnstely $143.000 10 $166.000 0( the pre.1ously noted cost
savtngs would need 10 l>e reallocated to contraet services to maIntain
carreDt sen<ice levels. Nel savings would fall in tv. S95. 000 to
$118.000 range ancuaDy.
(2) Addressing SeryIc:e Level Im!e&
The analysis outlined in SectIOn {l J above addresses savings and
efilctencIes possible Wlthlc tb<o cocwct of exlstlng service levels whIch.
also as prevIously noted. fall sbart of Industry standards In regard to
boIh tree planting and trurunlng. Costs associated wlth addressing
service level short falls are described l>elow:
• Plant'ng: At current. continuIr~ levels. pcevioUs dtscusstoc.
suggest the planting program falls aboutSOO trees short cl the
1.000 units per year necessary to repla<:e drought related losses.
gradually fill vacant places. and replace trees lost on a continuIng
basis. TM Tree Task Force apparently will propose a target of
1.200 trees planted per year for !he next len years to accelerate
the rale at 1IIhIcb ,."cant places are filled. II accompltshed
tllrough expan<ied contracting. estimated rosls would l>e as
foDo"", for expanding the program 10 the 1.000 to 1.200 per year
leveL
New Trees
Labol" to plant trees
500 10 700 addltlooa! trees at .avcr
ate cost c:I $30 per tree
City sta1f b.ave ,,~ed 3.1 persoa
bOlL'" to plant. tree O\'U the last 19
monOls based 00 wack orde re
ports.. A&s'.l1Ile rontractoc cou1d
~od~ af saLM level. With eoc tract
cost ill $68.00 per crew bow-. each
planang would requ1r"e 2. 7 ~OD
bOUTS Dr" ).35 crew bours klc a Cost
01 $92 per .,... for ptanfing lab..-
16
$15.000-
10
$21.000
&46.000
to
$64.000
: .
/
~;;,. .~~-.
, ',"
...... "'" It..,. Buis fOI Cost ~e Coot
Program Manage· Anal"ysIa rod£c&tu thai txpP.Dded $04.3.97
ment and Public pl&Dttng program would be beyond
Uucadoa !h.e capacity ol ew-rent sta1f gtV"eD
requ!remen.t 1.0 $elect sn.u; wock
W1th the pubbe io seJect trees for
plan""" ""d """dud posl-planllnf
public tdllcattca on tree eare, A!so
potc.nQaI to develo'p vohwteu pro-
gram. ro.-ptantLCg anc! tree ~ 1D
reduce <:061"... ~dec! pt"ogtatn
would requIre CoordinatDC level
pos[tloo to a.ssLSt Ar"borist and take
lead respo<>s!blli'1 for th, p1aollnf
pl'ogram.
PWlUnC I'n>Cnm Total $125.387 '"
$149.781
• Street Tree TJIm Program: As DOted preVioUsly. street tree trim
fre~ncy ralls well short of preferred ~'els by a r .. cto.-of about
50%. To Teach a five year avecage trim cycle f!)ven the e>dsting
tree slock. volume would need 10 be IncTeased by a total of 3.200
Ir!m$ of all typ<.s per yeac. Based OIl the cornpooltloin of trims
accompl1sbed by in·house staff ovu' the last 19 months. that
volume of II1ms could be ~led to consist of the fOllowIng
typ<.s cl trims.
Type of Trim Pe:reent of Tot.!
Prune 33.3,*-
Raise '0.0'1<
Tn", 2S.7~
Total 100.0'%
If accomplished under contract. the Incremental cost cl
increasing trim frequency to service level slandaI"d would be in
the foIIowIng range. Unit costs Teflect the average person bours
requIred to complete the trims of vanous types and an estJmated
contract c:ost (labor. equIpment. etc.\ of $29.00 per I:.our base
doc recent contract costs negotlaled by the City.
17
"
Trim
Type
Pnme
RaIse
TrIm
ToW
-'-,.
~ ®
Amllw Total An-
A!D.ount nual
%
33
4Q
27
100
Unit Cost EatImo.te Cost Esti-
NIlDl-mate
bet
1.006 _6 person hours at S29 per hour $18.548
contracl cost
1.280 1.7 person hours at S29 per hour 63.104
contract cost
854 $17& p."T tree 149.450
3,200 $231.102
It .bould ~ noted Ibat If the planting program Is aceder.ted to
tbe 1,000 to 1.200 Dew trees per year level prevSously discussed.
tr1JnmIJlg requirements would also Increase beI-..ause young trees
require more fr-eq>Jent trtmmIng !Ii the!r t:arly years. We
estlroate that addition of 1,200 new trees to the tree stock
annually would bave tbe JOlIo1li1ng bim cost Impact over Ibe five
year perJod.
y ...
I 2 3 • 5
Sase -ro&t r.ar up" $231.102 623),103 $231.102 9231.102: $231.102 grade o£ tnm _.
ram
New trees rcqulrtng 1.200 2.400 2.400 3.600
prunIng
Cost at $lB/Urut 21.600 '3.200 '3.200 62,640
Rtvtsed Tr1al
Program Cost
6231.102 $252 .... 02 8274.302 $274.302 $293.742
The estimates shown In the table above assume the expanded
planting program would be Implemented dtll1ng year ooe; ... "1<1
new trees would be pruned In the second. tblrd. and fifth year
after planting. All costs are shown In current dollars and do not
Include any adjustment for potential lnflaOon_
• Park Tree TrImming:: Because of scattered Sites and broadly
varying trim n'qulrements. park tre. care is not Suited to
cootract trlmmlng. To prOYide adequate attention to tbe
bimmIng and care of park and other off·stree! trees whlcb are
18
a City f<sponslbll1ty. a ~perSOD City staffed tr(m cre .... With
aerial truck. 'IVOUld need 10 be dedlcated to thIs actMty on a
continuIng basis. The cost <:I tbls unit would be as ~U()WS,
Tree Trtm Pcr-son $5(J.066
t7,114
EquIptDeo1 OperatJOQS and: ~tacemeDt 19.000
AmuuJ Tot&! $116,240
• • • • •
In summary. the flndlngs contaJned In thts ~ction r.,'leet lb. following related
to Tree Prog)"aIn costs and servIceS.
• If some trIm services were coctracted. curren! serv!ce levels. ",bleb ran below
preferred standards. could be malnlalned at costs about $95,000 to S 118.000
below current Tree Section operating costs.
• If (bese savIngS were reinvested In Iree sen1ces. they could adJUst some. but
not an sen1ce \evel deficiencies. Implementation <:I an expanded planting
prog)""1"l. upgrading street tree tr1m frequency. and addressing park tree care
needs 'IVOUld require the additional resourC"s outhned below;
Cost Range
Program CompoDent
Low ~
Tree &ct>on Current Budget 1,000.868 1,000.868
SaVIngS Resulting From Contracting (95.000j U18.000)
TrImm.lngs at Current Secvkc Lev"ls
Expand planting prog)"am to maintain lU;,3S7 149.787
and enhance the urban forest
Increase street tree trImruIng \0 fre-231.102 293.742
queocIes cooslstent v.1th tree care
stan<hrds
Implement care and trIm program for 116.240 116,240
park trees
Total Adjusted Budget \0 Address S1.378,597 SI.442,637
Sen>tce Level DeficienCIeS
19
\ \,
..
• TransJtIon 10 expanded contract tr1mrnlng ""'vices and concurrent With
this transItion, "djuSt the In-house Tret Maintenance stafi to the core
stamng level o(!en full-time equIvalent stafi (8,75 FTE Central Fund
supp«led} for an annual cost savIngs In the range 0( $95,000 to
Sl18,OOO annually,
• Reln." .... t tb<>se savings to beg\lI to address S"..rv1ice level deficlen<:1eS
related to tree planting, street tree tr'!mmlng. and park tree care, ThJ.s
would covu about 25% of the funding required 10 address servlc1: level
deilcIencles In 111 ... Ihree areas.
• To the' extent additional resources are available, Increase annual
resource allocations for tree planting. park tree care, ,,00 street tree
tr1mmIDg. Mer the savtngs noted above bave be.n reinvested. ....
est!mate an additional S37B,OOO 10 S442,OOO OU'Jlually would be
required to fuDy address and resolve service )"'0) deficiencies.
20
P .......
AeIMI)' Roan"
Trimm!1lg 10~38
Pbmtmg 1.320
ln1gatiOD 1.225 -Rem",,,,),, 418
Tree Care 111
koponse 10 1,958
Problt:...?'{\s
lnsp«UO<1 .. -
Total 11.269
_'!.Ll.OCATiON OF NON-tREE
WORK AND UGHT DU'IT TIME
fiOD-Ttec/ Adoca!:ed
"or LlChI Duty = Persou
ToW .. Person Boll1J"l Houta
59.9 2,645 1.5M
7.6 2..64& 201
1.1 2.645 188
M 2.645 63
'.1 ~.64S 108
JJ.3 2.645 299
7.6 2645 ~Z
]00.0 2.645-
APPENDIX A
ToW
P ......
H .....
11.922
1,521
1.413
481
819
2'.257
1.501
19,914