SR-509-000 (8)
e
Santa i'1onlca, Cale i1a, January 9, 1';21
509-~CJCJ
, .
,
.f
--
"
TO: Mayor and Clty Courc11
FROM' City S ta ff
..... ..::'.ICI
..... ""'",
v ;r;J
SUBJECT. Tree ~aintenance and Operatior.
Introdu( tlon
This report reVle~s the eX1st1na street tree ~a1ntenance and pla~t1ng progra~ and
recommends a revised llSt of pre~erred street trees for Council approval.
Backgl"Ound
At the October 29, 1980 Counc11 meet1ng, In response to concern about the planting
of F1CUS trees, the staff was requested to prepare a report on all tree ~alnterance
operations and to reco~mend changes in the tree code.
A. Tree Ma1nte~ance Funct10ns (current operations)
C1ty crews now mainta1n 26,400 trees on parkways, ln parks, and on other C1ty
propertles. The Park U1vlslon of the Recreat10n and Parks Depart~ent ~erfor~s tne
follow1ng tree ~aintenance funct1o~s' trlmm1ng, planting and replantlng, water1ng
of new trees, pest control on a limited as-needed basls, tree well clean-up, removal
of fallen and broken branches on a routine and emergency call-out baSiS, re-staklng
and tying, slgn clearance, removal of dead trees, code enforcement With regard to
11legal plantlngs, and 1VY removal.
The tree trimming function was transferred to the Park DIVISion 1n August of 1978.
Since that t1me, a tree tr1~m1ng schedule has been developed based on the princ1ple
of trimmlng ent1re blocks of trees rather than 1nd1vldual trees at random. The
schedule gives h1ghest pr1of1ty for those trees ln greatest need of tr1mmlng C1ty
w1de to trose of lesser need. Primary considerations In developlng the schedule are:
degree of hazard to the publ1C, potential l1abllity to the C1ty, potent1al da~age to~
~~ - ~ ...
the tree, appearance, and nU1sance factor. The goal, w1th no increase 1n starf, 1S
.\
"'~ "
//1:
-~ _., \: t'"I
.,.~ ~
e
-2-
e
to tr1m the entire C1ty on the average of every four years. So~e tr2es ~~q~ire
trl~lng more often, 1.e. coral trees or. San V1cente and Olymplc, 2nd ~rQer,x
Palms. Others reGuire less, 1.e. Magnol1as, Llqu1dambars. Cor.:rac~uai aSslsta~ce
has been requested and approved for certain tree tr1mmlng functlc~S
-. ,
:~e secor,c
ye~r of a three year program to slick Phoen1x Palms 1S nearly comolete. Further
contract work w1l1 be necessary to br1ng the four year cycle tc a reasonable start1nc
point. PrOduct1Vlty of C1ty crews has been l~proved by the purchase of r.ew
equ1pment, by 1ncreas1ng f1eld supervls1on, ane by the technique of tr1nm1rg entire
blocks at one t1me.
Park crews have pla~ted 1,535 new trees 1" the past four years and reolaced 1.C05
trees. There is no charge for tree plant1ng 1n res1dent1al areas except where
bUl~ding permlts are requlred. In such cases, the charge 1S $75 per tree. This
charge also appl1es to tree planting 1n com~erclal areas
There 1S ro charge for
tree replace~ent. Par~ crews water new trees for the flrst 4-6 ~or.ths, depending
upon the season. 7,000 trees were watered last year. Because of the 1ncrease In
tree watering, contractual assistance is be1ng requested ln 1981-1982 so the C1ty
employees can be returned to Park work.
Santa Mon1ca 1S fortunate to have a very low rate of pest-related problems
Presertly,
trees are treated for pests on an as-needed ind1vldual bas1s. We do not treat whole
streets unless all trees on the street requIre 1t. The wor~ lS done e1ther by the
CltylS licensed pest control applicators or by 11censed pest control contractors.
With the except10n of recent problems Wit~ fungus In Phoenlx Palms, only 50 other
trees were treated 1n the last year.
Under present policy, only dead trees or trees that present lmm1nent hazard are
removed. Pictures are taken of the proposed removal and approved by t~e DIrector
of Recreation and Parks and the General Servlces D1rector prior to removal.
e
-3-
e
There 1S an increas1ng lrcidence of iVy planted lr parkways grOW1ns or, s:r22~ ~(e2S
C1ty erews have removed 1t as t1~e perm1ts, but the problem 1S teYQ~j J~r c1~a:11~~j
at this pOlnt. In the past, there was some attempt to charge C1~lzens for the
removal. Apparently this polley was al~ered due to collection diff1culty a~d :ltlze~
protest. Presently, the property owner is asked to keep the 1VY out of the tpee cree
it has been re~oved. In the bUilding pla~ reV1ew process, 1VY 1S no lorger ailowec
to be planted 11 the parkway.
B. Tree Code - H1story
The tree progra~ was incorporated in the Santa ~on1ca munic1pal code 1n 1953 a~d
provides for the establlshment of tree dlstr1cts, a llst of approved t~ees, spaC1r.g.
wldth of parkways for planting, and Qutl1nes tree planting pollcy, as well as
regulat10ns regard1ng protectlon of trees, 1ntentlonal daw;age, attachments tc trees,
and pruning or removal of razardous trees.
Trees In eX1stence at the time of th1S enactment could be deslgnated by the Par~
Supenntendent as "official" if they met the followlng cntena.
1) Not diseased or vulnerable to disease.
2) Root system adequate for support.
3) Root system not extremely damaging to sldewalk and curb.
4) 50~ of the street frontage was olanted with one species.
Because of the 1mpracticality of removing old established trees, many areas have
trees ~lanted close~ together and lr. parKway str1ps narrower than recormer.ded.
Examples are the Plne trees north of Montana planted on 25 foot centers ratrer tnar
40-60 foot centers, and the FlCUS on 21st Street which were planted In parkways less
than four feet wide.
e
-4-
e
C. SelectlOYl Criterla
US1ng a SUbjEctive approach In select1ng favorlte trees for Street ~'ci.~-,g '5
usually unsat1sfactory. Several factors ~ust be considered: the vls~al 2f~2C:
des1red, the funct10nal purpose t~e tree 15 to serve, over~ead rl1~eS, a~G t~e
cultural cnaracter1st1cs of t~e tr2e 1tself. In our w,ld c11~ate, t12 eff2c~ o~
shade trees on temperatures 15 net 85 l8portant as lt 1S lP cl1~ates Wlt~ greater
te~perature extremes, and the use of evergreen and dlc1duaus trees beco~es less
a factor to be considered.
In Santa Mon1ca, the parkway Width and/or the w,dth of the sidewalk and setback has
been the chlef deterninate In tree selectlon. The second most l~portar,t factor nas
been the ocean breeze and the effect of salt alr. Trees that would ror~a'ly grow
1nland are adversly affected by salt air and suffer burn or dle bac~.
,'-I- ---
ine "ype OT
tree grOWing on the street o~ In the area 1S also considered as an 1r.Clcatlon o~
the type of tree t~at Will do well. The lack of ter:perature extre~es also 11~1~S
the var1eties that do well in th1S climate. Some of the larger broadleafed trees
require hotter weather to flour1sh or survive. SOll compOSition lS also a determinate
in the select10n of tree varlety. r.ard pact soil effects root direction and depth
just as loosly packed so11 allows roots to seek greater depth.
Presently, trees are selected by the Park Superlntendent cons1stent w1th the
requlrements set forth 1n sect10n 7603. This system is satisfactory wlth two
exceptions. Flrst. the tree list In 7602 ~eeds to be ~odified. ~ctual fleld
experience shows so~e trees listed to be inapprcpr1ate ,n Santa Monlca, and sowe
trees need to be added. Secondly, there lS an 1ncreasing frequency of tree planting
in commercial areas where tree wells are cut In the concrete. Unde~ the present
llst1ng, tree selectlon would be too limiting for aesthetlc considerations
C:..L...Z~
~ l.c;, J
15 proposing changes In the tree list to address these proble~s.(See attac~ed 11st)
e
-5-
e
Those In the preferred catagory will be planted In new pla~t1ngs, wn'le :nose ~n tre
least prefe~red catagory would be planted only as replacement in ar. al~eady estabilsr.ec
plantlng where the eXlsting trees are d01ng wel,. Otherwlse, a dlfferert tree ~lll
be des1gnated. Character1stlcs of tre pre+erred trees should eil~lrate ~ost ~roble~s
associated wlth eXlstlng plantlngs, such as fa1sed slcewalks, frUlt droPPlrg, a~d saD
deposits.
Rel1ef from all problens created by establIshed trees would requlre maJor re~ovals.
Pruning, both branch and root, w111 temporarlly correct or slow down a proble~, but
as long as the treE continues to grow, the root structure will continue to grow as
~/e 11 .
The scope of the problem can be seen with reference to the 31CO ~icus trees already
planted in the C1ty. To fully elim1nate th(' problem of sidewalk and curb damage
would require their removal and replacement with more sUitable varleties at a cost
of approXimately 5680,000 ($200 per tree).
D Sidewalk Repalrs
Presently, the repalr of sldewalks is conducted with1n the General ServIces Departwent.
They use several ~easures to mlnlm1ze the damage done to the sldewalks by tree roots
The f1rst is the use of a root trimming machine (acqu1red 1n 1979), which trlms the
roots adjacent to the par~way slde o~ the s!dew~lk. The success of this or0C~SS In
reduclng sldewalk damage has not yet been determ1ned, Slnce lt usually takes several
Years for root growth to cause damage after a sldewalk has been reconstructed or
repaired. The root trimm1ng process also has several llm1tatlons. The root cutter
cannot be used where sprinkler 11nes eXist. Itls use lS also 11m1ted to a depth of no
more than 8 1nches in order to prevent damage to the trees and to malntaln the
stability of the root system. There 15 some questlon whether th1S 1S enough depth
to significantly retard damaglng root growth.
e
-6-
e
A measure Wh1Ch w11l be lmplemented l~medlately to m1tigate sldewalk ca-2ge "S IJ
use more closely spaced JOlnts lr sldewalk construct1on and replace~ent
T1~S w;ll
not el1mlnate sldewalk damage, but w111 reduce the number of squa~e feet that wll1
need reoa1r in the future. Damaged concrete sldewalk could Je reoicced wlth a ~ore
fleX1ble asp~alt ~aterlal
This would reduce future repalr costs because the asphalt
would be more flexible to expa~ding roots and because asphalt repalrs are 1/3
~.
~ne
cost of concrete repalrs. The d1sadvantage of using asphalt materlals lS that asphalt
has a less attract1ve appea~ance~ especlally when placed next to eXlsting concre:e,
and asphalt lS less durable to weather and w1l1 requ1re some maintenance unrelated to
root damage. Ge~eral Services recom~~nds that the followlng course be followed
concern1ng thelr roll infue tree program.
1) Cont1nue t~e root tree tr1mmlng program until effectiveness can be determlred
2) Using the closer sidewalk JOlnts 1nmed1ately.
3) Aga1nst uSlng asphalt mater1a1s as sldewalk repa1rs ur1ess cost conslderatlons out-
weigh all other conslderatlons.
E Prevent10n of Sldewalk Da~age
Park Dlvision is 1n the process of lnst1tutlng new plant1ng and ma1ntenance techniques
a1med at preventlng sidewalk damage. An auger will be used to loosen soil as deeply
as poss1ble below the plant to allow roots and m01sture to penetrate downward rather
than horizontally. A water Jet implement is belng requested in 1981-1982 that wlll
1ncrease deep water penetrat10n when new trees are planted. E1ther contract or Clty
crews w111 use a deep waterlng dev1ce during t~e malntenance aerlod. In conJunct1on
with Street Div1s1on's root prunlng program a plastlc barrler will be inserted a10ng
sidewalk edges and on curbllnes
Prepared by: Donald T. Arnett, Dlrector
Recreatlon and Parks
Stanley Scholl, Dlrector
General Servlces
Doug Stafford
Park Superintendent
James Lunsford, D1rector
Plannlng
OTA de
Neil Miller
Maintenance Manager
e
lIST OF APPROVED TREES
(Section 7602)
e
The followlng trees are recommended for plantlng In parkways along stree~s ~ithlr, t~e
City. The list des1gnates "preferred" and "least rreferred" trees based on tre groi'ith
characteristlcs of existing street trees in Santa t<lonlca. The "least preferred" trees
would be replacea in eXlsting plantlngs but would not be used In new plantlngs.
Preferred Trees
Least Preferred Trees
2 ft.
parkway or greater
Trachycarpus f0rtunei
C'!l ndmi 11 ~a 1 m)
Call1stemon cltrinus
(Lemon bottle brush)
t1yoporuPl 1 aetum
(Hyoporuri)
Ne"('lum oleande'~
(Oleander)
Podocar~us r.acrophyllus
( Ye','1 Pin e )
4 ft. parkway or greater
Cupaniopsis anacardloldes
(Ca rro tv/ood )
Eriobotrya deblexa
(Bronze loquat)
Eucalyptus slderoxylon 'roseal
(R.ed lronbark)
Jacaranda m1ffios1fol1a
Flcus m1crocarpa (nltlda)
(Indian Laurel)
Ficus retusa
(Laurel Fig)
Prunus carollnlana
(Carolina Cherry)
UnoenlX canarlensis
(Canary Island Date Palm)
Melalenca qUlnquenervia
(caJeput tree)
Pittosporum undulatum
(Vlctorian box)
Podocarpus gracl1ior
(Fern plne)
Metroslderos excelsus
(New Zealand chrlstmas tree)
Arecastrum roman zoffianum
(Cocos palm)
Butla cap1tata
(Plndo palm)
6 ft. parkway or greater
Cinnamomum cam~hora
(Camphor tree)
Ginkgo blloba
(Maidenhair tree)
Llquldambar tyrac1flua 'Palo Altol!
(S\'/eet gum)
Magnolia grandiflo~a
(Southern magnolia)
Ceratonia sillqua
(Carob tree)
Eucalyptus flcifolla
(Red flowering gum),
Brachych1ton dlverslfol1US
(Bottle tree)
-
-2-
Preferred Trees
6 ft. pa~kway or greater
(cont)
Pinus canariensis
(Canary Island Plne)
Pyrus ka~'/akami
(Evergreen pear)
Tristan1a conferta
(Br1sbane box)
Sch1nus tereblnthifolius
(Braz1lian pepper)
Wash1ngtonla fillfera
(Californ1a Fan Palm)
Wasnlngtonla rcbusta
(Mexlcan fan palm)
8 ft. parkway or greater
Alnus rhomblfolla
(Hhlte alder)
Lir1odendron tulipifera
(Tullp tree)
Pinus Plnea
(Italian Stone Plne)
Flcus rublg1nosa
(Rusty leaf fig)
Ulmus parv1folla
(Evergreen elm)
10 ft. parkway or greater
Cedrus atlantlca
(Atlas cedar)
F1CUS macrophylla
(Moreton bay flg)
Pinnus p1nea
(Ital1an Stone Plne)
e
Least Prefer-red Trees
Platanus acerifolia
(London plane)
Pinnus halepens1s
(Aleppo p1ne)
Cedrus deodara
(Deodar cedar)
EX1sting trees not recommended for plantlng or replacement:
Dodonaea Vlscosa - Hopseed Bus~
Acacia melanoxylon - Blac~wood AcaC1a
Casuarina cunnlnghamlana - Horsetail Tree
Grevll1ea robusta - S11k Oak
!lex altaclarens1s "1..Jilsonii'l - l~ilson Holly
P1nus radlata - Monterey Pine
Cryptomerla japonlca - Japanexe Cedar
Quercus ilex - Holly Oak