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
)>