New Search
If there is a strong desire to find a way to accommodate LTD <br /> from the global viewpoint then I'm sure a way can be found. <br /> I'm just not sure what it is yet that won't set us into the <br /> position that private developers will be wanting the same <br /> considerations. <br /> The simplest may be just to waive all or part of the fees <br /> administratively and then to be very quite about having done <br /> so. From the limited viewpoint and scope of the tree removal <br /> permit program I would wish we didn't have to do this. <br /> The program goal here is to as much as possible keep parity <br /> between what we say a private person or agency is required to <br /> do with what we require (or allow) a public agency to do. Our <br /> recent experience with citizen committees and the Council <br /> indicates a strong desire that we should hold the public <br /> agencies to at least as high if not a higher standard than <br /> that of the private citizen. In the discussions on the <br /> erosion control ordinance for example, we were told that the <br /> City should be setting the example for others to follow even <br /> if the actions (permits) were redundant with existing <br /> practice. <br /> I have concerns about establishing a precedent that the loss <br /> of street trees (a road fund asset) can be mitigated by <br /> planting on private property. Setting aside the "road fund" <br /> issue, any agreement we made for reimbursement if the trees <br /> failed would require an inspection and follow -up system we <br /> don't have in place. In any case (for either a private <br /> citizen or public agency) I'm not sure what enforcement <br /> mechanisms we have to require enforcement except the very <br /> expensive court action process. Since that would be more <br /> expensive than most trees are worth, this would in effect <br /> become an "on your honor" commitment. From LTD this might <br /> work, but from the private sector I would expect less. <br /> We would need to research if we followed this idea would be to <br /> insure we did not give credit for landscaping which might be <br /> required in the development process. For example trees <br /> required by TRIP regulations. <br /> Another issue would be to insure we didn't give credit value <br /> above the appraised value of the replacement tree. Due to <br /> the difficulty in transplanting large (6 " +) trees, the cost of <br /> planting can far exceed the value of the tree. For instance a <br /> transplanted 8 -10 tree appraised at $2,000 might cost <br /> $6- 10,000 to transplant depending on difficulty in access and <br /> transport. Our planting policy to date has been to look to <br /> the long term. A two inch tree planted today at $400 will be <br /> that 8" tree in 6 -10 years. Due to transplant shock, the 2" <br /> tree has a higher survival rate and often will catch up with a <br /> 4 -6 inch tree within 3 -5 years. <br /> Taking the tact that replacement trees on the private site <br /> mitigated the loss of street trees seems to blur where our <br /> responsibilities and authority lies. If we are to look not <br /> only at the right -of -way for street trees but to also look at <br /> the private parcels would we not then be expected, by those <br /> who often critic our management of the urban forest, to take <br /> into account and require mitigation for what trees there were <br /> on the site that were removed for the development. <br /> In the case of LTD there weren't any, but the very similar <br /> Page 2 <br />