Summary Response The 2022-23 Yolo County Grand Jury provided a report to the City of Davis reviewing a complaint

The City does not adequately inform homeowners about their responsibilities for maintaining City-owned trees on private property. This can result in inadequate or no watering of established Street Trees, especially those on rental properties managed by agents. Response: Partially Agree The City has increased outreach to property owners in recent years related to trees on their property and the likelihood that the trees are City-owned. New resident packets are mailed to property owners within 15 days of escrow closing that contain handouts related to tree regulations and tree care. During planting season, the City (or Tree Davis, a local nonprofit agency working with the City) will provide information on newly planted trees and watering requirements. Utility bill inserts and environmental messaging include information on trees and property owner responsibilities related to trees. Opportunities for tabling (paused during the pandemic) have also led to the development of outreach materials at the Davis Farmers Market and other events detailing tree care, regulations and responsibilities. Extensive City and State messaging during the most recent drought highlighted the need to provide supplemental water to established trees. Even with the existing practices, however, the City acknowledges there is always room to grow. Urban Forestry staff are working with the City’s Rental Resources program to help provide additional education to the owners and tenants of rental properties. Part of the current planting process for City of Davis and its partner, Tree Davis, includes sending outreach material to potential planting locations. This material has several purposes: education around trees and their benefits, the use of the City’s 10-foot easement on single-family residential property toward the City’s tree canopy goals and the homeowner’s responsibility in watering young trees. The trees that are planted as part of the City’s planting efforts are kept on a list that are re-visited from time to time and watered if it appears that the tree is being neglected. As part of this process, the City is developing reminder mailings for property owners at intervals after the trees are planted to remind them about proper tree care. The report from the Grand Jury specifically highlights rental properties managed by property management companies. Tree neglect is not the only issue that can arise from rental properties, especially given what can be consistent turnover and potentially less regular investment in the property if tenants can be regularly secured. With rental properties, however, there are many reasons why landscaping may not be prioritized with educational efforts being only a small part of larger issues around maintenance and tenant/landlord communication.

The City does not enforce compliance with Chapter 37 obligations to maintain City Street Trees Response: Partially Agree. Within the new Urban Forest Management Plan, the goal of “Promote tree preservation and protection” starts with the action step to “Update Chapter 37: Tree Planting, Preservation and Protection to improve protections for trees.” Through the work of preparing the UFMP and outreach with the community, there were areas of the City’s enforcement of tree protections that were seen as lacking. Part of the challenge is that current City code does not spell out repercussions for lack of maintenance of City trees, rather the enforcement relates to the removal or significant visible damage to trees. Damage over time (i.e. with under watering or no watering) is harder to demonstrate, which updates to the Tree Ordinance could help clarify. Current updates to City specifications and standards are also underway to make requirements fall in line with national guidelines. A major component to compliance of Chapter 37 requires the permitting process of tree modification and removal permits. Work performed outside of the permitting process involves the City’s code compliance process when necessary, however the City acknowledges that enforcement of unpermitted tree work is challenging to catch with thousands of trees on individual private properties. This process is being assessed and revamped to help property owners comply with current (and future) requirements. Education of the general public on this process will be part of the aforementioned outreach.

The voter-approved ballot language in adopting the 2018 Measure H is clear and precise. However, the laws implementing Measure H substitutes “street lighting” for “street trees,” contrary to the voters’ intent. Response: Partially agree. The City acknowledges that the wording in the City’s ordinance language contains the phrase “street lighting” rather than “street trees.” This appears to be a typo that has been in place for a decade or more, likely left over from when the City had a Landscape and Lighting District. That said, the actual implementation of Measure H has always included only the allowable expenditures as approved by the voters: park maintenance and maintenance of street trees. Street lighting has not been funded through Measure H dollars. The City will take necessary measures to correct the wording in the Municipal Code.

Chapter 37 fails to provide current and accurate information as to which officials or agencies are responsible for overseeing the various elements of the City’s tree program. This information is not available on the City’s website. Response: Disagree. The City of Davis is responsible for overseeing the City’s tree program in its entirety. This is clearly spelled out on the City’s webpage specific to Urban Forestry Operations. The program currently resides in the City’s Public Works Utilities and Operations Department. Reorganizations in recent years have required updates to the City’s Municipal Code that are awaiting the larger effort of revising Chapter 37 of the Code, relating to trees and tree protection. RECOMMENDATIONS