The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1999-08-10; City Council; 15366; Tree Removal Charleen CircleCd 1- CITY OF CARLSBAD .-AGENDA BILL AB# 15,344 TITLE: STREET IMPROVEMENTS & SUBSEQUENT HOLD MTG. 8/l 0199 HARMLESS AGREEMENT/TREE REMOVAL ON CHARLEEN CIRCLE DEPT. PW RECOMMENDED ACTION : 9 7 @) DEPT. HD. %-- If Council concurs with the recommendation of the Parks and Recreation Commission, adopt Resolution No. 9 s-299 authorizing the Mayor to execute Hold Harmless Agreements with those residents on Charleen Circle who wish to assume the risk of preserving existing street trees. Direct staff to remove trees from those locations where Hold Harmless Agreements have not been obtained. ITEM EXPLANATION : Public Works has identified the need to replace and repair the curb and street on Charleen Circle. Over the years the trees on this cul-de-sac street have caused significant damage to the hardscape and sewer systems. Curbs are uplifted and tree roots have grown through and lifted the asphalt by four inches above the original grade of the roadway. Subsequently a capital project to make these repairs was initiated. Unfortunately, these street trees are planted very close to the curb and the replacement/repair program will cause a substantial amount of each tree’s root system to be eliminated. In the opinion of the Public Works Manager/General Services any removal of the root system will weaken the tree and its ability to provide safe anchorage capability. Public Works realizes the sensitivity of tree removal and therefore this project was brought before the Parks and Recreation Commission. The item actually went before the Commission on two occasions. The first meeting initially addressed the issue of tree removal at a public forum. The Parks and Recreation Commission requested a second meeting and recommended staff offer a Hold Harmless Agreement, similar to a previous situation occurring on Donna Drive in 1997. The Parks and Recreation Commission decision was based on both a desire to help the residents to preserve the existing trees within the City right-of-way and a recognition that there is a risk associated with the significant instability of the trees that would result from the severe root pruning necessary to allow the necessary street improvements. Although another species of tree could be established, the Parks and Recreation Commission decision took a collaborative approach to addressing the residents’ desire to retain the existing trees. It offers a joint effort between the City and the Charleen Circle residents to help preserve the trees on the street and share the responsibility for the resulting risks. A Hold Harmless Agreement was drafted and presented to each homeowner on Charleen Circle. The Agreement states that the property owner will hold the City harmless from any property damage or personal injury sustained by the owner, owner’s guests and/or owner’s tenants. There are nine parcels that front onto Charleen Circle (Exhibit 2), only eight of those parcels have trees. There are currently twelve trees left on this cul-de-sac and our records indicate that at one time there were fifteen trees on this street. Trees were removed because they were damaged beyond salvaging by storms, construction, or vehicle damage. Public Works realizes the unique character that large Tipuana trees give to CharleenCircle but must also weigh the risk exposure created by the reconstruction work to be done. A map of the street, depicting the trees is attached (Exhibit 2) for your information. I - Page 2 of AB# I53(k;b ALTERNATIVES Staff discussed the pros and cons of several alternatives in seeking resolution to this issue. Those alternatives included the following: I. Remove all trees and replant with another species. 2. Vacate street, turn over ownership to property owners. 3. Leave street as is, make no improvement. 4. Leave all trees, proceed with project, do not require a Hold Harmless Agreement. It is staffs recommendation to proceed with the project in accordance with the Parks and Recreation Commission’s decision to preserve the trees within the City right-of-way that front the property of owners who have signed the Hold Harmless Agreement (Exhibit 3) and replace the other trees with another species of tree. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of removing one of these trees is estimated to be $750. Replacement costs would be variable depending on the size of replacements, $250 - $750 per tree. Funding for the tree removal/replacement has been incorporated into the Capital Improvement Project. :r(Ha~~~tion No. 9 c) -29 9 2. Assessor’s Parcel Map - Charleen Circle 3. Hold Harmless Agreement (sample only). 2 /’ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 99-299 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENTS WITH CHARLEEN RESIDENTS TO ALLOW STREET TREES TO REMAIN WHEREAS, street trees on Charleen Circle have caused significa street, necessitating a capital improvement projec WHEREAS, significant root pruning of s mplete the necessary street repairs; and WHEREAS, this root pruning could res affected trees; and to preserve the trees despite the risks of property damage and/or personal i WHEREAS, the Parks and Retreat sion has recommended a collaborative approach with the residents i are allowed to enter into Hold Harmless risks involved with preserving the trees. BY THE City Council of the City of Carlsbad as follows: ements as presented are hereby approved. City of Carlsbad is hereby authorized to execute said hold ents on behalf of the City and the City Clerk is thereafter directed to reements recorded with the County Recorder’s Office. ROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad at its , 1999, by the following vote, to wit: CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor ATTEST: ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk (SEW LEGEND 0 SIGNED HOLD HARMLESS RECEIVED PROPERTY OWNERS NOT SIGNING HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT Exhibit 3 RECORDING REQUESTED BY WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: City Clerk CITY OF CARLSBAD 1200 Carlsbad Village Dr. Carlsbad, CA. 92008 SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER’S USE HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of the day of >19-1 by and between the CITY OF CARLSBAD, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as “City”, and and hereinafter referred to as “Owner”, being the owner(s) of the real property located at (street address) Carlsbad, California also being assessor’s parcel number hereinafter referred to as “Property”. Owner understands that City plans to remove and replace, repair and restore various portions of the street that may including curb and gutter, street surfacing, street structural section, sewer and drainage facilities fronting Property. Owner agrees that the roots of the tree(s) located within City street right-of-way fronting Property have caused damage to the street and utility facilities. City has informed Owner that: l the construction activities needed to repair the street will damage the tree(s). l the best course of action is for City to remove the tree(s). l City wishes to remove the tree(s) and is willing to plant new one new tree on the Property to replace each tree removed. Owner wishes to preserve the existing tree(s). When Owner suggested that City could leave the trees in place and conduct only minimal root pruning City informed Owner that: l the construction activities needed to repair the street will necessitate trimming and removing a portion of the roots and canopy of said tree(s). l the trimming and removing a portion of the roots and canopy of said tree(s) will be extensive and will involve up to thirty percent of the tree(s) root structure and up to forty percent of the tree(s) canopy. l trimming and removing a portion of the roots and canopy of the tree(s) will reduce the strength and health of the tree(s). l the reduction in the strength and health of the tree(s) may result in all , or portions, of the tree(s) falling and/or death of the tree(s). l this root trimming and removal of the roots and canopy could diminish the stability of the tree(s). l there is the possibility that the tree(s) or its branches may fall down sometime after this trimming and removal of the roots and canopy and possibly damage the property of, or cause personal injuries to, Owner, Owner’s guests and/or Owner’s tenants. l because of the heightened possibility that the tree(s) may fall and the resultant liability City is not willing to trim and remove a portion of the roots and canopy of the tree(s) unless Owner: 0 agrees to accept liability for any and all damage to Owner’s property, personal injuries to Owner and personal and property damage to Owner’s guests and/or Owner’s tenants that may hereinafter occur that is attributable to, caused by or arises from the trimming and removal of the roots and canopy of the trees; l waives any and all rights to make a claim for any personal injuries or property loss or damage that may hereinafter accrue against City, members of its Council or Commissions, its officials, (3/23/99) S employees and agents, arising from or attributable to the trimming and removal of the roots and canopy of the trees l agrees to hold City harmless and not responsible for any personal injuries or damage to the property of the Owner, Owner’s guests and/or Owner’s tenants in the event that the trees or branches thereof fall down, or otherwise cause damage, due to the trimming and removal of the roots and canopy of the trees as described herein. Owner wishes to preserve the existing tree(s) fronting the Property. In order to try to save the street tree(s) located within City right-of-way and allow for the reconstruction of street and utility facilities fronting property Owner consents and agrees to assume any and all risks of damage to Owner, Owner’s guests and/or Owner’s tenants property, or personal injuries to Owner, Owner’s guests and/or Owner’s tenants, that may hereinafter occur that is attributable to, caused by or arises from the trimming and removal of the roots and canopy of the trees; Owner waives any and all rights to make a claim for any personal injuries or property loss or damage that may hereinafter accrue against City, members of its Council or Commissions, its officials, employees and agents, arising from or attributable to the trimming and removal of the roots and canopy of the tree(s), and further agrees to hold City harmless and not responsible for any personal injuries or damage to the property of the Owner, Owner’s guests and/or Owner’s tenants in the event that the tree(s) or branches thereof fall down due to the trimming and removal of the roots and canopy as described herein. ( I ) ( we ) hereby certify that (I ) ( we ) are the owners of the property located at the address first mentioned above and that ( I ) ( we ) have read this document and that (I ) ( we ) understand and agree with its content. Executed by Owner this day of 919 - OWNER: CITY OF CARLSBAD, a municipal corporation of the State of California (name of Owner) By: Mayor By: (sign here) ATTEST: (name of Owner) By: (sign here) ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ City Clerk (Proper notarial acknowledgment of execution by Owner must be attached.) APPROVED AS TO FORM: RONALD R. BALL, City Attorney By: Assistant City Attorney (3/23/99) Ray Patchett - Charleen Circle Street Trees -\ Page 1 I From: Doug Duncanson To: Ray Patchett Date: 8/l 7/99 12:15PM Subject: Charleen Circle Street Trees Good Morning Ray, This A.M. Lloyd,Tony Reynolds and I met with Ruth Wheeler, the spokesperson for the residents, to discuss tonights agenda item. It was agreed that futher discussions should take place .It was suggested that the residents work with the engineers,an arborist and city staff to develop a transitional plan to create a win-win situation. The trees could be replaced on a gradual basis. Some of the curb repairs could be temporary in nature. And replacement trees could be planted over a period of time. AS the trees are removed in the future the curb repairs would be more permanet. The newly planted trees would begin to establish and be of a more mature size when the designated problem tree/trees are scheduled for removal.. The issue of the hold harmless agreement is still the major concern of the residents. They will be speaking primarily to it. If we develop a transistional longterm plan for street repairs and for tree replacement we can make this a win-win solution . . . . . . . . . Doug cc: Erin Letsch; Lloyd Hubbs; Ron Ball All Receive-Afpndc &8ul rC& Forth~hf0llIM.iOllOfthe: CrTY COUN F Asst.CEC A-CCL Date&\‘lCity Manage a? Pagc2of2 (W@JPsl1) -NtJRSlNGCLlNlCAL,NOTE PROBLEMS S, INTERVBNTlON & OUTCOMB PLAN Staff SipalureJTitle PATIENTNAME: Date PT.lD# ‘ mconta&c 8LY98:gam #6448 (7290-10) .z&S‘ZaQ,&~~cA &‘- @/7;t/ oavt2~ ~~S2mw& - 4%?57 From: St$phen G. Holcomb To: Attn. Marilyn F ‘. .dFLyLE COVER PAGE - - To : Attn. Marilyn Date: a/13/99 Time: 12:09:02 PM From : Stephen G. Holcomb Page 1 of 3 Sent : 8113199 at 11:53:54 AM Pages : 3 (including Cover) Subject : Root Pruning, Tree Removal, Ruthie Wheeler Ruthie Wheeler has asked me to forward to you, my letter to her concerning possible alternatives to curb repair, root-pruning, and tree removal. AGENDA ITEM # I( 0 c: Mayor cily CounciI City Manager City Attorney City Clerk From: Stephen G. Holcomb To: Attn. Marilyn Date: 8113199 Time: 12:09:02 PM Page 2 of 3 RBORICJJLTURAL August II,1999 Ms. Ruthie Wheeler Subject: Conservation of Mature Trees causing damage to streets. Dear Ms. Wheeler, Pursuant to our telephone conversation, this date, in which you requested viable alternatives to tree removal when streets or curb and gutter are being damaged by mature trees the following opinions are offered for your consideration: First, and most important is that their be a willingness on the part of all the parties to acknowledge that the trees are a valuable asset to the community. Second, is that all the parties be willing to compromise and come to a consensus plan of action. Remember that it took many years for this problem to develop and it will take time to resolve it if the trees are going to be conserved. Third, the current trees cannot be preserved, like all living things they will decline and die in time. The tree resource can be conserved by good planning. For the community the best compromise is to give up the idea of all the trees on the street being mature at the same time. The condition of reduced tree age diversity allows only the residents (owners) of the trees, at the time they are all mature, to enjoy the benefits of the mature tree canopy. Persons owning or residing on the properties when the trees were young did not enjoy these benefits, nor will people in residence when the trees become over-mature and need to be removed. The solution the this problem is to have an age diverse tree population. For your example of 12 mature trees the preferred age diversity would be three - trees less than 10 years old, three trees between 10 -20 years old, three trees between 20-40 years old and three trees over 40 which would be removed when the youngest trees are about 5 years old. In addition to the street tree population maintained and controlled by the city, conservation of the tree resource requires that the residents also plant trees on their own property. A willingness of the residents to plant trees indicates a true dedication to tree resource conservation. If there is a consensus on the foregoing then these are the alternatives to clear- cutting and replanting on a street with damage caused by tree roots. San Diego County Office 2236 S. Santa Fe Ave, Vista, CA 92084 Telephone 760-727-l 130 Fax 760-3813 Orange County Office 425 1 Sandburg Way Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone 949-786-2343 Fax 949-786-2377 From: Stephen G. Holcomb To: Attn. Marilyn -. Date: a/13/99 Time: 12:09:02 PM 1. Residents start planting the same or a similar tree species on their own property. 2. The City accesses the damage to the street and determines which three of the trees are causing the most damage. These three trees are removed and replanted and the street adjacent to those trees is repaired using interlocking pavers instead of asphalt or concrete. 3. The city and the community establish a plan for the removal and replacement of other trees on the street. This is usually a 20 year plan in which all the tree are removed and replaced and the street is reconfigured to interlocking pavers. The pavers will allow for mature trees which do little damage and the damage that occurs can be mitigated by removing pavers and cutting the offending root, Pavers need not replace the entire street. They can be used from the curb to the actual driving part of the street (say 6 to 10 feet in from the curb). If the curbs are replaced near mature trees that are left in place, there will be problems with tree stability, which then becomes a safety concern. It is the removal of the curbs that causes most of the damage to mature trees where the trunk buttress is near or abutting the curb. Roots severed by root-pruning on one side of the tree to facilitate curb and gutter repairs can and do cause the damaged tree to become unstable. Failures are most likely on windy days following rain storms. There are some alternatives to curb replacement: 1. If the curb is slightly displaced the main problem is drainage. In many cases the displacement can be ground down to remove the raised displacement. 2. The same is true of lateral or side displacement these can be ground or filled (patched) to present a smooth surface for proper drainage. 3. In some cases concrete curbing can be replaced with asphalt which does not require a footing. 4. Cracks in the curb can be patched (filled) rather than replaced. To conserve a mature tree population requires an environment in which mature trees can live. Spreading out the street repairs over-time and the community working to grow additional trees will result in a sustainable tree population composed of trees of different ages. Removal of over-mature trees will not then impact the overall aesthetic of the tree resource. There will always be some young, mature and over-mature trees for all present and future property owners to enjoy. The stabilization of the tree canopy will also protect property values. Remember all parties may have to give up something to achieve the goal of a sustainable tree canopy. If Carlsbad is a TreeCity USA, they should have in their files the “Tree CZy USA Bullefins” These may also be available at the library. Please refer to Bulletins No: 3, 4, 5, 7 and 21 which deal with these tree related issues. The opportunity to serve you in this matter is appreciated. Please contact me if you have additional questions. Page 3 of 3 Sincerely, Stephen G. Holcomb ISA Certified Arborist #WC-O1 83 City Council Meeting August 17,1999 a MUy0r ..j ‘T City Council 5 T City Mana@r City Attorney City Clerk CHRONOLOGY OF CHARLEEN CIRCLE Prepared by Gordon Baker, August 12, 1999 Village Homes Unit No. 2 in the City of Carlsbad, according to Map No. 4165, was filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County May 5, 1959. The Building Permit for 2035 Charleen Circle was issued on May 27, 1959. (until today WCS thought the homes wre built in 1957, until I looked at the actual building permit). This tract, built by Bob Watson, was one of the first tracts built, and Carlsbad had only been a city 7 years. Therefore some things were not noticed that would now have greater attention. For example, our sewer clean out at the property line was buried seven feet under the finished grade instead of being required to have the clean out at the surface. And the street trees required by the city were planted too close to the curb. But this is history, and cannot be changed now. The Bakers moved in in mid-September 1964. The five-year-old trees were quite small, but still added to the beauty of the cul-de-sac. For wars of our 35 vw ce there was no tre- Apr 7, 1979 the city replaced the sewer line from the property line to the curb. We had flooding downstairs from laundry water back up in the shower. City employees could not find a clean out and used a prod to find the sewer lines, which poked holes in our line. I excavated all the way from the house to the property line and we replaced the original orangeburg pipe with plastic, but there were no roots in our entire line. But where our line connected with the clay pipe used on city property, there were thumbsized roots. We installed a new clean out which was brought up to the surface. July 15, 1980 we had flooding again and the city employees could see the water in our new clean out, and determined that the root clogging was between the middle of the street and the main sewer line on the far side of the street. That portion was also replaced with plastic pipe. Nov. 8. 1981 flooding again brought a city crew, who then replaced the final third of the clay pipe from the curb to the center of the street. So, it took 3 floodings and almost 2 l/2 years to have the problem cared for. After the replacement was completed almost 18 years ago, there have been no further sewer problems. May 1987 we phoned to request tree trimming because the trees were growing over the house and garage and were dangerous. July 30, 1987 I called again. After another call Dec. 28, the city crew did a thorough job on Dec. 29. May 5 or 6, 1995 Mr. Wood (21 years with city) returned my call about lack of street sweeping, stating it was impossible for the street sweeper to get in because of root problems. Said would send crew to sweep street, but didn’t come. Again scheduled Chronology, Baker, page 2 to come on June 21, but didn’t. Later a crew of several men spent most of a day sweeping by hand. June 21, 95 phoned city re tree trimming. Asked am to be on l&t for all trees on eet for res City called back afternoon. Behind on schedule, because boom trucks in repair. Will notify residents when coming. Aug 2, 1995 good trimming of our trees. Mid July 1996 city did a thorough job of trlmming trees. Dave Effephron (city) was very cooperative with residents about what would like done to each tree. Work done by Henderson Tree Service, and they did an excellent job, including all cleanup. Letter of thanks sent Jul 18 to Fred Burnell, signed by 100% of residents; &Q . reqyaSted that cowatron be arven of cu@na roots aQibln an- . . without necessity of curbs a-s at u ttma, [About 15 years ago roots were cut and repairs were made to portions of the curbs and gutters, and partial repaving was done where roots had damaged it. The trees showed no slgn of damage from the root cutting, contlnulng to grow normally.] Oct. 3, 1996 after a meeting of the Tree Committee of the Parks and Recreation Commission about the trees on Donna Drive, I talked to one of the city engineers about the letter we had sent in July requesting some kind of work be done on the roots before more damage required replacing curbs and gutters. I sent him a letter offering to meet with him to discuss the damage on the street. Nov. 21 Doug Duncanson said he would ask the engineer to call me to arrange a meeting. Dec. 4 I phoned and got a response showing no willingness to discuss the matter. Nov. 13, 1997 called for trimming of 2 trees in front of our house; will be 2-6 weeks. Jan 5, 1998 phoned and supervisor said he would call me after the crew returns. Jan. 6 mid-aft crew came & did a thorough trimming of our tree and 2 others which affected our house. Several large branches were removed entirely. July 3, 1998 first contact with Tony Reynolds, hired by city as project manager to reconstruct Charleen Circle. He was cooperative, but he was limited in what he could do. For example, Sept. 21 when I asked for an opportunity to talk with him, he said he had asked Walter Brown, who had responsibility for the project, for money to have meetings with residents. He was told no money would be available from the city to meet with property owners. He said, Brown ss that owners must deaj th . . . . Doug Duncmon and the Parks and Recreation Dept. whi- . . over stra tree tw Duncanson had asked for money to hire a consultant to determine possibility of saving trees through root cutting or other matters. Brown said that Duncanson didn’t need a consultant, Any recommendation about keeping the trees will have to come through Duncanson, but Brown is set against any saving of the trees. Chronology, Baker, page 3 Jan 1 I, 1999 (2 weeks after my letter in response to the first Hold Harmless Agreement, raising questions and requesting a response from the City Attorney), Tony said, “My boss doesn’t want it sent to the City Attorney.” In many phone calls Tony has always been cooperative and cordial, but his hands were tied by what he called “bureaucracy.“ Months of delay went on in spite of calls. Summary: 1. Lack of adequate tree maintenance has been responsible for most of the damage caused by the trees. Most tree maintenance has come only on specific request of property owners. Doug Duncanson and Fred Burnell have been cooperative, but I think a planned regular maintenance policy is needed. (The letter signed by all residents in 1996 requested the establishment of a policy). 2. Some of the city staff have been very helpful and gracious, but others show no concern for citizens. There has even been rudeness and certainly no willingness to negotiate differences (as was asked for by the Parks and Recreation Commission in their Jan. meeting.) It took a letter to the Mayor to get a reply from the City Attorney, because he was not made aware of the issues involved. We are grateful to the City Council members for their willingness to wade through all of the many documents which are behind the items on the agendas considered each week. Citizens are certainly not aware of the tremendous tasks asked of our officials behind the scenes. Thank you for your consideration of our Charleen Circle concerns. I hope I haven’t given too much detail, but I thought these items are important. HELP SAVE OUR TREES PETITION WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD PETITION THE CITY TO PROPERLY MAINTAIN ALL THE TREES LOCATED ON CHARLEEN CIRCLE. WE SPECIFICALLY REQUe THAT THE CITY REJECT A PLAN TO REMOVE ANY OF THE TWELVE TREES LOCATED ON THE CUL-DE-SAC. SIGNATURE cIri4Gi 1 PRINT NAME I STREET ADDRESS I PHONE NUMBER HELP SAVE OUR TREES PETITION WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD PETITION THE CITY TO PROPERLY MAINTAIN ALL THE TREES LOCATED ON CHARLEEN CIRCLE. WE SPECIFICALLY REQUe THAT THE CITY REJECT A PLAN TO REMOVE ANY OF THE TWELVE TREES LOCATED ON THE CUL-DE-SAC. 1 SlGNATURE i PRINT NAME 1 STREET ADDRESS 1 PHONE NUMBER HELP SAVE OUR TREES PETITION ,, WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD PETITION THE CITY TO PROPERLY MAINTAIN ALL THE TREES LOCATED ON CHARLEEN CIRCLE. WE SPECIFICALLY REQlJk? THAT THE CITY REJECT A PLAN TO REMOVE ANY OF THE TWELVE TREES LOCATED ON THE CUL-DE-SAC. SIGNATURE 1 PRINT NAME I STREET ADDRESS I PHONE NUMBER 16 f L 17 21 22 23 -- 24 HELP SAVE OUR TREES PETITION WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD PETITION THE CITY TO PROPERLY MAINTAIN & THE TREES LOCATED ON CHARLEEN CIRCLE. WE SPECIFICALLY REQUEST THAT THE CITY REJECT A PLAN TO REMOVE ANY OF THE TWELVE TREES LOCATED ON THE CUL-DE-SAC. 114 w I I i 2 * I 116 22 I I 23 I I 24 25 HELP SAVE OUR TREES PETITION WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD PETITION THE CITY TO PROPERLY MAINTAIN ALL THE TREES LOCATED ON CHARLEEN CIRCLE. WE SPECIFICALLY REQlJe THAT THE CITY REJECT A PLAN TO REMOVE ANY OF THE TWELVE TREES LOCATED ON THE CUL-DE-SAC. 1 SIGNATURE 1 PRINT NAME 1 STREET ADDRESS 1 PHONE NUMBER 18 + 9 I 10 I 11 12 13 14 1s I I 16 I 17 I 119 20 I I I 21 22 s 23 I I I . : h HELP SAVE OUR TREES PETITION WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD PETITION THE CITY TO PROPERLY MAINTAIN & THE TREES LOCATED ON CHARLEEN CIRCLE. WE SPECIFICALLY REQUEST THAT THE CITY REJECT A PLAN TO REMOVE ANY OF THE TWELVE TREES LOCATED ON THE CUL-DE-SAC. WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD PETITION THE CITY TO PROPERLY MAINTAIN & THE TREES LOCATED ON CHARLEEN CIRCLE. WE SPECIFICALLY REQUEST THAT THE CITY REJECT A PLAN TO REMOVE ANY OF THE TWELVE TREES LOCATED ON THE CUL-DE-SAC. HELP SAVE OUR TREES PETITION WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD PETITION THE CITY TO PROPERLY MAINTAIN & THE TREES LOCATED ON CHARLEEN CIRCLE. WE SPECIFICALLY REQUEST THAT THE CITY REJECT A PLAN TO REMOVE ANY OF THE TWELVE TREES LOCATED ON THE CUL-DE-SAC. 1 SIGNATURE 1 PRINT NAME 1 STREET ADDRESS 1 PHONE NUMBER HELP SAVE OUR TREES a’ PETITION WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD PETITION THE CITY TO PROPERLY MAINTAIN & THE TREES LOCATED ON CHARLEEN CIRCLE. WE SPECIFICALLY REQUEST THAT THE CITY REJECT A PLAN TO REMOVE ANY OF THE TWELVE TREES LOCATED ON THE CUL-DE-SAC. SIGNATURE I PRINT NAME I STREET ADDRESS 1 PHONE NUMBER HELP SAVE OUR TREES PETITION WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD PETITION THE - CITY TO PROPERLY MAINTAIN & THE TREES LOCATED ON CHARLEEN CIRCLE. WE SPECIFICALLY REQUEST THAT THE CITY REJECT A PLAN TO REMOVE ANY OF THE TWELVE TREES LOCATED ON THE CUL-DE-SAC. 1 SIGNATURE _ 1 PRINT NAME I STREET ADDRESS 1 PHONE NUMBER I -. HELP ‘SAVE OUR TREES PETITION WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD PETITION THE CITY TO PROPERLY MAINTAIN ALL THE TREES LOCATED ON CHARLEEN CIRCLE. WE SPECIFICALLY REQlJe THAT THE CITY REJECT A PLAN TO REMOVE ANY OF THE TWELVE TREES LOCATED ON THE CUL-DE-SAC. 1 SIGNATURE 1 PRINT NAME 1 STREET ADDRESS 1 PHONE NUMBER 6 /. / - HELP SAVE OUR TREES PETITION WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD PETITION THE CITY TO PROPERLY MAINTAIN & THE TREES LOCATED ON CHARLEEN CIRCLE. WE SPECIFICALLY REQUEST THAT THE CITY REJECT A PLAN TO REMOVE ANY OF THE TWELVE TREES LOCATED ON THE CUL-DE-SAC. 1 SlGtiATURE 1 PRINT NAME I STREET ADDRESS 1 PHONE NUMBER 16 17 I 24 HELP SAVE OUR TREES PETITION WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD PETITION THE CITY TO PROPERLY MAINTAIN & THE TREES LOCATED ON CHARLEEN CIRCLE. WE SPECIFICALLY REQUEST ?-HAT THE CITY REJECT A PLAN TO Re)atO\jE ANY OF THE TWELVE TREES LOCATED ON THE CUL-DE-SAC. 1 SIGNATURE I PRINT NAME I STREET ADDRESS I PHONE NUMBER 16 I I I 18 19 I i 1; - I 20 1 HELP SAVE OUR TREES PETITION -/ WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD PETITION THE CITY TO ‘PROPERLY MAINTAIN u THE TREES LOCATED 0~ CHARLEEN CIRCLE. WE SPECIFICALLY REQUEST THAT THE CITY REJECT A PLAN TO REMOVE ANY OF THE TWELVE TREES LOCATED ON THE CUL-DE-SAC. SIGIjJATURE 1 PRINT NAME 1 STREET ADDRESS 1 PHONE NUMBER -“I 18 I 20 21 22 I------- ! 25 WE, THE UNDERSIGNED CITY TO PROPERLY M CIRCLE. WE SPECIFICALLY REMOVE ANY OF THE TWELE w SAVE THE TREES IN OLD CARLSBAD! PETITION WE’, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD PETlTlON THE CITY TO RECONSIDER THE POLICY OF REQUIRING CITIZENS TO SIGN HOLD HARMLESS DOCUMENTS WHEREBY INDIVIDUAL OWNERS MUST “ACCEPT LIABILITY FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGE TO OWNERS PROPERTY, PERSONAL INJURIES TO OWNER AND PERSONAL AND PROPERTY DAMAGE TO OWNER’S GUESTS AND/OR OWNER’S TENANTS THAT MAY HEREINAFTER OCCUR THAT IS Al-t-RIBUTABLE TO”. . .THE TREES ADJACENT TO THEIR PROPERTY. THE CURRENT POLICY OF REQUIRING INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS TO SIGN A HOLD HARMLESS OR HAVE “THEIR” TREE REMOVED IS UNFAIR TO THE CITIZENS OF CARLSBAD BECAUSE: 1. IT GIVES ONE INDIVIDUAL THE POWER TO HAVE A CITY TREE REMOVED. (THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY DESERVES THE BEAUTY, TRANQUILITY, SHADE AND CLEAN AIR THE CITY TREES PROVIDE) 2. NON RESIDENT LANDLORDS WILL NOT ACCEPT THE FINANCIAL AND LEGAL RISKS INVOLVED IN A HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT. (AN INDIVIDUAL WHO DOES NOT EVEN LIVE IN CARLSBAD HAS THE POWER TO HAVE THE COMMUNITY TREES DESTROYED) 3. SOME RESIDENTS CANNOT ACCEPT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF SIGNING A HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT FOR FINANCIAL REASONS (AN INDIVIDUAL SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO ACCEPT THE BURDEN OF SAVING A CITY TREE. WE AS A COMMUNITY MUST MAINTAIN THE BEAUTY OF OUR TREES) 4. THE CITY POLICY OF “SIGN OR LOSE YOUR TREE” CAN DESTROY NEIGHBORHOOD COHESIVENESS AND COMMUNITY SPIRIT WHEN MULTIPLE TREE AREAS ARE JEOPARDIZED. d- /- I / 1 [ 24 I I ? I : SAVE THE TREES IN OLD CARLSBAD! PETITION WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD PETITION THE CITY TO RECONSIDER THE POLICY OF REQUIRING CITIZENS TO SIGN HOLD HARMLESS DOCUMENTS WHEREBY INDIVIDUAL OWNERS MUST “ACCEPT LIABILITY FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGE TO OWNERS PROPERTY, PERSONAL INJURIES TO OWNER AND PERSONAL AND PROPERTY DAMAGE TO OWNER’S GUESTS AND/OR OWNER’S TENANTS THAT MAY HEREINAFTER OCCUR THAT IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO”. . .THE TREES ADJACENT TO THEIR PROPERTY. THE CURRENT POLICY OF REQUIRING INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS TO SIGN A HOLD HARMLESS OR HAVE “THEIR” TREE REMOVED IS UNFAIR TO THE CITIZENS OF CARLSBAD BECAUSE: 1. IT GIVES ONE INDIVIDUAL THE POWER TO HAVE 4 CITY TREE REMOVED. (THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY DESERVES THE BEAUTY, TRANQUILITY, SHADE AND CLEAN AIR THE CITY TREES PROVIDE) 2. NON RESIDENT LANDLORDS WILL NOT ACCEPT THE FINANCIAL AND LEGAL RISKS INVOLVED IN A HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT. (AN INDIVIDUAL WHO DOES NOT EVEN LIVE IN CARLSBAD HAS THE POWER TO HAVE THE COMMUNITY TREES DESTROYED) 3. SOME RESIDENTS CANNOT ACCEPT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF SIGNING A HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT FOR FINANCIAL REASONS (AN INDIVIDUAL SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO ACCEPT THE BURDEN OF SAVING A CITY TREE. WE AS A COMMUNITY MUST MAINTAIN THE BEAUTY OF OUR TREES) 4. THE CITY POLICY OF “SIGN OR LOSE YOUR TREE” CAN DESTROY NEIGHBORHOOD COHESIVENESS AND COMMUNITY SPIRIT WHEN MULTIPLE TREE AREAS ARE JEOPARDIZED. PLEASE ABANDON THIS DISTRUCTIVE POLICY AND FIND A WAY TO MAINTAIN THE EXISTING BEkUTlFUL TREES IN OUR COMMUNITY. 8 -i22&JL- & I I II 9 G-i- 1 D. ?Rom~o~r /ai62r3kk.d 5~. I - 10 - I I 16 I 17 18 I 19 20 I I I 21 22 I 23 I I 24 I 25 1 ! I [ 8,’ / -- SAVE THE TREES IN OLD CARLSBAD! PETITION WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD PETlTlON THE CITY TO RECONSIDER THE POLICY OF REQUIRING CITIZENS TO SIGN HOLD HARMLESS DOCUMENTS WHEREBY INDIVIDUAL OWNERS MUST “ACCEPT LIABILITY FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGE TO OWNERS PROPERTY, PERSONAL INJURIES TO OWNER AND PERSONAL AND PROPERTY DAMAGE TO OWNER’S GUESTS AND/OR OWNER’S TENANTS THAT MAY HEREINAFTER OCCUR THAT IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO”. . PROPERTY. .THE TREES ADJACENT TO THEIR , THE CURRENT POLICY OF REQUIRING INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS TO SIGN A HOLD HARMLESS OR HAVE “THEIR” TREE REMOVED IS UNFAIR TO THE CITIZENS OF CARLSBAD BECAUSE: 1. IT GIVES ONE INDIVIDUAL THE POWER TO HAVE A CITY TREE REMOVED. (THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY DESERVES THE BEAUTY, TRANQUILITY, SHADE AND CLEAN AIR THE CITY TREES PROVIDE) 2. NON RESIDENT LANDLORDS WILL NOT ACCEPT THE FINANCIAL AND LEGAL RISKS INVOLVED IN A HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT. (AN INDIVIDUAL WHO DOES NOT EVEN LIVE IN CARLSBAD HAS THE POWER TO HAVE THE COMMUNITY TREES DESTROYED) 3. SOME RESIDENTS CANNOT ACCEPT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF SIGNING A HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT FOR FINANCIAL REASONS (AN INDIVIDUAL SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO ACCEPT THE BURDEN OF SAVING A CITY TREE. WE AS A COMMUNITY MUST MAINTAIN THE BEAUTY OF OUR TREES) 4. THE CITY POLICY OF “SIGN OR LOSE YOUR TREE” CAN DESTROY NEIGHBORHOOD COHESIVENESS AND COMMUNITY SPIRIT WHEN MULTIPLE TREE AREAS ARE JEOPARDIZED. PLEASE ABANDON THIS Dl6TRUCTlVE POLICY AND FIND A WAY TO MAINTAIN THE EXISTING BEAUTIFUL TREES IN OUR COMMUNITY. A PRINT NAME 1 STREET ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER I 7% -93L _I_f______l____ SAVE THE TREES IN OLD CARLSBAD! PETITION WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD PETITION THE ClTY TO RECONSIDER THE POLICY OF REQUIRING CITIZENS TO SIGN HOLD HARMLESS DOCUMENTS WHEREBY INDIVIDUAL OWNERS MUST “ACCEPT LIABILITY FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGE TO OWNERS PROPERTY, PERSONAL INJURIES TO OWNER AND PERSONAL AND PROPERTY DAMAGE TO OWNER’S GUESTS AND/OR OWNER’S TENANTS THAT MAY HEREINAFTER OCCUR THAT IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO”. . .THE TREES ADJACENT TO THEIR PROPERTY. THE CURRENT POLICY OF REQUIRING INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS TO SIGN A HOLD HARMLESS OR HAVE “THEIR” TREE REMOVED IS UNFAIR TO THE CITIZENS OF CARLSBAD BECAUSE: 1. IT GIVES ONE INDIVIDUAL THE POWER TO HAVE A CITY TREE REMOVED. (THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY DESERVES THE BEAUTY, TRANQUILITY, SHADE AND CLEAN AIR THE CITY TREES PROVIDE) 2. NON RESIDENT LANDLORDS WILL NOT ACCEPT THE FINANCIAL AND LEGAL RISKS INVOLVED IN A HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT. (AN INDIVIDUAL WHO DOES NOT EVEN LIVE IN CARLSBAD HAS THE POWER TO HAVE THE COMMUNITY TREES DESTROYED) 3. SOME RESIDENTS CANNOT ACCEPT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF SIGNING A HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT FOR FINANCIAL REASONS (AN INDIVIDUAL SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO ACCEPT THE BURDEN OF SAVING A CITY TREE. WE AS A COMMUNITY MUST MAINTAIN THE BEAUTY OF OUR TREES) 4. THE CITY POLICY OF “SIGN OR LOSE YOUR TREE” CAN DESTROY NEIGHBORHOOD COHESIVENESS AND COMMUNITY SPIRIT WHEN MULTIPLE TREE AREAS ARE JEOPARDIZED. PLEASE ABANDON THIS DISTRUCTIVE POLICY AND FIND A WAY TO MAINTAIN THE EXISTING BEAUTIFUL TREES IN OUR COMMUNITY. ISIGNATURE 1 PRINT NAME 1 STREET ADDRESS 1 PHONE. NUMBER SAVE THE TREES IN OLD CARLSBAD! PETITION WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD PETITION THE CITY TO RECONSIDER THE POLICY OF REQUIRING CITIZENS TO SIGN HOLD HARMLESS DOCUMENTS WHEREBY INDIVIDUAL OWNERS MUST “ACCEPT LIABILITY FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGE TO OWNERS PROPERTY, PERSONAL INJURIES TO OWNER AND PERSONAL AND PROPERTY DAMAGE TO OWNER’S GUESTS AND/OR OWNER’S TENANTS THAT MAY HEEEINAFTER OCCUR THAT IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO”. . PROPERTY. .THE TREES ADJACENT TO THEIR THE CURRENT POLICY OF REQUIRING INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS TO SIGN A HOLD HARMLESS OR HAVE “THEIR” TREE REMOVED IS UNFAIR TO THE CITIZENS OF CARLSBAD BECAUSE: 1. IT GIVES ONE INDIVIDUAL THE POWER TO HAVE A CITY TREE REMOVED. (THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY DESERVES THE BEAUTY, TRANQUILITY, SHADE AND CLEAN AIR THE CITY TREES PROVIDE) 2. NON RESIDENT LANDLORDS WILL NOT ACCEPT THE FINANCIAL AND LEGAL RISKS INVOLVED IN A HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT. (AN INDIVIDUAL WHO DOES NOT EVEN LIVE IN CARLSBAD HAS THE POWER TO HAVE THE COMMUNITY TREES DESTROYED) 3. SOME RESIDENTS CANNOT ACCEPT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF SIGNING A HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT FOR FINANCIAL REASONS (AN INDIVIDUAL SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO ACCEPT THE BURDEN OF SAVING A CITY TREE. WE AS A COMMUNITY MUST MAINTAIN THE BEAUTY OF OUR TREES) 4. THE CITY POLICY OF “SIGN OR LOSE YOUR TREE” CAN DESTROY NEIGHBORHOOD COHESIVENESS AND COMMUNITY SPIRIT WHEN MULTIPLE TREE AREAS ARE JEOPARDIZED. PLEASE ABANDON THIS DISTRUCTIVE POLICY AND FIND A WAY TO MAINTAIN THE EXISTING BEAUTIFUL TREES IN OUR COMMUNITY. 1 SIGNATURE 1 PRINT NAME 1 STREET ADDRESS 1 PHONE NUMBER SAVE THE TREES IN OLD CARLSBAD! PETITION WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD PETlTlON THE CITY TO RECONSIDER THE POLICY OF REQUIRING CITIZENS TO SIGN HOLD HARMLESS DOCUMENTS WHEREBY INDIVIDUAL OWNERS MUST “ACCEPT LIABILITY FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGE TO OWNERS PROPERTY, PERSONAL lNJURIE&TO OWNER AND PERSONAL AND PROPERTY DAMAGE TO OWNER’S GUESTS AND/OR OWNER’S TENANTS THAT MAY HEREINAFTER OCCUR THAT IS AlTRIBUTABLE TO”. . .THE TREES ADJACENT TO THEIR PROPERTY. THE CURRENT POLICY OF REQUIRING INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS TO SIGN A HOLD HARMLESS OR HAVE “THEIR” TREE REMOVED IS UNFAIR TO THE CITIZENS OF CARLSBAD BECAUSE: 1. IT GIVES ONE INDIVIDUAL THE POWER TO HAVE A CITY TREE REMOVED. (THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY DESERVES THE BEAUTY, TRANQUILITY, SHADE AND CLEAN AIR THE CITY TREES PROVIDE) 2. NON RESlDENT LANDLORDS WILL NOT ACCEPT THE FINANCIAL AND LEGAL RISKS INVOLVED IN A HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT. (AN INDIVIDUAL WHO DOES NOT EVEN LIVE IN CARLSBAD HAS THE POWER TO HAVE THE COMMUNITY TREES DESTROYED) 3. SOME RESIDENTS CANNOT ACCEPT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF SIGNING A HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT FOR FINANCIAL REASONS (AN INDIVIDUAL SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO ACCEPT THE BURDEN OF SAVING A CITY TREE. WE AS A COMMUNITY MUST MAINTAIN THE BEAUTY OF OUR TREES) 4. THE CITY POLICY OF “SIGN OR LOSE YOUR TREE” CAN DESTROY NEIGHBORHOOD COHESIVENESS AND COMMUNITY SPIRIT WHEN MULTIPLE TREE AREAS ARE JEOPARDIZED. PLEASE ABANDON THIS D$TRUCTIVE POLICY AND FIND A WAY TO MAINTAIN THE EXISTING BEAUTIFUL TREES IN OUR COMMUNITY. PHONE NUMBER - SAVE THE TREES IN OLD CARLSBAD! PETITION WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD PETITION THE CITY TO RECONSIDER THE POLICY OF REQUIRING CITIZENS TO SIGN HOLD HARMLESS DOCUMENTS WHEREBY INDIVIDUAL OWNERS MUST “ACCEPT LIABILITY FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGE TO OWNERS PROPERTY, PERSONAL INJURIES TO OWNER AND PERSONAL AND PROPERTY DAMAGE TO OWNER’S GUESTS AND/OR OWNER’S TENANTS THAT MAY HEREINAFTER OCCUR THAT IS A-lTRIBUTABLE TO”. . .THE TREES ADJACENT TO THEIR PROPERTY. THE CURRENT POLICY OF REQUIRING INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS TO SIGN A HOLD HARMLESS OR HAVE “THEIR” TREE REMOVED IS UNFAIR TO THE CITIZENS OF CARLSBAD BECAUSE: 1. IT GIVES ONE INDIVIDUAL THE POWER TO HAVE A CITY TREE REMOVED. (THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY DESERVES THE BEAUTY, TRANQUILITY, SHADE AND CLEAN AIR THE CITY TREES PROVIDE) 2. NON RESIDENT LANDLORDS WILL NOT ACCEPT THE FINANCIAL AND LEGAL RISKS INVOLVED IN A HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT. (AN INDIVIDUAL WHO DOES NOT EVEN LIVE IN CARLSBAD HAS THE POWER TO HAVE THE COMMUNITY TREES DESTROYED) 3. SOME RESIDENTS CANNOT ACCEPT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF SIGNING A HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT FOR FINANCIAL REASONS (AN INDIVIDUAL SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO ACCEPT THE BURDEN OF SAVING A CITY TREE. WE AS A COMMUNITY MUST MAINTAIN THE BEAUTY OF OUR TREES) 4. THE CITY POLICY OF “SIGN OR LOSE YOUR TREE” CAN DESTROY NEIGHBORHOOD COHESIVENESS AND COMMUNITY SPIRIT WHEN MULTIPLE TREE AREAS ARE JEOPARDIZED. PLEASE ABANDON THIS DfiTRUCTIVE POLICY AND FIND A WAY TO MAINTAIN THE EXISTING BEAUTIFUL TREES IN OUR COMMUNITY. - SAVE THE TREES IN OLD CARLSBAD! PETITION WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD PETITION THE CITY TO RECONSIDER THE POLICY OF REQUIRING CITIZENS TO SIGN HOLD HARMLESS DOCUMENTS WHEREBY INDIVIDUAL OWNERS MUST “ACCEPT LIABILITY FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGE TO OWNERS PROPERTY, PERSONAL INJURIES TO OWNER AND PERSONAL AND PROPERTY DAMAGE TO OWNER’S GUESTS AND/OR OWNER’S TENANTS THAT MAY HEREINAFTER OCCUR THAT IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO”. . .THE TREES ADJACENT TO THEIR PROPERTY. THE CURRENT POLICY OF REQUIRING INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS TO SIGN A HOLD HARMLESS OR HAVE “THEIR” TREE REMOVED IS UNFAIR TO THE CITIZENS OF CARLSBAD BECAUSE: 1. IT GIVES ONE INDIVIDUAL THE POWER TO HAVE A CITY TREE REMOVED. (THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY DESERVES THE BEAUTY, TRANQUILITY, SHADE AND CLEAN AIR THE CITY TREES PROVIDE) 2. NON RESIDENT LANDLORDS WILL NOT ACCEPT THE FINANCIAL AND LEGAL RISKS INVOLVED IN A HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT. (AN INDIVIDUAL WHO DOES NOT EVEN LIVE IN CARLSBAD HAS THE POWER TO HAVE THE COMMUNITY TREES DESTROYED) 3. SOME RESIDENTS CANNOT ACCEPT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF SIGNING A HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT FOR FINANCIAL REASONS (AN INDIVIDUAL SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO ACCEPT THE BURDEN OF SAVING A CITY TREE. WE AS A COMMUNITY MUST MAINTAIN THE BEAUTY OF OUR TREES) 4. THE CITY POLICY OF “SIGN OR LOSE YOUR TREE” CAN DESTROY NEIGHBORHOOD COHESIVENESS AND COMMUNITY SPIRIT WHEN MULTIPLE TREE AREAS ARE JEOPARDIZED. PLEASE ABANDON THIS DISTRUCTIVE POLICY AND FIND A WAY TO MAINTAIN THE EXISTING BEAUTIFUL TREES IN OUR COMMUNITY. 15 I I ‘I6 2 z 24 I 2s t i I SAVE THE TREES IN OLD CARLSBAD! PETITION WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD PETITION THE CITY TO RECONSIDER THE POLICY OF REQUIRING CITIZENS TO SIGN HOLD HARMLESS DOCUMENTS WHEREBY INDIVIDUAL OWNERS MUST “ACCEPT LIABILITY FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGE TO OWNERS PROPERTY, PERSONAL INJURIES TO OWNER AND PERSONAL AND PROPERTY DAMAGE TO OWNER’S GUESTS AND/OR OWNER’S TENANTS THAT MAY HEREINAFTER OCCUR THAT IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO”. . .THE TREES ADJACENT TO THEIR PROPERTY. THE CURRENT POLICY OF REQUIRING INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS TO SIGN A HOLD HARMLESS OR HAVE “THEIR” TREE REMOVED IS UNFAIR TO THE CITIZENS OF CARLSBAD BECAUSE: 1. IT GIVES ONE INDIVIDUAL THE POWER TO HAVE A CITY TREE REMOVED. (THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY DESERVES THE BEAUTY, TRANQUILITY, SHADE AND CLEAN AIR THE CITY TREES PROVIDE) 2. NON RESIDENT LANDLORDS WILL NOT ACCEPT THE FINANCIAL AND LEGAL RISKS INVOLVED IN A HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT. (AN INDIVIDUAL WHO DOES NOT EVEN LIVE IN CARLSBAD HAS THE POWER TO HAVE THE COMMUNITY TREES DESTROYED) 3. SOME RESIDENTS CANNOT ACCEPT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF SIGNING A HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT FOR FINANCIAL REASONS (AN INDIVIDUAL SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO ACCEPT THE BURDEN OF SAVING A CITY TREE. WE AS A COMMUNITY MUST MAINTAIN THE BEAUTY OF OUR TREES) 4. THE CITY POLICY OF “SIGN OR LOSE YOUR TREE” CAN DESTROY NEIGHBORHOOD COHESIVENESS AND COMMUNITY SPIRIT WHEN MULTIPLE TREE AREAS ARE JEOPARDIZED. PLEASE ABANDON THIS De;TRUCTIVE POLICY AND FIND A WAY TO MAINTAIN THE EXISTING BEAUTlFUL TREES IN OUR COMMUNITY. SAVE THE TREES IN OLD CARLSBAD! PETITION WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD PETITION THE CITY TO RECONSIDER THE POLICY OF REQUIRING CITIZENS TO SIGN HOLD HARMLESS DOCUMENTS WHEREBY INDIVIDUAL OWNERS MUST “ACCEPT LIABILITY FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGE TO OWNERS PROPERTY, PERSONAL INJURIES TO OWNER AND PERSONAL AND PROPERTY DAMAGE TO OWNER’S GUESTS AND/OR OWNER’S TENANTS THAT MAY HEREINAFTER QC~ttR+tAT IS AlTRIBUTABLE TO”. . .THE TREES ADJACENT TO THEIR PROPERTY. THE CURRENT POLICY OF REQUIRING INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS TO SIGN A HOLD HARMLESS OR HAVE “THEIR” TREE REMOVED IS UNFAIR TO THE CITIZENS OF CARLSBAD BECAUSE: 1. IT GIVES ONE INDIVIDUAL THE POWER TO HAVE A CITY TREE REMOVED. (THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY DESERVES THE BEAUTY, TRANQUILITY, SHADE AND CLEAN AIR THE CITY TREES PROVIDE) 2. NON RESIDENT LANDLORDS WILL NOT ACCEPT THE FINANCIAL AND LEGAL RISKS INVOLVED IN A HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT. (AN INDIVIDUAL WHO DOES NOT EVEN LIVE IN CARLSBAD HAS THE POWER TO HAVE THE COMMUNITY TREES DESTROYED) 3. SOME RESIDENTS CANNOT ACCEPT THE RESPONSlBtLlTY OF SIGNING A HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT FOR FINANCIAL REASONS (AN INDIVIDUAL SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO ACCEPT THE BURDEN OF SAVING A CITY TREE. WE AS A COMMUNITY MUST MAINTAIN THE BEAUTY OF OUR TREES) 4. THE CITY POLICY OF “SIGN OR LOSE YOUR TREE” CAN DESTROY NEIGHBORHOOD COHESIVENESS AND COMMUNITY SPlRlT WHEN MULTIPLE TREE AREAS ARE JEOPARDIZED. PLEASE ABANDON THIS DISTRUCTIVE POLICY AND FIND A WAY TO MAINTAIN THE EXISTING BEAUTIFUL TREES IN OUR COMMUNITY. SAVE THE TREES IN OLD CARLSBAD! PETITION WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD PETITION THE ClTY TO RECONSIDER THE POLICY OF REQUIRING CITIZENS TO SIGN HOLD HARMLESS DOCUMENTS WHEREBY INDIVIDUAL OWNERS MUST “ACCEPT LIABILITY FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGE TO OWNERS PROPERTY, PERSONAL INJURIES TO OWNER AND PERSONAL AND PROPERTY DAMAGE TO OWNER’S GUESTS AND/OR OWNER’S TENANTS THAT MAY HEREINAFTER OCCUR THAT IS AlTRlBUTABLE TO”. . .THE TREES ADJACENT TO THEIR PROPERTY. THE CURRENT POLICY OF REQUIRING INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS TO SIGN A HOLD HARMLESS OR HAVE “THEIR” TREE REMOVED IS UNFAIR TO THE CITIZENS OF CARLSBAD BECAUSE: 1. IT GIVES ONE INDIVIDUAL THE POWER TO HAVE A CITY TREE REMOVED. (THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY DESERVES THE BEAUTY, TRANQUILITY, SHADE AND CLEAN AIR THE CITY TREES PROVIDE) 2. NON RESIDENT LANDLORDS WILL NOT ACCEPT THE FINANCIAL AND LEGAL RISKS INVOLVED IN A HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT. (AN INDIVIDUAL WHO DOES NOT EVEN LIVE IN CARLSBAD HAS THE POWER TO HAVE THE COMMUNITY TREES DESTROYED) 3. SOME RESIDENTS CANNOT ACCEPT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF SIGNING A HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT FOR FINANCIAL REASONS (AN INDIVIDUAL SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO ACCEPT THE BURDEN OF SAVING A CITY TREE. WE AS A COMMUNITY MUST MAINTAIN THE BEAUTY OF OUR TREES) 4. THE CITY POLICY OF “SIGN OR LOSE YOUR TREE” CAN DESTROY NEIGHBORHOkiI COHESIVENESS AND COMMUNITY SPIRIT WHEN MULTIPLE TREE AREAS ARE JEOPARDIZED. PLEASE ABANDON THIS D$TRUCTIVE POLICY AND FIND A WAY TO MAINTAIN THE EXISTING BEAUTIFUL TREES IN OUR COMMUNITY. I SlGNATURE I PRINT NAME I STREET ADDRESS I PHONE NUMBER I 16 16 I 17 ! ! I 23 25 I I - SAVE THE TREES IN OLD CARLSBAD! PETITION 4 WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD PETITION THE CITY TO RECONSIDER THE POLICY OF REQUIRING CITIZENS TO SIGN HOLD HARMLESS DOCUMENTS WHEREBY INDIVIDUAL OWNERS MUST “ACCEPT LIABILITY FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGE TO OWNERS PROPERTY, PERSONAL INJURIES TO OWNER AND PERSONAL AND PROPERTY DAMAGE TO OWNER’S GUESTS AND/OR OWNER’S TENANTS THAT MAY HEREINAFTER OCCUR THAT IS All-RIBUTABLE TO”. . .THE TREES ADJACENT TO THEIR PROPERTY. THE CURRENT POLICY OF REQUIRING INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS TO SIGN A HOLD HARMLESS OR HAVE “THEIR” TREE REMOVED IS UNFAIR TO THE CITIZENS OF CARLSBAD BECAUSE: 1. IT GIVES ONE INDIVIDUAL THE POWER TO HAVE A CITY TREE REMOVED. (THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY DESERVES THE BEAUTY, TRANQUILITY, SHADE AND CLEAN AIR THE CITY TREES PROVIDE) 2. NON RESIDENT LANDLORDS WILL NOT ACCEPT THE FINANCIAL AND LEGAL RISKS INVOLVED IN A HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT. (AN INDIVIDUAL WHO DOES NOT EVEN LIVE IN CARLSBAD HAS THE POWER TO HAVE THE COMMUNITY TREES DESTROYED) 3. SOME RESIDENTS CANNOT ACCEPT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF SIGNING A HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT FOR FINANCIAL REASONS (AN INDIVIDUAL SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO ACCEPT THE BURDEN OF SAVING A CITY TREE. WE AS A COMMUNITY MUST MAINTAIN THE BEAUTY OF OUR TREES) 4. THE CITY POLICY OF “SIGN OR LOSE YOUR TREE” CAN DESTROY NEIGHBORHOOD COHESIVENESS AND COMMUNITY SPIRIT WHEN MULTIPLE TREE AREAS ARE JEOPARDIZED. PLEASE ABANDON THIS DISTRUCTIVE POLICY AND FIND A WAY TO MAINTAIN THE EXISTING BEAUTlFUL TREES IN OUR COMMUNITY. 1 SIGNATURE 1 PRINT NAME 1 STREET ADDRESS ) PHONE NUMBER 7 ‘8 I 9 $ I 10 11 12 13 I I I 16 I I 17 18 I I I 121 I) I 22 I I I 23 I 24 j 25 I I SAVE THE TREES IN OLD CARLSBAD! PETITION WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD PETITION THE CITY TO RECONSIDER THE POLICY OF REQUIRING CITIZENS TO SIGN HOLD HARMLESS DOCUMENTS WHEREBY INDIVIDUAL OWNERS MUST “ACCEPT LIABILITY FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGE TO OWNERS PROPERTY, PERSONAL INJURIES TO OWNER AND PERSONAL AND PROPERTY DAMAGE TO OWNER’S GUESTS AND/OR OWNER’S TENANTS THAT MAY HEREINAFTER OCCUR THAT IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO”. . .THE TREES ADJACENT TO THEIR PROPERTY. THE CURRENT POLICY OF REQUIRING INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS TO SIGN A HOLD HARMLESS OR HAVE “THEIR” TREE REMOVED IS UNFAIR TO THE CITIZENS OF CARLSBAD BECAUSE: 1. IT GIVES ONE INDIVIDUAL THE POWER TO HAVE A CITY TREE REMOVED. (THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY DESERVES THE BEAUTY, TRANQUILITY, SHADE AND CLEAN AIR THE CITY TREES PROVIDE) 2. NON RESIDENT LANDLORDS WILL NOT ACCEPT THE FINANCIAL AND LEGAL RISKS INVOLVED IN A HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT. (AN INDIVIDUAL WHO DOES NOT EVEN LIVE IN CARLSBAD HAS THE POWER TO HAVE THE COMMUNITY TREES DESTROYED) 3. SOME RESIDENTS CANNOT ACCEPT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF SIGNING A HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT FOR FINANCIAL REASONS (AN INDIVIDUAL SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO ACCEPT THE BURDEN OF SAVING A CITY TREE. WE AS A COMMUNITY MUST MAINTAIN THE BEAUTY OF OUR TREES) 4. THE CITY POLICY OF “SIGN OR LOSE YOUR TREE” CAN DESTROY NEIGHBORHOOD COHESIVENESS AND COMMUNiTY SPIRIT WHEN MULTIPLE TREE AREAS ARE JEOPARDIZED. PLEASE ABANDON THIS DISTRUCTIVE POLICY AND FIND A WAY TO MAINTAIN THE EXISTING BEAUTIFUL TREES IN OUR COMMUNITY. L. :I- i 8 I 9 - I ~~~~ I 10 I 1 11 I I 17 I 18 19 20 - SAVE THE TREES IN OLD CARLSBAD! PETITION WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD PETITiON THE CITY TO RECONSIDER THE POLICY OF REQUIRING CITIZENS TO SIGN HOLD HARMLESS DOCUMENTS WHEREBY INDIVIDUAL OWNERS MUST “ACCEPT LIABILITY FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGE TO OWNERS PROPERTY, PERSONAL INJURIES TO OWNER AND PERSONAL AND PROPERTY DAMAGE TO OWNER’S GUESTS AND/OR OWNER’S TENANTS THAT MAY HEREINAFTER OCCUR THAT IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO”. . .THE TREES ADJACENT TO THEIR PROPERTY. THE CURRENT POLICY OF REQUIRING INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS TO SIGN A HOLD HARMLESS OR HAVE “THEIR” TREE REMOVED IS UNFAIR TO THE CITIZENS OF CARLSBAD BECAUSE: 1. IT GIVES ONE INDIVIDUAL THE POWER TO HAVE A CITY TREE REMOVED. (THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY DESERVES THE BEAUTY, TRANQUILITY, SHADE AND CLEAN AIR THE CITY TREES PROVIDE) 2. NON RESIDENT LANDLORDS WILL NOT ACCEPT THE FINANCIAL AND LEGAL RISKS INVOLVED IN A HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT. (AN INDIVIDUAL WHO DOES NOT EVEN LIVE IN CARLSBAD HAS THE POWER TO HAVE THE COMMUNITY TREES DESTROYED) 3. SOME RESIDENTS CANNOT ACCEPT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF SlGNiNG A HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT FOR FINANCIAL REASONS (AN INDIVIDUAL SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO ACCEPT THE BURDEN OF SAVING A CITY TREE. WE AS A COMMUNITY MUST MAINTAIN THE BEAUTY OF OUR TREES) 4. THE CITY POLICY OF “SIGN OR LOSE YOUR TREE” CAN DESTROY NEIGHBORHOOD COHESIVENESS AND COMMUNITY SPIRIT WHEN MULTIPLE TREE AREAS ARE JEOPARDIZED. PLEASE ABANDON THIS DISTRUCTIVE POLICY AND FIND A WAY TO MAINTAIN THE EXISTING BEAUTIFUL TREES IN OUR COMMUNITY. ATURE __ c SAVE THE TREES IN OLD CARLSBAD! PETITION WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD PETlTlON THE CITY TO RECONSIDER THE POLICY OF REQUIRING CITIZENS TO SIGN HOLD HARMLESS DOCUMENTS WHEREBY INDIVIDUAL OWNERS MUST “ACCEPT LIABILITY FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGE TO OWNERS PROPERTY, PERSONAL INJURIES TO OWNER AND PERSONAL AND PROPERTY DAMAGE TO OWNER’S GUESTS AND/OR OWNER’S TENANTS THAT MAY HEREINAFTER OCCUR THAT IS AlTRIBUTABLE TO”. . .THE TREES ADJACENT TO THEIR PROPERTY. THE CURRENT POLICY OF REQUIRING INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS TO SIGN A HOLD HARMLESS OR HAVE “THEIR” TREE REMOVED IS UNFAIR TO THE CITIZENS OF CARLSBAD BECAUSE: 1. IT GIVES ONE INDIVIDUAL THE POWER TO HAVE A CITY TREE REMOVED. (THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY DESERVES THE BEAUTY, TRANQUILITY, SHADE AND CLEAN AIR THE CITY TREES PROVIDE) 2. NON RESIDENT LANDLORDS WILL NOT ACCEPT THE FINANCIAL AND LEGAL RISKS INVOLVED IN A HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT. (AN INDIVIDUAL WHO DOES NOT EVEN LIVE IN CARLSBAD HAS THE POWER TO HAVE THE COMMUNITY TREES DESTROYED) 3. SOME RESIDENTS CANNOT ACCEPT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF SIGNING A HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT FOR FINANCIAL REASONS (AN INDIVIDUAL SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO ACCEPT THE BURDEN OF SAVING A CITY TREE. WE AS A COMMUNITY MUST MAINTAIN THE BEAUTY OF OUR TREES) 4. THE CITY POLICY OF “SIGN OR LOSE YOUR TREE” CAN DESTROY NEIGHBORHOOD COHESIVENESS AND COMMUNITY SPIRIT WHEN MULTIPLE TREE AREAS ARE JEOPARDIZED. PLEASE ABANDON THIS DISTRUCTIVE POLICY AND FIND A WAY TO MAINTAIN THE EXISTING BEAUTIFUL TREES IN OUR COMMUNITY. c: Mayor )I CHARLEEN CIRCLE RESIDENTS REPORT City Council City Manager . City Attorney Submitted to: City Council City Clerk By: Ruth E Wheeler 8-16-99 In writing this report I am attempting to share with you the information that I have accumulated during countless hours of research trying to find a satisfactory compromise between the citizens desire to maintain the beauty of the unique tree canopy on Charleen Circle and the cities’ needs with regard to maintenance, cost, and liability. It is the first time I have become involved in city politics. I must admit that the experience has not been too bad. Many of the city staff that you employ deserve “roses” however some deserve “raspberries”. It is not appropriate, nor is it my intention to cite specific staff shortcomings in this report This is the only opinion that I intend to share with you the rest of this report is a compilation of facts. On June 16 Doug Duncanson was directed to give me the names of arborists who the city would pay to do an independent report on the “survivability” of the trees in light of the proposed street project. On Aug. 2 Fred Burnell hand delivered resumes of two arborists and told me that Doug’s proposal was going to be on the council agenda on Aug. 10. This short time frame is the reason that you do not have an “official” report from an independent arborist. I had already done some ground work in contacting arborists. I found that many had a wealth of information, but they were hesitant to write reports to the city because they worked for companies that were often subcontracted by the city. their concern, and mine was that there was a conflict of interest. The arborist who seemed to have the least vested interest was Steve Holcomb, from Orange County. His information, though not exactly what I wanted to hear was specific and practical. His statement to the effect that “I am not willing to waste money, be it yours or the cities on a report unless there is reason to believe that the city will try to compromise to do what is necessary to try to sustain the tree canopy”, and the fact that he spent about three hours in various phone conversations, as well as a brief letter all without pay which he could have requested from the city makes me trust the information that he offered. I regret that Doug did not give me more advance warning of the council meeting. I believe a complete report from a unbiased arborist would be very helpful to the council My Research was focused on three main areas :HEALTHY TREES, STREET ENGINEERING< and LIABILITY. The following report represents a synopsis of my findings: The trees on Charleen Circle collectively form a canopy. It is the total affect of all the trees that create a unique beauty on our street. I am assuming that the city and its citizens would like to find ways to preserve all the trees. Not just one or two trees. Thus the main objective is to sustain the complete canopy. Above ground the trees grow collectively. End trees have stronger root systems and trees that are in the middle are protected from wind. The amount of sun each tree gets varies based on it’s position in the group. If you remove selected trees the others adapt, but it takes time. If you remove some trees and heavily trim the tops of the trees and cut the roots all at the same time it creates a very high risk to the survival of the trees. Most arborists that I talked to recommended cutting roots then waiting and pruning the tops of the trees as necessary. I’m sure there is an optimum time of year to do the root pruning, but I did not ask that question. The key factor in estimating the survival success of the tree is how close to the base of the tree the roots have to be cut. The general consensus of arborists that I talked to was that if root cutting could be kept 5 feet from the base of the tree the tree has a very good chance of survival. If the root cutting is done directly at the base of the tree there is approximately a 70% chance that the tree will fail to thrive some time during the following five years. The percent of survival rate increases dramatically as you make root cuts further from the base of the tree. The neighborhood residents have observed the city workers doing extensive root cutting one to two feet from the base of some of the trees on the suedes (right at the edge of the gutter) ten years ago. The trees survived. I believe that if the curbs and gutters are left in place the tree canopy can be sustained. This is based on seeing it done in the past, not just wishful thinking! If the curbs and gutters are removed and replaced the root cutting will be too close to the trees and put them at great risk as Doug Duncanson has predicted. It is shocking that the city plan includes the removal of the old curbs and gutters. They are in very good shape. the cost of replacing the curb and gutters is about $50-$70 per linear foot. Using a rough measurement of 620 linear feet of curbing on Charleen Circle not replacing the old curb represents a savings to the city of between $31,000 and $43,400. More importantly the cutting of the tree roots can be avoided. STREETENGINEERING The arborists that I spoke with generally indicated that the cut root systems should be provided with a way to reestablish themselves under the street (hopefully not up through it again) Bio barriers which prevent roots from growing upward are great for streets, but the roots need a healthy place to survive below the street surface, One arborist suggested a product called “New York Mix” which was developed by Cornell University. It is basically a root friendly soil mix that goes under the street. The cost of New York Mix is rather high and some arborist recommend a good top soil to save money. Arborist also mentioned the need for roots to have access to gas exchange at the street surface. An excellent way to accomplish this is with interlocking pavers. this might be too cost prohibitive. Joe Parko(from the city engineering department suggested a more porous type of asphalt that can be used.. My research indicated that there are many viable options that are both cost effective and improvements over the current recommended plan of removing and replacing curbs, dig two feet deep put down a bio barrier and resurface. The city engineering plan as it stands now is a recipe for dead trees. My research would indicate that the city council should recommend that the engineering department redesign its plan to involve leaving the existing curbs in and leaving all trees standing. this would save the city approximately $24,000 in tree removal costs and $35,000 in curb and gutter costs. This $59,000 savings can be put to good use toward engineering a street plan that does not require such extensive root cutting! LIABILITY I am assuming that you have familiarized yourselves with the “hold Harmless ” agreement that the residents on Charleen Circle were asked to sign. Two resident owners and two non-resident landlord owners have come to the conclusion that they cannot, with good conscience sign their agreements. a fifth resident said that unless the trees are kept in total he will rescind his hold harmless. As council members you must understand that if you vote for the proposal to leave trees standing only if adiacent property owners sign a hold harmless there will only be 4 surviving trees left standing and YOU will have voted to destroy the entire arbor canopy on Charleen circle. My research lead me to several people who had the opinion that the “hold harmless” agreement was just a way for the city to cover themselves then do a poor job of trying to maintain healthy trees. Others felt it was a way to “divide and conquer” within a neighborhood. Whether the hold harmless is malicious in intent or not, I can tell you for certain that it is not a tree friendly policy for the city. It places unfair stress, both financially and emotionally on neighborhoods. How can you justify asking homeowners to assume the risk for city trees and streets that have been neglected by the city for forty years. Why is the city trying to coerce citizens to assume the risk for trees that their engineering department and city arborists are planning to UNNECESSARILY . . ’ root cut within one foot of the base. Our neighborhood spent many hours agonizing over the hold harmless problem. We looked into buying a small group policy that covered the areas that the city document required individuals to be liable for. It proved to be unfeasible. Our research garnered various responses as to how our homeowners policies would cover us with a hold harmless attached to our deed. Having a hold harmless attached to our deed creates a very unusual situation. Bottom line is that the hold harmless is a big hassle for Carlsbad citizens. My investigation of legal facts did uncover something very interesting. The U.S.D.A. assigns a 15% to 20% increase in property value to properties with trees. (This is not just my neighbor saying my house isn’t going to be worth anything if you cut the trees. This is an actual percent of value that the U.S. Department of Agriculture places on property. There are nine homes on Charleen Circle. If we conservatively estimate their value at $250,000 each that’s a total of 2.25 million dollars. If the city (due to poor maintenance in the past and unnecessary root cutting when resurfacing the street, or clear cutting) destroys the trees. The amount of property devaluation (using 20%) is $450,000. It does not seem like the city would want to be responsible for almost a half million dollars in property damage. I also learned that removal of the trees on Charleen Circle could put the city in violation of CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) I hesitate in saying this because it is not my intent to be adversarial. However, on the issue of liability risk you will have to decide which is the greater risk. A “resident, tenant, or guest” on Charleen circle being hit by a falling tree limb, or a group of residents filing a class action suit against the city for devaluation of property, or violations of the California Environmental Quality Act. Erin Letch from the risk management department gave me the information that 25 tree related lawsuits have been brought against the city in the last five years. She could not tell me how many of those suits were won by the claimants. She was also unable to tell me how many were related to trip hazards and how many were related to falling limbs. (the type covered by the hold harmless) This is a most difficult issue for you as a city council person to decide. It seems to me, the issue is; does the city really need to protect itself by coercing citizens to sign hold harmless agreements that relieve the city of a very narrow liability issue (one that is unlikely to occur) Or do we need to protect the citizens’ environment and sense of well-being by saving trees? If you support the policy of “Sign a hold harmless or loose your tree you are supporting an anti tree policy. - CONCLUSION I am, of course biased in favor of saving the amazing trees that create acclaim from all visitors to my home, but I hope you will recognize the honest attempt that I have made to search out facts to assist you with the tough decision you must make. Your staff has developed a plan that will destroy the trees on Charleen Circle. Please do not accept the removal of existing curbs and gutters as part of the street resurfacing plan it will probably kill the trees. It is not necessary!!! Please abandon the hold harmless policy. Minimize risk by properly maintaining trees and streets. - - ntssfaftptantingthesameorawnifartreespeciesonthkrown 2. !zizg& acoessestbedamagetothestt*and~iJ?eswhti~ofttttt m3sarecixushg~must~. Ttrese~~are-and ~ntedanbthestreetadjacenttoth~ebreasisrepaired~ngirderlocldtPg pavers-ofa§phaRur-~* 3. Thecityandttte ccmmuniQest&kha*forthpremovaiandr~t ofothertreeson&estreet Thisis~~~a220yeetpianinwhichalfthetrees areremovedand~and~~tis~lJredto-l7gpavers. ThspavenwirtaRcmrRwrnaturetrewWrrichdolitttedamage~~Elamage thatocaxscanbemBigatedbyrem0vir lgprJversandcuattlgthe~iroot. lJzwe?s~~~ttre~~t. TlM3ycanbeusedkomthecurt,tu the~dri?(ingpartoC~sbeet(sayStblO~in~the~~,_.____. /_-------‘--- -‘. -_ - -------_-.. _. ._ _ __---- - lfth3curb5~repDacadfiear-ttlaestfiatare~in~.there~bsprubtems : ~\ withtfeestability,whkhthenbecomf5sasafGtyuxcem. Itistheremovaldthecurbs \ \ thatcallsesmustoftfledamageto-~wflefe~tnalk-isriearor 5 abdting the cd. Roots severed by root-pnming on orpe side of the tree to facilitate curb / ~gutterrepairscananddocausetRectamagedIreebbecr#ne~~. Faiiesare m&&kelyon~rufydaysfolkrwktgrainstomrs. TtlemamsumeaR-e§tz3~ reptaoemerd: I 1. Hthecurt3isdightlyctkpked~tinprcbkmisdr;rinege. Inmanycasesthe dQ&ement~begr~~torwMI1~tt?eraraiseddisplacement I 2. The-istTueof~or*d~~rentt)lesecanbegroundwfiRed (pat- to present a smooth sur#ace for profw drahge. ;; 3. InsomecasesconcreQe~ngcanberepboedwithasphaDtwhichdoesnot require a footing. ~tos#veycnlinthis~bappn~. Pleasecwrtactmeifyouhave additional questions. -. Stephen G. Hdarmb t!a- Aftmist #wC#183 - - - August Il. 199% Ms. mttlie- Subject Cowmvath effhture Trees cswsirg ciamage to streets. Pursuant to our telephbne conv8158tion, this date, in which you requeskd wkible ftemativestotreeremcwaI~streekorcurb~ldg~arebeingdamagedbymature the fidbwing opinions are c&d for your cowi~: F~,;indmastimportantk~ttneiral~orrUlep;rrtdaHthe~ bsit&mwd~ethatthetreesweavaluaMeassettot)re community. Second, is that all thepartiesbewin~gtocomprcmSseanb~tp;1~ plarlofakction* Remember thgtBtodc~yearsfor~problemto~v~anditwilltaketimetoresolveitifthe treesareg~tobe-. Thihd,theamenttreescamotbepresenred,tikeall livingthings#eywilidecfimandEfiein~. l?letreemsOUrcecanbeconsetvt?dby I satll3i~Ccway~~ ZSS. %UtRFtAoc: (iFEE== v&ta-& CA 9ms4 Irrbgc.4 9&i Tci+phom TF3xmmE~30 %tif$mc 949-x6-2343 Fax 760-3813 Fa93p-?Eki-2377 . . These computerized photos, produced by Dwiiht Vallefy (Charleen Circle resident) show Charleen circle as it looks now and how it wilf look after the “street improvements” recommended by the city staff. The staff directives are to remove and replace curbs and gut (an unnecessary expense) and remove the trees adjacent to homeowners who will not sigh hold harmless agreements. / ! F estivah of al sorts, fim parades of antique cars to displays of harvest boung~, dot the Nantucket year; NAQTx(j(Er/ many summer visitors return$r a Christmastime event. Unlike many other small viihges, Nantucket is a relatively wealthy community, and sustains many .j ! businesses and activities. i....-- -~. d Residential Streets Task Force Sanford P. LaHue, Sr., P.E., Chairman American Society of Civil Engineers Matthew W Ross, I?E. Sanford I? LaHue, Jr., EE. Ash Grove Cement Company Schrickel, Rollins and Associates, Omaha, Nebraska Inc. Arlington, Texas K. R. (Ken) Wardlaw, BE. Sanford I? LaHue, Sr., I?E. Exxon Chemical Americas American Concrete Pavement Alexandria, Virginia Association Arlington Heights, Illinois National Association of Home Builders David R. Jensen David Jensen Associates, Inc. Denver, Colorado Michael Shibley National Association of Home Builders Washington, D. C. W-the Urban Land Institute Jay Parker HOH Associates, Inc. Alexandria, Virginia Michael T Redd Team Plan, Inc. West Palm Beach, Florida Tim R. Newell, ASLA The Newell Group, EA. Raleigh, North Carolina Joseph R. Molinaro, AICP National Association of Home Builders Washington, D. C. Leslie A. Smith Ben Dyer Associates, Inc. Landover, Maryland Robert E. Engstrom Engstrom Companies Minneapolis, Minnesota - h Philosophy of Residential Street Design In the past, residential streets have been mistakenly viewed as fulfilling only two functions: providing access and conveying traf- fic. As a consequence of this philosophy, requirements and design guidelines placed undue stress on the efficient movement of traf- fic-in other words, moving traffic either in greater volumes or at increased speed-and ignored residential streets’ many other functions. As stated in Performance Streets (Bucks County, 1980): It was often forgotten that residential streets become part of the neighborhood and are eventuahy used for a variety of pur- poses for which they were not designed. Residential streets provide direct auto access for the occupant to his home; they carry traffic past his home; they provide a visual setting, an entryway for each house; a pedestrian circulation system; a meeting place for the residents; a play area (whether one likes it or not) for the children, etc. To design and engineer residen- tial streets solely for the convenience of easy automobile movement overlooks the many overlapping uses of a residen- tial street. Residential Streets, Second Edition is based on the premise that the design of a residential street should be appropriate to its func- tions. A residential street’s functions include not only its place in the transportation system but its role as part of a residential com- muni ty’s living environment. The idea of a residential street system as much more than a transportation facility is reflected in the following principles that form the basis for the guidelines presented in this book: l Street planning should relate to overall community planning. l Traffic in residential areas should be kept to a minimum to reduce noise, congestion, and hazards to pedestrians. l The street is an important component of overall residential community design. Properly scaled and designed streets can create more attractive communities and can contribute to a clearly defined sense of place. l Street design standards should permit flexibility in commu- nity design. They should allow street alignments to follow natural contours and preserve natural features or to respond to other design objectives such as the creation of more inti- mate urban- or village-scaled streetscapes. l Wherever possible, street layouts should be planned to avoid excessive stormwater runoff and the need for storm sewers. l The amount of paved area should be kept to a minimum to reduce construction and maintenance costs, stormwater run- off, and heat buildup. l Streets can serve social functions such as meeting places and centers of community activity. For example, children often use low-traffic streets as play areas. 20 Residential Streets l In the interest of keeping housing affordable, street costs should be minimized. l Overdesign of streets should be avoided. Excessive widths or an undue concern with geometry more appropriate for high- ways encourages greater vehicle speeds. l Different streets have different functions and need to be de- signed accordingly. Blanket standards are inappropriate. These principles suggest that a street system should be designed as a hierarchy of street uses. Routes carrying through traffic should be separated from routes that provide access to residential Irltr~~d~l~~~n 21 Figure 2-12: Widths should be consistent with troffk needs. Figure 2-13: Overdesign: a too- wide street encourages faster speeds and is unattractive. The selection of appropriate pavement widths must account for probable peak traffic volume, parking needs and controls, likely vehicle speeds, and limitations imposed by sight distances, cli- mate, terrain, and maintenance requirements. Designers should select the minimum width that will reasonably satisfy all real- istic needs, thereby minimizing construction and average annual maintenance costs. The tendency of many communities to equate wider streets with better streets and to design traffic and parking lanes as though the street were a “microirctway” is a highly questionable practice. Certainly the provision of two II- or 13.foot clear tratfic lanes is an open invitation to rncrcased traffic speeds IFigure 2- 1.3). 1 ksf,yn (:Oti.~iLICrUfiO~l\ .37 F . Streetscape Residential streets should provide not only safe, efficient circula- tion for vehicles and pedestrians but should create positive aes- thetic qualities for the users. The “character” of a residential street is influenced to a great extent by the paving width, horizon- tal and vertical alignments, and the landscape treatment of the street edges. Residential streets are community spaces that should convey an image and scale appropriate to the neighborhood. For example, much of the character of our older neighborhoods is de- A \- rived-from the mature street trees that form a canopy over the entire street. By contrast, a neinhborhood with wide streets devoid of trees conveys an entirely different image. Placement of utilities and style of street signage also contribute to the character of the streetscape (Figure 2-31). Figure 2-31: Landscaping and signage can create a more attractive streetscape. Trees and Shrubs When planning a streetscape that is to include trees and shrubs in the right-of-way a number of important factors must be consid- ered. Choice of Plants. Choice of tree species is a critical decision that should be left to an urban forester, arborist, or landscape architect. When selecting street trees, the consultant should give consider- ation to the trees’ likely mature height and spread, the root sys- 56 Residential Streets Ise pub- )re than rxtion, q?ortive it with- lew the Ed land- Y people :icrease. .‘tven in ,-cdesign rriety of !nd play hicycles ocation: : the for- said the percent :d a safe ‘<Ice that children iority of .,\I inter- iJ i-l c :,g i i f STREETS AND THE SHAPING OF TOWNS AND CITIES Michael Southworth Eran Ben-Joseph Surveys in Israel also showed that shared streets foster encounters and communication between neighbors. Most residents preferred a dead-end street (cul-de-sac) to a through one-way street, indicating that a dead-end street improved the environment and safety of their neighborhood. The majority of the children (8 1 percent) played in the street every day, using it as their main play zone. Between 88 and 100 percent of the residents said they were willing to maintain the public planting beds within the streets, and almost 50 percent said they were actually doing so.“.” A nationwide study in The Netherlands indicates that residents’ attitudes toward shared streets are strongly influenced by the level of satisfaction with the design and social performance of the public spaces, rather than by the functioning of the traffic system.‘” id Moreover, residents are willing to accept restraints on traffic and driving in order to improve their social and residen- tial environment. The surveys found that mothers, as well as children, consider the shared street safer than an ordinary street. It is also clear that the amount of knowledge one has about shared streets directly corresponds with attitudes toward them. Thus, opposition to implementation is mainly corre- lated with general lack of knowledge about the shared street concept. Safety Even though it might seem that vehicular traffic and pedestrians would be in conflict, the physical design of shared streets actually subordinates the traf- fic, a situation that is much safer for the pedestrian than the usual street layout. In terms of safety, studies in Germany, Denmark, Japan, and Israel 127 CHAPTER FIVE show that there are over 20 percent fewer accidents in shared streets and over 50 percent fewer severe accidents compared with standard residential= . 7YFiFgroups that benefit-&X&Z are pedestrians, children, and cyclist?= __- ..-L The%!Z@iGalenttrafficccidents on standard residential streets are child, iT%iid accidents. Accordmg to a study in England, half of all road accidents .-_-.- -~ - withchililren under five occur within 100 meters of their homes, The saz -.. surveyslGGG&ham such accidents occur on streets with restrictive! devices and shared surfaces or cul-de-sac design.” The sugges%nx encountered, that safety improvements in one area increase the accidents in neighboring areas, was not proven. Interestingly, the safety results in Europe and in Asia appear to be similar.4’49 Another promising finding showed a reduction of vehicle trips of up to ,-A percent. Jo The performance of pavement types was studied in Japan; traffic accidents and safer driving were found when interlocking pavers @Fe used. The use of different colors and the vibrations of the blocks make-G vers slow down, in addition to reducing the distance required for a complete stop when compared with asphalt paving.jl These results are contrary to the logic of most road engineering. What is the explanation? The shared street layout establishes a pedestrian orientation by giving pedestrians primary rights; the driver is the intruder and is forced to realize he/she is entering a zone where the pedestrian has preeminent priv- ileges. The motorist then recognizes the probability of sudden conflicts and exercises particular caution. This combination of an alerted driver and low vehicle speed substantially reduce the likelihood of a serious accident; the maximum speed in a shared street was recorded at 13.5 mph (21.8 kph).‘* Prospects for Shared Streets in Suburbia The shared street concept and its design implementation deviate from the typical standardization of street design. Shared streets require a more recep- tive and flexible design approval procedure that does not adhere to prescriptive solutions. Its success lies in creating a workable compromise between conflicting interests, both within the physical domain of the street and within the planning and engineering professions. It provides an example of a street design that follows what Thomas Adams in 1934 called “guidance rather than law.“‘3 Unfortunately, the tuoonerfconcept has remained little more than a nov- elty in North America. Although the idea was discussed in Donald Appleyard’s 1981 book Livable Streets, and in ITE’s 1989 publication Residential Street Design and Traffic Control, 54 it has not gained the accep- tance of legislative and planning agencies. Public agencies have seen no need to initiate such a concept and developers have preferred the “sure approved plan” over any new concept that might entangle their project in a bureau- cratic web. There are other possible reasons for resistance, as well. Individual 118 Laguna West Set on a flat, treeless former rice paddy, the 1,018-acre (407 ha) site of Laguna West is almost three times the size of Kentlands. Begun in 1990, it is projected to have about twice as many residents: 3,300 dwelling units and a population of 8,000 to 10,000. Besides residential areas, there is to be a com- munity center with civic, retail, and office space, as well as a church, day care center, and one elementary school. Light industrial space is adjacent to the center and includes an operating Apple Computer plant. Located about 12 miles (19 km) south of downtown Sacramento, but outside the city limits, recent tract developments of conventional design surround Laguna West but are weakly interconnected. Like Kentlands, it will function as part of the larg- er metropolitan region for jobs and services. It is within a half-hour commuting distance to both downtown Sacramento and Stockton. The most striking design features of Laguna West are the formal axial lay- out and lagoons that at first glance might suggest Versailles superimposed on Irvine. According to the designers, the radial scheme is intended to compen- sate for the flat uninteresting site by creating a strong focus and a grand scale. Three axes converge on a community center, which is to contain pedestrian- One innovatlon in some of the streets of Laguna West is the place- ment of trees in wells within the paved area. The intent is to define the parking area and, ultimately, to create the sense of a narrower street. (0 Eran Ben-joseph)