General Trees - Laserfiche WebLink

New Search

HAMMITT Bob From: MEDLIN Johnny R To: MCVEY Fred Cc: HAMMITT Bob; PLAMONDON Scott F Subject: RE: Conflicts with Underground Facilities and Trees within the parking strip Date: Monday, April 07, 1997 8:45AM Hi Fred, I had this discussion with Glen Klein when it was noticed that the code language for "exemptions" from 6.330 referred to restore utility service and maintain improvements such as streets and sewers. We both felt that the policy "intent" of the code changes were clear in that it was desired for street trees to be seen as a valued asset and that impacts to this asset needed to be reviewed on a comparative value basis. Not deleting or rewriting the "exemptions" section was an unfortunate oversight. For public streets and sewers and work performed by the City, he felt any perceived conflict was resolvable by internal policy authority and needed not be codified. He felt we had the authority to require retention of street trees or to establish protection /removal conditions in the right -of -way cut permit process which would resolve perceived conflicts with the utility companies and private users of the public way. In his opinion we would not be bluffing. (I have a level of discomfort with his opinion, but its the best we have.) I wish the process was cleaner, but in truth we missed deleting that provision in the exemptions early in the Local Street Plan development and when it was brought to the attention of the Attorney's office their judgment was that the ordinance adoption process had gone to far to make the change. I think it would be a good idea if you put some language in the Utility Manual around this issue. In that manner once it is adopted you will have something you can point to later when someone wants to see something in writing. I look forward to an opportunity to reopen code amendments in chapter 6 to clean this up some. Regarding the nuisance issue and roots. Again, a future code modification opportunity would help this issue although we would need to be careful to consider how changes would impact the issues of street trees vs neighbor's private trees. For the time being, I believe we are overall in the firmest policy position if we should use the same "test" standard as was intended when the Local Street Plan ordinance was adopted. That Being: "Is the cost of the proposed work more expensive than the "value" of the street tree." In addition, using 6.010 requires someone to declare the situation a nuisance and to take action to enforce. In the case of a street tree, I don't see anyone in authority within the city organization taking that step. Politically, I think we would be willing to have someone litigate against us to force the declaration of such a "nuisance ". Not the greatest of answers, but they are the best we have. Thanks Johnny From: MCVEY Fred To: MEDLIN Johnny R Cc: PLAMONDON Scott F Subject: RE: Conflicts with Underground Facilities and Trees within the parking strip Date: Monday, April 07, 1997 8:12AM Good note Johnny, thanks, it helps reinforce policy and sound practices. However, for me there is still one nagging issue that I feel we need to clarify very explicitly - how are the exceptions in section 6.330 to be interpreted and applied? This is directly related to an assignment I've had Jackie working on - documenting procedures around sewer repairs impacting trees. The most critical question for Jackie's Page 1