New Search
3 years from the date a replacement tree is planted achieves this. purpose.. Applying the <br />original tree's establishment .period to a replacement tree would result in any subsequently <br />replaced. tree receiving less than the 3 years of tree care necessary to assure survival, and <br />ultimately,result in increased costs to the Ciry to maintain replacement trees. Accordingly, <br />no revision is being made to this provision. <br />`Comment 10: R-7.280-E.7.2.1 & 7.2.2. contain the only mention of 3" caliper. <br />This does not fit in with the other criteria contained in the rules. <br />'n in R-7.280-E.7.2.1 & 7.2.2_ define "critical root zone" which is a term used <br />in determining the required area around the tree to be protected from construction <br />activities. -The 3" caliper is the point at which the basis of determination changes from a <br />protective area of a three foot radius for smaller trees to a formula based measurement to" <br />provide .larger protective areas for larger trees. <br />{~ ._ <br />Trees of many sizes may have need for, protection on a development. 1-1/2" and <br />2" caliper trees in the planting program are minimums required and may be exceeded if <br />the developer so elects. In addition, existing trees of varying sizes may. be preserved. No <br />correlation: to the other tree caliper citations included in the planting specifications in these <br />administrative rules was intended nor deemed to be'necessary_, nor is any revision to the . <br />rule necessary.. <br />Comment 11: The orange fencing required by R-7.280-E.7.5.2 is extremely ugly, <br />and the word "orange" should be removed. <br />'n 'n :' The purpose of the required fencing is to place a highly visible physical <br />protective .device in place to ensure no construction impacts to the. area being protected. <br />The standard orange protective fencing, is specifically designed for this purpose and has <br />-been shown to be effective. However, R-7.280-E.7.5.2 also contains the statement "or <br />approved .equivalent" which would provide an applicant a process to obtain approval for <br />a substitution. A`request for alternative fencing would be evaluated by the Urban Forester <br />and if shown effective could be allowed in place of the specified "orange" fencing. For . <br />example, more physically substantial but less visible fencing material such as woven wire <br />or chain link may. be approved;_ as an alternate if site conditions warranted. <br />Comment 12: The tree pruning standards in R-7.280-G.3.7 are vague, unclear, and <br />do -not make sense. <br />)F~'nding:I concur in part with this comment, and R-7.280-G.3.7 has been revised <br />to clarify the intent. <br />Comment 13: Although not addressing a specific rule, one. party commented that <br />it is hard to imagine that the Ciry will be in a position to .hire employees to carry out the <br />,, <br />Administrative Order - 4 <br />