Laserfiche WebLink
<br />of energy efficient activities, such as insulation, wrapping their water heater, and <br />double-paning some of their windows. They suggested possible alternative trees <br />that do not grow as high and cited information that they got in part from other <br />resources, such as the Sierra Club, Horizon Solar System, and a technical book <br />called Carbon Dioxide Reduction for Urban Forestry for consideration. She noted <br />that the book cited Sycamore trees are negative for solar efficiency. They were <br />also concerned about broken sidewalks being a hazard due to large trees, pieces <br />breaking off and the frequency of trimming by the City. <br /> <br />Vice Mayor Foust asked PWS Superintendent Mann about the policy from 1961 <br />that talked about what can or cannot be planted and sycamore trees are on the <br />list. <br /> <br />Public Works Superintendent Mann cited section Sec. 29.69. of the code: <br />PLANTING OF CERTAIN TREES PROHIBITED: <br /> <br />Some types of trees, upon maturing, instead of becoming assets to the <br />community, become liabilities due to structural weaknesses, disease or insect <br />susceptibility, short life, destructive root systems and rank growing branches <br />requiring excessive maintenance. Due to one or more of these characteristics, it <br />shall be unlawful to plant the following trees in or where they may overhang any <br />public street: acacia, black walnut, Arizona Cypress, Asiastic hackberry, Chinese <br />elm, Locust, Polar, Silk oak, Sycamore or European plane, Willow and all species <br />of fruit trees. <br /> <br />In response to questions from the Council, Public Works Superintendent Mann <br />stated that the current Tree Task Force will recommend an approved list and he <br />agreed that Sycamores would be on the new approved list. He said that the City <br />does plant Sycamore and there are new varieties that are resistant. <br /> <br />M/S Ira/Hartnett to close the public hearing. The motion passed by a <br />unanimous voice vote by those present. <br /> <br />Council discussed the conflict in values between people wanting to produce <br />versus having tree-lined streets. The removal of City-owned trees is inconsistent <br />with long-standing policy for tree canopy, City right of way, and the roof line is not <br />high enough to allow canopy. One thing the City can look at is the solar access <br />issue and maybe suggest changes but they cannot grant the appeal based on the <br />type of tree. <br /> <br />Planning Manager Ekas confirmed that the current Tree Task force is looking at <br />updating the approved list of trees <br /> <br />Vice Mayor Foust stated that she could not vote in favor of the staff <br />recommendation due to the 1998 City policy that prohibits these trees versus the <br />fact that these trees are planted around the City. She encouraged anyone on <br />