Orange County Grand Jury • 2018-2019

Grand Jury 2018-2019 Orange County’s Urban Forest

Published: June 20, 2019 21 pages
View Original PDF

Findings and Recommendations 10 findings

F1
Cities identified in F10 have dedicated a portion of their general fund budget to an urban forest program; however, the allocated percentage varies widely among cities (See Appendix B).
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
By September 30, 2019, Orange County cities listed in F10 should develop and implement policies and practices that will benefit their urban forests and explore ways to improve their street tree count (F1, F6, F10).
F2
In order to efficiently manage financial and staff resources, Orange County cities identified in F10 utilize contract services for their tree maintenance and services. Some cities also maintain a small staff to supplement contract services.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
City councils for the cities identified in F10 are supportive of their urban forest programs and budget requests made by their respective city managers and public works departments.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
Cities interviewed for this report reported minimal financial liabilities from tripping hazards, root intrusions, and falling branches and trees.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
By September 30, 2019, each city listed in F10 and the City of Mission Viejo should commit to continue regularly scheduled tree inspection and maintenance cycles to enhance public safety and to minimize future liabilities due to tree-related claims (F4).
F5
Cities identified in F10 have not been successful in ensuring that residents are aware of their city’s urban forest program.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
By September 30, 2019, Orange County cities listed in F10 should implement a program to coordinate with non-profit and volunteer organizations to improve residents’ awareness of the city’s urban forest benefits and promote active involvement with ongoing programs (F5).
F6
Environmental and economic benefits provided by urban forests have not been fully realized in Orange County cities identified in F10 and the unincorporated areas of Orange County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
By September 30, 2019, Orange County cities listed in F10 should develop and implement policies and practices that will benefit their urban forests and explore ways to improve their street tree count (F1, F6, F10).
F7
Cities identified in F10 do not coordinate their urban forest programs with each other.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
By September 30, 2019, the County of Orange and each of the cities listed in F10 should individually, or through an MOU or other cooperative agreement with as many other Orange County cities as are willing to cooperate, hire or contract with an Urban Forest Coordinator to (F7, F8):  Act as a resource to provide advice to the County and the cities and assist them with coordination among each other.  Coordinate volunteer groups to participate in and enhance the County and each city’s urban forest program.
F8
The County of Orange does not coordinate a cohesive urban forest program with its cities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
By September 30, 2019, the County of Orange and each of the cities listed in F10 should individually, or through an MOU or other cooperative agreement with as many other Orange County cities as are willing to cooperate, hire or contract with an Urban Forest Coordinator to (F7, F8):  Act as a resource to provide advice to the County and the cities and assist them with coordination among each other.  Coordinate volunteer groups to participate in and enhance the County and each city’s urban forest program.
F9
The County of Orange does not have an allocated street tree budget for unincorporated areas (Appendix B).
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
By September 30, 2019, the County of Orange should reevaluate allocating a street tree budget for unincorporated areas (F9). COMMENDATION The City of Mission Viejo has an exceptional community involvement program that includes a city employee dedicated to coordinate volunteer organizations to assist with the urban forest program. The Grand Jury commends Mission Viejo. RESPONSES The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the Findings and Recommendations of this Grand Jury report: §933(c) “No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head or any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices . . . “ §933.05 “(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) However, if a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the board of supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the board of supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision-making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department.” Comments to the presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code §933.05 are required from:
F10
The following cities have significantly fewer public street trees per resident than other Orange County cities (Appendix B).  La Palma  Laguna Beach  Laguna Niguel  Laguna Woods  Santa Ana  Stanton  Westminster  Yorba Linda
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
By September 30, 2019, Orange County cities listed in F10 should develop and implement policies and practices that will benefit their urban forests and explore ways to improve their street tree count (F1, F6, F10).

Commendations 15

Agency Responses 6

Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.

No Responses Found 1

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.

Orange County County