City tree policy forms two branches

June Casagrande

One policy for managing trees in “view communities,” another for

managing trees everywhere else.

Though it’s likely to be weeks before the City Council considers

changes to the city’s tree policy, the direction they’re most likely

to take is already becoming clear.

“We’re looking at perhaps two policies, one for the view

communities and one for the general city at large. And I think that

could really work,” City Councilman Tod Ridgeway said.

The council devoted its last two study sessions to the question of

whether the city’s tree policy needs to be revamped. The council was

required to review the policy as a condition of a lawsuit settled

last year with the Balboa Arbor Society after 23 ficus trees were

removed from Balboa Village. But though the lawsuit required the city

to review the policy, it gave no direction on how the policy should

be updated.

To the dismay of arbor society member Jan Vandersloot, policy

changes initially proposed by staff would give the city more power to

remove some city trees. Officials counter that this isn’t a concern:

The city’s commitment to maintaining trees is evident, they say.

The staff’s initial proposal was to change the policy citywide for

dealing with city-owned trees. The changes would not affect privately

owned trees on private property.

The proposed policy changes would loosen rules for dealing with

“special trees,” which are trees that, for their historical or

aesthetic value, get special protection from removal. They would also

give the City Council the discretion to remove these trees whenever

they stood in the way of a council-approved beautification project.

Two of the Balboa Village trees were special trees that were the

center of the arbor society’s lawsuit. The proposed policy change

would give the council power to remove trees in these situations.

The changes would also give the Parks Beaches and Recreation

Commission the power to remove individual trees from the list of

special trees, which would give council and staff greater flexibility

in determining these trees’ fate.

AT THE ROOT OF THE PROBLEM

In most cases, whenever the city removes one of its trees, it is

required to replace it, usually with a species that won’t cause the

same problems as did its predecessor. But the replacement trees are

usually much younger, much smaller and thus will take years to create

the effect of a full-grown tree.

Some trees do extensive damage, city staff point out. Each year,

it is estimated that the city suffers about $1.3 million in root

damage to sidewalks, curbs, gutters and underground utilities.

Supporters of the changes say this is the main reason that the city

needs more power to remove trees.

Though these changes were at first suggested to apply to the whole

city, a rift between the communities with ocean views and those that

rely on trees for much of their beauty inspired a compromise.

The newest idea is to apply all these changes to the view

communities, to allow the city to deal with trees that impose

homeowners’ ocean and harbor views. But the more restrictive policy

would stay in place for other areas of the city.

JUST HOW EASY

A subcommittee of the Parks Beaches and Recreation Commission is

considering a few tweaks to the proposed policy. After that, the

matter is expected to appear on a City Council agenda for a final

vote.

And considering the highly divisive nature of the tree issue, a

compromise might be the only idea that can take root.

“I think it’s very important to have a policy that makes it easy

for views to be protected,” Councilman Don Webb said. “But in turn, I

think we don’t necessarily want to make it easy to remove mature

tress in non-view situations without first making an effort to keep

the trees.”