The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About0386.095TO; ATTENTION: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: RW1TJSJ " " o City of Palo Alto City l\-Ianager's Report HONORABLE CITy COUNCIL POLICY AND SERVlCES COMMITTEE CITY MA.'i'AGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS Aagus' 8, 1995 CMR:386:9S Palo Alto Tree Task Force Preliminary Reeommendalion On My IS, 1995, the Pclicy and Services Committee dIrected staff 10 return I<> !he Committee with preliminary recommendations I<> expedite !he process for impleru;;ntation of proposed Palo AIIo Tree Task Force recommendations. This deals specil'ically with !he issue 0( InOe planting. RECOMMENDATIONS The ~"'ing recommendation is for "preliminary approval in concepI only,· subject 1<>: a) Firumcc Committee recommendations on fhmfmg, b) City Council approval ofboth !he Firumcc and Pelky and Senices Committees' recommendations, and c) review and approval during either the IT 1996-97 budge! process Of any interim budget actions Vl1Ucb !he C<lWICiI may eJect 10 undertake. It is intended that these recommenJations are made only as 10 !he poIky question oflhe dest-able level ofserv'",e required 10 adequately restore Palo Alto's urban forest, and not as 10 actua! fim<fmg and implementation at this point. That issue will be subsequently addressed by the Finance Committee a.~d full Council The rerommeodations required I<> achieve that se",ice level are as follows: I. Adoption 0( the industry tree replacement standard of 2 percent annually and related fim<fmg and staffing requirements, which are sM"'" 00 Table A. 2. Implementation of the Hughes-}leiss recommeudation 10 plant 1,200 trees armually 10 accomplish the reforestation of the urban forest ,....oU ,0 -I , .. ' . . ~ -'. -.. ':., -..:--'.---.:.---..: :'. ' ... ' ~ .. --.---",." ""'~-- o o POLICY IMfUCATIQNS While 00 policy enplicatioos are <fmocly inc\a'1'ed as a result of the Pelicy and Scrvkes C()illJlIitlee action on the recommendations cootained in this repcrt, there are m.jo< policy issues associated ,.ith !he subsequent actioo{s) 10 be u,,,!ertalen by the fuD Council, IS a result o(both this and the Finance Coouninee action on the fun spe<.'lrum of Tree Task Force issues. TIlose porky imp!icatioos ,.;u include service level!', fumfmg, staffing. potential new revenue sources, and new regulatory mea....,,-cs. The extent 0( such policy implications will be determined by means O(both li.'Iu!"e City Council action oo1he Committee recommendations and S'lbsequen! budgetary and Municipal ('.ode action. EXECUID'E SUMMAR¥ This report deals specifically with the tree planting e!emeDl of the Tree Task Force (TIT) recommendation.;. This element "'as no( elaborated upOll in staffs response (CMR:37S:95) to this Committee regarding preliminary recommendations. It falls under the general recommendation o(tIJe noo-profit tree group planting ectivities, which was included in tIJe memo. Hughes-Heis, (HH) measured the City 0( Palo Aho staffing and "ork accomplishment to industry standards to decide how mueh work was acromplished compared 10 an induslIy average. HH said that tIJe combination 0( a lack of trimming and planting services consistent with industry standards would affect the long-term health .. -.d coodition O(the urban IOrest. HH ooted that the current City rep!ac<men( program of 500 Irees per year fen 5hoct 0(. replacement standard of 2 percenI annually, or 800 Ir"'e<, and did not take into ""cow:! the greater than average tree death rate atlributable 10 seven year; of drought, or any provisioo fur planting of additiooallrees in unplanted spaces. Hughes-Heiss proposed a five-year target 0( planting 1.000 10 1,200 Irees annually 10 adequately replace the existing forest and 10 stan 10 address the ba<:klog caused by tIJe drought. The FY 95-% Tree Section operating budget includes fun<fmg to acrompflSh removal of appr<'xllnately 5t. 'I trees and replanting of appro>lli-nately 600 new trees. The proposal by tlle Tree Task Force (1 m would increase planting accomprIShed by the City from the current 600 trees 10 800, and the TfF, 0< the proposed future nonprofit tree organization, would plant an additional 400 trees Illllually. Under the TIT proposal, future tree planting by the City would decrease incremental! {, whiJe 1he nonprofit planting effort would increase proportionately. The rTF has re<:O!I\IIJellj!d that the SO petceru pavement sIlaamg standard, adopted by Council in the 1982 Street Tree i. {ansgement Plan, be reinstated IS tIJe City standard. The TIT proposed annual effurt 0( p!anli£ ~ 1,200 new trees would also ma!ch 1he Hughes-Heiss proposal. It is estimated that there are 6,000 '-acanI sites avaIlable lOr planting in the public right-of·way (as identified in the 1989 survey). Staff has no( resurveyed 1he areas identified in the 1989 survey 10 de!ermine how many sites still exist, are appropriate fur planting. and have I proper1y -..... -----------., 4'._--:-----.. • ovmer willing 10 mair.tain a newly planted tree. However, using the estimate, t.IIe f<>Ik>wiJlg "lwt COOlpans the current tree planting program w.th the lTF !'It'jlOSCd program: Table A • T ..... Planting Cosb Recommended Service Levell Actual931'J4 ) c!opted 95,'% Hughes-P.eiss Tree Task. F= . Planting· Cily 450 600 1,200 800 COST $ 45,000 S 60,000 SIIO,400 S 80,000 Planting • ITF ---. 400 COST DONATED Total Trees 450 600 1,200 1,200 Planted flSCA(. IMPACT The fisal impacts associated with this report are outlined in the Executive Summary section to the extent that !hey are Imown at Il\is time. ENVIRONMENTAl. AS.5FS5MENT There is DO em-iror..menraI assessmen! required in conjunction with this report. PREPARED BY: Shari Reynolds, Publi<: Wod,s Administralo< DEPAR'JMElIo'THEADREVIEW, g A. ~ GlENN S. ROBERTS Direc1Ol" of Public W o<ks CITY MANAGER APPROVAl: ~ __ -~~ cc: Tree Task. focce Pa&' 3 013