The City Manager has requested that the Tree Board provide a formal recommendation regarding the City's existing regulations governing tree topping, including whether the Board believes the current regulations should remain unchanged or whether there may be circumstances where additional flexibility should be considered.

Staff is seeking direction from the Tree Board before undertaking any further work on potential amendments to the Coos Bay Municipal Code.

Staff recommends that the Tree Board:

1. Discuss the City's existing tree-topping regulations; and
2. Provide a formal recommendation regarding whether:

• The existing prohibition on tree topping should remain unchanged; or
• Staff should explore additional case-by-case exceptions to the prohibition.

Coos Bay Municipal Code (CBMC) Chapter 8.30 establishes regulations governing trees within the City and creates the Tree Board. The Tree Board's responsibilities include studying, investigating, developing, and periodically updating a written plan for the care, preservation, pruning, planting, replanting, removal, and disposition of street and park trees.

The City's current code generally prohibits tree topping. CBMC 8.30.070(7) provides:

“It shall be unlawful as a normal practice for any person, firm, or city department to top any street tree, park tree, or other tree on public property.”  The code defines topping as severe cutting of limbs to stubs within a tree's crown that removes the normal canopy and disfigures the tree.

The existing code does, however, recognize limited circumstances where an exception may be appropriate. Specifically, trees severely damaged by storms or other causes, and certain trees under utility wires or other obstructions where other pruning practices are impractical, may be exempted from the prohibition at the determination of the City Tree Board.

Recently, the City Manager received a request to explore whether the City's regulations could provide additional flexibility regarding tree topping in circumstances beyond the limited exceptions currently identified in the code.    Staff conducted a preliminary review of tree regulations in other Oregon jurisdictions. Based on that review, staff has not identified a clear Oregon municipal model that would provide a broad exception allowing tree topping for purposes such as preserving or improving private views, slope stability (the roots of the topped tree providing the stability), or preserving habitat that the topped tree would provide. The predominant approach appears to be to discourage or prohibit topping because of concerns related to tree health, safety, and long-term maintenance.

Staff is not proposing specific code amendments at this time.  Instead, staff is asking the Tree Board to consider whether the existing regulations adequately address the City's objectives or whether the Board believes there is value in exploring additional flexibility for individual circumstances.

The Board may wish to consider the following questions:

1. Should the City's general prohibition on tree topping remain unchanged?
2. Does the Board believe there are circumstances, beyond those already identified in CBMC 8.30.070(7), where a property owner or other interested party should be able to request an exception to the general prohibition?
3. If the Board believes additional exceptions may be appropriate, should staff explore a case-by-case request process with standards or criteria for evaluating those requests?
4. Is the existing appeal process under CBMC 8.30.090 sufficient, or does the Board believe additional procedures are necessary?

The purpose of this discussion is not to ask the Board to develop ordinance language at this time. Rather, staff is seeking a clear policy-level recommendation regarding whether further work is warranted.  If the Board believes the existing regulations are appropriate and does not recommend additional flexibility, staff will report that recommendation to the City Manager and no further code-development work will be necessary at this time.  If the Board believes there may be circumstances where additional flexibility would benefit the community, staff can return to the Board with more detailed options for consideration.

None at this time.