Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout12) 10B Policies on Trees and SidewalkDATE : TO: FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM August 15, 2017 The Honorable City Council Bryan Cook, City Manager By: Michael D. Forbes, Community Development Director Cathy Burroughs , Parks and Recreation Director AGENDA ITEM 1 0.8. SUBJECT: DIRECTION ON CITY POLICIES PERTAINING TO TREES AND SIDEWALKS RECOMMENDATION: The City Council is requested to provide direction to staff on City policies pertaining to public trees, private trees, and sidewalks . BACKGROUND: 1 . On June 21 , 2016, the City Council considered an appeal of the Parks and Recreation Commission 's decision to remove two street trees located in front of a single family residence on Muscatel Avenue. The primary purpose of the proposed tree removal was to accommodate the installation of a new sidewalk across the front of the property. Sidewalk installation had been required as a condition of approval for the construction of a new house on the property . The City Council recognized the competing public policies -the desire to preserve mature trees and maintain a healthy urban forest , and the desire to provide sidewalks to enhance pedestrian connectivity and safety . The City Council directed staff to bring these issues back for City Council consideration and policy direction . 2. On January 27, 2017 , and February 24, 2017, the Facilities, Public Works, and Infrastructure Ad Hoc Committee (now Standing Committee) discussed these policy issues . The committee members shared their thoughts and asked questions about some of the issues raised, and directed staff to bring the matter to the full City Council for discuss ion. City Council August 15, 2017 Page 2 of 8 ANALYSIS: 1. Sidewalks a. Policy Questions i. Should Temple City strive to have sidewalks on every street or only on designated streets? ii. On streets where sidewalks are desired, should property owners constructing new single family homes or other development be required to install a new sidewalk along their property frontage? b. Background Information Since the adoption of the Complete Streets Act of 2008, state law has required cities to embrace the concept of complete streets by including related policies in their General Plans, which are in turn implemented through projects and programs. Complete streets provide for the mobility needs of all users by facilitating all modes of travel and providing a safe environment for pedestrians, bicyclists, and public transit users in addition to motorists. The complete streets concept also incorporates context sensitivity, the idea that streets should be designed to address local needs and conditions while staying consistent with recognized best practices, rather than using a one size fits all approach. Subsequent legislation has strengthened California's commitment to mobility for all users, most recently with Senate Bill 7 43, which fundamentally changes the way traffic impacts are evaluated to be more consistent with the state's complete streets objectives. Pedestrian safety and connectivity, typically in the form of sidewalks, is a key component of complete streets. The draft Mobility Element of the updated General Plan includes a goal that Temple City achieve "a safe pedestrian network that provides direct connections between residences, employment, shopping, and civic uses." The draft document puts forth several policies in furtherance of that goal, including requiring that "the City provide adequate and well maintained sidewalks along all City roadways to allow residents of all ages and abilities to walk in a safe and accessible manner." As written, this policy calls for sidewalks to be installed on every street. It does not set a deadline, or state that providing sidewalks must be prioritized over other projects; it establishes that sidewalks on every street is important to the City and that it will dedicate resources to achieving it as feasible. Requiring sidewalks on every street is not a mandated component of complete streets. However, the City should have a plan or policies in place to establish where sidewalks will be provided, and how their installation will be prioritized and funded. City Council August 15, 2017 Page 3 of 8 The importance of pedestrian connectivity was recognized in Temple City long before it was mandated at the state level. The Circulation Element of the 1987 General Plan includes a policy that "the City will improve the circulation system for pedestrians so that it is safer and more convenient." The Temple City Municipal Code (TCMC) helps to implement this policy by requiring that sidewalks be installed for all new multifamily developments in the R-3 zone (TCMC 9-1M-30 (A)(4)). Temple City has recently demonstrated its commitment to enhancing pedestrian safety with the Rosemead Boulevard enhancement and Safe Routes to School projects. c. Current Policy/Practice The City strives to have sidewalks on every street, recognizing that they are installed incrementally over many years. Builders of new single family homes (not additions and remodels) and other types of new development are required to install a new sidewalk if sidewalk segments already exist elsewhere on the block. If no sidewalk segments exist on the block, the City collects an in-lieu fee. In the event sidewalks are installed on that street within five years, the in-lieu fee can be utilized to help pay for the new sidewalk. If sidewalks are not installed within five years, the money is returned. d. Recommendations i. The City should continue striving toward the ultimate goal of having sidewalks on at least one side of every street. ii. Builders of new single family homes and other types of development should be expected to contribute toward this goal. iii. The City Council should direct staff to begin looking into an impact fee program for sidewalks, which would allow fees from throughout the City to be pooled and used to construct new sidewalks in prioritized locations, such as around schools. If adopted, impact fees could be utilized at any location in the City, unlike in-lieu fees that can only be utilized on the same block where they are collected. iv. Unless and until an impact fee program is in place, builders of new homes and other development should continue to provide sidewalks in locations where it makes sense. Sidewalks should be required when the following criteria are met: 1. There is not already a continuous sidewalk in place on the other side of the street in the same block; and City Council August 15, 2017 Page 4 of 8 2. One or both neighboring properties already have sidewalks along their frontage; or more than 50 percent of the properties along the same side of the same block already have sidewalks along their frontage; and 3. Installation of the sidewalk would not require the removal of a healthy mature tree. v. This recommended approach is laid out in the attached flow chart (Attachment "A"). 2. Public Trees a. Policy Questions i. When conflicts occur between sidewalk installation and existing mature trees, should tree preservation be given priority consideration over sidewalk installation? ii. When a public tree is causing damage to sidewalk, curb, street, or other infrastructure, should the tree be removed? b. Background Information In 2013, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 13-983, the Tree Preservation and Protection Ordinance, codified in TCMC Title 3, Chapter 4, Article D. The ordinance reflects best practices relative to public trees and establishes policies, procedures, and expectations for public trees. Any tree with its trunk centerline located in the public right-of-way is considered a public tree. In areas without sidewalks, many property owners assume that their property extends to the curb, and that they own any trees located along their property frontage. However, on most streets the public right-of-way extends 10 to 12 feet beyond the curb, whether or not there is a sidewalk. As such, any trees located within the applicable distance of the curb are in the public right-of-way and therefore public trees. The City owns public trees and is responsible for their planting, removal, and maintenance. However, it is the adjacent property owner's responsibility to maintain all other aspects of the parkway space and to maintain a suitable environment for the tree, including providing irrigation and maintaining the area around the tree (TCMC Section 3-40-7). TCMC Section 3-40-9 states that the City "values trees as an important part of the environment and shall strive to preserve them whenever possible and feasible." Consistent with this statement, the removal of public trees by City Council August 15, 2017 Page 5 of 8 private property owners is prohibited unless approved by the City. TCMC Section 3-40-9 provides specific criteria under which a public tree may be removed by the City, or approved for removal by a private property owner. Most of the criteria are related to the health of the tree itself, or to the tree creating a public health or safety concern. However, there are several criteria that relate to the installation, maintenance, and repair of infrastructure as discussed above. c. Current Policy/Practice The TCMC provides that public trees may be removed if one or more specified criteria are met, including the following: • The tree is obstructing curb, gutter, or sidewalk repair, or in the way of a new curb, gutter, or sidewalk for which an exception to standard design is determined to be inconsistent with established policies and standards for public tree planting and maintenance; or • The tree is causing excessive damage to curbs, gutters, sidewalks, or driveways; or • Tree removal would facilitate hardscape repairs that cannot be completed without severe root pruning or other action that would jeopardize the health and stability of the tree. Once it has been determined that a tree meets one or more of the criteria for removal, the TCMC prescribes the process for removal, including marking the tree and providing notice to adjacent properties. The decision to remove the tree may be appealed to the Parks and Recreation Commission and further appealed to the City Council. It is important to note that once a tree has been identified as a potential hazard due to being unhealthy or structurally unsound, it raises liability concerns for the City if the tree is not removed. d. Recommendations i. If a mature tree that is healthy and appropriate for the location is obstructing the path of a new sidewalk, every effort should be made to curve the sidewalk around the tree, and/or reduce the sidewalk width in a manner consistent with accessibility requirements. If this is not feasible, the tree should be preserved and the sidewalk not installed. ii. If the tree is not healthy or is a species that is not appropriate for the location, the tree should be removed. City Council August 15,2017 Page 6 of 8 iii. If a tree is causing damage to existing infrastructure, the tree should be removed. iv. Trees removed for any of the above reasons should be replaced at the property owner's expense with one or more new trees, with species and placement determined by the City. If additional replacement trees are required, the homeowner should have the option of paying an in-lieu tree replacement fee to the City, which would be used to install a new public tree at another location. 3. Private Trees a. Policy Questions i. When a private tree is causing damage to sidewalk, curb, street, or other infrastructure, should the tree be removed? ii. Should the owner of the tree be required to pay for the removal of the tree and/or the cost to repair the damaged infrastructure? b. Background Information The TCMC does not address removal of private trees, and the preservation requirements for public trees do not extend to private trees. A property owner may remove any tree on their property for any reason. The design guidelines for the R-1 zone state that mature trees should be preserved when feasible (TCMC 9-1 M-15(A)(8)), but this is a guideline and not a requirement. When reviewing development proposals, planning staff will sometimes suggest that mature trees be retained and work with the developer to do so, but again this is not required. Situations where private trees are causing infrastructure damage typically come to the City's attention when a complaint is received regarding broken sidewalk or curb, or when street damage is observed during a street resurfacing project. If the City Arborist determines that it is feasible to trim the roots of the tree without affecting the health or stability of the tree, City staff will do so prior to replacing the sidewalk or curb or resurfacing the street. However, sometimes it is not feasible to trim the roots to the extent needed without adversely impacting the tree. In these cases, the only feasible option to adequately repair the infrastructure is to remove the tree. Even in situations where the roots can be safely trimmed, this is typically a temporary fix. The tree and its roots will continue to grow and will again damage the infrastructure, usually within a few years. City Council August 15, 2017 Page 7 of 8 c. Current Policy/Practice The TCMC does not grant the City the ability to compel a property owner to remove a private tree if the tree is causing damage to public infrastructure, and to staff's knowledge such removal has never been required. TCMC Section 3-40-7 states that the property owner is responsible for the full cost of repairing infrastructure damage caused by a private tree. However to staff's knowledge, the City has never required a property owner to pay for repairs. Minor repair work is performed in the normal course of City business, and major repair work is typically performed as part of a larger infrastructure repair project. d. Recommendations i. Private trees causing damage to public infrastructure should be removed if agreeable to the owner. Since in many cases the current owner did not plant the tree, the owner should not bear the full cost of removal. The cost should be borne by the City or split with the owner. ii. Owners of private trees causing damage to public infrastructure should not be responsible for the cost of repairs to the infrastructure, so that property owners are not discouraged from planting trees. The City should repair the infrastructure as appropriate and feasible. Additional Issues As noted by the City Council and the ad hoc committee in prior discussions, there are a number of additional policy issues that are closely related to the issues presented here, but are beyond the scope of this report. Such issues include but may not be limited to: funding sources for sidewalk repair and replacement, other fees and offsite improvements required of new development, sidewalk and other infrastructure requirements for new subdivisions, prioritization of locations for future sidewalk installation, and preservation of trees on private property. Pending City Council direction, staff can return at a later date for additional discussion on some or all of these issues. CITY STRATEGIC GOALS: Installation of sidewalks and preservation and installation of public trees furthers the City Strategic Goals of Public Health and Safety, Quality of Life, and Sustainable Infrastructure. City Council August 15, 2017 Page 8 of 8 FISCAL IMPACT: Fiscal impacts will vary based on the policy direction, but overall are expected to be minimal. ATTACHMENT: A. Flow Chart for Recommended Policy Vl ~ >- ,..... ~ Start Here ... Is there already a continuous sidewalk on the other side of the street in the same block? !NO Does one or both neighboring properties already have a sidewalk to connect to? _!NO Do more than 50% of the properties on the same side of the same block already have a sidewalk? NO .. Do not install sidewalk; in-lieu fee required J YES y YES• . NO ~ Is there an existing street tree in front of the property? _Y.YES Is the tree mature, healthy, and an appropriate species for the location? _:t_ YES Is the tree causing damage to existing curb, gutter, street, or other infrastructure? .NO Is the tree obstructing the path of the new sidewalk? _i_YES Is it feasible to narrow or curve the sidewalk while complying with ADA and staying within the existing public right-of-way? NO . NO_.. __. . YES., .. NO_.. __. . YES., y New sidewalk required; new street tree required New sidewalk required; existing street tree must be removed and replaced with 1 or more new trees New sidewalk required; existing street tree must be protected in place and maintained )> -1 ~ (') :I: s m z -1 )>