Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Street Tree Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
UFAC forms subcommittee to overhaul city street‑tree guidance and remove obsolete lists
Summary
The Urban Forestry Advisory Committee voted to ask Public Works to retire several outdated planting lists and formed a two‑person subcommittee (Tony Gurnau and Brad Roth) to return with a consolidated 'do not plant' list, a preferred street‑tree list and language granting the city arborist on‑site discretion.
The Urban Forestry Advisory Committee voted to ask Public Works to remove obsolete planting guidance documents from the city website and formed a subcommittee to produce a consolidated set of recommendations on street‑tree guidance.
Committee members said multiple, inconsistent lists on the city website and in departmental guidance are confusing for residents and can result in poor street‑tree choices. Several speakers urged a practical, iterative approach: remove clearly outdated materials, provide a concise recommended list for street trees, maintain a do‑not‑plant list (invasive species and fire‑hazard species), and explicitly allow the city arborist discretion to approve off‑list plantings based on site conditions.
Mark (project arborist) presented the work he had prepared: a two‑part set of materials separating a concise street‑tree selection guide from a longer inventory of species. He said the existing Appendix D in the city’s Urban Forest administrative manual is “seriously out of date” and recommended replacing it with a shorter vetted list. He also provided sample appraisals and examples from recent projects to illustrate valuation and selection considerations.
UFAC member Tony Gurnau emphasized the need for flexibility in the final guidance, noting inconsistent enforcement and the city’s recent choices in planting and removals. City arborist Hansen described the practical realities of street‑tree work: “the best interaction with getting people to actually plant trees is trying to find trees that they're actually interested in,” and that arborists often rely on site‑specific judgment and resident input rather than a single public list.
After discussion the committee approved two actions. First, the committee voted to recommend to Public Works that the city retire or remove several obsolete documents (Appendix D of the Urban Forest Management Program administrative manual, neighborhood planting palettes and an outdated Public Works species list) from public-facing guidance. Second, the committee formed a subcommittee—Tony Gurnau and Brad Roth—to return in January with: (1) a consolidated do‑not‑plant list, (2) a new, shorter recommended street‑tree list (an updated Appendix D or equivalent), (3) a favored‑tree list for public guidance, and (4) recommended language explicitly granting discretion to the city arborist for site‑specific approvals. Both motions passed with all six members present voting yes.
Next steps: the two‑person subcommittee will develop draft documents and return to UFAC in January; UFAC staff will forward the committee’s recommendations to Public Works and request that staff remove or mark obsolete guidance while the subcommittee completes its work.
