New Search
there is room to move the tree to one side or the other than <br /> that should be done. <br /> In the case where the topography is such where the tree can't <br /> be moved, the abutting property owner should be notified that <br /> the proposed tree is over a utility line and may make their <br /> future maintenance of that line more difficult. If the <br /> property owner still wants the tree planted, then so be it, <br /> and let them plant the tree. <br /> IN CITY PLANTING: <br /> We should not internally be planting trees over utility lines <br /> unless their is some unique and strong reason to do so. Such <br /> plantings should proceed only on a case by case basis and <br /> after discussion. <br /> EXISTING TREES <br /> A second topic which has seen some recent discussion is <br /> conflicts between existing underground utilities and existing <br /> trees. Again, this discussion must be taken in the context <br /> that we are dealing with public assets important in the eyes <br /> of the neighborhood. <br /> The new code language requiring a permit for the removal of a <br /> street tree and the calculation of an appraised value for the <br /> tree was put into place for a single purpose. That purpose <br /> was to provide a mechanism which would FORCE people who were <br /> developing their property to take into design consideration <br /> the value or importance of the existing street tree when they <br /> made their decisions on where to locate facilities such as <br /> driveways or utilities. Prior to this new language the <br /> criteria for allowing the removal of a street tree was vague <br /> and the department was often criticized both for allowing and <br /> in other cases not allowing removals. <br /> Now the removal criteria is fairly simple. Unless the tree is <br /> of heritage status, any street tree can be removed if the <br /> party wanting the removal is willing to reimburse the city for <br /> the appraised value of that tree. Depending on the size and <br /> subsequent value of the tree a property owner may decide it is <br /> Tess expensive to design /redesign their improvements to miss <br /> the tree. <br /> Maintenance of existing lines also fall within these <br /> guidelines. A private property owner wishing to repair their <br /> private utility line is not allowed to do this at the expense <br /> of a CITY asset (the tree). <br /> This is similar in concept to the difficulty encountered if <br /> there was two separate utility lines close together and one in <br /> need of repair. The people repairing the one would take <br /> extra precautions to avoid damage of the nearby line, or if <br /> that couldn't be avoided, they would be responsible for the <br /> cost of repairs or relocation of the nearby line. <br /> In the case of maintenance by City crews we are much in the <br /> same boat. There is an expectation that we hold ourselves to <br /> the same or even higher standards than that we impose on the <br /> property owners. In concept, I personally don't object to <br /> this. I believe we should always be doing an analysis of the <br /> comparative value of the assets we impact when performing <br /> Page 3 <br />