HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-11-19; Parks & Recreation Commission; 1107-8; Heritage Tree Report Historic Village DistrictPARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION - AGENDA BILL
AB# I 11 07-8
MTG. DATE: | 11/19/07
STAFF: | LANCASTER
PHASE I OF THE CARLSBAD
HERITAGE TREE REPORT
FOR THE HISTORIC VILLAGE DISTRICT
D INFO
[x] ACTION
RECOMMENDED ACTION :
Accept Phase I of the Carlsbad Heritage Tree Report for the Historic Village District, and request
that it be forwarded to the City Council, along with staff's recommendations for City-Owned
Heritage Trees, for adoption and incorporation into the Carlsbad Community Forest Management
Plan.
ITEM EXPLANATION :
Background
The Carlsbad Community Forest Management Plan was adopted by the City Council in April
2003. Prior to the plan's adoption, it was reviewed and accepted by the Parks and Recreation
Commission. The Community Forest Management Plan contains goals and policies that guide
the city in its actions and decisions affecting public trees, predominantly those within the
categories of the Street Tree Assessment Districts, Hosp Grove, or Heritage Designation. Any
amendments or addendums to this plan are subject to the same acceptance/adoption process.
According to Chapter 7 - 'Heritage Trees' - of the Community Forest Management Plan, "The
City's Historic Preservation Commission is responsible for and provides oversight for the Heritage
Tree Study". As a result of this charge, the Historic Preservation Commission - working through
the Library Administration staff - previously retained Arborist Mark Wisniewski to identify,
inventory and map the most significant trees in the Village area of Carlsbad. This work
represents phase one of the heritage tree program undertaken by the Historic Preservation
Commission and the Library Administration staff. Phase two of the report will identify significant
trees in the remaining areas of Carlsbad, and will be submitted for review at a later date.
Phase I of the Heritage Tree Report, for the Historic Village District (Exhibit 1), recommends
trees at 110 different sites for designation as heritage trees in 2002. As defined by Carlsbad
Municipal Code §11.12.020.A.4.,"Heritage trees shall be trees with notable historic interest or
trees of an unusual species or size." The trees proposed for heritage designation under this
report are candidates because of one or more of the following characteristics: species, rarity,
size, age, shape, historic or cultural significance.
This report provides a historical perspective on the trees of the City of Carlsbad. The botanical
and common names of the heritage tree candidates are included for each site, with
accompanying photos of many of these trees. The report also identifies trees that are rare or
endangered in their native habitat. Additional information, such as media coverage of Carlsbad
trees, is also contained in the report.
Recent addenda to the report (in January 2006, and in September 2007) reveal that since the
original surveys were completed, trees at twenty-two sites have been stricken from heritage
status due to death, decline, or topping. Seven of those twenty-two tree sites were City-owned.
As of September 2007, forty-five, or approximately one-half, of the remaining tree sites are City-
owned.
AB# 1107-8
Page 2
The Community Forest Management Plan indicates that, as part of the compilation of a 'Heritage
Tree Study', "A recommended management plan will also be developed based on current best
management practices to be utilized in maintaining the City-owned trees. The information should
also be provided to the private property owners as a guide to assist them in managing their
privately owned trees. The intent is to have healthy trees that can live successfully for many
years before they need to be removed and replaced..."
To this end, fifteen recommendations for the health, safety and longevity of the heritage tree
candidates, are contained within in the report. As proposed, adherence to the recommendations
would be voluntary on non city-owned heritage trees, and mandatory on city-owned heritage
trees. Public Works staff has evaluated the potential budgetary and staffing impacts of these
recommendations in relation to the city-owned heritage trees. A detailed memorandum and
accompanying matrix (Exhibit 2) was prepared in order to describe those impacts.
Seven of the fifteen recommendations (Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7, 13, 14, and 15) are already addressed
under existing Municipal Code/Community Forest Management Plan sections, or current
department protocol, and would therefore not have any significant budgetary or staffing impacts.
Four of the recommendations (Nos. 1, 6, 11, and 12), to the degree they are feasible, would
have limited budgetary and staffing impacts. Two of the recommendations would require
specific project scopes to determine any budgetary and staffing impacts. Finally, two of the
recommendations (Nos. 2 and 8) would have a combined budgetary impact of approximately
$29,000 annually, and a limited staffing impact. It is therefore staff's recommendation that the
related increases to the Street Tree Assessment District and Parks Maintenance budgets be
made during the FY 08-09 budget adoption process, with the City Council's approval.
Process
After receipt of Mr. Wisniewski's most recent addendum in September 2007, Phase I of the
Heritage Tree Report for the Historic Village District, was submitted to the Historic Preservation
Commission. During their meeting of November 5, 2007, they formally accepted the report, and
requested that it be forwarded to the Parks and Recreation Commission for review/action
towards adoption and incorporation into the Community Forest Management Plan, by the City
Council.
Upon that acceptance, a notification letter (Exhibit 3) was mailed to the property owners of all
private heritage tree candidates. This letter provided the owners of those private sites with the
municipal code definitions of heritage trees, a brief description of the designated tree on their
property, the development and intent of the report, an opportunity to contact city staff members
with any related questions, and an invitation to attend the Parks and Recreation Commission
Meeting when the report would be presented on November 19, 2007.
EXHIBITS:
1 .Phase I of the Heritage Tree Report for the Historic Village District (Including Addenda)
2. Impacts Memorandum/Matrix from Public Works to the Library Director (9/12/07)
3.Notification Letter to Property Owners of Private Heritage Tree Candidates (11/09/07)
CARLSBAD
HISTORIC VILLAGE DISTRICT
HERITAGE TREE REPORT
2002
EXHIBIT 1
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
Including
ADDENDUM January 30, 2006
and
ADDENDUM II September 30, 2007
WISNIEWSKI & ASSOCIATES
ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA
(FULL 180 PAGE EXHIBIT IS AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST)
EXHIBIT 2
Date: September 12,2007
To: LIBRARY DIRECTOR
From: Public Works Superintendent
IMPACTS FROM IMPLEMENTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE HERITAGE
TREE REPORT
Per the request of Assistant City Manager Hildabrand, this memo is to provide you
with an evaluation of the Recommendations Summary of the draft 'Carlsbad Historic
Village District Heritage Tree Report - 2002' (henceforth referred to as the Heritage
Tree Report). The evaluation is specific to the anticipated impacts on the General
Services Division if the City Council were to adopt the report, with the directive that
compliance with these recommendations shall be mandatory for all City-owned
Heritage Trees within the Historic Village District.
The projected impacts are based on the recent determination that approximately half
(45 out of 92) of the numeric tree sites remaining valid from the original Heritage Tree
Report are either City properties, or City rights of way. In addition, it is important to
note that three of the numeric tree sites (#24, #78, and #81) actually contain multiple
trees. When all of these additional trees are factored into the calculation, the total
number of Heritage Trees that the City is responsible for maintaining equals 56.
There are a total of fifteen potential mandates for City-owned Heritage Trees listed
within the Recommendations Summary of the report. Each of the fifteen
recommendations is detailed below, along with the corresponding anticipated impact
to the General Services' budgets and staff.
1. City Arborist to provide copies of this report to each City employee in charge
of managing a Heritage Tree and to every property owner of a Heritage Tree
located on private property. In some locations it is unclear if a tree is publicly
or privately owned and who is responsible for its care. These tree locations
should be clarified by the City Arborist.
All tree locations have been clarified by City staff and the author of the Heritage
Tree Report. The current ownership tally of Heritage Tree sites is: City - 45;
Private - 44; North County Transit District - 2; State -1; Federal -1. Providing a
copy of the report to each of the City staff in charge of managing Heritage Trees,
and a copy to each of the non-City owners of Heritage trees would entail color
printing and mailing/distribution expenditures estimated at $1800. These costs
were not anticipated in the FY 07-08 budget process, but they could be absorbed
within the Parks Maintenance (or other General Fund) budget, if necessary.
An alternative to this recommendation would be to post an electronic version of
the report on the City's website, then send a letter to each of the non-City owners
advising them that the document was available on line (or by disk/hard copy upon
request). This action could reduce the above expenditure estimate by as much
as 50% - 75%. The staff impacts of either option would be limited and temporary,
and therefore could be accommodated within the normal workload.
2. Have all public Heritage Trees inspected at least annually by a qualified
certified arborist who shall provide written recommendations for any required
maintenance including pruning. The reports are to be kept in a permanent file
for each tree for future reference along with a record of any work performed
on the tree and the result of that work.
Annually inspecting all City-owned Heritage Trees (56) by a qualified certified
arborist, and obtaining written recommendations from that arborist for any
necessary maintenance would entail professional services expenditures for a
consulting arborist estimated at $25,200 annually. Permanent records retention
or document imaging costs could ultimately increase these expenditures by $600
-$1200 annually.
These costs were not anticipated in the FY 07-08 budget process. It is suggested
that the costs therefore be accounted for in the FY 08-09 budget forward, with the
drafting of the reports commencing in July 2008. Based on the ratio of the City-
owned Heritage Trees (Street Trees - 36; Parks/Facilities Trees - 20),
approximately 65% of these costs should be paid from the Street Tree
Assessment District account, and 35% of these expenditures should be paid from
the Parks Maintenance account. The staff impacts in administering this contract
and coordinating the compilation/retention of the reports would be limited, and
therefore could be accommodated within the normal workload.
3. Remove any signs or wires that have been attached to any publicly-owned
Heritage Tree, if this can be done without damaging the tree any further. Do
not remove any signs of historic significance attached to the tree.
City staff currently removes signs or wires that have been attached to any City-
owned trees, as such postings are prohibited by City Ordinance No. NS-545 -
Section 11.12.080.E.3. of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This ordinance was
adopted by the City Council in June 2000. Continuing to remove signs/wires from
City-owned Heritage Trees should not have a significant fiscal or staffing impact.
4. Adopt a City policy or regulation prohibiting the "topping" of any public tree.
As referenced in the impact statement to Recommendation No. 3, the City
Council previously adopted City Ordinance No. NS-545, which relates to the
proper maintenance of public trees and shrubs. Sections 11.12.080.A. & D. of
the Carlsbad Municipal Code address the unacceptable practice in arboriculture
of "topping" trees. Continuing to adhere to and enforce - as applicable - the
provisions of this Ordinance should not have a significant additional fiscal or
staffing impact.
5. Adopt a City policy or regulation that the appropriate pruning standards will be
followed when pruning publicly-owned trees. The standards would include the
"Best Management Practices - Tree Pruning" published by the International
Society of Arboriculture and the "American National Standards for Tree Care
Operations, ANSI A300 (Part 1)-2001 Pruning" and any safety standards that
apply.
Pursuant to City Ordinance NS-545 - Sections 11.12.130A & B. of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code address the adoption of appropriate pruning standards for City-
owned trees. These sections identify the Community Forest Management Plan
as providing direction for the goals and policies related to the proactive
management of trees on City property. The Tree Pruning Specifications of the
International Society of Arboriculture are included within the Community Forest
Management Plan. The City Council adopted this document in its entirety in April
2003. Chapter 7 of the Community Forest Management Plan, titled 'Heritage
Trees', introduces the Heritage Tree Report, and indicates that the full report will
be adopted and incorporated when completed. Continuing to adhere to and
enforce - as applicable - the provisions of this Ordinance should not have a
significant fiscal or staffing impact.
6. Require that all pruning work on publicly-owned Heritage Trees would be
performed by a certified arborist or by certified tree workers under the full-time
supervision of a certified arborist. Certifications are to be current.
Approximately half of the pruning work on City-owned trees is currently performed
by a certified arborist or by certified tree workers under the full-time supervision of
a certified arborist. Although requiring such pruning work to be performed on all
publicly-owned Heritage Trees should not have a significant fiscal impact, it will
necessitate temporary staffing shifts and/or scheduling adjustments to the regular
workload.
7. Pruning should be timed so as not to interfere with nesting birds.
City staff currently schedules maintenance pruning of City-owned trees so that it
does not interfere with nesting birds, when they are known to be present. The
exception to this rule is for emergent pruning or removals. Continuing this
process specifically in relation to City-owned Heritage Trees should not have a
significant fiscal or staffing impact.
8. Root damage to publicly-owned Heritage Trees should be minimized. Any
proposed construction work under the canopy or within 100' of the trunk of the
tree to be reviewed by a qualified certified arborist during the planning stage of
the work. The arborist shall specify a Tree Protection Zone and a Tree
Protection and Preservation Plan that is site and tree specific. No activity or
soil disturbance in the Tree Protection Zone will be permitted unless
specifically approved in writing.
Ensuring that any proposed construction work under the canopy or within 100' of
the trunk of a City-owned Heritage Tree is reviewed by a qualified certified
arborist during the planning stage of the work would entail professional services
expenditures for a consulting arborist estimated at $2,250 annually. Such
expenditures would allow for the arborist's review/inspection, specification of a
Tree Protection Zone, and development of a Tree Protection and Preservation
Plan on up to 5 (of the 56) City-owned Heritage Trees each year.
These costs were not anticipated in the FY 07-08 budget process. It is suggested
that the costs therefore be accounted for in the FY 08-09 budget forward, with the
institution of this program commencing in July 2008. Based on the ratio of the
City-owned Heritage Trees (Street Trees - 36; Parks/Facilities Trees - 20),
approximately 65% of these costs should be paid from the Street Tree
Assessment District account, and 35% of these expenditures should be paid from
the Parks Maintenance account. The staff impacts in administering this contract
and coordinating the compilation of the plans would be limited, and therefore
could be accommodated within the normal workload.
9. In the vicinity of publicly-owned Heritage Trees appropriate alternative means
of underground construction, such as the use of tools like an "Air-Knife" or
"Air-Spade", boring or tunneling, should be utilized to protect and prevent
damage to the root system of the tree.
The use of alternative means of underground construction, such as "Air-Knifes",
"Air-Spades", boring or tunneling, are often considered around City-owned trees.
There are some projects or circumstances, however, where these methods of
construction are not feasible. Where the methods are feasible, they are also
generally more expensive and time consuming than traditional means of
underground construction, such as trenching or excavation.
It is difficult to quantify the precise amount of additional expense or
staff/contractual time needed for these methods without being able to refer to a
specific project scope. Estimations are that such work can typically be twice as
costly and labor intensive. Although unanticipated, up to $2000 of these types of
costs could be absorbed within the respective Street Tree and Parks
Maintenance FY 07-08 budgets for publicly-owned Heritage Trees. Any
additional project costs would need to be budgeted for on an individual basis.
10. Hardscape conflicts should be remedied without damaging the root system of
a publicly-owned Heritage Tree. Some methods that may be utilized include:
the use of flexible paving such as sand laid unit pavers like brick or rubber
sidewalk sections; grinding raised pavement sections; ramping or bridging
over roots with pliable paving or wooden walkways; removing pavement and
replacing it with decomposed granite or mulch; rerouting the hardscape to
accommodate the current and future trunk expansion and root growth, even if
it means the loss of a parking spot or two. This would also provide additional
exposed soil surface that would be beneficial to the tree's health.
Much of the impact statement provided to Recommendation No. 9 also applies to
Recommendation No. 10. The use of alternative hardscape is often considered
around City-owned trees. There are some projects or circumstances, however,
where these methods of construction are not feasible. Where they are feasible,
and depending upon the type of alternative utilized, they may be more expensive
and/or more time consuming than traditional means of hardscape, such as
concrete or asphalt.
It is difficult to quantify the precise amount of additional expense or
staff/contractual time needed (if any) without being able to refer to a specific
project scope. Estimations are that some of alternative work, such as sand laid
unit pavers, can be more costly and labor intensive; while other alternative work,
such as decomposed granite or mulch, can be less costly and labor intensive.
Although unanticipated, up to $2000 of these types of costs could be absorbed
within the respective Street Tree Assessment District and Parks Maintenance FY
07-08 budgets. Any additional project costs would need to be budgeted on an
individual basis.
11. Turf, at least under the drip line of the tree, should be covered with a 3"-4"
deep layer of organic mulch such as ground or chipped tree prunings. The
mulch should be kept at least V away from the trunk of the tree. The mulch
should be inspected at least twice a year and additional mulch added when it
has been reduced to a depth of 1" or less through decomposition. The mulch
cover will shade and kill the grass. For small trees, or trees with a narrow
upright growth habit, install the mulch to at least a 5' distance from the trunk.
Killing existing grass and installing mulch under the drip line of City-owned Heritage
Trees would only be feasible in certain locations, predominantly City park sites.
The drip line is essentially a ring around the tree, with the radius being equal to the
furthest extending branch. The installation of this type of mulch pattern would not
be practical to most City street trees, due to existing hardscapes (sidewalks,
driveways, and streets), appurtenances (curbs, gutters, and storm drains), and
adjacent private properties (front or side yards, and buildings or structures). As
previously noted, 36 of the 56 City-owned Heritage Trees are City street trees.
The remaining 20 City-owned Heritage Trees are located on either City park or
facility sites. In several of these cases, the installation of this type of mulch pattern
would not be practical due to some of the issues listed above, and tot lot or picnic
area encroachment. The mulch pattern could, however, be installed around these
trees to the greatest degree possible. It is estimated that the cost of the required
mulch would be $1000 or less annually. This expenditure could be absorbed within
the Parks Maintenance Budget. The time involved in procuring and distributing the
mulch could also be added to the standard mode of operations without a significant
staffing impact.
12. Compaction under the canopies of trees can be partially corrected by several
methods. The least damaging and costly method is to install organic mulch as
specified above for turf removal over the compacted area or where surface
roots are exposed.
As described in the impact statement to Recommendation No. 11, removing turf and
installing mulch within the drip lines of City-owned Heritage Trees would be feasible
on a limited scale only.
13. Require a report from a qualified certified arborist for any public Heritage Tree
recommended for removal because it represents a "hazardous" condition. The
arborist shall use a national standard, the 'ISA - Hazard Evaluation Form", as
a method to determine the hazard rating of a tree. The City Arborist has the
discretionary right to approve, request a second opinion in writing, or
recommend actions that may reduce the condition to a less than significant
level of hazard. If this type of hazard reduction cannot be done and it is the
City's Arborist's recommendation to remove the tree it will remain the City
Council's option to approve or deny the removal or require additional
measures.
Pursuant to City Ordinance NS-545 - Sections 11.12.090.C., E. & F., and
11.12.140. of the Carlsbad Municipal Code address the protection of City-owned
Heritage Trees, and stipulate the process that must be followed for any potential
removal of these trees. These sections thoroughly ensure the desired preservation
of such trees, without the need to develop additional arboricultural reports.
Presuming that the removal of a City-owned Heritage Tree will be a rare
occurrence, it is expected that the related costs could be absorbed within the
respective Street Tree Assessment District or Parks Maintenance budgets. The
staff time needed for such removals could also be included in the workload without
significant impact.
14. For any publicly-owned Heritage Tree that is removed a suitable replacement
tree shall be replanted.
Pursuant to City Ordinance NS-545 - Sections 11.12.100A, B. & D. of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code address the replacement of City street trees with suitable
species and sizes. City-owned Heritage Trees that are also City street trees are
already subject to these provisions. The same provisions could also be applied to
City-owned Heritage Trees that are on City parks/facilities sites. Again presuming
that the replacement of a City-owned Heritage Tree will be a rare occurrence, it is
expected that the related costs could be absorbed within the respective Street Tree
Assessment District or Parks Maintenance budgets. The staff time needed for any
replacements could also be included in the workload without significant impact.
15. A Technical Manual for Trees modeled on the City of Palo Alto's should be
developed for the City of Carlsbad. Such a manual would not only benefit the
City's Heritage Trees, but all of the City's publicly-owned trees.
As noted in the impact statement to Recommendation No. 5, the City Council
adopted The Community Forest Management Plan in June 2003. This plan
provides the direction for the goals and policies related to the proactive
management of trees on City property. The Heritage Tree Report is to be adopted
by the City Council and incorporated into this Community Forest Management
Plan. The plan is a comprehensive document, which does not appear to be in
need of supplemental technical manuals. Based on that determination, there would
be no additional fiscal or staffing impacts.
30
On a final note, similar fiscal and staffing impacts should be anticipated on the
General Services Division when the 'Heritage Tree Report - Phase II' is completed
and forwarded for review/adoption. Should you have any questions or comments
regarding the impact statements herein, please contact me at extension 2941.
Is/
KYLE LANCASTER
C: Public Works Director
Public Works Manager Clavier
Deputy Library Director Smithson
Public Works Supervisor Bliss
Public Works Supervisor Meadows
CC
a ^z55oUJ j=
HI <a f*lQ
. UJrr 3C ) ^^
^^m ^'*^E o1- 0
CrJ UJ^™* fi^
^^om\^z0 i=CARLSBAD HISTORIC VILLAIMPACTS FROM IMPLEMEN| Related Data«
5
§
jE
0c
w
«0a
—&
r,IDO)•o
^CD
Recommendation Detailsd
CD ~ £All tree locations have bclarified by City staff ancauthor or the Heritage TReport.— 'E ~o
o | gO * -3•o "0 •£c oj S
_ co i_ E cTi I. f*i 1—o o ¥ E o.±± 0. CD o C.i §| B ®_J *- £ CO *-
D> O.£ o1 «
C r~ ^^
*" -Q •** ^O)'C T3 *ic ts x co
•4= .23 CD EC "O o • —
> >_ X COQ- O CD CD
C/fy Arborist to provide copies of this report to each City employee incharge of managing a Heritage Tree and to every property owner of aHeritage Tree located on private property. In some locations it is unclear if atree is publicly or privately owned and who is responsible for its care. Thesetree locations should be clarified by the City Arborist.-
«ff§
"S ~2 CL
Suggested that the costaccounted for, and the cof reports commence in09.c .
•o ^§
D 2O "D ^O O O
T3 CD CO S
W- 2 1 ECD •! E o±S CO o C
.i|j o JS_l ~ CO »-
1 „ *- 1 1
CD O O •%: CMCO •*- ^3 CD t/j-= OT ^ *-CO CD <0 CO CO
1 1 -B 8 1 -^
03 ^ ^5 Q) ^ CO
,2 CD CO "- E 3O Q. £Z ^3 *p; ci- X O C CO CQ- CD O CO CD CO
Have all public Heritage Trees inspected at least annually by a qualifiedcertified arborist who shall provide written recommendations for anyrequired maintenance including pruning. The reports are to be kept in apermanent file for each tree for future reference along with a record of anywork performed on the tree and the result of that work.c\i
o
CO -Qc ®.2> c
Staff currently removeswires attached to City-o1trees.iQ.
E*-•
'E
D)
COoZ
1Q.
E
•^
1'ED)'co
oZ
Remove any signs or wires that have been attached to any publicly-ownedHeritage Tree, if this can be done without damaging the tree any further. Donot remove any signs of historic significance attached to the tree.*
.CO
4^
CO
Municipal Codes addrespractice.COD.
E
'c
'c
.D)
CO
oZ
1Q.
E
*-•
cooEco'55
oZ
Adopt a City policy or regulation prohibiting the "topping" of any public tree."
c* w"
CO Q£ "CO
Municipal Codes addresadoption of appropriatestandards for City-ownevia the Community ForeManagement Plan.COQ.
E
•*-•
IH—'c
0)
'coo
Z'
1Q.
E
"ccoo
H—
'cD)'cooz
Adopt a City policy or regulation that the appropriate pruning standards willbe followed when pruning publicly-owned trees. The standards wouldinclude the "Best Management Practices - Tree Pruning" published by theInternational Society of Arboriculture and the "American National Standardsfor Tree Care Operations, ANSI A300 (Part 1)-2001 Pruning" and anysafety standards that apply. jin
CO
1=
d5 ^- "^Approximately half of thipruning work on City-owtrees currently performemanner.en ® .
1 Si
| t8£ ra||
••| g "c = | _5
(/) O "O *"* ^§O CO 0 W c
_, m ic "0 ^ OZ .2 CO CO CO C
ia.
E
"cCOo
••=cO)"co
o
Require that all pruning work on publicly-owned Heritage Trees would beperformed by a certified arborist or by certified tree workers under the full-time supervision of a certified arborist. Certifications are to be current.co
CO
£Staff currently prunes inmanner.COQ.
.^
"c.0)
CO
0z
IE
•£
COos=c
'55
o
Pruning should be timed so as not to interfere with nesting birds.h-l
I
»t
1
1
1
I
!
1
i
i-i'
.^
-;
5.
'8
I
I
iKS^1»c
t
1
. i
to £ <r
Suggested that the costaccounted for, and that 1program commence In F09.IE
^-*
'co>'55
0z •••. . . . •
8 o•5«Jto£ic. >- -c ^H
— ^n "2 ^^a g co .to
f\ 3 ^" ^3— .« .C <B ^
c ^3 ^ To•S CD OT E 3
Q. CD O CD CO
Root damage to publicly-owned Heritage Trees should be minimized. Anyproposed construction work under the canopy or within 100' of the trunk ofthe tree to be reviewed by a qualified certified arborist during the planningstage of the work. The arborist shall specify a Tree Protection Zone and aTree Protection and Preservation Plan that is site and tree specific. Noactivity or soil disturbance in the Tree Protection Zone will be permittedunless specifically approved in writing.CO
?
j
aE
0c
ft
§iQ
>,IB«M
o
3
CO
to
1
c
4?(0•o
E
DC
6
.0 0) 0°
T3 .52 0)D O COS £D C
roject scopes wej quantify the pnadditional expeact time.Q.^-5^
£oE o
e^ •— 3 -i>8-g-ii£• ® E «CO S: to co
*. co
CO ™£ c g co <o
w ^ri 3 flj CC
CO 2 CD -55 £
c to -^ c _.2 c c <g 55«s O co •£ c
CO o O •= Oif 111UJ « 5 « j=
« s«
1 II 1
</) E o co
C ^n •" ^
.2 c c co*S O Co rt •c« o c3 J* coIllli
In the vicinity of publicly-owned Heritage Trees appropriate alternativemeans of underground construction, such as the use of tools like an "Air-Knife" or "Air-Spade", boring or tunneling, should be utilized to protect andprevent damage to the root system of the tree.O)
' E
2 .52 CD^3 O ^~*> c
O (J) >•> C
"•» *•- C '~
f> *-• — -*3
°-2 o «fii«§* f i s.co"2 « CD
®*CD •§ i
§» o „. <D 9
1 I .i to -E 0 «2 C CO03 •" C »- CO .±± C 0) 05 J> 0)
^ ^ C Trt ~"~ ^<D ^ *~ 9? 'co
iSllif. co g ™ -5 S c
c
£ CD 2£ 0 .£ .*
tg E o o ^
8~~~
ffl 8 — 1o w
O O o ±± CD
CO 5 o co .Q
Hardscape conflicts should be remedied without damaging the root systemof a publicly-owned Heritage Tree. Some methods that maybe utilizedinclude: the use of flexible paving such as sand laid unit pavers like brick orrubber sidewalk sections; grinding raised pavement sections; ramping orbridging over roots with pliable paving or wooden walkways; removingpavement and replacing it with decomposed granite or mulch; rerouting thehardscape to accommodate the current and future trunk expansion and rootgrowth, even if it means the loss of a parking spot or two. This would alsoprovide additional exposed soil surface that would be beneficial to the tree'shealth.d
» 0 C
m «T <U ° ~CD <o .j— . •*?
t. § " Si
s|t IS
Iff!!!**t*|i~ c 2 ;= co D.O — .C 03 c t-2 03 c -C (D C ^°-s o 21- 8-ii
•52 2 "S o> a. « c.c S 2-i cx'oo1- .2 Q. 5 CO CO 0
*ja
E
c
8H—'cD)'co
O
^
t: O<D OE £
3 I'm
C > fl* ^^^^ to ^
•^ T3 •*= C.S C CO Cf CO 0) (0
Turf, af teas? under the drip line of the tree, should be covered with a 3"-4"deep layer of organic mulch such as ground or chipped tree prunings. Themulch should be kept at least 1 ' away from the trunk of the tree. The mulchshould be inspected at least twice a year and additional mulch added whenit has been reduced to a depth of 1" or less through decomposition. Themulch cover will shade and kill the grass. For small trees, or trees with anarrow upright growth habit, install the mulch to at least a 5' distance fromthe trunk.^
W
co"/~ ~ CDCD CO -JS
ice would only bcertain locationintly City park sive.t5 •- c 25 ® E «
°-S o-oCO CO T) O
^S||
tsco
Q.E
*->
0«£?
'cO)'co
oz
*- oC 0CD OE £
13 >•» *^
O (]) __
t_ > ^? ^
?^ t3 ^
•g "D -^ c^ c co c«i CO CD CO
Compaction under the canopies of trees can be partially corrected byseveral methods. The least damaging and costly method is to install organicmulch as specified above for turf removal over the compacted area orwhere surface roots are exposed.c\i
to
<D T3 c _.c c c ^5
CO . "CO "cCO CO .C m0) 0) *J *545 0) CO Os- s e-
CO CD o ?II IIO 0£ -D
1S8$|•ststsi 5
III?i«- J_ "4= CD g)^ D. co -Q ir
T3COD.E
4-*§
M=cD)'co
o
"z-
*j
Q.
E
coo«^
'cO)'cooz
Require a report from a qualified certified arborist for any public HeritageTree recommended for removal because it represents a "hazardous"condition. The arborist shall use a national standard, the 'ISA - HazardEvaluation Form", as a method to determine the hazard rating of a tree. TheCity Arborist has the discretionary right to approve, request a secondopinion in writing, or recommend actions that may reduce the condition to aless than significant level of hazard. If this type of hazard reduction cannotbe done and it is the City's Arborist's recommendation to remove the tree itwill remain the City Council's option to approve or deny the removal orrequire additional measures.co
•n
Codes addresssnt of City-ownecMunicipalreplacemetrees.tsaE
"cCOo
it:
C
'55
oZ
0COQ.
E
CO.g
O)'co
o
For any publicly-owned Heritage Tree that is removed a suitablereplacement tree shall be replanted.?
C/)
Q) £
£ o±: .y
Codes addresshe Community Fent Plan.— *•• c« c s;
•fro 'S.y '-5.COc S1 «=III*2 CO "^
t3a
E
^
1'cO)
'55
o
Z
yaE
•*— »
co
«f^
i>'55
o
>4 Technical Manual for Trees modeled on the City of Palo Alto's should bedeveloped for the City of Carlsbad. Such a manual would not only benefitthe City's Heritage Trees, but all of the City's publicly-owned treesuri
EXHIBITS
November 9, 2007
Carlsbad Property Owner
*&&$£$$$$£$*
Carlsbad CA 92008
Re: City of Carlsbad's Historic Village Distridfferitage Tree Re
Dear Carlsbad Property Owner:
The City of Carlsbad is pleased to inform
potential Heritage Trees within the Historic
Library Administration staff, on behalf of the
survey resulted in the compilation of a
into the Community Forest Management
by the City Council in April 2003.
Heritage Trees are defined by C|
existing within the city limits\.
Council.
unusual §ll
the role trees fif
|d
has been s
Fees with n
D40(A)furtn
recogm.
reco
The city
have signific
survey to identify
i by the
n. ThisBBiiiMirReport rSWicorporation
riginally adopted
L12.020. as "...any tree
jy resolution by the City
tistoric interest or trees of an
Ipulates that "The City Council
aat a wide variel
^fficially designate^
dstoric or arboric
history and development of Carlsbad and
trees *n ^ts un^clue anc^ tempered climate.
heritag^^rees those trees in the community which
iralirllrest...."
The trees in thelll||gct Draft Hjlfitage Tree Report were evaluated by a licensed
arborist, Mark Wisr^^^ki, whcypersonally walked public streets, public parks, and
public spaces in the Cii^^^d^^^arched historic photographs and archival material to
compile the report. The^^^rt includes trees within the public right-of-way (street
trees) and public park site^fbut also includes trees located on private property that can
readily be viewed from a public street, alley or sidewalk. The followinjgtree(s)
identified in the report are located on your property at: a
<<Cornmph_name>> identified as tree number «Tree_» in the report.
The intent of this report is to recommend specific trees for designation as heritage trees;
to identify best practices for managing heritage trees; and to provide relevant
information/guidance to private property owners regarding their heritage trees. CMC
§11.12.040(A) states that "...It is the policy of the City Council that all designated
heritage trees that are on public streets (property) shall be protected." The best
management practices referenced above are therefore proposed to become requirements
for all city-owned heritage trees. The same practices are proposed to become
recommendations for privately-owned heritage trees, but not legal mandates.
As part of the CFMP incorporation process, Mr. Wisniewski will present the Historic
Village District Draft Heritage Tree Report to the Parks & Recreation Commission at
their regular meeting on November 19, 2007 at 5:30 p.m., in the City Council Chambers
at 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive. A copy of the report is available for your review at each
of the Library Administration offices, the Georgina Cole Library at 1250 Carlsbad
Village Drive, and the Carlsbad City Library at 1775 Dove Lane, between the hours of
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday throujj|| Friday, or iru electronic format at
http://www.carlsbadca.gov/library/treesuyey.html (yj|y njjiiFtype in the entire link
to access the file) This meeting is open to thl||ublic and invited to attend. You
may submit any related written responses Parks^^^^ecreation Commission
prior to the meeting, and/or you may pro vide ve^^^esponses during the
Public Comment segment of the meeting.
Should the Parks and Recreation Commis
would advise staff to forward it to the
Draft Heritage Tree Report would then
addendum to the CFMP.
accept^^^,, report as^Wffinitted, they
for conSJkration of adoption. The
p City adoption as an
Should you have any questioj
Heather PizzuMflHMK.Dii
the Parks/;
Since;
;arding this
Kyle Lancal
ter, pelgefeel free to contact either
Works Superintendent for
/s/
Heather Pizzuto
Library Director
(760) 602-2056
hpizz@ci .carlsbad .ca .us
/s/
Kyle Lancaster
Public Works Superintendent
(760) 434-2941
klanc@ci.carlsbad.ca.us