New Search
of placing this task on the developer is to insure that a single entity, instead of a series of <br /> future property owners, is made responsible for ensuring tree planting and establishment <br /> occurring within the street right-of--way. While a developer may include Ciry imposed <br /> PUD conditions in the CC&Rs the City does not directly participate in the establishment <br /> or enforcement of CC&Rs. CC&Rs are used by the developer to set and communicate <br /> development conditions on future use of the private lots prior to their sale. In addition, <br /> since the right-of--way is not a part of the private lot, CC&Rs are not valid for placing <br /> conditions on facilities within the public right-of--way. <br /> Comment 17: It seems that this issue could be handled much less expensively if <br /> it were treated the same as weeds on vacant properties, wherein the City notifies the <br /> owners of noncompliance and if not corrected, the City acts. <br /> Finding: The program referenced for control of "weeds" on vacant properties is <br /> a code enforcement program intended to reduce the potential fire hazard during the <br /> summer by requiring removal of uncontrolled vegetation. It is impracticable to recover <br /> the costs of inspection of all vacant lots within the City solely from those where violations <br /> are found to exist. Therefore, the "weed" program does not have the ability to recover <br /> the full costs associated with providing the service. <br /> In contrast, the tree planting program implemented by these administrative rules <br /> is intended to ensure that development standards and the goals of the Local Street Plan and <br /> Urban Forest Management Plan are met. The benefitted properties of street tree planting i,, <br /> are easily identified and the program is designed to fully recover all costs associated with <br /> providing the service. <br /> Comment 18: The local arborist is prejudiced against perhaps the most popular <br /> street tree in America (flowering or ornamental pear) which nurseries can't grow fast <br /> enough. <br /> Finding: The Urban Forestry Management Plan policy # 1 states "the City will <br /> plant trees on public property that have potential for good performance and will, over <br /> time, achieve a diversity of species for greater stability of the urban forest" and Proposed <br /> Action #10.1 states, "Develop standards for minimum area requirements to ensure that <br /> trees of differing mature size classes can thrive along new and widened streets." The <br /> flowering pear is a popular street tree and it is on the approved street tree species list. <br /> Due to the need of species diversity, proper selection for the site, and the planting of large <br /> canopy trees along with smaller trees the flowering pear is not recommended for all <br /> situations. The flowering pear is a smaller tree with minimum canopy and it is identified <br /> to be used where appropriate in sites that have little room, are under wires or where a <br /> under story canopy tree is more appropriate. As with the Elm tree and the Bradford Pear, <br /> the flowering pear is now banned by many cities and we have to be very careful not to <br /> over plant one species just because it is popular. <br /> <br /> Administrative Order - 6 <br /> <br />