Beverly Hills City Council
January 4, 2022

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: January 4, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Daren Grilley, Assistant Public Works Director/City Engineer Ken Pfalzgraf, City Arborist
Subject: Urban Forest Management Plan
Attachments: 1. Draft Urban Forest Management Plan

2. Public Works Commission Staff Report, November 10, 2021 (without UFMP attachments)

3. Public Works Commission Resolution No. PWC-05

INTRODUCTION
This report presents the Draft Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP), which can be found in Attachment 1. The UFMP presents a vision for the City’s continuing commitment to preserving and enhancing the urban forest. The UFMP was developed with public participation and input from the Public Works Commission, Planning Commission and the Design Review Commission. At their meeting of November 10, 2021, the Public Works Commission voted to adopt a Resolution related to the Draft UFMP. The Staff Report for the November Public Works Commission is included as Attachment 2 and the Commission Resolution is Attachment 3.

BACKGROUND
The City’s public tree inventory consists of approximately 25,000 trees in the public rightof-way and City parks. The first street tree plantings date back to 1907 when landscape architect Wilbur David Cook, Jr. prepared the first street plans for the Rodeo Land and Water Company. The City is proud to have received the Tree City USA designation from the Arbor Day Foundation for 37 years. Past tree studies were limited to street trees, including the 1996 Street Tree Master Plan Focused Study and the 2007 Canary Island Date Palm Street Tree Master.

In mid-2019, the City began work on its first-ever Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP). The UFMP takes a comprehensive look at the goals, policies and practices that affect the urban forest, including the following focus areas:
 An assessment of the current status of the urban forest.  An evaluation of the City’s current tree inventory system.

Meeting Date: January 4, 2022

 A comparison of the City’s current public and private tree management policies and guidelines to urban forest industry best management practices.  Evaluation of the tree canopy, tree planting opportunities and tree canopy goals.  Identify hazardous or undesirable trees and strategies for replacement over time.  Identify issues that will affect the long-term health and resilience of the urban forest, such as drought, disease and climate change.

Following a qualifications-based selection process, City Council awarded the environmental consulting firm Dudek an agreement to prepare the UFMP. Dudek has worked with staff from several City departments and with input from the community through surveys and engagement activities over the past two years to prepare the attached Draft UFMP. Below are summaries of the current status of the urban forest and the key findings and recommendations of the UFMP.

DISCUSSION
Current Status of the Beverly Hills Urban Forest
Canopy Coverage: The Dudek study found that the City’s current 26% overall canopy cover is ahead of the American Forests standard of 20% for a city like Beverly Hills that was historically a grassland vegetation community. Beverly Hills is also at the upper end of regional comparable cities, including Santa Monica, Irvine, Los Angeles and Pasadena, where canopy coverage ranges from 17% to 28% respectively.

Program Support and Funding: The study concludes that the urban forestry program in the City enjoys the support of the community, has effective management practices in place – which includes staffing – and that the City’s annual per tree expenditure of $96.12 is at the upper tier in a comparable group (i.e. San Jose, Los Angeles, Downey, San Francisco and Palo Alto) when annual per tree expenditures in the care of public trees is considered ($20.11 to $119.85 respectively).

Sustainability: The consultant calls attention to several issues that limit the ability of the current makeup of the City’s urban forest to be viable into the future including:
 Tree age/species diversity.
 A strong dependence on a tree species that is more important to identity than environmental benefit.
 The inappropriateness of some species that represent a significant percentage of the urban forest makeup and the ability of those species to thrive in an environment that is becoming increasingly hotter and drier.

Tree inventory system: The current inventory system is provided as part of the tree maintenance contract and serves its purpose to schedule and document work histories at the individual tree level. The inventory allows analysis of trends within the tree population and tracking and predicting expenditures.

Study Findings and Recommendations
Sustainable and Resilient Urban Forest: In identifying climate change as the most critical threat to the sustainability of the City’s current urban forest and its specific characteristics, the consultant suggests focus be given to:
 Changes to the species palette that consider climate appropriateness, water use and long-term nursery availability.
 Limiting any single tree species dependence to 5% or less.  A Citywide assessment of the condition of all public trees at the individual tree level.

Meeting Date: January 4, 2022

Expanding the Urban Forest: With a goal of expanding the current level of canopy coverage trees offer to the community, the consultant suggests:
 Planting 7,500 additional trees by 2041 to improve the City’s canopy coverage from the current 26% to the consultant’s recommended goal of 33%.  Identifying City-managed sites where additional trees can be planted (e.g. planting shade trees between existing palms.
 Codifying or standardizing and improved communication of tree related practices for both public and private trees in the areas of nursery selection and tree installation.  Extending contracted water services for newly planted public trees.

Protecting and Preserving the Urban Forest: The consultant suggests that strengthening City policies and ordinances in the following areas will positively impact the sustainability of the tree canopy:
 Identification of historically important palm trees.
 Alternative means of preserving tree canopy when infrastructure conflicts pose a loss of trees.
 Improve public tree canopy coverage in alternate areas when canopy is diminished in another area.
 Promote canopy preservation on public property though species alignment with existing water efficient landscaping and metering requirements, providing incentives for the retention of mature trees in the improvement of private properties and by providing City arborist support to the broader community.

Providing Sufficient Resources for the Urban Forest: Concerning providing the resources to work towards the goals and recommendations of the UFMP, the consultant suggests:
 Funding the urban forest program to match improvements in lieu of reducing the cost of palm maintenance and by planting smaller nursery stock.  Providing cost effective arborist support for private property tree planting and management.
 Improving the current Street Tree Master Plan process (the process that is used to select replacement trees) to allow for increased public participation.

Wildfire Assessment: As the first phase of the UFMP project, Dudek was tasked with studying the tree species and conditions present in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) area of the City north of Sunset Boulevard. The purpose was to develop a better understanding of the wildfire risk posed by certain tree species of concern and to develop a framework for future actions to reduce the threat of wildland fires in the VHFHSZ. The wildfire assessment, included as Appendix P of the UFMP, was presented to the Public Works Commission on December 12, 2019, and to City Council on December 17, 2019.

Following the Dudek wildfire assessment, the Fire Department initiated a more detailed Wildfire Assessment Report that further examined the threats and vulnerabilities using advanced wildfire modeling. The Wildfire Assessment Report was presented to the public through in-person and virtual meetings in July 2021.

Community Engagement
Development of the UFMP included several opportunities for public engagement since the project began in 2019. These include the following:

Meeting Date: January 4, 2022

 An informational booth at the Beverly Hills Farmer’s Market.  An online survey.
 Community meetings held at Roxbury Park Community Center, Greystone Mansion and City Hall Municipal Gallery.
 Consultant presentations at the Public Works, Planning and Design Review Commissions to introduce the project at its inception and again to obtain the input of the three Commissions on the final draft of the plan. The final staff report to the Public Works Commission, along with the final comments of the Public Works Commission, are seen in Attachments 1 and 2.

Next Steps
Pending approval of City Council, the UFMP will serve as a guide for municipal urban forestry best practices as well as for property owners and developers who are navigating the difficult task of maintaining and improving tree canopy in the midst of climate change.

Within the City organization, the UFMP will inform potential changes in several City departments as a means of improving service to the public in the areas of tree planting, maintenance and preservation, property development that works to preserve existing, mature canopy and in the improvement of canopy coverage on private properties.

Any tree replacement project that involves the change of a tree type on a street will continue to follow the City’s established Street Tree Master Plan (STMP) process that includes:
 Participation of more than 50% of the affected property owners in the selection of replacement tree species on an affected street; and
 Review of the project by the Public Works Commission; and  Review and approval of the project by City Council prior to implementation.

The STMP process would be followed in selecting tree species as replacements for trees identified in the UFMP as inappropriate in the long-term due to the impacts of climate change and water availability (e.g. Magnolia, Sycamore) as losses are experienced in the future. By automating this process for streets currently lined with susceptible trees, delays in replacing individually declining trees as losses occur will be minimized. The STMP process would also be followed for the selection and installation of appropriate sized canopy trees between existing palm trees (e.g. Hillcrest, Foothill).

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no direct fiscal impact. Projects that implement the goals of the UFMP will be reviewed and approved by City Council through future priority setting and annual operating and capital improvement budgets.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends City Council approve the Urban Forest Management Plan, inclusive of the recommended revisions as set forth in the Public Works Commission Resolution.

Shana Epstein,
Director of Public Works
Approved By
Attachment 1

MANAGEMENT PLAN
Prepared for: City of Beverly Hills Prepared by:

DRAFT URBAN FOREST

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
City Council:

Mayor Bob Wunderlich
Vice Mayor Lili Bosse
John A. Mirisch
Julian A. Gold, M.D.

Lester Friedman
Public Works Commissioners:

Charles Alpert, Chairperson
John Millan, Vice Chairperson
Joshua L. Greer
Wendy E. Nystrom
Sharona R. Nazarian
Jerrold S. Felsenthal (former)
Sandra Aronberg (former)
Jeff Wolfe (former)
City Staff:

Nancy Hunt-Coffey, Assistant City Manager
Shana Epstein, Director of Public Works
Susan Healy Keene, Director of Community Development (ret.) Ryan Gohlich, Director of Community Development
Gregory Barton, Fire Chief
Daren Grilley, City Engineer
Ken Pfalzgraf, City Arborist
Will Hamilton, Senior Management Analyst
Bond Harper, GIS Integrator
Consultants:

Acknowledgments i
Table of Contents ii
Vision Statement iii
Executive Summary iv
Developing the Beverly Hills Urban Forest Management Plan 1 Key Findings 5
Creating a Climate Resilient Urban Forest 8
Beverly Hills Urban Forest - Current Status 13
Palms 29
Funding the Beverly Hills Urban Forest Management Program 34 Community Engagement/Public Survey Results 41
Existing Tree Ordinances and Policies 44
City Planning Documents 52
Urban Forest Management Practices 58
Recommendations 64
Strategic Plan 68
Glossary 72
References 74
Appendix A – Recommended Tree Species List 76
Appendix B – Recommended Tree Species For High Fire Severity Zone 78 Appendix C – Tree Spacing Recommendations 79
Appendix D_1-3 – Nursery Stock Standards 80
Appendix E – Root Observations 84
Appendix F – Root Correction 85
Appendix G – Tree Planting Detail 86
Appendix H– Tree Staking Detail 87
Appendix I– Establishment Care Guidelines 88
Appendix J – Tree Protection Guidelines 89
Appendix K – Tree Protection Detail 90
Appendix L – Root Pruning Guidelines 91
Appendix M – Root Pruning Detail 93
Appendix N– Online Survey Results 94
Appendix O – General Plan Tree Policies And Goals 107
Appendix P – Wildfire Assessment 110

TABLE OF CONTENTS

VISION STATEMENT
The urban forest of Beverly Hills is a living testament of City values to create a sustainable, resilient, and high quality of life for residents and stakeholders. Trees are a cherished community asset that distinguish neighborhoods as beautiful and healthy, and the City will continue to provide the resources to grow, protect, and preserve the urban forest for generations.

HILLS
FLATS
SOUTH
Cook’s vision for a three tiered
community defines the City’s
land use.

Executive Summary
Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills iv
A City Planned For Trees
From its inception, the City of Beverly Hills (City) has valued trees as a vital component of supporting a high
resident quality of life. As the 1963 Report on Long
Range Street Tree Program states, “With trees lining
every street, Beverly Hills assumes dignity, calm atmosphere, and beauty.” This sentiment was the mentality of the original land developers who hired renowned
landscape architect Wilbur David Cook, Jr., to create
a master plan for what would become the new community (City of Beverly Hills 1996). Cook’s vision was for a three tiered community with large plots north of
Sunset Boulevard, single-family residential lots from
Sunset Boulevard to Santa Monica Boulevard, and
multi-family dwelling units and commercial properties
south of Santa Monica Boulevard (City of Beverly Hills
1996). This design, that incorporates the ‘Hills’ (north of Sunset Boulevard), the ‘Flats’ (Sunset Boulevard to
Santa Monica Boulevard), and the ‘South’ (south of
Santa Monica Boulevard), still defines the City’s land
use today.

Before the new residential subdivision became official
and lot sales began in 1906, street trees were already be- ing installed to create the desired community feel (City of Beverly Hills 1996). In 1932, the City recognized
the need to remove short lived and failing species, and replaced them with street-specific species that are now 1906
1932
1944
1957 1963
1996
Street Tree Plan
implemented & renewed
Street Tree Master Plan of 1996:
focused on the replacement of
3,000 American elm (Ulmus
americana) and Arizona ash
(Fraxinus velutina) trees
Addition of iconic species:
magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora),
camphor (Cinnamomum camphora),
& Canary Island Date Palm (Phoenix canariensis)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
v
iconic, including magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora), camphor (Cinnamomum camphora), and Canary Island Date Palm (Phoenix canariensis). In 1944, the City completed its first “Street Tree Plan” document and implemented a tree removal and replacement plan that would be implemented over a 10-year period. Subsequent revisions were completed in 1957 and 1963. The Street Tree Master Plan of 1996 was focused on the replacement of 3,000 American elm (Ulmus americana) and Arizona ash (Fraxinus velutina) trees that were senescent and declining from pest infestations. Since 1996, the City has developed nearly a dozen Street Tree Master Plan phases, each with a focus on a particular problem with a particular tree species on one street or several.

Those who live and work in the City today enjoy the benefits of treelined streets because of the continual urban forest planning and assessment that began 120 years ago. The years of thoughtful tree species selection, installation of wide parkways, and adaptive City tree management has resulted in a City known for its large, healthy trees, and high canopy cover level. This Beverly Hills Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) is the next iteration of the City’s tree and urban forest commitment.

BEVERLY HILL’S 120 YEAR URBAN FORESTRY TIMELINE
Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills vi Creating A Climate Resilient Beverly Hills
The United Nations World Commission on Environment and
Development report, Our Common Future (World Commission on Environment and Development 1987), defines sustainable development as, “[d]evelopment that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
This definition underscores the importance of the
balanced approach decision makers must bring to meet the challenges presented by climate change. In Beverly Hills, historical tree species, such as magnolias and camphors, are in decline due to climate change and are among the
species most likely to struggle adapting to changing climate conditions. Research suggests one way to understand a
tree species suitability for future climate conditions is to compare municipal tree inventories of cooler climate zones, with those in warmer climate zones (McBride and Lacan
2018). Through the evaluation of tree success in alternate climate zones, the current conditions of warmer climate zones can reflect the future average annual temperatures and rainfall. Tree species, such as magnolia and camphor, commonly found in municipal inventories of cooler climate zones, are not commonly found in warmer climate zones. This finding suggests that these, and other species, will have similar water requirements and responses to heat, and may not adapt to increasing annual temperatures and extended periods of drought.

Choosing to preserve camphor and magnolia trees in place beyond their useful lifespan may maintain neighborhood character and canopy levels in the present (short term), but will only delay their eventual removal and replacement to a time when annual temperatures will likely be higher and canopy benefits are even more valuable. Conversely, a wholesale removal of these species in an attempt to immediately prepare the City for climate change will subject residents and visitors to the negative impacts associated with a drastic reduction in canopy cover. A sustainable solution to this concern would be to enact a systematic and balanced approach of selectively removing and replacing a portion of the vulnerable tree species each year over a 20 year time frame, to ensure a sustainable and regionally appropriate canopy level is maintained as the new canopy continues to develop. In turn, the loss (and subsequent replacement) of City canopy cover is dispersed over a longer period of time to minimize the impact felt by any one generation Street lined with magnolia trees

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
vii

CLEANER WATER



























SAVES ENERGY
































IMPROVES PUBLIC HEALTH







 

















































GREEN ECONOMY



­









€
‚


ƒ



 


„


 







IMPROVES MENTAL HEALTH
















































†


CAPTURES RAINWATER
‡




















­














INCREASES BUSINESS





­



























ˆ






CLEANER AIR















†


‰








 







COMBATS CLIMATE CHANGE
Š
















†





























 











REDUCES URBAN HEAT ISLAND EFFECT











‹‰ŒŽ

























Figure 1: Environmental
Services Provided By
Tree Canopy Cover
of residents. Understanding the current conditions, and potential future urban forest impacts are aspects of how the UFMP will provide guidance and recommendations that allow City decision makers to prepare for the current and future challenges faced by the urban forest. Through careful planning, the City can create a resilient and sustainable urban forest and reduce the environmental ramifications associated with climate change.

While trees play a significant role in the
global fight against climate change through
their ability to sequester carbon (among
other benefits), the role of the urban forest
should be aimed at creating sustainable and
livable communities for future generations.

A 2019 research article, ‘The Global Tree
Restoration Potential’ calculated it would
take planting roughly 1 trillion trees
worldwide to limit the rise of carbon dioxide
on a global scale (Bastin et. al 2019). The
City manages approximately 25,000 trees,
with room to plant another 3,000. Although
these trees provide a multitude of services
to the community, the reality of the urban
forest is that it will not save the planet.

However, it is a vital component of a resilient
community that is safe and healthy. The
environmental services trees provide are key
aspects of ensuring those who live and work
under its canopy can continue to thrive.

Developing a climate-resilient City will, in
part, be supported by the extent and health
of its urban tree canopy cover. Tree canopy
cover provides measurable services as
reflected in Figure 1.

I
Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills viii One of the most significant ways trees support a City’s resilience to Figure 2: How Trees Help Negate The Urban Heat Island Effect climate change is through shade, which can lower surface temperatures by 20° to 45°F and air temperatures by 10°F (EPA 2008).

The negative impacts from the urban heat island effect, and the need to mitigate it in planning efforts, are discussed in City documents like the General Plan and Sustainable City Plan. The urban heat island effect occurs when concrete, asphalt, and other hard scape, including roads, buildings, and sidewalks, absorb heat, resulting in surface temperatures reaching temperatures 50°F to 90°F higher than the air temperature on a sunny day (EPA 2008), as shown in Figure 2. The hardscape’s absorbed heat is subsequently released throughout the night, resulting in temperatures up to 22°F warmer, when cities should be cooling down (EPA 2008). The effects of a hotter climate and prolonged heat waves will not only impact the need for energy consumption to cool buildings but will also have a profound impact on human health. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA 2018), extreme heat is often responsible for the most weather-related deaths in the country.

Threats to the Beverly Hills Urban Forest
The City has demonstrated throughout its history of managing its urban forest that it is willing to take action as threats emerge to preserve the valuable community trees. At times, active management decisions have included replacing species that were proving to be short-lived with others more suited for the urban landscape, or removal of declining species due to invasive pests. Today, the main threats to the City’s trees comes from shifting environmental conditions brought on by climate change, which may include hotter and drier conditions and new pests and diseases.

Greenery and the urban heat island effect: Little Greenery l.al'F•"""'"""'-· '-1<p,..,, ... .,..._
m<,wd '""' 111< llmo,rl><f<
dut '" l,,ll< •M<lfl'I""' from -·�-c,(,,.....

Greenery and the urban heat island effect: More Greenery 1 So1,,.,,,,g,m;n«1by1ht
... pu,,ol.ty,b>om<Jby
·=
2 L<>,h,.,;,,..,.,.,J
mort .tt.J, produc«I 4
a. -. = .
p<d«tnan-fnffldly ,,,., ,
p<><,1;,rly,o,po,:t,,,gloalbusio«.«
....-... --.,,. . .,. .....p ....
"''•"'·"'�d .... tomouOMOfr,..., f,_,.....,.,.,,..,

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ix
Figure 3 is based on a work by Sun and collaborators (Sun 2015) depicting the expected annual number of Southern California city days over 95°F over the next 80 years. Based on the projections through the year 2100 for other regional cities like Irvine, Pasadena, and Long Beach, Beverly Hills can expect to experience 30–40 additional days where temperatures are at least 95°F. The steady increase in temperature will require the City to determine what trees in its inventory are suited for the changing conditions and the extent to which newly planted trees will need supplemental watering to establish roots after planting. The slow and gradual increase in temperature provides
an opportunity for the City to take action
now, extending the time frame in which failing species are removed, to maintain a high level of canopy cover across the City.

Along with increased annual temperatures,
the region is expected to experience more
extreme heat events, similar to the record
temperatures set on July 6, 2018. On July 5,
2018, the average temperature across the Los
Angeles area was 88°F, the next day, the average temperature jumped to 108°F (Samenow 2018), with many communities experiencing
record setting temperatures like Westwood,
Los Angeles, which recorded an all time high
of 111°F (Climate Signals 2018). Trees across
Los Angeles County were as unprepared as
many residents for the sudden and extreme
spike in temperatures, and newly planted and
mature trees alike dropped leaves in an attempt to conserve water.

After such an event, it may take healthy trees months to recover from the immediate dessication, while trees in poor health may not recover and are lost.

In addition to temperature, a lack of consistent rainfall is another ongoing threat to City trees. While the average annual rainfall is expected to stay consistent with rainfall levels recorded during the SYLMAR
PORTER
RANCH

WOODLAND HILLS

LOS ANGELES

STUDIO CITY

HOLLYWOOD

BEVERLY HILLS

WESTWOOD
EAGLE
ROCK

EL SERENO

DOWNTOWN

LOS ANGELES

BALDWIN HILLS
VENICE
WATTS
SAN
PEDRO

SUNLAND/

TUJUNGA

TEMPERATURE EXTREMES FOR THE LOS ANGELES AREA










Source: UCLA LARC Study, 2012; chart based on
mean/average projected by the 19 climate models
CURRENT 2041-2060 PROJECTION

NUMBER OF DAYS


 8

30.1 6.8

25.5 

4.2 16.7 




10.9 2 


2.3 7 







2.3 6.8 


2 6 


1.4 4.6 



1 


 3.4

0.9 

3.3 0.5 



 1.4

0.6 

1.4 0.3




0.9 0.1

 0.1
Figure 3: Average Annual Days Exceeding 95° F

THREATS TO

THE URBAN FOREST
period of 1981–2000 before years of drought in the 2000’s and 2010’s, the continued average will more than likely be based on a fluctuation of wet and dry years, with few years providing a regionally ‘average’ amount of rainfall (Berg et al. 2015). These conditions mean trees will need to be adaptable for extended dry conditions and must be able to store and conserve water when it is available. The City can further contribute to conserving water and sustaining healthy trees by installing infrastructure around trees that is able to capture rainwater, and direct it towards the trees’ root systems. Additionally, the leaves and branches of trees capture rain water as it falls and allows it to filter into the soil, which can reduce storm water runoff by as much as 20% (Farmer 2018).

Some threats, like extreme heat events and drought, can have an immediate and devastating impact on trees (Figure 4). Others like increased annual average temperatures, may be reflected in a gradual decline of species that
are unable to adapt to the changing conditions. The changing conditions will continue to impact trees and the management they require for many years. This
need was identified by the City,
and is reflected in the creation of
its UFMP.

EXCESSIVE FLOODING

DROUGHT &

EXTREME HEAT
PESTS
&
PATHO
G
ENS
Water conservation
Figure 4: Threats To
The Urban Forest

VANDALISM

INCOMPATIBLE TREES
Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills x

LEARN CHARACTER FROM

TREES, VALUES FROM ROOTS
AND CHANGE FROM LEAVES.

TASNEEM HAMEED
“
”
Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 1 Developing The Beverly Hills Urban Forest Management Plan A “sustainable urban forest” can be defined as “the naturally occurring and planted trees in cities which are managed to provide the inhabitants with a continuing level of economic, social, environmental and ecologic benefits today and into the future” (Clark et al. 1997). Where as previous Street Tree Plans have focused on specific tree species and street blocks, the Beverly Hills UFMP is a long-term planning document that will provide the framework to progress the City towards a sustainable urban forest resilient to climate change. It will do so by creating guiding principles, goals, objectives, and strategies aimed to improve the health of the urban forest and expand canopy cover, while meeting the safety and economic goals of the City. The development of the Beverly Hills UFMP was led by the Department of Public Works between January 2019 and February 2020, and includes analysis and recommendations that are based on internal discussions with the City, input from stakeholders, and an independent review of all management practices.

City Urban Forest Management Practices Assessment
City staff from the Department of Public Works managed the UFMP creation process throughout all stages, coordinated departmental interviews, and provided City documents relating to citywide tree management and policies. They met regularly with the consultant team to discuss updating specific standards, guidelines, and policies and aligning the evolving goals of the UFMP with those of the City.

The project was initiated by meeting with all departments that directly manage trees, authorize tree related permits, or complete public works projects that impact trees. In total, nine separate interviews were held with the various City departments and staff to better understand internal practices, policies, and the governance structure that influences tree management. The interviews provided insights into specific internal management issues that limit staff efficiency, whether it is staffing and funding levels, permit processes, or needing written clarification on the City’s official best management practices Beverly Hills Civic Center

DEVELOPING THE BEVERLY HILLS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 2 and standards. It also highlighted the strong level of support staff feel from elected officials and department leaders to provide the human capital and financial resources needed to effectively manage the urban forest.

In addition to meeting with City staff, presentations were given to present the scope and goals of the project to the City Council and City commissions, including Public Works, Design Review, and Planning.

The presentations and dialogue gave these officials an opportunity to offer further direction and guidance on specific issues the UFMP should address. The presentations also allowed elected officials to share their values as representatives of the residents, and how those values should be reflected in urban forest goals.

All relevant City documents, ordinances, and policies were reviewed to determine whether they align with the guiding principles and goals developed in the UFMP, and would progress the City towards a sustainable urban forest. The various documents reviewed include the General Plan, Sustainable City Plan, draft Complete Streets Plan, Street Tree Master Plans, View Ordinance, Tree Protection Guidelines, and the Protected Tree Ordinance. All
management practices such as pruning
cycles, standard details, spacing guidelines, and tree species selection criteria were examined against research methods
and industry standards, recommended
best practices of the International Society of Arboriculture and the American National Standards Institute, and other
cities known to have world class urban
forest programs.

Community Engagement
Incorporating meaningful inclusion of
the City residents’ and business owners’
values and concerns is an important
aspect of ensuring an adopted UFMP
is implementable. Various forums consisting of public meetings and online content were made available to Beverly Hills residents and stakeholders. The public opportunities for stakeholders to speak directly with the consultant team and City staff included the June 2, 2019 Farmers Market, three public meetings held in November 2019, as well as giving public comments at City Council and commission meetings. Approximately 40 stakeholders participated in public Beverly Hills Farmers Market
Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 3 meeting and outreach efforts. Online forums for stakeholders to engage in the UFMP process consisted of a Webinar posted on the City’s website, and an online survey that was distributed through various City media outlets, including social media, television, and print. In total, 177 surveys were completed by stakeholders who live and work in the City. The number of survey responses do not provide enough data to make strong correlations to the entire population of Beverly Hills but do provide some insight into the attitudes and feelings residents have towards trees. Overall, respondents value trees and the environmental services they provide, report a basic understanding tree care practices, and support protecting trees on private property.

Urban Forest Status and Economic Benefits
Understanding the current condition of the City tree population provides vital baseline data needed by urban forest managers to make management decisions now and into the future. The sustainability indi- cators used in this report provide quantifiable metrics that can be used to measure progress towards City goals and adjust priorities to adapt to changing City conditions. An analysis of the urban Forest and tree inventory data was completed using the i-Tree Eco and i-Tree Canopy suite of online tools. The i-Tree online suite of tools was developed by the U.S. Forest Service to provide urban and rural forestry analysis and benefits measurements (i-Tree 2020a). The i-Tree Canopy module was used to determine citywide canopy cover and land use, while i-Tree Eco was used to analyze the Citywide inventory data to determine the trees’ conditions and associated benefits. Using this software suite allows City urban forest managers to periodically complete a “change analysis” by replicating the UFMP’s analysis at a future date.

The multi-faceted value of trees
Trees capture greenhouse gas emissions
Trees in local parks offer shade Beverly Hills overview Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 5 Key Findings
The key findings presented in this section
represent the most common, recurring
themes discovered through the UFMP
process. These themes were shown to
have the most direct impact on the Citymanaged tree population. They represent opportunities to build on past and ongoing
successes, as well as ways the City will
need to adapt and improve to continue
progressing towards a sustainable urban
forest. The key findings are as follows:

1. THE CITY VALUES THE URBAN FOREST
Cities are faced with multiple competing
interests for limited financial and human
resources. How a city allocates these resources in budget and planning decisions can indicate its priorities and values. Based
on these indicators, the City of Beverly Hills
has historically demonstrated, and continues
to demonstrate a high value on maintaining
and expanding a healthy urban forest. Before
the first homes were built in the City, trees
were being planted as a focal point of defining neighborhood look and feel and creating a high quality of life for the community.

Throughout the City’s history, it has conducted multiple assessments of the status of its urban forest and made progressive decisions
to maintain a healthy tree population for
current and future residents. Currently, the
City spends approximately $96.12 per year on
each tree it manages. This rate is on par with
other comparison cities in California known
to have comprehensive urban forest management programs like Palo Alto ($119.85) and San Francisco ($74.21). The City’s budget allows urban forest managers to implement maintenance
practices at, or above, what
are considered industry
standards like pruning all
palms annually, pruning
shade trees on a 5–7-year
cycle, and guidelines for tree
protection during construction. Placing a high value
on the contribution of trees
has resulted in mature and
safe trees throughout the
City that protect residents
from adverse environmental
impacts, cool streets, and
create walkable neighborhoods.

2. BECOMING A CLIMATE RESILIENT CITY

REQUIRES A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON THE

TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN
Throughout Southern California, climate
change is expected to continue to increase
the annual average temperature, frequency of
extreme heat events, and extend drought periods. Planting and preserving trees suited for these conditions is an important step to creatMoreton bay fig at Beverly Gardens Park 6 KEY FINDINGS
ing and maintaining a sustainable urban forest.

An analysis of the City inventory revealed several key species that are not expected to thrive based on their low potential to adapt to future
climate conditions. The list notably includes the
London plane sycamore (Platanus x hispanica),
magnolia, and camphor tree species, which
account for 13.3% of the City inventory and
are an iconic neighborhood and street defining feature. As these species require removal, new species will need to be introduced that are
already demonstrating their ability to adapt to
the expected future climate. This will include
species that have not historically been planted
in the City and which residents may not have
familiarity. Shifting the residential landscape
may also mean moving away from the original
City design with large stretches of monoculture street tree plantings. Monoculture tree planting increases the potential for mass tree
removals, and loss of canopy cover in one area,
if that species is affected by a detrimental pest,
disease, or other unexpected threat. A diverse
tree species palette throughout neighborhoods and street blocks may provide a safeguard against this possibility by spreading out the potential loss of a tree species and canopy
cover over a wider area.

3. STRONG COMMUNITY EDUCATION AND

SUPPORT IS NEEDED TO IMPLEMENT THE UFMP
New tree species and landscape designs will
shift the neighborhood aesthetic residents are
accustomed too, which may generate resistance
to the planning efforts being implemented by
the City. This could potentially limit the scale
and extend the time frame in progressing the
City towards being climate resilient with a sustainable urban forest. One possible method to effectively engage the community is the ‘Street
Tree Master Plan’ process.

The City has successfully
used this model to engage
residents and build consensus on selecting a new
street-specific tree species
in past projects. The process is slow and deliberate,
and requires staff engaging
with individual property
owners. Although it limits
the immediacy with which
community engagement
will occur, the process
might present the most
effective way to educate
and inform community
members, as other more commonly used online and social media outreach efforts resulted in low response rates during the UFMP public
input process.

4. CHALLENGES TO MAINTAINING AND

EXPANDING HEALTHY CANOPY COVER
Beverly Hills has a City-wide canopy cover
of 26%, which is above the baseline canopy
cover of 20% that can be expected for cities in
the Southern California region that developed
Rodeo Drive Shopping Distrcit
Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 7 in a nearly treeless native sage brush and
chaparral plant community. There are limited opportunities to increase canopy cover through tree planting initiatives in City-managed public spaces. According to the City tree inventory, 89% of potential tree plantings locations are already filled, and 85% of the land use is either already occupied by a tree (26%)
or is an impervious surface (59%) where a
tree cannot be planted. Increasing canopy
cover through City-managed tree plantings
will depend on the ability of the City to maximize the available space for shade trees. This strategy would include planting trees with
the most expansive canopy possible for the
space provided and assessing what role palms
will play in the future urban forest landscape.

Palms account for 20% of the City inventory
but provide 0.8% of the City canopy cover
and 4% of environmental services. Some
palms should be preserved for their cultural and historic significance in the City and others for the economic value they generate
from visitors. Other palms that do not meet
this criteria should be assessed and selected
for strategic removal and replacement with
a service-providing shade tree, which could
potentially double the 3,000 current vacant
tree planting locations listed in the City
inventory. The other opportunity to increase
canopy cover is on private property, which
accounts for approximately 71% of the total
City tree canopy cover. With private property owners managing most of the City’s tree canopy, the ordinances that govern trees on
private property must be directed towards
meeting the City canopy goals by limiting the
removal of healthy mature trees when possible, and expanding canopy cover through replacement tree plantings when tree removal
is authorized.

5. A DESIRE TO HAVE A WORLD CLASS

URBAN FOREST
City staff and elected officials expressed a
desire to be a leader in urban forest management and adopt policies and practices that would set a new standard for what is considered a world class urban forest management program. The development of the UFMP is
the first of many steps to developing a world
class urban forest. While the City already
has elements of its urban forest management program that function at a sustainable level, achieving a world class urban forest
requires dedication to improving all aspects
of tree management, on public and private
land. The goal is ambitious, but obtainable,
depending on the City’s commitment to
internally implement new standards and
management practices that may require
additional financial and staffing resources.

The City will have to accept that business
owners, residents, and private property
developers may experience increased costs
associated with the new standards, and build
support for the new policies from these
stakeholders. It will also require a commitment to make bold choices in deciding the future look, feel, and character of its neighborhoods and community.

Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 8 Creating A Climate Resilient Urban Forest
Every City is unique in the values held by
residents and City staff, and how those values
are reflected in planning the future. The Beverly
Hills UFMP is one method by which the City
demonstrates its values, and institutes forward
thinking policies and practices that will have a
positive and long lasting impact on residents,
visitors, and business owners. This process begins by defining the guiding principles that outline the City’s specific values and how its urban forest will help further promote those values.

The guiding principles will be supported by the
specific steps the City will take as defined by
the urban forest goals and objectives. Together,
the guiding principles, goals, and objectives
will prioritize how the City progresses towards
creating a sustainable urban forest and climate
change-resilient community.

The following are draft guiding principles,
goals, and objectives that require further
review with City staff, residents, and stakeholders. These guiding principles, goals, and objectives are considered a catalyst for creating a resilient urban forest that will provide services to the community for generations.

BEVERLY HILLS STRATEGIC PLAN
VISION: The urban forest of Beverly Hills is a living testament of City values to create a sustainable, resilient, and high quality of life for residents and stakeholders. Trees are a cherised community asset that distinguishes neighborhoods as beautiful and healthy, and the City will continue to provide the resources to grow, protect, and preserve the urban forest for generations.

GUIDING PRINCIPLE DESCRIPTION
A Sustainable and Resilient Urban Forest The urban forest will be prepared for changing environmental conditions brought on by climate change.

Expand the Urban Forest Canopy cover will be increased above current levels for all residents and stakeholders.

Protect and Preserve the Urban Forest City polices and ordinances will contribute to large, healthy trees on both private and public property.

Sufficient Resources for the Urban Forest The City will provide the financial and human resources to sustainably manage the urban forest.

Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 9 Goal 1: Create a Climate Resilient Urban Forest
Strategy
1 Manage the City inventory so tree species are known to be adapted to climate change.

Objectives

1.1 Ensure 100% of City recommended tree species have reduced to low water needs, are climate appropriate, and available in local nurseries.

1.2 Maintain no more than 5% of one species and 10% of one genus in the City tree inventory.

1.3 Maintain an appropriate mix of tree age diversity so there is a continuum of new trees being planted to replace aging senescent trees, and high levels of canopy cover.

1.4 Utilize tree inventory data and the Street Tree Master Plan process to prepare streets and neighborhoods to be climate resilient over a 15 to 20-year timeframe.

Goal 2: Fund the Urban Forest
Strategy
2 Manage the City inventory so tree species are known to be adapted to climate change.

Objectives

2.1 Review and prioritize current urban forest program funding towards supporting actions that meet the goals of the UFMP.

2.2 Evaluate the most cost-effective method for the City to perform additional arborist review of private property tree planning and management.

2.3 Identify the staff and financial resources required to implement a robust community engagement program that follows the Street Tree Plan process.
10 CREATING A CLIMATE RESILIENT URBAN FOREST
Goal 3: Community Engagement
Strategy
3 Residents and private property owners will be active participants in support of the urban forest.

Objectives

3.1 Develop specific community engagement strategies that target the specific residential neighborhoods of the City.

3.2 Hold a tree distribution event that distributes 100 free trees to residential property owners.

3.3 Educate and inform business owners within commercial shopping districts on the benefits and values of trees.

3.4 Ensure all demographics of the City including non-English speakers and renters have the opportunity to engage the City in strategies to manage the urban forest.

3.5 Develop and adopt educational materials to assist private property owners in maintaining trees on their property or adjacent City street trees.

Goal 4: Effective Ordinances and Policies
Strategy
4 Tree canopy cover will be expanded by maximizing planting opportunities and preserved by continuing to provide a high-level of maintenance.

Objectives

4.1 Develop a tree replacement strategy for all permit-related tree removals (e.g., View Ordinance, Protected Tree Ordinance, development projects) that increases canopy cover in the lowest canopy covered areas of the City.

4.2 Identify palms with a significant historic and cultural value or those that contribute to the local economy (i.e. Beverly Dr., Rodeo Dr. shopping district,). Designate these palms as ‘historic’ and ensure they are protected in future planning and development efforts.

4.3 Update the tree removal replacement standards towards increasing canopy cover where the removal occurred or in neighborhoods with low canopy cover.

4.4 Update the Water Efficient Landscaping and Metering Requirements with an approved list of tree species that are suitable for the water conditions in drought tolerant landscapes.

4.5 Develop a mechanism that incentives the preservation of mature trees through the development or redevelopment of private property.

Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 11 Civic Hall & City Center Palms
Goal 5: Implement Best Management Practices
Strategy
5 City management practices will be consistently applied and reflect current research and ISA and ANSI standards.

Objectives

5.1 Codify a City standard for nursery stock selection, make the standard available to all site developers and City staff, and train City staff on nursery stock standards.

5.2 Adopt standard details for tree management practices including planting, staking, establishment care, and street tree spacing to ensure a consistent application of City standards in all projects that impact trees within the City.

5.3 Adopt a list of standards that require minimum soil volume requirements for new tree plantings and approved design guidelines that can be implemented to increase the amount of soil volume available to trees.

5.4 Increase City contracted watering services to three years for newly planted trees.

5.5 Develop and adopt an approved list of alternative methods, materials, and hardscape designs to be considered prior to tree removal when trees are in conflict with existing infrastructure.

5.6 Adopt tree protection during construction guidelines and details.

Goal 6: Expand Canopy Cover
Strategy
6 Tree canopy cover will be expanded by maximizing planting opportunities and preserved by continuing to provide a high-level of maintenance.

Objectives

6.1 Plant a total of 350 trees a year to reach 7,500 new public and private trees in the City by 2041.

6.2 Develop canopy cover standards for specific individual land use types like parking lots, commercial corridors, shopping districts, and residential streets that are directed at maximizing the land use types of the Hills, Flats, and South neighborhoods

6.3 Identify City managed parkway locations where spacing conditions can accommodate a shade tree to be planted between palms and include those available planting locations in planting plans.

Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 13 Beverly Hills Urban Forest - Current Status
An urban forest consists of all the trees, both on public and private lands, in an urban environment. Analyzing the current condition of the City’s urban forest provides an understanding for the health of its trees, species diversity, and percentage canopy cover, that can be used as baseline sustainable urban forest indicators. By determining the baseline sustainability indicators, City decision makers will have the information needed to develop long-term goals and objectives focused on maintaining and growing healthy and large trees that provide a maximum level of resident enjoyed environmental tree services. An analysis of the City’s urban forest was completed by using the City-managed tree inventory, determining canopy cover and land use, and comparing the results to research-supported sustainability indicators. The following sections discuss the results of the analysis and provide recommendations that can help progress the City towards a sustainable urban forest.

CANOPY COVER
The first step in assessing the current condition of the City’s urban forest was quantifying the extent of canopy cover throughout the City. Canopy cover can be defined as the percentage of ground area that is covered by the leaves and branches of trees when viewed from above. A baseline canopy cover percentage for a City is largely based on the natural landscape in which it was developed. Cities that developed under ideal conditions in forested states may attain 40%–60% tree canopy cover (American Forests 2017). However, 20% is considered a realistic target for a city like Beverly Hills that developed in a historically grassland vegetation community (American Forests 2017).

The online tool i-Tree Canopy was used to determine the City’s current canopy cover. I-Tree is a peer reviewed software suite from the U.S. Forest Service that provides urban and rural forestry analysis to calculate and assess the benefits of trees (i-Tree 2020b). The software works by the user first creating land use classification data collection points that will be identified on satellite images of the defined project area. The software then randomly selects points within the project area for the user to define as one of the land use classifications. I-Tree recommends identifying 500–1,000 points for an accurate breakdown of land use. For the Beverly Hills analysis, 1,000 randomly selected points were used to analyze the City’s canopy cover and determine land use percentages. The full results of the City-wide analysis are reflected in Table 1 and summarized in Table 2.

Will Rogers Park
14 BEVERLY HILLS URBAN FOREST - CURRENT STATUS
With approximately 26% tree canopy cover, the City is
well ahead of the 20% baseline identified by American
Forests. It is also above average in comparison with other cities of the Southern California region that have similar environmental growing conditions, shown as follows:
• Pasadena – 28%
• Beverly Hills – 26%
• Los Angeles – 25%
• Irvine – 17%
• Santa Monica – 15%
Land use classifications for trees, shrub/grass, and bare (dirt) were further broken down by wildland (undeveloped areas not privately owned or actively maintained by the City), private (residential homes and commercial use), and public (City-managed street or park tree) to
further understand where City planting opportunities
exist. The summary of these results provided in Table 3 highlights the significant impact private property owners have on the overall tree canopy, and the available open space that could be used as tree planting locations. Any goal to increase the City’s canopy cover must include
private property owner outreach and education that expresses the role they play in having a resilient community, and provides user-friendly steps they can implement. It also means the City must have ordinances and policies that protect and preserve trees on private property, tree replacement protocols that meet City canopy goals, and penalties sufficient to deter violation.

Cover Class
Tree Wildland 9 0.9± 0.3
Tree Private 185 18.5± 1.23
Tree Public 68 6.8± 0.8
Shrub/Grass Wildland 13 1.3± 0.36
Shrub/Grass Private 103 10.3± 0.96
Shrub/Grass Private 17 1.7± 0.41
Shrub/Grass Private 17 1.7± 0.41
Bare Wildland 1 0.1% ± 0.1
Bare Private 15 1.5% ± 0.38
Bare Public 2 0.2% ± 0.14
Impervious Water 19 1.9% ± 0.43
Impervious Building 290 29.0% ± 1.43
Impervious Road 111 11.1%± 0.99
Impervious 167 16.7± 1.18
Description Points Percentage of Land Cover
Sidewalks, driveways,
parking lots,
other hardscape
Table 1. i-Tree Canopy Analysis Full Results
Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 15 Neighborhood Conditions
In addition to the City-wide canopy
cover, an i-Tree canopy cover analysis
was completed for each of the three
residential neighborhoods defined in the
City as the Hills, Flats, and South. Table
4 provides a summary of the neighborhood i-Tree Canopy analysis. Increasing canopy cover will require strategies targeted for the Hills and Flats as single-family home neighborhoods, and another set of strategies for the South,
which contains shopping districts, commercial corridors, apartment buildings, and smaller single-family home lots. This planned land use type is directly reflected in the percentages of land use classification per neighborhood with higher tree canopy and low impervious area in the Hills and Flats, and low canopy and high impervious area in the South.

Because the Hills and Flats neighborhoods
are large single-family home properties, they
have the space to support trees in front and
back yards. The i-Tree Canopy analysis for
these two neighborhoods determined that
78% of trees in the Hills and 91% of trees in
the Flats are on private property.

While the Hills supports a high canopy cover, sustaining or expanding its high level could be difficult with the challenges presented by maintaining fire safe landscapes and the Trousdale View Restoration Ordinance (View Ordinance). As discussed in the ‘Creating a Wildfire Resilient City’ chapter, certain tree species and genera like eucalyptus, cypress, cedar, juniper, pines, and palms present a higher risk of ignition during a fire.

The chapter notes that within the Hills neighborhood
there is an estimated 9,600–17,000 higher flammable
tree types, with the City managing approximately 3,500
higher flammable street trees. It is not recommended
that these trees be removed indiscriminately, especially when healthy and maintained, but only when they meet
the guidelines prescribed to maintain a fire safe landscape. However, as new fire safe policies are enacted, trees that may not have been otherwise considered as a removal candidate, may be appropriate to remove and replace with appropriate species that may reduce the risk associated with wildfire.

The View Ordinance was developed as a method to protect the Table 2. i-Tree Canopy
Analysis Summary
Cover Class
Tree 26.2% 71% 26% 3%
Shrub/Grass 13.3% 77% 13% 10%
Bare 1.8% 83% 11% 6%
Percent Distribution of Cover Type
Percentage of
Land Cover
Private Public Wildland
Table 3. Percent of Total Land Cover Type by Private, Public, and Wildland Shrub/Grass
Bare
Tree
Impervious

58.7%
Tree

26.2%

1.8%

13.3%
16 BEVERLY HILLS URBAN FOREST - CURRENT STATUS
views from residential homes in the Trousdale Estates, and also outlines a process for settling disputes between neighbors when the tree of one residence is blocking the view of another. The View Ordinance allows a tree to be removed for the benefit of a view of the Los Angeles basin. When a tree is removed, it can only be replaced by a tree that reaches a maximum size of 14–15 feet. The combination of low restrictions on when a tree can be removed, and the maximum allowable tree height, will make it difficult to maintain or expand canopy cover in this neighborhood depending on the extent to which private property owners wish to remove trees for views. If the View Ordinance continues as is, a tree replacement strategy should be developed that increases canopy cover on City streets that lack it. This strategy will allow the City to continue to respect some residents’ desire to protect their views, while continuing to progress towards canopy cover goals developed in the UFMP.

In the South neighborhood of the City, the 10% canopy cover estimate is accurate as measured by i-Tree Canopy, but this is not necessarily indicative of poor management practices typically associated with low canopy cover. The first nuance is that while canopy cover is low, the i-Tree Canopy analysis identified that 81% of the ground cover is impervious area that mostly consists of buildings, homes, and streets. The lower number and smaller sizes of residential homes in the South limits the space for large trees to grow in front and back yards. The lack of space on private property emphasizes the importance of City-managed street trees to support canopy cover goals by planting trees with the maximum canopy size possible for the space

HILLS FLATS SOUTH
Shrub/Grass
Bare
Impervious
58%
Tree
25%
1%
16%
Shrub/Grass
Bare
Impervious
48%
1%
Shrub/Grass
Bare
Impervious
81%

0.2%
Tree
29%
22%
8%
10%
Table 4. i-Tree Canopy Results by Neighborhood
Tree
I
Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 17 provided, while minimally impacting existing infrastructure such as sidewalks and utilities. The second nuance is that the City, through effective management practices, may be close to reaching the South’s potential canopy cover. Most of the available tree planting locations are filled according to the City’s inventory, with 1,266 vacant sites remaining in the South. If all vacant sites in the South are planted with a 50-foot-wide canopy tree, canopy cover would increase to an estimated total of 14% .

A more accurate way to define the benefit residents are receiving from these trees would be to create a goal focused on healthy and walkable neighborhoods. Many of the streets in this area have mature trees with shade-providing canopies that cover a high percentage of the sidewalk and streets. For the South, a canopy cover goal for specific streets, parking lots, and commercial corridors would ensure transportation corridors and shopping districts are providing residents and visitors an optimal living and visiting experience.

Increasing Canopy Cover
Table 5 represents the canopy cover totals that would be reached when a total number of trees at different canopy sizes were immediately added into the City inventory. The first row of the table shows that adding 1,655 trees with a 35-foot-wide canopy would increase the total City canopy cover to 27%. The same 27% target can also Canopy lined neighborhood
18 be reached by adding 811 trees with a 50-foot-wide canopy or 360 trees with a 75-foot-wide canopy. Actual canopy cover increases would occur over a 30–40-year timeframe depending on the annual tree planting totals, growth rate of the species planted, and potential mature tree canopy size. Reaching the estimated canopy cover in these tree planting scenarios is also
dependent on the total available locations to plant
trees, and the size tree that can be planted in that
location without interfering with existing infrastructure. While the table has planting scenarios for trees with a 75-foot canopy spread, it is not realistic to expect that most planting locations can be planted with trees this size. The City is largely developed and has many potential conflicts with street and
parkway infrastructure. Conversely, the City was
developed to accommodate trees, and as such, most
locations have space for a tree that can grow beyond
a 35-foot canopy spread. For this analysis we will
consider a 50-foot-wide canopy tree as a conservative method to estimate potential canopy cover increase. Both 35-foot and 75-foot canopy trees are
presented to reflect the spectrum of the total trees
that would need to be planted to reach the canopy
cover total. The City inventory lists 3,019 vacant
tree planting sites, and it is unknown whether all of
these sites are suitable for tree planting. If all vacant sites are filled with a 50-foot-wide canopy tree, the
City could increase canopy cover to 29%–30% (Table 5). The overall increase is small, but the City already benefits from an extensive canopy cover, with a lower gap to realizing its potential canopy cover.

Determining the annual number of trees needed to be planted to reach a canopy cover goal will also need to consider how many trees are removed annually. The City inventory reflects tree and stump

BEVERLY HILLS URBAN FOREST - CURRENT STATUS
x 6,619
trees
x 3,244
trees
x 1,441
trees















Maximizing Canopy Cover and Planting Space
I
Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 19 removal by the amount of trunk diameter at standard height (DSH) removed.

It was assumed that each tree removed
had a 30-inch DSH to be able to quantify the amount of trunk DSH removed to trees removed (Table 6).

On average the City is removing
approximately 138 trees per year and
planting 153. The planting totals do
not indicate if they replaced a removed
tree, or filled a vacant site. Table 7
reflects the annual total number of
trees that would need to be planted if
the City decided to set a canopy goal
of 33% by planting trees that reach
a 50-foot-wide canopy when mature
(4,866). The tree planting timeframes
are not when the canopy cover will be
achieved, but when the total number
of trees would be planted. Again, actual canopy cover will be realized over a 30- to 40 -year timeframe. The annual
number of trees to be planted includes
the replacement of the average annual
total removed.

Planting 381 trees a year for 20 years
is a realistic and achievable goal. The
planting strategy will require increased
funding, or a reallocation of current
Trees Needed to Reach Target Canopy Cover
Potential City Canopy Cover Adding trees with
35-foot-wide canopy
Adding trees with
50-foot-wide canopy
Adding trees with a
75-foot-wide canopy
27% 1,655 811 360
29% 4,964 2,433 1081
30% 6,619 3,244 1441
32% 9,928 4,866 2162
35% 14,893 7,298 3243
Table 5. Number of Trees Needed to Increase Canopy Cover by Size of Tree at Maturity Fiscal Year DSH Removed Equivalent in 30-Inch City-Planted Trees 2016/2017 5,063 169 106
2017/2018 4,218 141 180
2018/2019 3,110 104 173
Table 6. Conversion of Removed Trunk Diameter at Standard Height to Equivalent 30-Inch Diameter at Standard Height Trees 20 BEVERLY HILLS URBAN FOREST - CURRENT STATUS
funding, to support the planting and purchase
of the new trees, and to provide establishment
watering and care as well as ongoing maintenance.

Value of the Beverly Hills Urban Forest
A function of the i-Tree Canopy tool generates
an estimated value of the environmental services
provided by the City’s urban forest canopy cover.

The values are derived on an estimation of the
amount of biomass and leaf area that would exist
in the urban forest based on the City’s size and
26% canopy cover. More accurate values can be
derived with specific tree inventory information,
including tree attributes. However, these values
reflect some of the real and quantifiable ways
residents benefit from City-wide trees (Table 8).

Number of Years to Plant
4,866 Trees Number of Trees to Plant Per Year Total Trees Planted 10 624.6 6,246
20 381.3 7,626
30 300.2 9,006
40 259.65 10,386
Table 7. Tree Planting Scenarios to Increase Canopy Cover to 33% Environmental Services of Top 5 Categories
Abbr. Benefit Description Value Amount (tons)
CO2stor. Carbon dioxide stored in trees $5,615,284 121,157 CO2seq. Carbon dioxide sequestered annually $223,594 4,824 O3 Ozone removed annually $447,286 40.29
PM2.5 Particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter removed annually $114,680 0.609 PM10
Particulate matter greater than 2.5
microns and less than 10 microns in
diameter removed annually
$63,795 10.21
Total Environmental Services Value $6,475,004
Table 8. i-Tree Eco Value of Beverly Hills Urban Forest Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 21

TREE SIZE AND AGE

URBAN FOREST BENEFITS
The older and larger the tree, the greater the benefit
Western Redbud


California Sycamore

Jacaranda




BENEFITS CORRELATE TO TREE SIZE AND AGE
Figure 4
The values for carbon dioxide stored and sequestered relate to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere, and carbon dioxide is the leading cause of climate change (NASA 2021). Sequestering (i.e., removing) and storing carbon dioxide in trees is one avenue to reducing the City’s environmental impact. Collectively, the urban forest stores emissions equivalent to 23,746 cars driven annually,
and removes emissions from another
945 cars driven for
1 year (EPA 2020a).

Table 8’s values
include 03, which
represents ground
level ozone (EPA
2020a), particulate
matter that is 2.5
microns in diameter or less (PM2.5),
and particulate
matter that is greater than 2.5 microns
and less than 10
microns in diameter (PM10). Both
types of particulate
matter represent
harmful microscopic solids and
liquid droplets that
can be inhaled into
22 BEVERLY HILLS URBAN FOREST - CURRENT STATUS
the lungs (EPA 2020b). Where greenhouse gas emission figures are typically directed towards a global benefit, a reduction in these values directly improves air quality at the street level, around homes, and parking lots.

Value of the City Tree Inventory
The total collection of trees that makeup the City’s urban forest are not all managed by the City, so the environmental and economic values all trees in the City provide can not be directly attributed
to the City as an asset. However, the 23,457
inventoried trees managed by the City are
a part of the City’s infrastructure, and the
environmental and economic value they
provide can be accounted for by the City.

Unlike other parts of City infrastructure that
decline in value as they get older, the value of
trees increases as they get older and grow larger as seen in Figure 4. As long as the City is able to continue to expand the quantity of its tree population and the size of its trees, the environmental and economic values will continue to increase.

I-Tree Eco is another tool of the i-Tree suite that was used to determine the environmental and economic
value of the City’s trees based on the individual tree
data provided in the inventory. The City’s inventory of 23,457 trees was analyzed based on species type, DSH
size, and health condition. Specific values were available for individual trees for species type and DSH size.

Health condition information was not available in the
inventory, and as a result the i-Tree modelers use the system default of a 67% tree condition to conduct its analyses. The $119 million City tree inventory structural value (Table 9) represents what it would cost to replace every tree in its inventory with trees that are the same species, size, and health condition. The structural value is not based on the cost to replace a removed tree by planting a new tree for a Value Description Amount
Structural Value Tree replacement cost $119 million total Carbon Storage Value of the carbon stored in the trees $1.92 million total Functional Value based on the functions (services) trees perform $150,300/year Table 9. i-Tree Eco Value of the City Tree Inventory
Service Environmental Benefit Economic Value
Air Pollution Removal 6.635 tons/year $57.5 thousand/year Carbon Storage (Carbon Held
in Tree) 11,270 tons $1.92 million
Carbon Sequestration (Carbon
Removed from Air) 487 tons/year $83.1 thousand/year
Avoided Runoff 1,086,171 gallons/year $9.7 thousand/year Table 10. Environmental Services of the City Tree Inventory Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 23 container like a 24 inch box. For example, if a coast live oak tree that is 50 feet tall and 30 feet wide is removed, its structural value would be the cost to replace the same coast live oak tree that is 50 feet tall, 30 feet wide, and in good health.

The $1.92 million carbon storage value represents the economic value of the carbon stored in the trees, with the $150,300 functional value representing the financial value of the environmental services they perform (Tables 9 and 10). These values are real and quantifiable
City benefits. The City spends approximately
$1.6 million a year on direct expenses to plant,
trim, and maintain the tree population, which
equates to an annual return of $1.29 in environmental services for every $1 spent on tree maintenance. $2.28 million is the average annual budget for managing the tree population when administrative and overhead costs are
included in the total. At this level, the return
on environmental services in the City tree inventory is $0.91 per dollar spent. It should be noted that the economic values presented only
reflect those able to be calculated in the i-Tree
Eco software using the available tree attributes
from the inventory. The software does not
account for other economic values like energy savings, avoided emissions, and increased property value. A study of California street
trees concluded that every $1 invested in street
tree management returns $5.82 in economic
value (McPherson, et al. 2016). This finding
signifies that the estimated return from the Beverly Hills inventory could be higher than what is reported, when including other economic values.

Rank Botanical Name Common Name Total % of Inventory
1 Washingtonia robusta Mexican fan palm 2,721 11.20%
2 Platanus X hispanica London plane 1,583 6.52%
3 Jacaranda mimosifolia Jacaranda 1,362 5.61%
4 Ficus microcarpa 'Nitida' Indian laurel fig 1,276 5.25% 5 Magnolia grandiflora Southern magnolia 1,215 5.00%
6 Pinus canariensis Canary Island pine 1,163 4.79%
7 Phoenix canariensis Canary Island date palm 1,080 4.45% 8 Ulmus parvifolia Chinese elm 865 3.56%
9 Fraxinus angustifolia oxycarpa Raywood ash 751 3.09%
10 Pittosporum undulatum Victorian box 520 2.14%
Table 11. Top 10 Most Common Species
24 BEVERLY HILLS URBAN FOREST - CURRENT STATUS
City Tree Inventory Sustainability Indicators
Species Diversity
Species diversity composition is one measure of
whether an urban forest
population is and will be
resilient to the effects of
climate change including
drought, extreme heat, pests
and pathogens. Urban forest
research has not settled
on a recommendation for
what percentage of species
or genera should comprise
a city tree inventory. One
recommendation suggests
that one genus should represent no more than 10% of
the trees in a community,
and no single species should
exceed 5% of the tree population (Moll 1989). Moll
does not indicate if these
guidelines are appropriate
for urban forests in general
or are regionally specific.

Based on Dudek’s experience, Moll’s recommendations are a reasonable target for Beverly Hills and will be used as a guide so the City’s future tree population does not exceed 5% and 10% representation by species and genus, respectively. These ratios should provide a sufficient safeguard to the urban forest overall against unexpected threats to a specific species or genus. Accomplishing
this goal will focus on introducing a wider variety of tree species for future tree
planting and replacement
programs with alternative,
proven successful species
that are underrepresented
in the City inventory.

The top 10 species and
genera in the City’s tree
inventory are represented in Tables 11 and 12.

Five species exceed the
5% species threshold, but
only the Mexican fan palm
(Washingtonia robusta)
exceeds the threshold by a
significant percentage. Only
the Washingtonia genus
comprises more than 10%
of the inventory. Bringing
the London plane (Platanus X hispanica), jacaranda
(Jacaranda mimosifolia), Indian laurel fig (Ficus microcarpa ‘Nitida’), and southern magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora) within a target range is Rank Genus Species Type Total % of Inventory
1 Washingtonia Palm spp. 2870 11.82%
2 Pinus Pine spp. 1954 8.05%
3 Ficus Fig spp. 1759 7.24%
4 Platanus Sycamore spp. 1746 7.19%
5 Magnolia Magnolia spp. 1382 5.69%
6 Jacaranda Jacaranda spp. 1362 5.61%
7 Ulmus Elm spp. 1259 5.18%
8 Phoenix Palm spp. 1222 5.03%
9 Fraxinus Ash spp. 1100 4.53%
10 Eucalyptus Eucalyptus spp. 767 3.16%
Table 12. Top 10 Most Common Genera
Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 25 achievable on a 5–10-year timeframe depending on the scale with which the City adds new tree species to the inventory, and the extent to which these species may need to be removed for public safety. The inclusion of a species in tables 11 and 12 does not signify whether it is currently performing well, or will be suited for future climate conditions. As such, each species in the City inventory must be evaluated for its inclusion in tree planting projects, or whether they should be gradually phased out or limited.

Species diversity within a street block or neighborhood is another important consideration of achieving a sustainable urban forest. Like many cities, the City was planned with monoculture street plantings, using the same species on both sides of the street, for one or more blocks. This planting style creates streets and neighborhoods with a distinct, species driven aesthetic appeal and character. As such, Beverly Hills’ street trees are a defining feature of many City streets. One risk associated with monoculture street landscapes is that they are susceptible to host-specific pests or disease. High numbers of these trees may be rapidly lost from a pest or disease outbreak, drought, or other threat.

The City has a documented history of large scale tree loss in its 1996 Street Tree Master Plan. At the time of the study, approximately 3,000 Arizona ash (Fraxinus velutina) and American elm (Ulmus americana) trees spread over 30 streets reached a point of decline at the same time (Beverly Hills 1996). The primary factors included age, poor pruning, pests, and repeated chemical injury from pest management practices.

The City instituted an aggressive plan to remove and replace these trees, leaving these streets void of mature trees in the short term. Over 20 years later, some streets have trees that are progressing towards replacing the lost canopy, while others still have not. Multiple factors contribute to the discrepancy in the success of replacement tree planting efforts on individual streets. Some streets that were planted with species like Idaho locust (Robinia ambigua ‘Idahoensis’) struggled to establish in the landscape, while others were planted with species like the Chinese flame (Koelreuteria bipinnata) which thrived. The establishment care and tree maintenance given by private property owners also could have impacted the survival of newly planted trees. Because it can take 30-40 years to replace canopy cover when a large tree is removed (see the City-wide Canopy Cover section for more details), while some streets are progressing towards replacing lost canopy, it will still take several more years before the replacement trees are mature and have extensive canopy spread.

A similar situation is developing today with the London plane and magnolia trees. These two shade tree species account for a significant portion of the total inventory and total shade tree population, as presented in Table 13.

Historically, these species have proven to be successful in the City landscape, resulting in these species combining to account for 23% of the City canopy cover. However, both species are declining from annually hotter temperatures and extended periods of climate change driven drought. They are also susceptible to the invasive shot hole borer beetle which is difficult to manage and often leads to tree mortality. It will not be possible for the City to reasonably mitigate against the changing environmental conditions and pest infestations. If the City takes no action, it Combined Percent
City Inventory 11.5%
All Shade Trees 14%
Table 13. Percent of Inventory Consisting of London Plane and Magnolia Trees 26 BEVERLY HILLS URBAN FOREST - CURRENT STATUS
could face the same difficult decision of maintaining public safety on increasingly higher demanding trees while preserving canopy cover.

In anticipation of this scenario, the City should develop a plan that selectively removes low performing species on monoculture streets, replacing them with new climate appropriate species, and transitioning street scapes from a monoculture to a diverse palate.

Age Distribution
Age distribution is used to measure the distribution of tree ages on the life cycle spectrum, and informs current and future management needs. If the spectrum is skewed towards a younger urban forest, trimming and maintenance costs are likely to be lower, but the trees are not yet providing a high environmental services return on investment. If the spectrum is skewed heavily towards mature trees, the forest is providing a higher service level, but also requires more costly pruning and a replacement strategy for trees that are reaching senescence. The DSH sizes and accompanying age categories were first recommended by Richards (1983), and should be considered guidelines, and not a set equivalency for all tree species. Faster growing trees may reach a mature trunk size sooner than a slower growing tree, but wouldn’t be considered mature by their age and amount of time left in their expected life cycle. Conversely, some smaller canopy trees may be considered mature with a DSH less than 25 inches.

The City’s tree age distribution is presented in Table 14. Middle-aged and mature trees are within the ranges of what is considered sustainable for an urban forest, with the immature tree populations significantly lower than the target range, and the young tree population significantly higher than the target range. Although these ranges are not in alignment with Richards’ targets, there are explainable factors why, as detailed below, and having the two youngest age categories making up the majority of the deviation is more desirable than having far too many or few middle aged and mature trees.

The low percentage of trees with DSH ranges of 0–6 inches is, in part, a reflection on the small number of trees planted annually. The City averages 153 trees planted per year for the last three years, which amounts to planting 0.5% of the available planting locations identified in the City inventory. However, in total, 89% of all available planting locations (combined planted and vacant locations) are planted in the City, and the number of trees removed each year and requiring replacement due to capital improvement projects, diseases, pests, or other factors is low. As such, these factors limit the number of trees the City can feasibly plant each year. The City also only plants larger 24-inch box, 36-inch box, and 48-inch box size trees, which have minimum DSH sizes of 2 inches for 24-inch box trees, and up to 5 inches for 48-inch box size trees. These planting sizes accelerate the amount of time between when they will move into the next age category.

DSH (inches) Total % of Inventory Goal Age Classification 0–6 3,327 14% 40% Immature
7–18 13,547 56% 30% Young
19–24 4,019 17% 20% Middle-aged
25+ 3,396 14% 10% Mature
Table 14. Diameter at Standard Height (DSH) and Age Distribution of City Inventory Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 27 The city also provides newly planted trees with establishment care and maintenance for the first year, and routine pruning to improve young tree structure and growth form. The investment in caring for younger trees as they develop contributes to the resulting 31% of the inventory that have grown into the middle-aged and mature tree categories. This representation of middle-aged and mature trees is also a reflection on the City’s provisions for adequate planting area (both below and above ground), as the City’s trees are typically provided ample grow- ing space, which allows the City to plant larger stature trees that will have larger DSH sizes and will provide more community benefits and services.

Another result of the City’s implementation of the urban forest plans from previous years, and most recently the 1996 Street Tree Master plan, is that delineated neighborhood areas were planted simultane- ously. It is expected then, that most trees planted during these cam- paigns will reach the end of their useful life on a similar timeframe.

One approach to maintaining canopy cover while increasing age di- versity would be to begin to selectively remove declining mature trees in a similar approach to that proposed for increasing species diversity.

However, it can be a difficult decision to remove a large and mature tree that has community cultural significance. There must be a defen- sible reason to remove mature trees, but it also must be understood that every tree reaches a point within urban areas where it must be removed. A gradual approach to removing mature trees (focusing on those that are presenting hazards, have higher risk, and/or are shown to cost more than the benefits being provided) to maintain long-term canopy cover would align with the principles of sustainable develop- ment, as it preserves current and future canopy for residents, while still progressing towards City established goals.

Curb Bulb
ix

BEVERLY HILLS URBAN FOREST - CURRENT STATUS
As early as the 1930s, City records document palm tree planting in Beverly Hills. Palms are an iconic landscape feature that defines residential streets like Beverly Drive, the Rodeo Drive shopping district, and businesses like the Beverly Hills Hotel. Palms should be preserved in locations like these, where their inclusion in the landscape provides a historic significance to the City’s culture, and financial return from visitors and tourists. Not all street and business landscapes receive the same value from palms, and in these locations, preserving them should be weighed against the maintenance costs and environmental services they provide. As the City prepares to take progressive steps towards climate resiliency, it will need to decide how to use the limited available space to plant shade trees and expand tree canopy cover.

Palm Environmental Services
The myriad environmental services the City receives from its trees annually provide approximately $1.93 million in economic value.

Increasing this figure depends on the biological functions of trees that sequester carbon and the woody biomass that stores carbon.

Trees’ economic value is also dependent on increasing the amount of leaf area that reduces stormwater runoff, lowers ground level ozone, and cools neighborhoods. Biologically, palms and shade trees share important aspects that allow them to both perform the same environmental services calculated in i-Tree. Structurally, there are differences between these tree types that impact the magnitude of environmental services they provide (e.g., the spread of the canopy, branches, and leaf area). The i-Tree Eco was used to quantify the differences between palms and shade trees and compare their environmental and economic values.

Shade tree species were selected from the City inventory to provide a mix of tree sizes that mimic the City’s overall tree size and age distriCommon Name Number Size % of Study Group Canary Island pine 1130 Large
34%
Fern pine 487 Large
Jacaranda 1341 Medium
49%
Aleppo pine 497 Medium
Zelkova 303 Medium
Chinese elm 203 Medium
Chinese flame tree 375 Small
17%
Common crape myrtle 231 Small
Taiwanese rain tree 129 Small
Pink trumpet tree 90 Small
Table 15. Shade Tree Comparison Species
Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 29 Palms
bution. The total number of the shade trees in this example is equal to the Palms’ total individual trees (4,786 palms; 20% of the City’s inventory) (Table 15). Tree size, including trunk DSH, height, and canopy spread, are all important factors to the level of tree-provided environmental and economic services. The quantities of each size group are intended to best reflect the
age distribution breakdown of the
City inventory to accurately depict the
difference in value of palms and shade
trees. The results of the comparison
are provided in Table 16.

The results of the comparison
highlight the stark deficiencies of
palm-provided environmental services
when compared to shade trees. Replacing palms with shade trees represents a significant opportunity for the City to
increase City-managed canopy cover
within the limited available planting space. The City would be able to increase canopy cover by a total of 1.3% when
the difference of 2,030,358 ft2 of canopy cover
provided by shade trees is added to the City’s
total canopy cover. With limited space to plant
new trees, it will be difficult to add 5% or more of
new canopy cover to the City’s 26% total canopy
cover. If only 5% more canopy is possible, then
the 1.3% increase would represent a total of 26%
of the total new canopy cover added in the City.

Not quantified in these totals are the minimal
impact palms have on shading streets which help create a resilient community with more walkable streets, cleaner air, and a healthier living environment. In total, palms contribute only 0.8% City canopy cover. This total contribution may actually be misleading, as palms Canopy Cover
(square feet)
Stored Carbon
(tons)
Avoided Stormwater
Runoff (gallons) Structural Value
Shade Trees 2,352,216 2,049 253,298 $30,638,004
Palms 321,857 537 66,950 $7,249,938
Equivalent added
benefit with only
shade trees
2,030,358 sq.
ft. added is 35
foot-ball fields of
shade
1,511 tons
of carbon
emissions stored
is equivalent to
emissions from
291 cars driven
for a year
186,348 gallons of
water directed towards
aquifers
$23,389,066
more in City
assets
Table 16. Comparison of Environmental Services of Palms and Shade Trees Structural Value Environmental Services Carbon storage
All Trees in Inventory $119,000,000.00 $150,300.00 $1,920,000.00 Palms $7,248,938.18 $5,527.29 $91,539.68
Palms’ % of Total Inventory 6% 4% 5%
Table 17. Economic Value of City Tree Inventory vs. Palms 30 PALMS
Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 31 species like the Mexican fan palm can grow to over 100’ tall, and will only shade the sidewalks and streets during times of the day when the sun is positioned directly above them.

The disparity in the structural and environmental financial value of shade trees and palms is further represented in Table 17.

While palms account for 20% of the inventory, they only account for 6% of the structural value, 4% of the environmental services value, and 5% of the value of stored carbon. As discussed, the economic value of some palms in the City is linked with the iconic aesthetic they create on residential streets and commercial corridors. For the remaining City palms, they are providing little in terms of environmental services and economic value, which in turn, lowers the City’s return on its tree management investment.

Maintenance Costs of Palms
The City prunes almost all of the palms it manages on an annual basis to reduce the risk they present to people and property, and to maintain a consistent aesthetic. This practice, on average, annually accounts for 26% of the City’s pruning costs, and 17% of the City’s total tree maintenance budget, as reflected in Table 18.

The maintenance costs associated with palms are not proportional to the environmental services they provide compared to shade trees. Table 18 demonstrates that palms account for 20% of the city inventory and 17% of the maintenance budget. As an investment, the City receives $0.35 in environmental value for every $1 dollar it spends to maintain palms, which is almost $1 lower than the $1.29 return of environmental value of the City managed tree inventory.

All trees and palms will reach a point of maturity in size that slows down the annual growth of leaf area and woody biomass. Palms have a fast growth rate, providing a limited short-term benefit of sequestering carbon, but a longer period of life at a mature size. Once they are mature, palm maintenance does not contribute to an increase in palms’ leaf area or wood biomass, and their environmental services stagnate.

Maintenance costs on palms continue at the same annual rate to maintain aesthetic appeal and safety from falling fronds, but the environmental services and economic value remain static and low. With shade trees, there is a resulting equivalent increase in environmental services and value during this same mature stage, and this increase continues over a longer period of time As such, the long-term maintenance costs of shade trees has a higher rate of return. If the number of palms in the Average Annual
Total Trees Pruned
Average Annual
Pruning Costs
Percent of
Pruning Costs Percent of Maintenance Costs
Shade trees 3,121 $515,883.33 74% 48%
Palms 3,628 $274, 343.33 26% 17%
Table 18. Maintenance and Pruning Costs of Palms
32 PALMS
City was reduced, funding that currently is spent for the annual palm pruning could be reallocated for planting and maintaining higher environmental service producing shade trees, and other urban forest program activities. Environmental Services of
Trees vs.

Palms
Palms make up 20% of
Beverly Hills tree inventory but
only provide 6% of the functional
and structural forest value.
shade CXJ x
water efficiency
�
x
carbon
x sequestration
climate control x
Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills

B E V E R LY H I L L S

POLICE STATION
Overview
One way to measure a sustainable urban forest management program is to examine whether current funding and staffing levels are sufficient to meet the established urban forest health, safety, and environmental goals. A city with sufficient funding and staffing can effectively carry out the various tasks needed to manage a tree population, such as annually planting enough trees to replace and increase canopy cover, maintaining trees in a healthy and safe condition, and protecting and preserving trees during development projects. This measurement also requires a continual evaluation of a city’s economic conditions and urban forest management priorities, so funding can be judiciously allocated in a manner that continues to progress toward meeting the goals of its urban forest program. Analyzing the current funding levels of the City’s urban forest program incorporated use of a variety of methods that are based on 1) current program goals, 2) a comparison of funding levels with other municipalities’ urban forest management programs, and 3) applicable sustainability principles.

Current Program Funding
There is no set standard to determine whether a city is sustainably funding its urban forest program, but one can look at various factors that tend to reveal whether a program is sufficiently funded. One factor used is the urban forest’s current condition, which in Beverly Hills, is largely healthy, safe, and approaching an optimal citywide canopy cover. A second factor is maintenance practices, which the City demonstrates at a high level by maintaining a pruning cycle of 5–7 years for shade trees, annual pruning of palms, and minimization of vacant tree planting sites. Finally, it can also include having staff to effectively enforce ordinances and policies that affect trees on private property. It is evident when analyzing these indicators that funding for the City’s urban forest management program is at a level to support a sustainable urban forest and reflects the high level at which trees are valued in the City.

Another useful way to measure how well the City is funding its urban forest program is by comparing the City’s budget to those of other municipalities. Table 19 reflects the urban forest management budgets of various city urban forest programs throughout California. For comparison, consider the City of San Francisco, which is progressing towards a sustainable urban forest based on the same factors used to analyze Beverly Hill’s urban forest. San Francisco manages all trees in the public space, provides 3 years of establishment care, has completed a UFMP, and has a planting plan in place to increase canopy cover.

As such, the San Francisco budget per tree helps to indicate what funding level might be needed to support a sustainable urban forest program in California and provides a baseline for comparison. As Table 19 indicates, the City budgets more than $22 per tree, and $48 per resident, than does San Francisco.

Hauer and Peterson (2016) conducted a large scale review of municipal urban forest programs throughout the United States, and it provides examples for comparing the Beverly Hills budget to national averages. Across all municipalities that completed the study survey, tree activities had an average annual budget of $801.595, which equated to $42.59 spent per street tree, and Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 34 Funding the Beverly Hills Urban Forest Management Program Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 35 $8.76 per capita. Of the municipalities with a population size similar to Beverly Hills (25,000-49,999), the average tree management budget was $343,596. In comparison to both state and national averages, funding in Beverly Hills is well above almost all other municipalities listed, with the exception of the per tree spending of Palo Alto. As such, Bevery Hills’ level of funding may be appropriate for its needs, but the City may be able to reduce its level of investment without negatively impacting the trees. While the City is well suited to continue its urban forest management, it should consider how funding can be reallocated to meet the UFMP developed goals.

One area where the City could reallocate spending is through a reduction in planting stock size, such as planting 24-inch box trees instead of the more costly 36-inch and 48-inch box trees. Tree size increases with container size, but planting larger trees (36-inch and 48-inch box) does not guarantee they will reach a mature stature faster than a 24-inch box tree. It would be expected that tree species given an equal level of establishment care and growing conditions would grow at a similar rate. As such, a tree that is 8 feet tall (24-inch box size tree) when planted would have almost no noticeable difference in size after 5–10 years of growth in comparison to a tree that is 10-12 feet tall (36- inch to 48-inch box size tree) when planted. There is a significant gap in the costs associated with planting each tree size, and this must be City Total Budget* Total Population** Allocation Per Resident Total Trees* Allocation Per Tree Beverly Hills $2.34 million (2019) 33,792 $69.10 24,292 $96.12 Palo Alto $4.36 million (2019) 65,364 $66.70 36,378 $119.85 San Francisco $19 million (2018) 881,549 $21.55 236,000 $80.51 Downey $1 million (2018) 111,126 $8.99 18,399 $54.35
Los Angeles $25.4 million (2018) 3,979,576 $6.38 1,000,000 $25.4 San Jose $5.73 million (2019) 1,021,795 $5.60 285,000 $20.11 Table 19. Comparison of Municipal Urban Forest Management Funding * Total Budget and Total Trees numbers are based on public records and research conducted by Dudek. ** Population totals based on July 1, 2019 estimates of the United States Census Bureau. 36 FUNDING THE BEVERLY HILLS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PROGRAM weighed against public perceptions that the City should plant larger trees to replace a mature tree. The extra costs associated with planting larger box size trees may be warranted if it helps to reinforce a positive image of trees amongst residents and property owners.

The average cost associated with the purchase and installation of the three boxed tree sizes (24-inch, 36-inch, and 48-inch) in fiscal year 2017/2018 are presented in Table 20. It is three times more expensive to plant a 36- inch box tree than a 24-inch box tree, and 8 times more expensive to plant a 48-inch box than a 24-inch box tree. The shorter establishment period, and lower installation costs of 24-inch box trees suggests the City could transplant smaller sized trees and still be able to meet canopy cover goals. One strategy to increase canopy across the City would be to plant approximately 300 trees per year for 30 years.

In 2017/2018, the City spent $135,480 to plant 179 trees, of which 171 were 36-inch and 48-inch box trees. By only planting 24-inch box trees with the same funding, the City could annually plant 300 24-inch box Container Size Cost to In-stall Number Planted Total Expense Per Container Size
Cost to Plant 179,
24-inch Box Trees
Cost Reduction by only planting
24-inch Box
24 inches $185 8 $1,480 $33,115 $102,365
36 inches $625 140 $87,500
48 inches $1,500 31 $46,500
Total 179 $135,480
Table 20. Beverly Hills Tree Planting Costs (2017/2018) Current
Planting Cost
Cost to Plant 300,
24-inch box trees Available Budget Cost to water 200 trees for a year ($400 per tree) $135,480 $55,500 $79,980 $80,000
Table 21. Beverly Hills Tree Planting Costs (2017/2018) Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 37 trees, and have funds remaining to contract water 200 trees for one year (Table 21). Funding would still need to be allocated to water newly planted trees for three total years, but these savings would reduce the amount of additional funding needed to establishment care. Priorities of the UFMP include increasing canopy cover and maximizing the City’s environmental and economic return produced by the urban forest. In contrast to this goal, palms have a high annual maintenance cost, and low environmental and economic return. To help meet UFMP goals, the City could elect to replace palms when they require removal with large canopy shade trees. A phased removal of palms would reduce the annual amount of the budget dedicated to pruning palms, which can then be invested back into planting and establishing a more resilient urban forest with species that provide a higher rate of return than is currently realized by the City’s palm tree population.

While replacing palms with shade trees would increase environmental services and make funding available for shade trees, it would also increase annual pruning costs. The costs of pruning shade trees begins at $60 for trees with a 0-6 inch dbh and increases up to $500 for a tree with a 24 inch dbh. Coversely, palm tree pruning ranges from $44 - $84 per tree regardless of size. As previously noted though, the City would experience a higher return on the investment in planting and maintaining shade trees than what it experiences with palms.

The UFMP process has shown that one of the major impediments to expanding canopy coverage in the City is the need to gradually diversify climate-appropriate species, while phasing out underperforming trees and those in decline. It will require increased funding, beyond the current budget, for anticipated tree removals, planting, and watering to successfully implement a program that strategically removes declining species, plants appropriate species, and provides establishment care for the first 2–3 years. The annual costs to implement this program will depend on how aggressive the City decides to implement this recommendation. Table 22 provides estimated costs over a 20-year period, of tree removal, planting, and watering to replace species identified in the City inventory that are in decline and/or not suited for a changing climate.

It should be noted that the estimate is based on current City costs and does not account for inflation and increased future costs.

Based on these estimates, the City can reduce the budget needs for a 20-year removal, planting, and watering plan by a minimum of 23% (year 3), and up to 67% (years 16-20). This plan anticipates a need to remove 2,000 shade trees that are either in decline, or part of a phased removal plan to transition neighborhoods to having diverse and resilient tree populations. The plan also includes the removal of 3,000 palm trees that provide minimal environmental value. Overall, the City would add 4,000 shade trees (6,000 planted, and 2,000 removals), which would put the City on pace to plant the estimated 4,866 trees (Table 7) needed to increase canopy cover to 33%.

Sustainability Indicators
The Vibrant Cities Lab ‘Community Goal Setting and Assessment Tool’ was used to measure how the City’s urban forest program compares to sustainable urban forest management practices. The assessment tool uses a set of 28 criteria and indicators—first developed by Clark et al. (1997) and later updated by Kenney et al. (2011) and Leff (2016)—to evaluate the level of sustainability of a city’s urban forest program. A sustainability score is derived from answering a series of questions for 38 FUNDING THE BEVERLY HILLS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Year
Expense Reallocation
Program
Cost *Annual Removals
(100 Shade Tree,
200 Palms)
Removal
Cost per
Year
Cost to Plant 300,
24 inch box trees
per Year
**Total Watering
Cost per Year
($400 per tree)
Total
Program
Costs
Combined Reallocated
Funds from Tables 20
and 21
Reduction of Total
Program Costs by
Reallocated Funds
1 300 $120,000 $55,500 $120,000 $295,500 $94,980 32% $200,520 2 300 $120,000 $55,500 $240,000 $415,500 $109,980 26% $305,520 3 300 $120,000 $55,500 $360,000 $535,500 $124,980 23% $410,520 4 300 $120,000 $55,500 $360,000 $535,500 $139,980 26% $395,520 5 300 $120,000 $55,500 $360,000 $535,500 $154,980 29% $380,520 6 300 $120,000 $55,500 $360,000 $535,500 $169,980 32% $365,520 7 300 $120,000 $55,500 $360,000 $535,500 $184,980 35% $350,520 8 300 $120,000 $55,500 $360,000 $535,500 $199,980 37% $335,520 9 300 $120,000 $55,500 $360,000 $535,500 $214,980 40% $320,520 10 300 $120,000 $55,500 $360,000 $535,500 $229,980 43% $305,520 11 300 $120,000 $55,500 $360,000 $535,500 $244,980 46% $290,520 12 300 $120,000 $55,500 $360,000 $535,500 $259,980 49% $275,520 13 300 $120,000 $55,500 $360,000 $535,500 $274,980 51% $260,520 14 300 $120,000 $55,500 $360,000 $535,500 $289,980 54% $245,520 15 300 $120,000 $55,500 $360,000 $535,500 $304,980 57% $230,520 16 100 $40,000 $55,500 $360,000 $455,500 $304,980 67% $150,520 17 100 $40,000 $55,500 $360,000 $455,500 $304,980 67% $150,520 18 100 $40,000 $55,500 $360,000 $455,500 $304,980 67% $150,520 19 100 $40,000 $55,500 $360,000 $455,500 $304,980 67% $150,520 20 100 $40,000 $55,500 $360,000 $455,500 $304,980 67% $150,520 Table 22. Estimated Program Costs to Increase
Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 39 each of the criteria and indicators, and having the user provide a numerical rating on the current and the desired conditions. The difference between the current rating and desired rating is the sustainability gap, and establishes a goal that can be targeted through achievable actions that will move the city toward sustainability. Two criteria and indicators measure how well the City is funding and staffing its urban forest management program.

Criteria No. 1: Funding
Sustainability Metric
Municipality-Wide Urban Forestry Funding – Develop and maintain adequate funding to implement municipality-wide UFMP.

Current Rating for Beverly Hills
• Good (2). Funding is sufficient for some proactive management, based on UFMP.

Ideal Rating for Beverly Hills
• Optimal (4). To have sustained, long-term funding from municipal, regional, and/or state agencies, along with private sources to implement a comprehensive UFMP, and provide for maintenance and adaptive management as circumstances change.

Analysis
The City funds its urban forest program at levels that are beyond the standards set by comparison cities, and funding is more than sufficient to meet the current program goals. The one deficiency that separates the City from being rated at an optimal level is the lack of diversified funding sources. By being solely funded by the City’s general fund, Beverly Hills is vulnerable to an economic downturn that could drastically reduce how much of the budget is dedicated to the management of the urban forest, depending on the overall urban forest priority compared with other City-provided services. This was evident in the years following the 2008 recession. In 2011, similar to many cities, the budget for parks and trees in Beverly Hills was reduced by roughly 20% to adjust to the impacts of the economic conditions, resulting in decreased tree planting and maintenance activities. Since then, the City has worked to restore and increase funding beyond pre-recession levels. A more diversified portfolio of funding sources could provide a layer of protection during unforeseen economic hardships, such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

Criteria No. 2: Staffing
Sustainability Metric
Urban Forestry Program Capacity [Applies to In-House and Contracted Staff] – Maintain sufficient well-trained personnel and equipment— whether in-house or through contracted or volunteer services—to implement municipality-wide UFMP.

Current Rating for Beverly Hills
• Optimal (4) Team has now and will in the future resources to achieve all goals of the urban forest management plan, to maintain the resource over time, and adapt management as circumstances change.

The evaluated current rating is also the highest rating option for this sustainability metric, meaning the City is staffing its urban forest program at a sustainable level. The key aspect of the rating is that it states the City is able to ‘achieve many of the goals of the urban forest management plan’, so while the City is at a sustainable level, it will still need to address staffing shortcomings. The most sustainable way the 40 FUNDING THE BEVERLY HILLS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PROGRAM City is meeting program goals with current staffing levels is in the maintenance of the City-managed tree population. The contracted work crews that plant and water new trees, and maintain a 5–7-year pruning cycle, are readily available to fulfill the City’s scheduled maintenance requests, and respond to as-needed situations that arise from unexpected safety and maintenance concerns. As a result, trees are healthy and long-lived, providing the City with an increased level of environmental and economic services.

One decision the City will have to make in how it chooses to manage the urban forest is having additional review by a certified arborist of City policies and ordinances that govern trees on private property. An analysis of the City’s canopy cover found that approximately 71% is on private property, making these trees a vital component to the City’s overall health and sustainability. One way the private forest is preserved and expanded is through effectively implementing ordinances and policies that affect private property.

Through an analysis of the current ordinance and policies, interviews with City staff, and presentations to the commissions of Planning and Design Review, two gaps were identified in private property tree and landscape management. One gap that can be improved upon is in the commercial and residential property review process. These projects are currently submitted to Community Development and the Design Review Commission. Improvements would focus on ensuring the Tree Removal Regulation is properly enforced, so that tree preservation is prioritized, and tree removals are appropriately justified. Likewise, landscape plans need a thorough vetting to ensure that trees are properly spaced, only City-approved tree species are planted, and designs meet established City canopy cover goals. Another impending issue on single-family home residential properties is the challenge the Fire Department will face in implementing the updated hazard tree management program outlined in the ‘Beverly Hills Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone Tree-Related Fire Hazards’ chapter of this UFMP. All of these practices necessitate the knowledge of an experienced certified arborist to assess the health of a tree and structural deficiencies, accurately identify species, be intimately familiar with the UFMP and provide recommendations on removal and ongoing maintenance.

The potential position’s workload should be further examined by the City to understand which staffing best fulfills the need. The duties could range from a full-time City employee, to on-call third-party urban foresters. At a minimum, this position should require a person who is an ISA Certified Arborist and Tree Risk Assessment Qualified, understands City ordinances, and has experience in tree health and risk assessment. The role would provide an objective arboricultural perspective in response to the City or private property owner who is requesting review of the tree and property.

The review would include a discussion of the tree’s condition, risk potential, available options to mitigate risk, and a determination on whether the request to remove or prune a tree is valid.
41 Authentic community engagement is a cornerstone to developing a UFMP that reflects the goals, needs, and priorities of the City’s residents and business owners. To understand how the diverse opinions of the Beverly Hills community affect trees, the consultant team conducted several community engagement activities. Public meetings occurred before the COVID-19 pandemic and were conducted as in-person events. An online community survey was created to identify the public’s perception and understanding of the City’s trees, and to offer a space for public feedback as the City develops its UFMP.

The following chapter details the approach, process, and results of UFMP community engagement.

Public Meetings
In partnership with Dudek, the City held three community meetings in November and December of 2019, attended by approximately 40 participants. Meetings were held at Roxbury Park, City Hall, and Greystone Mansion to increase resident participation from the three neighborhood segments of the City. The meetings included an introduction to the City’s UFMP project and process, with a presentation on the importance of trees to living in Beverly Hills. Attendees could contribute by speaking publicly to the group during the meetings and asking questions directly to City staff and the consultant team. The meeting at Roxbury Park had 2 attendees, the meeting City Hall had 5, and the meeting at Greystone Mansion had over 30. Residents of the Hills and Trousdale neighborhood in attendance at the Greystone Mansion meeting expressed concerns over what level of fire hazard trees present to their homes and community.

Community Engagement/Public Survey Results
Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills Greystone Mansion
View Ordinance
42 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT/PUBLIC SURVEY RESULTS
Online Survey
Overview
An online survey was created to identify the public’s perception and understanding of the City’s trees, and to offer a space for public feedback as the City develops its UFMP. The 26-question survey was open between May 2019 and November 2020, and was distributed through various City social media outlets, local newspapers, outreach events, and communications sent by City staff. The survey was offered in Spanish and English, and major themes of the survey questions included the following:
• The attitudes and feelings respondents have towards trees • How much respondents know about trees and how to maintain them • How willing respondents would be to support policies that protect trees on private property
• Demographics of survey respondents
A full list of survey questions and responses
can be found in Appendix N. In total, 180
survey responses were recorded, with 177
respondents for the English survey and 3
respondents for the Spanish survey. Of the
respondents, 90% live in Beverly Hills with
nearly even representation from each of the
City’s neighborhoods (Table X). Table Y
highlights other relevant survey respondent
demographics, and how they compare to City
data from the US Census Bureau. The survey
respondents are skewed towards white, older,
Category Demographics of Survey Respondents U.S. Census Demographics of City of Beverly
Hills 28% 33,792
Age 71% 50 or older 41.9% 50 or older
Housing Type 82% single-family home 58.6% single-family home Housing Status 84.6% homeowner 55% homeowner
Race 94% white 81% white
Level of Education 87% bachelor’s degree or higher 63.2 % bachelor’s degree or higher Table Y. Demographics of Survey Respondents Compared to Demographics of the City of Beverly Hills Neighborhood Percent of Respondents
Hills 28%
Flats 29%
South 32%
Lives outside Beverly Hills 11%
Table X. Survey Respondent Neighborhood Representation
Source: Beverly Hills Public Survey 2019
Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 43 single-family homeowners, with higher levels of education than the demographics of the City’s residents. Although many efforts were taken to engage diverse groups of residents, it is important to recognize the limitations of the survey results, and to highlight that the opinions of renters, residents under 50, and non-English speakers are less likely to be represented.

Results
Survey respondents place a high importance on the City’s trees, with 94% identifying that trees are either more important or equally as important as other City-maintained infrastructure. Over 85% of respondents view the City’s trees as being in good or excellent condition, and 65% believe the City has a sufficient number of street trees. In terms of issues with growing trees on private property, 40% of respondents identified that they did not have any, while the next most common answers were damage to pipes and sewers (29%) and mess/leaf litter (15%). The top two benefits of trees that respondents identified included improving the environment (33%) and improved aesthetics/appearance (27%).

The survey also addressed a number of threats or issues with growing trees in Beverly Hills. Responses were fairly consistent in agreement that drought, pests and diseases, increasing home sized, and conflicts with other infrastructure all pose threats to the trees in their neighborhood. In regards to tree protection on private property, 75% of respondents agreed to some level (strongly agree, agree, or somewhat agree) that protection should be enforced in the same way the public trees are protected. Over 60% agreed that there is a wildfire threat to Beverly Hills, and over 75% agreed that trees and shrubs should be regulated by the City to reduce the risk of wildfire to the community. About 25% of respondents are not aware that there are guidelines for reducing wildfire risk in the City, and 17% indicated that they were aware of the guidelines, but that they do not apply to where they live.

The survey results revealed the potential for knowledge gaps about trees among residents, and could indicate an important public education opportunity. While 98% of respondents agreed that pruning trees is necessary, a majority of respondents said that pruning should occur every year (60%) or every 2-5 years (37%). Only one respondent answered that pruning should occur every 5-7 years, which aligns with recommendations for municipal pruning cycles. Further, when asked how frequently residents should water newly established trees, 47% of respondents answered 3 times per week, and 39% responded once per week (which aligns with municipal recommendations). Directing community education around these topics could help residents save money on pruning and water costs, as well as save water in an often water-stressed environment.
44 Private property comprises 81.7% of land use in the City, with residential land use at 72% and commercial developed land use at

9.7% (See General Plan Land Use Chapter for more details), which correlates to approximately 71% of tree canopy cover existing on private property. The participation, or lack of support, for the City’s urban forest policies from private property owners will have a direct impact on the ability to grow and maintain a healthy urban forest. Active participation from private property owners includes efforts to preserve trees during development, implementing industry standard pruning and maintenance practices, and planting new trees in front and back yards, when feasible. It will also require a willingness to adopt standards for landscape designs that shift from a reliance on plant material and grasses that are heavy water users, to drought tolerant plants and tree species recommended by the City that are known to be adapted to changing climate conditions.

Successfully implementing policies, ordinances, and guidelines begins with a thorough outreach and education campaign by the City to raise the level of awareness and support for the UFMP’s new standards and goals.

The following analysis of existing tree ordinances, policies, and guidelines examines their effectiveness in progressing the City towards a sustainable urban forest. The level of effectiveness is based on a comparison of: applicable industry standards, the ease or difficulty in approving tree removals, the City’s ability to enforce the policy, if tree replacement policies support increasing canopy cover, and if the penalties for violating a policy are sufficient enough to deter violation.

Private Property Tree
Removal Permits
A residential homeowner must
obtain a permit to remove any
tree that is protected, and is
located between the home and
an adjacent street. The permit
does not apply to trees located
in the back yard of residential
properties. The permit process
is managed by the Community
Development Department who
relies on staff arborists within
Public Works for assistance in
reviewing removal applications.

Definition of a Protected Tree
There are three categories for
when a tree is protected as defined in the removal permit application:
• Heritage Trees: Those with a circumference of 48 inches or more and located in a street side yard or front yard.
• Native Trees: Those on the City’s official list of Protected Trees of local native trees with a circumference of 24 inches or more and located in a street side yard or front yard. Identification of Trees species is required to be determined by a licensed arborist.

Existing Tree Ordinances & Policies
Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills APPROXIMATELY 71%

OF TREE CANOPY

COVER EXIST(S) ON
PRIVATE PROPERTY.
”
“
Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 45 • Urban Groves: A total of 50 or more trees where the branches of each tree are within 6 feet of the branches of one of the other trees in the grove. Individual trees in an urban grove may be of any size and are not subject to any circumference limitations.

The definitions for when a tree is protected are clear, and the requirements for a tree to be protected as a heritage or native tree are sufficient to capture many trees that would be found on private property. Depending on the growing conditions and species type, a native tree could reach a 24-inch circumference in 5–10 years after planting, and a heritage tree could reach a 48-inch circumference within 15–20 years after planting. According to the general plan, by 1974 almost all of the remaining undeveloped land in the City was developed into residential properties (Beverly Hills 2010). The new developments would have included landscape plants and trees that would have had up to approximately 45 years to grow into a size that would meet City protection standards. While some trees have likely been removed and replanted in that timeframe, it’s reasonable to assume that most residential landscapes have had ample time for some of their trees to grow into ordinance size.

The expansive inclusion of tree species types is another factor that contributes to the ability of the removal permit to capture most landscape trees. The heritage tree definition is not limited by a specific species, but only a circumference size. As such, any tree could qualify as a heritage tree if it meets the circumference requirement.

The list of native trees includes 16 species that are native to local and regional plant communities, where many municipal native tree species list include only native oaks, and others only oaks, California sycamore, Southern California black walnut, and California bay.

While the City’s list is expansive, it is not clear what the intended imUrban Groves 46 EXISTING TREE ORDINANCES & POLICIES
pact is to include some of the tree species that are not considered a part of the Santa Monica Mountain Range naturalized vegetation community. Updating the native tree species list to include other trees that are specific to the local vegetation community would help create an environment that is conducive to supporting local wildlife habitat and diversity. This could include adding species like the toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia) and hollyleaf cherry (Prunus ilicifolia).

Urban groves are a unique aspect of the protected tree definitions that is rarely found in Southern California municipal ordinances. It does not have a species or circumference requirement, so any tree, of any size, can be considered a part of an urban grove. The only requirement is when 50 or more trees have their branches extend to within 6 feet of each other. The urban grove definition appears to be most applicable to residential properties that are separated by a row of trees planted as a hedge. Hedges are typically planted to create privacy between adjacent properties. While the trees may be planted on one property, both neighbors are benefiting from the privacy provided by the hedge. If an urban grove is approved for removal, the impact to the adjacent property owner who does not manage the trees, but benefits from the privacy, should also be considered. In this case, the process for tree removals under the View Ordinance could be a good model to mediate disputes between neighbors.

The tree removal permit does not apply to backyard trees, which is one aspect that will limit the number of trees that the City is able to protect. There is an additional benefit provided by trees on private property that are adjacent to streets that is not typically associated with back yard trees, in that their canopy spread may extend over the sidewalk or street. The additional public benefit may provide a basis for the delineation between trees in the front yard or back yard.

Back yard trees do contribute to public benefits such as cleaner air, sequestering and storing carbon, and reducing the urban heat island effect. Tree shade contributes to cooling a home and reducing energy costs (Pandit and Laband 2010). The reduction in energy consumption to cool homes reduces the production of greenhouse gases that are a byproduct of non-renewable energy production. Because of the environmental services provided by all trees, those located in private back yards deserve at least some reasonable City protection consideration or City-offered incentives for planting and retaining shade trees.

Tree Removal Permits
The removal permit application states nine reasons for when the Director of Community Development or designated signee may permit protected tree removal. Of those, the following situations are found in most municipal tree protection ordinances to merit tree removal, and are appropriate to maintain public safety and urban forest health:
• The tree is posing an immediate threat to health safety or property. • The tree is dead or diseased, as determined by a certified arborist. • The tree should be removed to preserve the health of an urban grove.

Other stated reasons to approve a tree removal permit include a variation of language often used in municipal tree protection ordinances, but require further review and assessment by a qualified International Society of Arboriculture (ISA)-certified arborist to determine tree preservation is not appropriate, and removal is warranted, such as the following:

Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 47 • The tree is damaging public property creating a public safety hazard. • The tree is damaging improvements on private property. • The tree is interfering with public utilities.
• The tree is to be relocated on the same piece of property.

When trees are interfering with existing infrastructure, public utilities, or damaging private property, tree removal is not always warranted or recommended. Alternative methods and practices to repair the infrastructure, or correct the invasive aspect of the tree, should first be explored before removing a tree. Alternatives to tree removal frequently include root pruning, expanding the growing space for tree roots, and crown reduction pruning. The tree removal permit should be updated to state that a qualified ISA-certified arborist must first determine that no reasonable alternative method to preserve the tree and repair the damaged adjacent infrastructure or building is feasible before a removal permit will be issued. The City may consider adopting a list of approved alternatives to further aid the preservation of trees in these cases. Tree removal might be the correct action, but this process will challenge those seeking to remove a tree to perform the due diligence to provide evidence that removal is the only justifiable solution.

Relocating a tree is not always feasible, and not all tree species are able to handle the stress of root loss and replanting in the relocation process. A qualified arborist should determine if the tree is a suitable candidate for relocation. The conditions needing assessment include whether the tree has a 15” or less DSH, is healthy and vigorous, shows no signs of pest issues, and has no impediments to capturing root volume. Even if a tree meets all criteria, there is still no guarantee that it will survive relocation. Relocated trees should be monitored by an arborist for up to 5 years to ensure the tree is healthy, and relocation was successful. If the tree fails, the City should require replacement trees to be planted.

The last two reasons listed for tree removal are not likely to progress the City towards a sustainable urban forest, as follows:
• The tree is a native tree and is to be replaced by a healthy native tree. • The tree is obstructing an existing view on the same property.

The native tree removal option lacks specificity. Although It is true that removal of a specific species, and replacing it with the same species has the potential to provide an equitable return of the canopy spread, carbon storage, and other environmental services, provided it is able to reach the same size of the tree that was removed. In the case of a mature oak, sycamore, or other large native tree, the replacement of lost services may occur over a 40–50-year timeframe. A shorter timeframe of recovering lost services and replacing canopy cover will be important to combat the increasing adverse climate conditions due to climate change. As such, this reason for removal should either be further updated with a replacement strategy that increases canopy cover on a 10–20-year timeframe or be removed from the permit application all together.

The final listed reason for permitted tree removal is obstructing a view on one’s own property. There is a subtle difference between this removal reason and the View Ordinance, which is focused on two neighbors reaching an amicable decision to remove a tree that is located on one property and blocking the view of the other neighbor.

It is recognized that views of the Los Angeles basin and surrounding area increases property values and is a reason why some residents choose to purchase their home. The discussion of this reason for tree 48 EXISTING TREE ORDINANCES & POLICIES
removal can bring about charged political ideologies over what role the City should have in the management of trees on private property. Trees on private property provide quantifiable environmental services and health benefits to the community. Removing the tree to create a better view for the private property owner can generate a substantial increase in property value. If the City continues to include this as a reason for tree removal, it should balance what is gained by the property owner, by what is lost in the public benefit, and create a replacement policy that satisfies both.

Violation and Penalties
Violation of a tree removal permit is considered a misdemeanor crime, with each tree illegally removed or damaged as a separate offense. The penalties for violation of the permit are as follows:

1. Planting a replacement tree of the same species and size as the tree removed or damaged, or

2. Paying a cash contribution to the City in an amount equal to the estimated replacement value of the removed or damaged tree as determined by an arborist approved by the City.

The willingness of the City to enforce penalties of the tree removal permit, and whether the penalties deter violations, are important aspects for how effective the tree removal permit is at preserving trees. The frequency of illegal tree removals is one measure to determine how effective the penalty is in deterring illegal tree removal. If illegal trees are removed during site development, or other private property improvement projects, it may indicate that developers are willing to incur the penalty, rather than following City policy.

It may also indicate that the public is not aware of the City policy, and further public education is needed. However, City staff report that illegal removals rarely occur, indicating the policy is effective.

Trousdale View Restoration Ordinance
The intent of the View Ordinance is to ‘encourage Trousdale neighView Ordinance example Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 49 bors to reach early resolution when addressing restoration of views that have been substantially disrupted by foliage growth on
neighboring properties. The View Ordinance
outlines a process to guide neighbors into
an independent agreement on restoring a
tree-disrupted view, without needing further
City intervention. A property owner wishing
to restore a view may apply for a final City
decision, and would be bound to the City’s
judgment.

Application of Ordinance
The View Ordinance states that it applies to trees that meet the following criteria:
• The tree is located on a property in Trousdale within 500 feet of a view owner’s property:
• The View Ordinance further clarifies that ‘[e]ven if only a small portion of a neighboring property is within 500 feet of the View Owner’s property, foliage on all parts of that neighboring property may be subject to the ordinance.’
• The tree allegedly blocks a view of the Los Angeles area basin. (This includes city lights and views toward the ocean but does not include ridges or canyons not located in a line of sight to the Los Angeles area basin.) • The tree is growing above the Safe Harbor Exemption Area:
• The intent was to exempt foliage that is unlikely to substantially disrupt a view owner’s view.

The View Ordinance only applies to properties located in the specific neighborhood boundaries of the Trousdale Estates, where the majority of homes were developed on hillside slopes. As the intent of the View Ordinance is to protect views, the benefits of trees are a secondary consideration in decisions to remove trees, or how they should be maintained. The one exception in the View Ordinance is the ‘Safe Harbor Exemption Area,’ which provides a reasonable definition of what a view owner should consider their ‘view,’ and allows for trees to grow to a height above 15 feet the further away they exist from the view owner’s property. Beyond this, little consideration is given for tree protection and preservation.

One aspect of the View Ordinance that does not align with the City’s desire to increase canopy cover and become a more climate resilient City is found in Section 10, Landscape Standards for Trousdale. This section outlines the appropriate landscaping for the Trousdale Estates that would limit current or future obstruction of views on residential properties. The landscape standards do not apply to City-managed





PROPERTY LINE
































































View Ordinance: Safe Harbor Area

1.5:1 SLOPE

PROPERTY LINE
MAX 15’ HEIGHT

EDGE OF LEVEL PAD
D
I
50 EXISTING TREE ORDINANCES & POLICIES
trees. The landscape standards provide the following criteria for trees that should not be planted in Trousdale:

1. The tree grows rapidly and would exceed a 14–15-foot height at maturity.

2. The tree cannot be topped or easily and repeatedly pruned to maintain appropriate heights.

3. The tree type is a known fire hazard.

The management of trees on private property to limit the risk from wildfire is thoroughly discussed in Appendix P, Creating a Wildfire Resilient Community, and is an appropriate consideration in a landscape plan. Recommendations are provided on specific species trees that present an elevated fire hazard level and should be avoided.

It’s debatable if a woody plant can be considered a tree at a height of 14–15’ at maturity, or if it is better categorized as a large shrub.

This criterion severely restricts the quantity of species that would qualify as an appropriate landscape tree, and the amount of canopy cover that can be recovered when a tree is removed through the View Ordinance. Topping a tree is considered an unacceptable pruning practice for most situations when maintaining a tree. Encouraging tree topping and repeated pruning will deplete valuable resources within a tree that are needed to perform its biological functions and remain healthy. This pruning practice often leads to trees with shorter lifespans, and a reduction in the environmental benefits they can provide. Based on criteria 1 and 2 of the landscape standards, residential properties in the Trousdale estates will not have a significant contribution to achieving City UFMP canopy cover and species diversity goals.

The View Ordinance further states the following criteria for what tree types are recommended in Trousdale landscapes:

1. Trees that grow to a maximum size that would not likely result in a disruption of a view (i.e., maximum height of 14–15’)

2. Trees that can be easily and repeatedly pruned to maintain appropriate heights

3. Trees that are appropriate to the climate and water conditions of the City and would not negatively impact slope stability

4. Examples of appropriate trees include the following:
a. Western redbud
b. Dwarf fruitless olive
Criteria 1 and 2 of what should be planted restate criteria 1 and 2 of what should not be planted, and provide no further clarification to the landscape standards. Criteria 3 is appropriate and directed toward sustainability goals of the City. The two trees listed in criteria 4 meet the City-recommended standards for a landscape tree, but also highlights the difficulty in finding a wide variety of trees that meet the standards. The limited breadth of available tree species that can be included in a Trousdale landscape may lead to property owners deciding to not plant a tree since there are not enough choices to create the desired landscape aesthetic.

Protecting City Parkway Street Trees During
Private Property Construction
The City document ‘Protecting City Parkway Street Trees During Private Property Construction’ provides guidelines and standards for how a City-managed parkway tree should be protected during construction activities on an adjacent private property. Prior to the Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 51 commencement
of construction,
a tree protection
plan and installation of protection
measures must be
approved by the
Department of
Public Works. The
guidelines provide the following
specifications for
protecting trees
during construction:
• Establish a tree protection zone, which may require fencing of the entire parkway in which the tree is located.
• Fencing should be chain link or flexible configuration, no more than 4 feet in height.
• Signage must be displayed on the street side of the fence that identifies the area as a tree protection zone.

An arborist from the Department of Public Works will inspect the tree protection measure during the duration of the project to ensure the measures are properly in place. An additional wood frame is also required by the City to be built around the trunk of the tree, but is not included in the guidelines.

The specifications outlined in the City’s standards to protect parkway trees during private property construction align with best management practices for protecting trees during construction. The specifications are clear regarding what area around the tree should be protected, the materials that should be used, and required signage. In interviews with the consultant team, City staff also expressed satisfaction with the implementation of these standards and their effectiveness to protect City-managed trees.

Water Efficient Landscaping & Metering Requirements
The ‘Water Efficient Landscaping and Metering Requirements’ (requirements) were adopted in December 2015 to comply with California’s Executive order No. B-29-15 and the City municipal code (Beverly Hills 2015). A Water Efficient Landscaping Permit is required for any project with a landscape area of equal or greater than 500 square feet within the scope of the ordinance Water Efficient Landscaping and Metering Requirements). The requirements for installing new landscapes provides various standards that must be adhered to like using smart irrigation, mulching, and low water use plants. However, the requirements do not specifically address trees within the landscape.

Selecting a tree species that shares the same water use needs as will be provided in the landscape plan is important to tree health and longterm survivability. While the requirements provide numerous links to assist landscape developers in creating a water efficient landscape, no information is provided to assist with tree selection beyond a link to the WUCOLS guide to estimating water needs of plants in California.

This is a helpful tool to understand water needs, but lists hundreds of different species, and may be overwhelming to someone not familiar with tree species.

Street tree protection
Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 52 Street Tree Master Plan
From as early as the 1930s, Beverly Hills has completed various City-managed tree population assessments, and instituted street tree master plans to actively manage City trees, and address long-term, City tree health and survivability (City of Beverly Hills 1963). In 1944, the City approved what can be considered the first Street Tree program, with a detailed listing of tree species that required removal, and the replacement species. Subsequent revisions would be made to the plan in 1957 and 1963, and provide a detailed accounting of the various City tree planting activities.

In 1996 the City completed its most recent update, with a focus on implementing a removal and replacement plan for failing Arizona ash and American elm trees (City of Beverly Hills 1996). Eight objectives are included for the 1996 Street Tree Master Plan, including two that are still relevant to the planning efforts made in the UFMP, as follows:
• The Master Plan should consider the introduction of new species to encourage a more stable tree population.
• The Master Plan should be endorsed by the community and produced as a publication worth for distribution to the general public.

The glaring difference in the objectives of the 1996 Street Tree Master Plan, and those explored in the UFMP, are the shifting climate change-induced environmental conditions. Previously, tree species were selected based on their historical performance in the City’s urban landscape. Today, this metric may lead to planting tree City Planning Documents
Historic Beverly Hills
Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 53 species that once were appropriate for the City but are unlikely to be adapted to future conditions. This key difference is what future street tree master plans must consider when selecting tree species, and the importance to educate residents on why many traditional tree species are no longer appropriate. McBride and Lacan (2018) conducted a comparison analysis of city managed tree inventories of cooler climate zones, with those in warmer climate zones, to understand what trees will be suitable in the expected increased annual temperatures (McBride and Lacan 2018). The study analyzed species based on whether species present in the cooler (representative) city, are also present in warmer (comparison) city inventories, Water Use Classification of Landscape Species (WUCOLS) water use ratings, and arborists understanding of the tree species. The area’s most at risk for tree loss are San Diego, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Sacramento Valley and coastal and inland portions of Los Angeles.

Mcbride and Lacan concluded that between 55 and 82 tree species of the representative cities are most likely not suitable for expected increased annual temperatures and water availability. Specifically-highlighted species that have the lowest expected survivability, and occur in both the Beverly Hills tree inventory and Street Tree Master Plan include:
• Aleppo pine (Pinus halepensis)
• California sycamore (Platanus racemosa)
• Chinese elm (Ulmus parvifolia)
• Jacaranda (Jacaranda mimosifolia)
• London plane (Platanus x hispanica)
• Magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora)
• Raywood Ash (Fraxinus angustifolia ‘Raywood’)
• Victorian box (Pittosporum undulatum)
Given these species’ presence throughout Beverly Hills, the current Street Tree Master Plan should be
updated based on trees that will
be suited for future climate conditions. If not, it is possible many trees in the City inventory will begin to decline in health and require removal.

The Street Tree Master Plan process is used when streets are identified with multiple trees in decline that will need to be removed and
replaced. It is not used for individual tree removals on streets and private property. The City leads
the process of actively engaging
residents of a particular street on
why their street trees will need to
be removed, and what replacement
species the City has selected. It also
includes a voting ballot for residents to pick what trees and design they want on the street. The goal of
the process is to reach a consensus
among residents as to what the
new tree species will be before the
City moves forward with the tree planting program.

The process that the City undertakes to directly engage individual •ALEPPO PINE
•CALIFORNIA

SYCAMORE
•CHINESE ELM
•JACARANDA
•LONDON PLANE
•MAGNOLIA
•RAYWOOD ASH
•VICTORIAN BOX
TREES

THREATENED

BY CLIMATE
CHANGE:
54 CITY PLANNING DOCUMENTS
residents on the trees of their neighborhood is unique to Beverly Hills and has shown favorable responses from residents. Municipal tree planting programs vary in the level of engagement with the community. Usually the engagement occurs because the private property owner will be responsible for the watering and maintenance of the tree throughout its life, and a city must obtain consent before the tree is planted. However, Beverly Hills assumes the long-term pruning of street trees and provides watering for the first year. Taking the time to have individual residents vote on a specific tree species helps to ensure the majority of residents will welcome the new trees and change to the visual landscape.

General Plan
The Beverly Hills General Plan (Beverly Hills 2010) was most recently amended in January 2010, and contains the City’s over-arching goals, policies, and programs in consideration of the City’s status in year 2025 (City of Beverly Hills 2010). The General Plan acknowledges the current and future environmental challenges the City will face like water limitations, the urban heat island effect, and pollution. It also identifies the City’s role in reducing resource consumption and emissions of greenhouse gases as a means to reducing the City’s impact on climate change. Overall, the General Plan is an extensive and thorough planning document that is focused on creating a resilient City.

A review of the General Plan found 24 different goals, policies, and programs that directly impact trees or influence the manner by which the City manages its tree population. The full list of tree-related goals and policies can be found in Appendix A. Table 23 reflects the number of tree and urban forest-related goals, policies, and programs to show the breadth of the subjects covered in the General Plan.

The following list discusses some of the specific goals and policies that have been identified in the UFMP to be important indicators of a sustainable urban forest:

1. OS 2.1 Trees of Significance. Require the retention of trees of significance (e.g., heritage trees) by promoting stewardship of such trees and ensuring that the design of development and reuse projects provide for the retention of these trees wherever possible.

Where tree removal cannot be avoided, require replacements with an appropriate species. (Imp. 3.8*)
*Imp. references General Plan Implementation Program.
- BEVERLY
-HILLS
'·�
... City of Beverly Hills
General
Plan
Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 55 a. It is not evident the extent to which trees are preserved in the development process, and what efforts are made to retain trees.

As discussed, a tree replacement policy is not indicated in the tree removal permit application and should be created through the UFMP process.

2. OS 2.5 Urban Heat Island Effects. Continue to promote appropriate species selection and tree placement that encourages adequate shading of rooftops, parking facilities, streets and other facilities to minimize heat island effects. Continue to phase street tree Master Plan projects to minimize tree canopy loss. (Imp. 2.1,3.8) a. Reducing the urban heat island effect and keeping neighborhoods, streets, and commercial corridors cool as annual temperatures increase is an important tree canopy function. The General Plan identifies three key elements to cooling a city:
appropriate tree species selection, canopy cover over heat reflecting locations, and minimizing canopy loss. Specific objectives and programs are developed through the UFMP
to address these issues.

3. OS 2.6 Public Education. Promote the
importance and benefits of trees and the urban forest
through awareness campaigns, partnerships, and efforts
that educate residents and local tree and landscape
professionals on the best methods of preserving and
maintaining trees. (Imp. 3.8, 8.1)
a. A City canopy cover goal can only be accomplished
with active participation of private property owners who own and maintain the majority of City tree canopy. Education of local tree and landscape professionals is also important to ensure they follow best management practices for tree maintenance and pruning on private property as defined by the International Society of Arboriculture and the American National Standards Institute. b. OS 2.8 Species Selection and Diversification. Assure the selection and placement of species suitable to the environment, as appropriate. Assure proper diversification to avoid wholesale loss of trees due to disease or species-specific predators and to enhance species diversity. (Imp. 2.1, 2.2)
c. Species selection and diversification is thoroughly discussed in the UFMP as they present ongoing threats to a rapid loss of canopy cover on monoculture streets with tree species in decline.

Recognizing the potential for wholesale loss requires action by the City to initiate programs to address the issue now, to maintain canoCategory Number of General Plan Goals and Policies Urban Forest Planning 8
Trees Enhancing Neighborhoods,
Streetscapes, and Commercial
Corridors
6 Managing Trees and Infrastructure 3
Tree Preservation 3
Environmental Sustainability 2
Funding 1
Public Education 1
Table 23. General Plan Urban Forest Related Goals, Policies, and Programs Totals 56 CITY PLANNING DOCUMENTS
py from current and future residents.

4. OS 3.2 Periodic Assessment of the Street Tree Master Plan. At appropriate intervals, revisit the Street Tree Master Plan and evaluate goals such as aesthetic effect, tree health, water efficiency, fire safety, sidewalk and underground utility impact, historical character of neighborhood, view impact, and heat-reduction through promotion of shade canopy. (Imp. 3.8)
a. The City tree inventory does not include a health assessment of individual trees, an important piece of information needed for long-term management planning. Discussions of trees in decline are based on the knowledge and experience of arborists within the City, and provide anecdotal evidence as to the current condition of the City’s trees. A health assessment completed by qualified certified arborists will give the City data on the condition of specific trees, and their locations, to understand where it will need to focus management efforts.

The City’s General Plan provides meaningful goals and policies that are important steps to accomplish in developing a sustainable urban forest, and is reflected in the following mission statement for the urban forest, found in OS 2 Urban Forest:

Management of the City’s urban forest as an environmental, economic, and aesthetic resource to maintain the unique character of the City and the quality of life of its residents.

This statement reiterates the value the City places on the urban forest as a unique piece of infrastructure that is contributing multiple benefits to Beverly Hills residents. The urban forest goals and policies vary in terms of how far the City is progressing towards successful implementation. Successes of implementing the General Plan include funding and creating walkable neighborhoods. Other areas like species diversity, new tree species selection, and Street Tree Master Plan projects are yet to realize significant progress but are addressed in the UFMP. The General Plan should be updated, as appropriate during the next update cycle, upon completion of the UFMP to ensure planning and management decisions, and long-term goals are consistent in both documents.

Sustainability City Plan
The Sustainable City Plan was adopted in 2009 and serves as a tool kit for the City to use to address sustainability issues (City of Beverly Hills 2009). The Plan gives the City a framework of how it can become a sustainable city with a “resilient local economy, healthy environment, and vibrant community.” Of the 38 policies identified to become a sustainable City, none of the policies discuss trees and the urban forest.

Four of the 68 implementation strategies include trees and the urban forest, including the following:
• Climate Change and Air Quality:
• No. 5 – Continue to utilize the City’s Street Tree Plan to help improve the air shed, save water, and minimize urban heat island effects (which raise local temperatures) through tree specimen choices, while maintaining the established historic and aesthetic character of streets. • No. 6 – Preserve or replace trees that are removed due to development to provide carbon storage. • Energy:
• No. 5 – Continue to utilize the City’s Street Tree Plan, including tree specimen selection, to maximize shading in order to reduce the urban Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 57 heat island effect, and thereby reduce energy consumption and improve air quality. • Water:
• No. 5 – Update the City’s Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Program to ensure the quality of stormwater runoff. The Sustainable City Plan should incorporate the Beverly Hills Stormwater System Plan, Street Tree Plan, and a broad array of strategies including catch basin filters, permeable surfaces, debris removal, and stormwater capture and re-charge on both public and private parcels.

Although the inclusion of trees is minimal in comparison to the General Plan, they are mentioned in three environmental categories recognizing the multiple environmental services trees provide. Trees could potentially be placed into every category of the Sustainable City Plan, which is not necessarily realistic or needed, but the plan could benefit from a more meaningful inclusion of trees and the urban forest throughout the document. Specifically, Item No. 5 of the Climate Change and Air Quality recommended implementation strategies should be updated to reflect the UFMP developed strategies. Item No. 5 correctly identifies using trees to improve air quality, save water, and minimize the urban heat island effect. However, maintaining the historic and aesthetic character may be challenging for many neighborhoods planted with tree species that are in decline and not suited to future climate conditions.

Complete Streets Plan
The Complete Streets Plan begins by discussing the importance of sidewalks and streets to connect people to the shops, dining, parks, and landmarks that are iconic to the City, and draw in numerous visitors every year. The document is centered on transportation improvements that are meant to increase non-vehicular travel. Street trees are mentioned once in the document as a place-making tool to Olympic Boulevard and Wilshire Boulevard. Environmental sustainability is not a focus of the plan, but the plan could go further in recognizing the important role trees have in creating a walkable street as discussed in other City documents like the General Plan. Successfully implementing the Complete Streets Plan is in part dependent on the ability of trees to shade sidewalks and protect residents and visitors from extreme heat.

BEVERLY HILLS

SUSTAINABLE

CITY PLAN
Fri,ru.iry 17, 2009
Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 58 Urban Forest Management Practices
For the City to progress towards a sustainable urban forest, it must implement maintenance and management practices that are aligned with the American National Standards best management practices for tree management and care. Aligning the City’s standards and best management practices will help to promote tree health, favorable growing conditions, and public safety. Beverly Hills maintains a high standard for its management activities that is supported by a commitment from City staff and elected officials, and actualized with robust funding. Practices like tree protection during construction and the Street Tree Master Plan process also reflect the City’s values in preserving the existing urban forest and including residents in the urban forest management process. While the City holds high standards, the definitions and implementation of those standards are not always understood by staff, outside of those who directly manage the City tree inventory. Having clearly defined standards that are accessible to all City staff and community members is critical to establishing a continuum of high standards beyond the tenure of any one individual staff member.

To that end, the development of this section of the UFMP includes a review of the current guidelines for City standards, details, and design practices that relate to trees within the City. Management and maintenance practices discussed previously in the UFMP are excluded from this section. The review of existing guidelines are measured against current best management practices as defined by the International Society of Arboricultre (ISA), American National Standard Institute, peer reviewed research, and consultant team experience.

The review includes an analysis of practices to determine if they are progressing the City towards a sustainable urban forest, and provides recommendations to update and modify guidelines that do not meet best management practices. When appropriate, standard guidelines and details are included in the appendix of this document to solidify and make accessible the City’s accepted practices.

Nursery Stock Selection
While there is an established industry standard (Appendix D) that defines the trunk size, root and branching structure, health condition, and acceptable characteristics of container-grown trees, it does not guarantee that trees delivered to a project site meet the standard.

Trained City arborist inspectors understand the industry standard, but it is not codified in a City document, and is not known to other City staff who interact with trees on projects. As such, a City arborist inspector approves all trees delivered to project sites to ensure that they comprise high-quality nursery stock and meet the industry standard. Trees that City arborist inspectors identify as not meeting the industry standards are rejected and sent back to the nursery. The City holds this standard even if rejecting a tree may cause a delay to a project timeline.

One step the City could take to limit the need for rejecting trees on site, and causing project delays, would be to ensure a clear understanding of nursery stock standards between the City and site developers. This could include providing site developers with City codified nursery stock specifications so they can verify that all trees being delivered to the project site meet the standard, and projects can pro- Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 59 ceed without delay. City staff should be further
trained on the nursery stock standards so there
is uniformity in how the standard is applied. A
codified standard for nursery stock selection,
coupled with training of City staff who do not
directly manage trees, would further ensure
that qualified trees are planted, setting the stage
for successful tree establishment.

The availability of a desired tree species at
local nurseries is another aspect of how the
tree nursery industry has an impact on the
development of a sustainable urban forest. It
was relayed to the consultant team in multiple
conversations with City staff that the species
palette for future tree planting activities should,
in part, be dictated by what is available in local
nurseries. If a desired species is not available,
then it cannot be planted, and importing trees
from nurseries out of the region or state can be
costly. One aspect of a sustainable urban forest
is maintaining a species diversity level that is
resilient to losing a significant portion of the
tree population if an unexpected pest, disease,
or other threat, causes high mortality rates of a
specific genus or species. By relegating species
selection to what is available at local nurseries,
the City may have limited options in what trees
it will plant, which may adversely affect species diversity. Since the timeline for increasing tree canopy cover and species diversity will
take place over a 20–30 year timeframe, the
City should begin to evaluate what species will
become a part of its new palette, and determine
the availability at local nurseries. As previously discussed, an adaptive approach must be maintained for species diversity given that new
pests, changing climate, and other factors may
alter the desirable species over time.

Tree Planting
There are various components of tree planting
practices that encompass a successful planting
program from planning through installation.

Several aspects of the City’s planting program
are discussed throughout the UFMP, including
a review of the City species list, species diversity, annual stocking rates, and the costs associated with planting trees of various container sizes. As such, this section focuses on facets of the tree planting program that were not previously
discussed, and that were identified by City staff
during the internal interview process as areas
in which the program can be improved.

City personnel stated that multiple streets
throughout the City are planted with tree
species that are too large for the space provided. As various species of ficus trees begin to mature and develop an expansive root system,
Good newly planted tree
60 URBAN FOREST MANANGEMENT PRACTICES
they frequently cause sidewalk lifting and breaking, and create a public safety concern. Trees are living organisms, and it is not possible to predict with complete certainty how they will impact adjacent infrastructure. However, through the experience of urban foresters, and species growth and root development research, the surface level spacing needs for individual tree species has become more predictable. This concept is commonly referred to as “right tree, right place,” or selecting a tree species that is appropriate for the aboveground and below ground spacing constraints. As the City develops an updated species palette that is composed of low water use trees adapted to changing climate conditions, it should also develop a tree spacing requirement standard that details the individual spacing requirements and needs of individual tree species. A detailed standard will help minimize future tree and infrastructure related conflicts, thus reducing infrastructure damage, helping maximize tree longevity, and increasing the overall benefits derived from the trees. A recommendation for tree spacing requirements is provided in Appendix C.

These updates should also be coupled with updated design standards that maximize the growing space available to trees to further reduce the potential for infrastructure damage.

Large trees offer significantly higher environmental and economic values, and are often more desirable to incorporate into City tree planting efforts. Planting larger trees requires creating spacing conditions that avoid conflict with infrastructure, including a sufficient soil volume to support tree growth and health. Multiple options exist for the City to increase the available tree space and soil volume. One method is to expand the size of tree well cuts, either laterally from the tree well into the sidewalk or linearly along the curb face. Linear tree well expansion is in most cases a more feasible approach, as lateral tree well expansion can be restricted by requirements for minimum sidewalk widths, as established by the Americans with Disabilities Act. Additional expansion options include the expansion of the planting area into the
street with “bulb outs”
and/or curb realignment.

One of the best opportunities to ensure adequate
spacing and soil volume
is during new development planning, in which
planting locations are
created from scratch. In
these situations, additional growing space can
often be made accessible to trees through the
utilization of suspended
pavement systems and
structural soils. These
systems allow for roots
to grow underneath
sidewalk and infrastructure. One resource for
evaluating potential
planting methods was developed by the City of Seattle’s Department of Transportation in their Trees and Sidewalks Operations Plan in 2015. Seattle’s plan describes the many available methods to plan for trees and sidewalks. As such, the City should look to this plan, and Trunk conflict
Root conflict
Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 61 other similar resources, to understand which approaches may work best to meet the City’s needs and develop standards that will provide the maximum growing space possible in each available tree planting location.

Sidewalk Repair & Maintenance
Sidewalk damage resulting from tree roots is a re-occurring issue encountered by most municipalities. As previously discussed, multiple options exist to minimize infrastructure damage from tree roots in the planning and development stage. However, options tend to decrease in the post-development landscape. Often, the first option to repair a sidewalk, curb, or street, and still preserve a tree, is to prune the tree’s roots. Many factors contribute to whether a tree is a suitable candidate for root pruning, such as the tree’s species, age, health, structure, and root pruning history. If the tree is in a suitable condition (i.e., good health and structure), it should then be further evaluated to determine if the tree can remain structurally stable, safe, and healthy after root pruning. With the inherent risk of significant root pruning to destabilize a tree, only a City arborist inspector or qualified consulting arborist should make a decision on when trees can be root pruned and what roots will be pruned.

Within the City, sidewalk repair is often combined with other street improvement projects. In the event a sidewalk needs to be repaired, a City arborist inspector is required to visit the site, inspect the tree, and determine the number of roots to be safely pruned. However, before root pruning can be completed, the sidewalk must be removed to visually inspect the roots. If it is decided that the tree must be removed, a contractor must be hired to complete the removal. This results in the need to install a costly temporary sidewalk and delays the project. Since it is known that sidewalks must
be removed to visually
inspect roots, the City
can plan when this will
occur. To minimize
the occurrence of this
inefficient process, the
City should schedule
sidewalk repair and tree
inspections before street
improvement projects
begin. This order may
eliminate or minimize
costly delays.

The City has developed a decision-making protocol to resolve infrastructure conflicts via root pruning. The City protocol is currently based on the total number of roots to be shortened or removed. The process involves counting the total number of structural roots to be pruned and dividing that by the tree’s total number of structural roots. If the percentage of roots to be pruned is below 20%, the tree is recommended for root pruning. Trees above the threshold are typically removed. This process has helped to improve discussions between City arborists and engineers as they work together on sidewalk repair issues. Like other standards practiced within the City, it is not documented or part of a policy, leading to some staff not fully understanding the process or decisions that are being made. The City should continue this successful practice, but document it in an internal policy or standard to preserve the institutional knowledge for all current and future City staff. In addition, the City should document Curved sidewalk to accommodate roots
62 URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
and record all root pruning, in the event a tree requires additional review at a later date.

Establishment Care
The City provides 1 year of contracted watering for every tree it plants, with a small percentage of special City project planted trees having extended watering periods. After the 1 year of watering is complete, it becomes the responsibility of the adjacent property owner to water and maintain the tree, though pruning remains a City responsibility. Under ideal conditions, 1 year of watering may be adequate to help increase the likelihood of tree establishment, but many urban forestry programs and City programs recognize 3 years of watering as the recommended standard. Three years of watering is particularly important during increased temperatures and drought conditions. Examples where this watering strategy is commonplace include the City of San Francisco, any CAL FIRE urban forestry tree planting grant recipient, and the City of Los Angeles’ free tree program managed by City Plants recommends 3 to 5 years of watering to establish trees under local climate conditions.

To increase the likelihood of tree survival and establishment, a watering program should be established by the City that extends the period of watering to 3 years. This program should include varying watering levels based on climate and season. However, the program shall also focus on weaning the trees off of supplemental irrigation over the 3 year establishment period. Weaning the trees off of supplemental irrigation over a 3-year period will allow the trees to better adapt to local conditions once the watering program ends, particularly if resident watering does not occur thereafter.

The City should also develop a preemptive watering plan in preparation of expected extended high temperature periods, so trees have the water and soil moisture already in place to perform physiological functions and maintain their overall health during these events.

Although adjacent property owners are expected to water trees after the first year, the City does not currently have an educational component within its urban forestry program that encourages proper care of newly planted trees, including appropriate watering and maintenance practices. Educational materials will need to also further explain the need to water trees during droughts and state water restrictions, and the low costs associated with tree watering.

This lack of public outreach may leave many residents ill-prepared to care for City trees, a vital component of City infrastructure.

Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 64 Recommendations
CHAPTER: Beverly Hills Urban Forest–Current Status
Section Canopy Cover
Strategic Plan
Strategy Recommendations
6 Develop the timeframe for a long-term tree planting strategy that will achieve City canopy cover goals. 6 Develop a tree planting plan that will ensure 95% or more of all available tree planting locations are continu-ally planted after the tree planting goal to increase canopy cover is achieved.
6 Conduct a canopy analysis of each street block where tree removals will occur to provide a baseline level of canopy cover that will be maintained over streets and sidewalks during tree removal and replacement pro-gram. 3 Provide education materials to residential homeowners on best management practices for tree trimming and maintenance, to expand the amount of large and healthy trees on private property.

Section Species Diversity
Strategic Plan
Strategy Recommendations
1 Complete a health assessment of all City managed trees. 1 Identify the streets and trees that will be priority replacement areas, and implement a 15-20 year replacement plan to ensure minimum canopy loss. Determine if alternating species on streets or small monoculture plant-ings will be included in the approach. 1 Research, identify, and select new replacement trees based on tree form, textures, and aesthetics that will de-fine the new ‘look’ of Beverly Hills streets. 1 Create a new tree species palette for the City that prioritizes low water use, climate-appropriate, and availa-ble at local nurseries Section Age Diversity
Strategic Plan
Strategy Recommendations
1 Conduct a health assessment of mature trees on monoculture planted streets to identify which trees should be prioritized for removal and replacement. 1 Determine the yearly intervals when tree removal and replacement should occur to maintain canopy cover based on understood growth rates of the species selected as replacement trees.
6 Increase the annual new tree planting quantity to offset and grow the canopy that will replace senescent tree removals. 3 Begin resident outreach efforts on the streets that would be immediately impacted by removals to notify them of the long-term tree/canopy replacement plan, and how they can be part of the process for selecting the new tree species palette.

Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 65 CHAPTER: Funding the Beverly Hills Urban Forest Management Program Section Funding the Beverly Hills Urban Forest Management Program Strategic Plan
Strategy Recommendations
2 Allocate funding to meet the goals of the UFMP.
2 Determine if current city management practices are utilizing resources efficiently, such as the annual pruning of palms, and large-size container plantings. 2 Reallocate funds for maintenance and management practices that progress the city towards a sustainable ur-ban forest, such as planting, establishment care, pruning of trees to increase canopy cover, and improving the environmental and economic value of the urban forest. 2 Ensure that funds exist for diversifying tree species and planned removals over the next 15-20 years. 2 Provide funding to establish a City arborist position dedicated to review of private property tree related is-sues. To reduce the City’s financial commitment, the position could be a City-approved third-party on-call arborist in lieu of a full-time position.

Section Palms
Strategic Plan
Strategy Recommendations
6 Conduct a health and risk assessment of all palms. Identify which palms are in decline and replace them with shade trees when they require removal. 6 Identify City-managed parkway locations where enough space exists between palms for a shade tree to be planted. Begin to plant these locations and remove the surrounding palms when more space is needed to accommodate the expanding tree canopy.

CHAPTER: Existing Tree Ordinances and Policies
Section Tree Removal Policies and Ordinances
Strategic Plan
Strategy Recommendations
4 Institute an appropriate tree replacement policy that recovers the lost canopy and services of trees, and mu-tually helps meet the UFMP established goals.
4 Decide the appropriate locations for planting replacement trees. Options could include replacing trees in the same location they were removed, or planting replacement trees in a City-managed right-of-way or park. Both options have benefits and limitations, but each contribute to saving canopy cover.
4 Determine the number of trees that need to be replanted (replacement ratio), based on the City’s goals of expanding canopy cover and include a timeframe for when the City expects the canopy cover goal to be achieved. 66 RECOMMENDATIONS
CHAPTER: City Planning Documents
Section Street Tree Master Plan
Strategic Plan
Strategy Recommendations
3 Develop a new revision to the Street Tree Master Plan that includes naming species to be removed over time, new species introduced into the urban forest, and a removal and replacement timeline of declining trees 3 Engage community members in the process to increase success and adoption of bold, City wide aesthetic changes 3 Consider establishing a new City staff position to engage community members to ensure the City can begin to implement new policies within 5 years of completing the UFMP
4 Incentivize replacement plantings of tree species with large canopies. This strategy would most likely result in fewer trees overall being planted but yield a higher return on the environmental services and economic value they provide to the City. 5 Develop standards for alternatives to tree removal. The standards may include an approved list of alternative methods, materials, and hardscape designs to be considered prior to tree removal when trees are in conflict with existing infrastructure. 4 Create an incentive program for private property developers to preserve mature trees on site plans and through development.

Section Tree Protection During Private Property Construction Strategic Plan
Strategy Recommendations
3 Update language to remove the Department of Recreation and Parks, and substitute with the Department of Public Works, who currently manages street trees.
5 Develop standard details for how to protect trees during construction. 3 Share standard details with private property developers to remove any ambiguity about what the City ex-pects regarding tree protection during construction.

Section Water Efficient Landscaping and Metering Requirements Strategic Plan
Strategy Recommendations
1 Develop and provide a list of recommended tree species that are suitable for a drought tolerant landscape to better equip landscape designers to meet the City’s standards.
1 All recommended species should include the Water Use Classification of Landscape Species (WUCOLS) water use ratings, species characteristics, and the amount of growing space needed (below and above ground) to avoid conflicts with infrastructure. 1 Reference an online resource of tree species and characteristics, such as the Urban Forest Ecosystem Insti-tute’s SelecTree: http://selectree.calpoly.edu/ Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 67 CHAPTER: Urban Forest Management Practices
Section Nursery Stock Selection
Strategic Plan
Strategy Recommendations
5 Codify the City standard for nursery stock selection and make the standard available to all site developers and City staff. 5 Provide training for all City staff who interact with trees on how to evaluate trees based on the nursery stock standards to ensure the standards are uniformly applied.
1 Develop a City tree planting palette that considers the availability of species in local nurseries.

Section Tree Planting Space
Strategic Plan
Strategy Recommendations
5 Adopt a City tree planting standard for spacing requirements 5 Adopt a species-specific minimum size standard for tree wells and parkway widths 5 Develop a list of implementable options to expand the growing space and soil volume for existing trees and those slated to be planted.

Section Sidewalk Conflicts
Strategic Plan
Strategy Recommendations
5 Schedule the examination of tree roots when street improvement projects begin. 5 Document and record each occurrence of root pruning, including the total number of roots evaluated and the total number of roots pruned. 5 Document and standardize the evaluation and decision process that determines when a tree is acceptable to root prune.

Section Establishment Care
Strategic Plan
Strategy Recommendations
5 Expand City contracted watering services for newly planted trees to 3 years. 3 Create and provide residents user-friendly education materials on proper tree watering and maintenance prac-tices.

Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 68 Implementation and Monitoring
Ultimately, once approved, it is the responsibility of the Beverly Hills Department of Public Works to implement this UFMP and its recommendations. The Department will be assisted by other City departments that routinely manage, plan, supervise, and interact with the city’s trees. These departments include the City’s Planning, Public Works, Parks and Recreation, and Community Services Departments. The implementation of the recommendations in this UFMP will vary from those requiring very little financial resources, but potentially lengthy City Council efforts (updating ordinances and policies) to those requiring significant funding and very little decision maker involvement (planting vacant spaces resulting in more trees to be maintained).

The implementation plan is directly tied to a monitoring program.

The monitoring program provides ongoing feedback to measure whether goals are being achieved or if adaptive management adjustments are necessary. The implementation and monitoring plan breaks down and reorganizes the various strategies laid out in each guiding principal into a timeframe of when the City can expect to start receiving a benefit from implementing that strategy. This order is intended to provide decision makers with a tool to prioritize strategies to streamline UFMP progress towards a sustainable urban forest.

Managing the urban forest is a complex task. This UFMP attempts to guide management actions for the next 30 years.. As evidenced by tree decline from pests and diseases, periods of drought, and evolving public perception and values, even the most thoughtful planning process cannot account for all possible situations that may arise in the defined plan period. Therefore, an adaptive management approach is recommended.

Adaptive management occurs on an annual basis and enables mid-stream adjustments to planned actions based on unanticipated occurrences. By monitoring the urban forest “system”, the City can gather the information needed to make these adjustments. Most of these adjustments will not be significant course changes. They will be minor modifications that correct and re-direct the course toward the desired condition or a new, community desired condition. There must be monitoring records and data collection so that UFMP recommendation and goal achievement progress can be measured and tracked.

Monitoring data can supply the information needed to determine what happened if recommendations have not been successfully implemented or goal achievement is stalled. This information can be used to choose appropriate corrective actions that would allow midcourse corrections and re-trajectory. The goal of monitoring efforts is to provide the data needed to understand what is happening, why it is happening, and how specific management adjustments will change the outcome.

Strategic Plan
Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 69 IMMEDIATE ACTIONS 1- 3 YEARS
Implementation
Objectives

1.1 Ensure 100% of City recommended tree species have reduced to low water needs, are climate appropriate, and available in local nurseries.

2.1 Review and prioritize current urban forest program funding towards supporting ac-tions that meet the goals of the UFMP.

2.2 Evaluate the most cost-effective method for the City to perform additional arborist review of private property tree planning and management.

3.1 Develop specific community engagement strategies that target the specific resi-dential neighborhoods of the City.

4.2 Identify palms with a significant historic and cultural value or those that contribute to the local economy (i.e. Beverly Dr., Rodeo Dr. shopping district,). Designate these palms as ‘historic’ and ensure they are protected in future planning and development efforts.

4.4 Update the Water Efficient Landscaping and Metering Requirements with an ap-proved list of tree species that are suitable for the water conditions in drought tolerant landscapes.

5.1 Codify a City standard for nursery stock selection, make the standard available to all site developers and City staff, and train City staff on nursery stock standards.

5.2 Adopt standard details for tree management practices including planting, staking, establishment care, and street tree spacing to ensure a consistent application of City standards in all projects that impact trees within the City.

5.4 Increase City contracted watering services to three years for newly planted trees.

5.6 Adopt tree protection during construction guidelines and details.

6.3 Identify City-managed parkway locations where spacing conditions can accommo-date a shade tree to be planted between palms and include those available plant-ing locations in planting plans. 70 STRATEGIC PLAN
MID-TERM ACTIONS 3-10 YEARS
Implementation
Objectives

3.2 Hold a tree distribution event that distributes 100 free trees to residential property owners.

3.3 Educate and inform business owners within commercial shopping districts on the benefits and values of trees.

3.4 Ensure all demographics of the City including non-English speakers and renters have the opportunity to engage the City in strategies to manage the urban forest.

3.5 Develop and adopt educational materials to assist private property owners in maintaining trees on their property or adjacent City street trees.

4.1 Develop a tree replacement strategy for all permit-related tree removals (e.g., View Ordinance, Protected Tree Ordinance, development projects) that increases canopy cover in the lowest canopy covered areas of the City.

4.3 Update the tree removal replacement standards towards increasing canopy cover where the removal occurred or in neighborhoods with low canopy cover.

4.5 Develop a mechanism that incentives the preservation of mature trees through the development or redevelopment of private property.

5.3 Adopt a list of standards that require minimum soil volume requirements for new tree plantings and approved design guidelines that can be implemented to increase the amount of soil volume available to trees.

5.5 Develop and adopt an approved list of alternative methods, materials, and hard-scape designs to be considered prior to tree removal when trees are in conflict with existing infrastructure.

6.2 Develop canopy cover standards for specific individual land use types like parking lots, commercial corridors, shopping districts, and residential streets that are directed at maximizing the land use types of the Hills, Flats, and South neighborhoods
LONG-TERM ACTIONS 10+ YEARS
Implementation
Objectives

1.2 Maintain no more than 5% of one species
and 10% of one genus in the City tree
inventory.

1.3 Maintain an appropriate mix of tree age
diversity so there is a continuum of new
trees being planted to replace aging
senescent trees, and high levels of canopy
cover.

1.4 Utilize tree inventory data and the Street
Tree Master Plan process to prepare streets
and neighborhoods to be climate resilient
over a 15 to 20-year timeframe.

2.3 Identify the staff and financial resources
required to implement a robust commu-nity
engagement program that follows the Street
Tree Plan process.

6.1 Plant a total of 350 trees a year to reach
7,500 new public and private trees in the
City by 2041.

Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 72 Arborist—An individual who is trained in the art and science of planting, caring for, and maintaining individual trees.

Canopy Cover—The area of land covered by a tree’s leaves and branches when viewed from above. Also referred to as urban forest canopy cover.
diameter at standard height (DSH)—A measurement, usually in inches, of a tree’s diameter taken at 4.5feet above the ground.

This measurement is also commonly referred to diameter at breast height (DBH).
hardscape—Hard materials in the built environment that are incorporated into the landscape. Some examples include roads, parking lots, driveways, sidewalks, and compressed soils.

International Society of Arboriculture (ISA)—This society serves the tree care industry as a membership association and a credentialing organization that promotes the professional practice of arboriculture. ISA also works to educate the public about the benefits of trees and the need for proper tree care.
immature tree—Any tree with a diameter at standard height (DSH) between 0 inches and 6 inches.
i-Tree Canopy (application)—A computer-based program that estimates tree cover and tree benefits for a given area with a random sampling process that allows the user to easily identify ground cover types (e.g., trees, shrub/grass, impervious surfaces, and bare ground).
i-Tree Eco (application)—A computer-based program that uses tree measurements and other data to
numerically estimate, both in economic and environmental terms, the quantity of ecosystem services and the associated value that a given set of trees provide to a given area.
impervious surface—Typically a human-made structure, such as roads, sidewalks, parking lots, and
buildings, that is covered with covered with a material that does not allow water to penetrate it, such as concrete, asphalt, metal, brick or stone. Highly compacted urban soils can also serve as impervious surfaces. See hardscape.
mature tree—Any tree with a diameter at standard height (DSH) of 24 inches or more.
middle-aged tree—Any tree with a diameter at standard height (DSH) between 19 inches and 24 inches.
pruning—The selective removal of certain parts of a plant, such as branches, buds, or roots. Pruning
typically involves removing diseased, damaged, dead, nonproductive, structurally unsound, or unwanted tissue from trees or other plants.
pruning cycle—The time scheduled between pruning events. In a municipal setting, this cycle is typically between 5 to 7 years, and depends on the species of tree.
senescent—The condition or process of deterioration with age. stocking rate—The rate at which cities plant trees based on the total number of vacant and planted available space.

Glossary
Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 73 tree canopy—The extent of the outer layer of leaves of an individual tree or a group of trees.
tree inventory—The gathering of accurate information on the health and diversity of trees of in a given area. Tree inventories can be a sample, partial, or complete analysis of the trees in a given area.
tree protection ordinance—An ordinance or policy that protects trees from removal and/or damage.

Also referred to as tree protection policy.
tree staking—Staking provides support to newly planted or damaged trees by connecting the trunk to a nearby steel or wooden post.
urban heat island—A metropolitan area that is significantly warmer than the areas surrounding it, due to human activities. urban forest—All the trees, both publicly managed by a city, and privately owned by residents and business owners, in an urban environment.
urban forest management plan (UFMP)—A road map that
creates a shared vision for the future of a tree canopy in a given area. The plan guides stakeholders to effectively manage and provide for maximum, long-term benefits of the urban forest to the community.
young tree—Any tree with a diameter at standard height (DSH) of 7 inches to 18 inches.

Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 74 American Forests. 2017. “Why We No Longer Recommend a 40 Percent Urban Tree Canopy Goal.” January 12, 2017. https://www.americanforests. org/blog/no-longer-recommend-40-percent-urban-tree-canopy-goal/.

Berg, N., A. Hall, F. Sun, S. Capps, D. Walton, B. Langenbrunner, and D. Neelin. 2015. “Twenty-First Century Precipitation Changes over the Los Angeles Region.”
Journal of Climate 28:401–421. https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/28/2/jcli-d-14-00316.1.xml.

City of Beverly Hills. 1963. Street Trees Past and Present Report.

City of Beverly Hills. 1996. “Resolution No. 96-R-9525: Resolution of the Council of the City of Beverly Hills Approving the Focused Street Tree Master Plan, Dated December 3, 1996.” Accessed May 4, 2021. https://beverlyhills.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=58&clip_id=6421&meta_id=386121.

City of Beverly Hills. 2009. Beverly Hills Sustainable City Plan. February 17, 2009. Accessed May 4, 2021. http://www.beverlyhills.org/cbhfiles/storage/files/24347783778629768/SustainableCityPlan.pdf.

City of Beverly Hills. 2010. City of Beverly Hills General Plan. April 30, 2010. Accessed May 4, 2021. http://www.beverlyhills.org/departments/ communitydevelopment/longrangeplanning/generalplan/.

City of Beverly Hills. 2015. City of Beverly Hills Water Efficient Landscaping & Metering Requirements.Decement 1, 2015. Accessed May 4, 2021. http://www.beverlyhills.org/cbhfiles/storage/ files/1762948761933715757/waterefficientlandscapingandmeteringrequirementsrevised04.17.2018.pdf City of Beverly Hills. 2020. Beverly Hills Complete Streets Plan. Draft.

Accessed May 4, 2021. http://completestreets.beverlyhills.org/.

Clark, J.R., N.P. Matheny, G. Cross, and V. Wake. 1997. “A Model of Urban Forest Sustainability.” Journey of Arboriculture 23(1). Accessed December 18, 2020. https://www.naturewithin.info/Policy/ClarkSstnabltyModel.pdf.

Climate Signals. 2018. “Southern California Heat Wave July 2018.” Last updated December 4, 2018. Accessed May 4, 2021. https://www.climatesignals.org/events/southern-california-heat-wave-july-2018.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2008. “Urban Heat Island Basics.” Chapter 1 in Reducing Urban Heat Islands: Compendium of Strategies. Accessed May 4, 2021. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/ files/2017-05/documents/reducing_urban_heat_islands_ch_1.pdf.

EPA. 2020a. “What is Ozone?” EPA, Ozone Pollution and Your Patients’ Health. Last updated June 23, 2020. Accessed March 3, 2021. https://www. epa.gov/ozone-pollution-and-your-patients-health/what-ozone.

EPA. 2020b. “Particulate Matter (PM) Basics.” EPA, Particulate Matter (PM) Pollution. Last updated October 1, 2020. Accessed May 4, 2021. https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/particulate-matter-pm-basics.

EPA. 2021. “Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator” [online calculator]. Last updated March 2021. Accessed May 4, 2021. https://www.epa. gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator.

Farmer, S. 2018. “Urban Forests & Stormwater Management.” CompassLive, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Southern Research Station.

January 11, 2018. Accessed May 4, 2021. https://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/compass/2018/01/11/urban-forests-stormwater-management.

References
Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 75 FEMA (Federal Emergence Management Agency). 2018. “Be Prepared for Extreme Heat.” FEMA V-1004. June 2018. Accessed May 4, 2021. https://www. ready.gov/sites/default/files/2021-01/ready_extreme-heat_info-sheet.pdf.

Hauer, R.J., and W.D. Peterson. 2016. Municipal Tree Care and Management in the United States: A 2014 Urban & Community Forestry Census of Tree Activities. Special Publication 16-1, College of Natural Resources, University of Wisconsin – Stevens Point. Accessed May 4, 2021. https://www.uwsp.edu/cnr/Documents/MTCUS%20-%20Forestry/Municipal%202014%20Final%20Report.pdf. i-Tree. 2020a. “Tools.” i-Tree [online tool]. https://www.itreetools.org/tools. i-Tree. 2020b. “What is i-Tree?” August 4, 2020. Accessed May 4, 2021. https://www.itreetools.org/about.

Kenney, W.A., P.J.E. van Wassenaer, and A.L. Satel. 2011. “Criteria and Indicators for Strategic Urban Forest Planning and Management.” Arboriculture and Urban Forestry 37(3): 108–117.

Leff, M. 2016. “The Sustainable Urban Forest. A Step-by-Step Approach.” September 2016. https://ufei.calpoly.edu/files/pubs/SustainableUrbanForestGuidev6Final%20.pdf McBride, J.R., and I. Lacan. 2018. “The Impact of Climate-Change Induced Temperature Increases on the Suitability of Street Tree Species in California (USA) Cities.” Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 34:348–356.

McPherson, E.G., N. van Doorn, and J. deGoede. 2016. “Structure, Function, andValue of Street Trees in California,USA.”Urban Forestry & Urban Greening17: 104–115. April 2016. https://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/mcpherson/psw_2016_mcpherson004.pdf.

Moll, G. 1989. Improving the Health of the Urban Forest. In A Resource Guide for Urban and Community Forests, G. Moll and S.Ebenreck (Eds.), pp. 119–130. Washing-ton, DC: Island Press.

NASA. 2021. “The Causes of Climate Change.” Accessed March 3, 2021. https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/.

Pandit, R., and D.N. Laband. 2010. “Energy Savings from Tree Shade.” Ecological Economics 69(2010): 1324–1329. https://www.auburn.edu/ academic/forestry_wildlife/forest_policy_ctr/documents/energy-savings-ecol-econ.pdf.

Richards, N.A. 1983. “Diversity and Stability in a Street Tree Population.” Urban Ecology 7(2): 159–171.

Samenow, J. 2018. “All-time High Temperature Records Set Throughout Southern California, Inculding Los Angeles.” Washington Post, July 6, 2018, 7:40 p.m. PDT. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2018/07/06/monster-heat-dome-threatens-all-timehigh-temperature-records-in-southern-california-friday/.

Sun, F., D.B. Walton, and A. Hall. 2015. “A Hybrid Dynamical-Statistical Downscaling Technique. Part II: End-of-Century Warming Projections Predict a New Climate Stat in the Los Angeles Region.” Journal of Climate 28(12): 4618–4636. https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/ clim/28/12/jcli-d-14-00197.1.xml.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2019a. “Quick Facts: Beverly Hills city, California; United States.” Accessed May 4, 2021. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/ fact/table/beverlyhillscitycalifornia,US/PST045219.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2019b. “American Community Survey: Beverly Hills city, California.” Accessed May 4, 2021. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?g=1600000US0606308&tid=ACSST5Y2019.S0101.

World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. “Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future.” Accessed May 4, 2021. https://sustainabledevelopment. un.org/content/documents/5987our-common-future.pdf.

Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 76 Appendix A – Recommended Tree Species List
On
Master
Street
Tree
List
Permissible
Tree in
VHFHSZ
Genus Species Common
Name
Evergreen,
Deciduous,
Conifer
Size
Classification
Height
(Feet)
Crown
Spread
(Feet)
Spacing
between
trees
(Feet)
Minimum
Parkway
Width
(Feet)
Water Use
Classification
of Landscape
Species
(WUCOLS)
rating
Regionally
Native
Y Y Afrocarpus falcatus Fern Pine E. Large 40+ 20-40 30-35 6 to 8 Moderate/Medium Y Albizia julibrissin Silk tree D. Medium 20-40 20-40 30-35 4 to 6 Low Y Arbutus unedo Strawberry
madrone E. Medium 20-35 20-35 20-25 3 to 4 Low
Y Arbutus marina' Strawberry Tree E. Medium 40-50 40 30-35 6 to 8 Low Y Bauhinia blakeana Hong Kong
Orchid D. Medium 20-25 15-20 20-25 3 to 4 Moderate/Medium Y Bauhinia purpurea Purple Orchid D. Medium 20-40 20 20-25 3 to 4 Moderate/Medium Y Brachychiton populneus Kurrajong E. Medium 30-50 30 30-35 6 to 8 Low Y Cassia leptophylla Gold Medallion E. Medium 20-40 20-40 30-35 4 to 6 Moderate/Medium N Cedrus deodara Deodor Cedar C. Medium 40+ 40+ 35-40 8+ Low Y Cercis candensis Eastern Redbud D. Small 20 20 20-25 3 to 4 Moderate/Medium Y Cercis occidentalis Western Redbud D. Small 20 20 20-25 3 to 4 Low Yes Y Chilopsis linearis Desert Willow D. Medium 20-40 20-40 30-35 3 to 4 Very low Yes Y Chitalpa tashkentensis Chitalpa D. Medium 20-40 20-40 30-35 3 to 4 Low Yes N Corymbia papuana Ghost Gum E. Medium 30-50 20-35 30-35 4 to 6 Low Y Geijera parviflora Australian Willow E. Medium 20-40 20-40 30-35 6 to 8 Low Y Y Handroanthus avellandedae Pink Trumpet D. Medium 20-40 20-40 30-35 3 to 4 Moderate/Medium Y Jacaranda mimosifolia Jacaranda D. Medium 20-40 20-40 30-35 6 to 8 Moderate/Medium Y Koelreuteria paniculata Goldenrain D. Medium 20-40 20-40 30-35 4 to 6 Low Y Y Koelreuteria bipinnata Chinese Flame D. Medium 20-40 20-40 30-35 6 to 8 Moderate/Medium Y Y Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle D. Small 20 20 20-25 3 to 4 Moderate/Medium Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 77 Y Laurus nobilis Sweetbay E. Medium 15-40 15-30 20-25 3 to 4 Low Yes Y Ligustrum japonicum Japanese privet E. Small 10-15 5-8 20-25 3 to 4 Low Y Lophostemon conferta Brisbane Box E. Medium 20-40 20-40 30-35 4 to 6 Moderate/Medium Y Olea europae Fruitless olive E. Medium 20-40 20 30-35 6 to 8 Low Y Parkinsonia
acuelata
'Cercidium'
hybrid
Palo Verde D. Medium 20-30 20-40 30-35 4 to 6 Low Yes
N Pinus eldarica Afghan Pine C. Medium 40+ 20-40 30-35 6 to 8 Very low N Pinus torreyana Torrey Pine C. Medium 40+ 40+ 30-35 6 to 8 Low Yes Y Pistacia x 'red push' Red Push'
Pistache D. Medium 25-40 20-40 30-35 4 to 6 unknown
Y Pistacia chinensis Chinese Pistache D. Medium 40+ 40+ 30-35 6 to 8 Moderate/Medium Y Platanus mexicana Mexican
Sycamore D. Large 40-70 30-50 30-35 6 to 8 Moderate/Medium Y Prosopis chilensis Chilean mesquite D. Small 30 30 20-25 3 to 4 Low Y Prunus ilicifolia Hollyleaf Cherry E. Small 10-30 10-25 20-25 3 to 4 Very low Yes Y Pyrus calleryana
'Aristocrat' Aristocrat Pear D. Medium 20-40 20 30-35 4 to 6 Moderate/Medium Y Quercus ilex Holly Oak E. Medium 30-60 30-60 35-40 4 to 6 Low Y Quercus fusiformis Escarpment Oak E. Medium 20-50 20-40 30-35 6 to 8 Moderate/Medium Y Quercus engelmannii Engelman Oak E. Medium 40+ 40+ 30-35 6 to 8 Very low Yes Y Quercus suber Cork Oak E. Medium 20-40 20-40 30-35 6 to 8 Low Y Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak E. Large 40+ 40+ 35-40 8+ Very low Yes Y Rhus lancea African Sumac E. Medium 20-40 20-40 30-35 4 to 6 Low Y Y Tipuana tipu Tipu D./E. Large 40+ 40+ 35-40 8+ Low
Y Tristaniaopsis laurina Water Gum E. Medium 20-35 15-30 20-25 3 to 4 Moderate/Medium Y Y Zelkova serrata Sawleaf zelkova D. Medium 50-65 50-65 30-35 6 to 8 low Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 78 Appendix B – Recommended Tree Species for High Fire Severity Zone Genus Species Common Name
Evergreen,
Deciduous,
Conifer
Height
(Feet)
Crown
Spread
(Feet)
Spacing
between
trees (Feet)
Minimum
Parkway
Width
(Feet)
WUCOLS
rating Regionally Native
Prosopis chilensis Chilean
mesquite D. 30 30 20-25 3 to 4 Low Yes
Arbutus unedo Strawberry
madrone E. 20-35 20-35 20-25 3 to 4 Low Yes
Laurus nobilis Sweetbay E. 15-40 15-30 20-25 3 to 4 Low Yes Ligustrum japonicum Japanese privet E. 10-15 5-8 20-25 3 to 4 Low Prunus ilicifolia Hollyleaf Cherry E. 10-30 10-25 20-25 3 to 4 Very low Yes Cercis candensis Eastern Redbud D. 20 20 20-25 3 to 4 moderate/ medium
Cercis occidentalis Western Redbud D. 20 20 20-25 3 to 4 Low Yes Chilopsis linearis Desert Willow D. 20-40 20-40 30-35 3 to 4 Very low Yes Chitalpa tashkentensis Chitalpa D. 20-40 20-40 30-35 3 to 4 Low Yes Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle D. 20 20 20-25 3 to 4 moderate/ medium
Handroanthus avellandedae Pink Trumpet D. 20-40 20-40 30-35 3 to 4 moderate/ medium
Tristaniaopsis laurina Water Gum E. 20-35 15-30 20-25 3 to 4 moderate/ medium
Albizia julibrissin Silk tree D. 20-40 20-40 30-35 4 to 6 Low Parkinsonia acuelata
'Cercidium' hybrid Palo Verde D. 20-30 20-40 30-35 4 to 6 Low Yes Pistacia chinensis Chinese Pistache D. 40+ 40+ 30-35 6 to 8 moderate/ medium
Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 79 Appendix C – Street Tree Spacing Recommendations
Large
46 ft. tall and higher
15’
15’
12’ to 15’
10’
6’
6’ 4’ 3’
Spacing Guidelines Street Trees
30’ 16’
10’
8’ to 10’
Medium
26’ to 45’
Small
Up to 25’
15’
15’
10’ 10’
8’
6’
6’
6’ 6’
Spacing from
other trees
Spacing from
building foundations
Spacing from sidewalks,
curbs and driveways
Spacing from
sides of median
All trees
Streetlights
20 ft. from
trunk at
maturity
Fire Hydrant
10 ft. from
trunk at
maturity
Spacing from limbs
to overhead wires
Spacing from trunk at
maturity to in-ground
electrical lines
Spacing from trunk
at maturity to
in-ground gas lines
Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills Appendix D – Nursery Stock Specifications
80 Example
A B Aspect
Ratio

2.50" 1.80" 0.72

2.0" 2.0" 1.0

2.50" 2.0" 0.80

4.0" 3.0" 0.75

CROWN OBSERVATIONS - HIGH BRANCHED
A
B
A B
Notes:
1- Aspect ratio shall be less than 0.66 on all branch unions. Aspect ratio is the diameter of branch (B) divided by the diameter of the trunk (A) as measured 1" above the top of the branch union. 2- Any tree not meeting the crown observations detail may be rejected.

Example
A B Aspect
Ratio

1.50" 0.50" 0.33

2.50" 0.90" 0.36

2.0" 1.00" 0.50

2.50" 1.60" 0.64
One central leader
(No codominant
leaders)
Aspect ratio is less
than 0.66.

Aspect ratio is
greater than 0.66.

Multiple leaders
(Several codominant
leaders)

ACCEPTABLE

REJECTABLE
A
B A
B
A
B B
Aspect ratio of B:A less than 0.66
as measured 1" above the top of
the branch union.

Aspect ratio of B:A greater than or equal to 0.66 as measured 1" above the top of the branch union.

URBAN TREE FOUNDATION © 2014

OPEN SOURCE FREE TO USE
Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 81 APPENDIX D – NURSERY STOCK SPECIFICATIONS
Example
A B Aspect
Ratio

2.50" 1.80" 0.72

2.0" 2.0" 1.0

2.50" 2.0" 0.80

4.0" 3.0" 0.75

CROWN OBSERVATIONS - LOW BRANCHED
A
B
A B
Example
A B Aspect
Ratio

1.50" 0.50" 0.33

2.50" 0.90" 0.36

2.0" 1.00" 0.50

2.50" 1.60" 0.64
Aspect ratio of B:A greater than or equal to 0.66
One central leader
(No codominant
leaders)
Aspect ratio is less
than 0.66.

Aspect ratio is
greater than 0.66.

Multiple leaders
(Several codominant
leaders)

ACCEPTABLE

REJECTABLE
A
B
B
A
Aspect ratio of B:A less than 0.66
as measured 1" above the top of
the branch union.

A
B B
Notes:
1- Aspect ratio shall be less than 0.66 on all branch unions. Aspect ratio is the diameter of branch (B) divided by the diameter of the trunk (A) as measured 1" above the top of the branch union. 2- Any tree not meeting the crown observations detail may be rejected.

URBAN TREE FOUNDATION © 2014

OPEN SOURCE FREE TO USE
I
82 APPENDIX D – NURSERY STOCK SPECIFICATIONS

CROWN OBSERVATION DETAIL - MULTI

ACCEPTABLE

REJECTABLE
Aspect ratio is greater
than 0.66.

Aspect ratio is
less than 0.66.

Example
A B Aspect
Ratio

2.50" 1.80" 0.72

2.0" 2.0" 1.0

2.50" 2.0" 0.80

4.0" 3.0" 0.75
A
B
A B
Example
A B Aspect
Ratio

1.50" 0.50" 0.33

2.50" 0.90" 0.36

2.0" 1.00" 0.50

2.50" 1.60" 0.64
A
B A
B
A
B B
Aspect ratio of B:A less than 0.66
as measured 1" above the top of
the branch union.

Aspect ratio of B:A greater than or equal to 0.66 as measured Notes: 1" above the top of the branch union.
1- Aspect ratio shall be less than 0.66 on all branch unions. Aspect ratio is the diameter of branch (B) divided by the diameter of the trunk (A) as measured 1" above the top of the branch union. 2- Any tree not meeting the crown observations detail may be rejected.

URBAN TREE FOUNDATION © 2014

OPEN SOURCE FREE TO USE
I
Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 83 APPENDIX D – NURSERY STOCK SPECIFICATIONS
Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 84 Appendix E: Root Observations

P-X ROOT OBSERVATIONS DETAIL - CONTAINER

ACCEPTABLE REJECTABLE
Structural roots primarily grow to one side.

Structural roots missing from one side,
and/or grow tangent to trunk.

Root collar.

Structural roots circle interior of root ball. No
structural roots are horizontal and reach the
root ball periphery near the top of the root
ball.

Structural roots descend into root ball interior.

No structural roots are horizontal and reach the
root ball periphery near the top of the root ball.

Roots radiate from trunk and reach side of root ball without deflecting down or around.

Root ball periphery.

Notes:
1- Observations of roots shall occur prior to acceptance. Roots and substrate may be removed during the observation process; substrate/soil shall be replaced after observation has been completed.
2- Small roots (1
4" or less) that grow around, up, or down the root ball periphery are considered a normal condition in container production and are acceptable however they should be eliminated at the time of planting. Roots on the periperhy can be removed at the time of planting. (See root ball shaving container detail). 3- See specifications for observation process and requirements.

Absorbing roots.

Structural
roots.

Roots
growing
tangent to
trunk.

Structural root.
0-2"
Top of
root
ball.

Point
where topmost root
emerges
from trunk.

Only absorbing roots reach the periphery
near the top of the root ball. Structural
roots mostly wrap or are deflected on the
root ball interior.

The point where top-most root(s) emerges from the trunk (root collar) should be within the top 2" of substrate. The root collar and the root ball interior should be free of defects including circling, kinked, ascending, and stem girdling roots. Structural roots shall reach the periphery near the top of the root ball.

Structural roots circle and do not radiate
from the trunk.

URBAN TREE FOUNDATION © 2014

OPEN SOURCE FREE TO USE
Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 85 Appendix F – Root Correction
Cut here.

Cut here.

Cut here.

Cut here. Cut here.

Tree planted too deeply in root ball.

Remove excess substrate and roots to
meet root inspection detail.

Cut structural root just before it makes
abrupt turn. Pruning cut should be made
tangent (parallel) to the trunk.

Cut structural roots just before they make
abrupt turn by cutting tangent (parallel) to
the trunk (two cuts shown).

Cut here.

Four structural roots shown in black.

Remove root (white) growing over
structural roots.

Five structural (large) roots shown in
black. Remove structural root (white)
wrapping root collar.

Six structural roots shown in black.

Remove roots (white) growing over root
collar by cutting them just before they
make an abrupt turn.

Cut here.

Notes:

Cut here.

Tree planted too deeply in root ball.

Remove excess substrate and roots to
meet root inspection detail.

Remove excess
roots.

Remove excess
substrate/soil.

Seven structural roots shown in black.

Remove structural roots (white) growing
around or over root collar by cutting them
just before they make an abrupt turn.

Root ball periphery.

Step 1 - Remove substrate over root collar.

New root Root collar.
ball surface.

Root collar.

Step 2 - Remove defects.

P-X ROOT CORRECTION DETAIL - CONTAINER
Cut here.

Cut here.

Cut here.

Cut here. Cut here.

Tree planted too deeply in root ball.

Remove excess substrate and roots to
meet root inspection detail.

Cut structural root just before it makes
abrupt turn. Pruning cut should be made
tangent (parallel) to the trunk.

Cut structural roots just before they make
abrupt turn by cutting tangent (parallel) to
the trunk (two cuts shown).

Cut here.

Four structural roots shown in black.

Remove root (white) growing over
structural roots.

Five structural (large) roots shown in
black. Remove structural root (white)
wrapping root collar.

Six structural roots shown in black.

Remove roots (white) growing over root
collar by cutting them just before they
make an abrupt turn.

Cut here.

Notes:
1- All trees shown are rejectable unless they undergo recommended correction. 2- First Step 1, then Step 2. Roots and soil may be removed during the correction process; substrate/soil shall be replaced after correction has been completed. 3- Trees shall meet root observations detail following correction. 4- Small roots (1/4" or less) on the periphery of the root ball are common with container plant production. These small roots are not defined as "defects" and can be addressed at the time of installation (See root ball shaving container detail).

Cut here.

Tree planted too deeply in root ball.

Remove excess substrate and roots to
meet root inspection detail.
roots.

Seven structural roots shown in black.

Remove structural roots (white) growing
around or over root collar by cutting them
just before they make an abrupt turn.

Root ball periphery.

New root Root collar.
ball surface.

Root collar.

URBAN TREE FOUNDATION© 2014

OPEN SOURCE FREE TO USE
Step 2 - Remove defects.

Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 86 Appendix G – Tree Planting Detail
Existing soil.

Original grade.

Central leader. (See crown
observations detail).

Root ball modified as
required.

Round-topped
soil berm 4" high x 8" wide
above root ball surface shall
be constructed around the
root ball. Berm shall begin
at root ball periphery.

Notes:
1-Trees shall be of quality
prescribed in the
Nursery Stock Specifications.
4" layer of mulch.

No more than 1" of mulch on
top of root ball. (See
specifications for mulch).

Prior to mulching, lightly tamp
soil around the root ball in 6"
lifts to brace tree. Do not over
compact. When the planting
hole has been backfilled, pour
water around the root ball to
settle the soil.

Finished grade.

URBAN TREE FOUNDATION
Root ball surface shall be
positioned to be
one - quarter above finished
Existing site soil added to
create a smooth transition
from the top of the raised root
ball to the finished grade at a
15% max. slope.
grade.

Loosened soil. Dig and turn the
soil to reduce compaction to the
area and depth shown.
3x widest dimension of root ball.

Trunk caliper shall
meet ANSI Z60 current
edition for root ball size.

Bottom of root ball rests on
existing or recompacted soil.

Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 87 Appendix H – Tree Staking Detail
P-X TREE STAKING - LODGE POLES (2)

SECTION VIEW
URBAN TREE FOUNDATION © 2014

OPEN SOURCE FREE TO USE
Two (2) three inch lodge pole pine
stakes. Install approximately 2"
away from the edge of the root
ball. Stake location shall not
interfere with permanent branches.

Remove nursery stake.
32" long non - abrasive rubber ties.

Rubber tree ties.

Lodge pole
stakes.

Prevailing
wind.
6'-0" 2'-0"

PLAN VIEW
Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 88 Appendix I – Establishment Care Guidelines
Weeding
■ Remove all the grass and
weeds growing in the tree
basin or tree well by hand.
■ To avoid root damage, do not
dig into the soil with a shovel
or hoe.
■ To avoid trunk damage, do not
use a weed whacker or
lawnmower for weed removal.

Pruning
■ Newly planted trees may require minor pruning to
remove branches damaged during the planting
process and/or dead branches.
■ Trees should be pruned sparingly. All other pruning
should be withheld until the second or third growing
season following tree planting.
■ Sucker growth (sprouts from the base of the plant or
from roots) should be removed.
■ All pruning should be conducted in accordance with
ANSI A 300 pruning standards.

Repair and extend berms
■ Newly planted trees should have a 4”- 6” high berm just outside the root ball to direct water to where it is needed.
■ As a tree grows and matures, extend the berm to the drip line.

Ensure proper tree support
■ Tree stakes should be firmly secured 2’ deep
vertically in the soil.
■ Leaning or loose stakes should be re-installed
and secured in the soil.
■ Tree ties should be placed in the middle to
lower portion of the tree and allow tree movement 3”- 4” in each direction. ■ If the roots of the tree are established, remove
the stakes and tree ties. This typically occurs
two – three years after planting.

Drip lineDrip line
Mulch
■ Use only organic materials such as chipped trees for mulch. ■ Apply a layer 2”- 3” thick inside the tree basin and covering the berm. ■ Keep mulch 4” away from the trunk of the tree to avoid moisture building on the trunk, which can lead to rot and fungal growth.

Establishment Care
Guidelines
Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 89 Appendix J – Tree Protection Guidelines
Appendix D – Tree Protection Measures
The following sections are included as general guidelines for tree protection from construction impacts. The measures presented should be monitored by arborists and enforced by contractors and developers for maximum benefit to the trees.

Tree Protection Measures Prior to Construction
Fencing: All remaining trees that will not be relocated or removed should be preserved and protected in place. Trees within approximately 15 feet of proposed construction activity should be temporarily fenced with chain link or other material satisfactory to City planning staff throughout grading and construction activities. The fencing should be installed 3 feet outside of the dripline of each tree (or edge of canopy for cluster of trees), be 4 feet tall, and staked every 6 feet. The fenced area should be considered the tree protection zone (TPZ) unless proximate construction required temporary removal.

Pre-Construction Meeting: A pre-construction meeting should be held between all contractors (including grading, tree removal/pruning, builders, etc.) and the arborist. The arborist will instruct the contractors on tree protection practices and answer any questions. All equipment operators and spotters, assistants, or those directing operators from the ground, should provide written acknowledgement of their receiving tree protection training. This training should include information on the location and marking of protected trees, the necessity of preventing damage, and the discussion of work practices that will accomplish such.

Protection and Maintenance During Construction
Once construction activities have begun the following measures should be adhered to:

Equipment Operation and Storage: Avoid heavy equipment operation around the trees. Operating heavy machinery around the root zones of trees will increase soil compaction, which decreases soil aeration and subsequently reduces water penetration in the soil. All heavy equipment and vehicles should, at minimum, stay out of the fenced TPZ, unless where specifically approved in writing and under the supervision of a Certified Arborist or as provided by the approved landscape plan.

Storage and Disposal: Do not store or discard any supply or material, including paint, lumber, concrete overflow, etc. within the protection zone. Remove all foreign debris within the protection zone; it is important to leave the duff, mulch, chips, and leaves around the retained trees for water retention and nutrients. Avoid draining or leakage of equipment fluids near retained trees. Fluids such as gasoline, diesel, oils, hydraulics, brake and transmission fluids, paint, paint thinners, and glycol (anti-freeze) should be disposed of properly. Keep equipment parked at least 50 feet away from retained trees to avoid the possibility of leakage of equipment fluids into the soil. The effect of toxic equipment fluids on the retained trees could lead to decline and death.

Grade Changes: Grade changes, including adding fill, are not permitted within the TPZ without special written authorization and under the supervision of a Certified Arborist or as provided by the approved landscape plan. Lowering the grade within this area will necessitate cutting main support and feeder roots, jeopardizing the health and structural integrity of the tree(s). Adding soil, even temporarily, on top of the existing grade will compact the soil further, and decrease both water and air availability to the trees’ roots.

Tree Protection Measures Page 2
Moving Construction Materials: Care will be taken when moving equipment or supplies near the trees, especially overhead. Avoid damaging the tree(s) when transporting or moving construction materials and working around the tree (even outside of the fenced tree protection zone). Above ground tree parts that could be damaged (e.g., low limbs, trunks) should be flagged with red ribbon. If contact with the tree crown is unavoidable, prune the conflicting branch(es) using International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) standards.

Root Pruning: Except where specifically approved in writing or as provided in Attachment 3, all trenching should be outside of the fenced protection zone. Roots primarily extend in a horizontal direction forming a support base to the tree similar to the base of a wineglass. Where trenching is necessary in areas that contain tree roots, prune the roots using a Dosko root pruner or equivalent. All cuts should be clean and sharp, to minimize ripping, tearing, and fracturing of the root system. The trench should be made no deeper than necessary.

Irrigation: Trees that have been substantially root pruned (30% or more of their root zone) will require irrigation for the first 12 months. The first irrigation should be within 48 hours of root pruning. They should be deep watered every 2 to 4 weeks during the summer and once a month during the winter (adjust accordingly with rainfall). One irrigation cycle should thoroughly soak the root zones of the trees to a depth of 3 feet. The soil should dry out between watering; avoid keeping a consistently wet soil. Designate one person to be responsible for irrigating (deep watering) the trees.

Check soil moisture with a soil probe before irrigating. Irrigation is best accomplished by installing a temporary above ground micro-spray system that will distribute water slowly (to avoid runoff) and evenly throughout the fenced protection zone but never soaking the area located within 6 feet of the tree trunk, especially during warmer months.

Pruning: Do not prune any of the trees until all construction is completed. This will help protect the tree canopies from damage. All pruning should be completed under the direction of an ISA Certified Arborist and using ISA guidelines. Only dead wood should be removed from tree canopies.

Washing: During construction in summer and autumn months, wash foliage of trees adjacent to the construction sites with a strong water stream every two weeks in early hours before 10:00 a.m. to control mite and insect populations.

Inspection: An ISA Certified Arborist should inspect the impacted preserved trees on a monthly basis during construction. A report comparing tree health and condition to the original, pre-construction baseline should be submitted following each inspection. Photographs of representative trees are to be included in the report on a minimum annual basis.

Maintenance After Construction
Once construction is complete the fencing may be removed and the following measures performed to sustain and enhance the vigor of the preserved trees.

Mulch: Provide a 4-inch mulch layer under the canopy of trees. Mulch should include clean, organic mulch that will provide long-term soil conditioning, soil moisture retention, and soil temperature control.

Pruning: The trees will not require regular pruning. Pruning should only be done to maintain clearance and remove broken, dead or diseased branches. Pruning should only take place following a recommendation by an ISA Certified Arborist and performed under the supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist. No more than 20% of the canopy should be removed at any one time. All pruning should conform to ISA standards.

Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 90 Appendix K – Tree Protection Detail

TREE PROTECTION
Crown drip line or other limit of Tree Protection area. See tree preservation plan for fence alignment.
4'-0"
Maintain existing
grade with the tree
protection fence
unless otherwise
indicated on the
plans.
2" x 6' steel posts
or approved equal.

Tree Protection
fence: High density
polyethylene fencing
with 3.5" x 1.5"
openings; Colororange. Steel posts
installed at 8' o.c.
5" thick
layer of mulch.

Notes:
1- See specifications for additional tree
protection requirements.
2- If there is no existing irrigation, see
specifications for watering requirements.
3- No pruning shall be performed except
by approved arborist.
4- No equipment shall operate inside the
protective fencing including during fence
installation and removal.
5- See site preparation plan for any
modifications with the Tree Protection
area.

SECTION VIEW

KEEP OUT
TREE

PROTECTION
AREA

8.5" x 11"
sign
laminated in
plastic spaced
every 50'
along the
fence.

URBAN TREE FOUNDATION © 2014

OPEN SOURCE FREE TO USE
Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 91 Appendix L: Root Pruning Guidelines
Root Pruning Guidelines
Street trees planted in urban environments at times will come into conflict with adjacent sidewalks, tree wells, curbs, and other infrastructure that will need to be repaired to maintain the location in a safe condition. Every effort should be made to preserve trees to repair damaged infrastructure. Prior to root pruning activities alternative designs and materials should be evaluated that will minimize impacts to tree health and safety. When impacts to trees and tree roots cannot be avoided, careful consideration must be given to determine if root pruning and tree preservation is feasible.

Improper root pruning and unnecessary damage from construction-related activities can significantly damage trees, resulting in health decline and/or structural instability. In the event that root pruning is necessary to preserve the tree(s), the following guidelines may be used to inform the decision making process, and decrease the likelihood of tree health decline and/or structural stability prior to and following root pruning.

Minimization of root damage is best accomplished by minimizing overall root pruning and maximizing the distance from the tree’s trunk that roots are cut. Each tree and situation is unique, and require a decision making process. As such, the City requires the following qualifications of any individual who will make recommendations for trees that require root pruning:
-International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist -ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified
-Experience with root pruning
Foundation for the Standards:

The City of Beverly Hills recognizes the most current editions of the following pruning standards:

1. American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 Pruning Standards

2. ANSI Z133.1 Safety Standards

3. ISA Best Management Practices: Tree Pruning
Step #1 – Tree and Site Assessment
To minimize root-pruning impacts, a tree assessment will be conducted by a City qualified arborist prior to pruning. During the evaluation, the arborist will evaluate tree and site conditions to determine the potential for injury and loss of structural stability. Tables 1 Table 1. Tree Health and Safety Factors to Consider:

Factor Descnpticn
Tree Species
Tree Health
Tree Age
Tree Lean
Root Prunmg Damage Prcxirruty
Percen1age of Anticipated Root
Loss
Slructural root damage
Prior root pruning
Soil Volume
Some species tolerate root pruning/damage better tnan
others.

Trees in poor or declining health should not be root pruned.

Older trees arc more likely to decline following root pruning and/or damage.

Leaning trees Should not be root pruned.

The closer that the root cut is to the tree. the greater the chance of tree decline and loss of stablllty,
More loss increases the likelihood of declme.

Increased likelihood of structuml fililurc and mcreased risk to the community.

Trees that have had prior root pruning should be documented 10 minimize addilional decline.

Roots in shallow soils ronnre additional distancing from the trunk of the tree to mmimize the likelihood of root damage.

Continuation Page Body Copy
Title Copy
APPENDIX L: ROOT PRUNING GUIDELINES
92 and 2 provide guidelines to determine if the tree is a suitable candidate for root pruning. If the assessment finds the tree is a suitable candidate for root pruning construction related activities can commence under the supervision of a City qualified arborist.

Step #2 Root Pruning
A City qualified arborist will be on-site during construction related activities to monitor impacts to the tree and roots. If root pruning is required root pruning will be minimized to the extent possible. The following guidelines are examples of potential root pruning approval conditions that will help guide the decision-making process prior to root pruning.

Conditions to Determine Possible Tree Candidates:
- The tree appears to be in good health and a safe condition as determined by a City qualified arborist. - The tree species meets the City standards for water use, drought tolerance, and adaptability to changing climate conditions. - The tree species provides a maximum level of canopy cover for the growing space provided in the ground and air.

Suitable Conditions for Root Pruning:

1. The roots to be pruned are greater than or equal to 5’ from the tree’s drip line.

2. The root measures < 2”, and;
a. is a distance from the trunk of more than 5x the diameter of the trunk.
b. pruning is less than 30% of the total root system.

Condition that Require a Determination by a City Arborist Inspector:

1. Any disturbance within the dripline of the tree.

2. Any root cutting within 5 times the diameter of the trunk of the tree.

Tree Removal:

Candidates for Removal:

1. Root removal, as found by a City qualified ISA certified arborist, that will cause tree health decline and/or structural instability.

2. Root pruning is required at a distance less that 5x the trunk diameter and will result in greater than 30% root damage, or is required on three or more sides of the tree.

Removals of More than One Tree:

1. If tree removals are required for an entire block, removals will be staggered over a five-year period to avoid a significant canopy cover loss.

2. The Street Tree Master Plan process will include consideration of streetscape alterations to ensure that hardscape is a minimum of 5x the distance of the selected tree species expected trunk diameter at maturity.

Sustrnnat>olrty The trC<l spec,es docs noo: meet th<l City standards tor water use. drou!,ht tolerance and adaptabil,ty to chang,ng cl,mate cond,t,ons lnc""""fli canopy"°""' NI altcrna!M! """"""' ,n the same k>cnt1on would prCNtdc increased canopy C<IV<'ratc to me,,\ the toals of the Ctty.

Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills Appendix M – Root Pruning Detail
Notes:

SECTION VIEW
Crown drip line.
5x Trunk Diameter" 5x Trunk Diameter
Roadway Pavement Sidewalk Concrete
with Concrete Curb and Gutter
Root Protection Zone

ROOT PRUNING GUIDELINES
1- Count the number of roots within 5x
the trunk diameter that are greater
than 2” in diameter.
2- Identify the number of roots within 5x
the trunk diameter that are greater than
2” in diameter that require pruning.
3- Divide number of roots to be pruned within
5x the trunk diameter by the total number of
roots within 5x the trunk diameter to
determine % of roots to be pruned.
4- Root pruning will not exceed 30% of
the total roots within 5x the trunk
diameter.
5- Root pruning will not occur on
three or more sides of the tree.
93 Notes:
1- Hand dig to expose roots at proposed cut
2- Count the number of roots within 5x
the trunk diameter that are greater
than 2” in diameter.
3- Identify the number of roots within 5x
the trunk diameter that are greater than
2” in diameter that require pruning.
4- Divide number of roots to be pruned within
5x the trunk diameter by the total number of
roots within 5x the trunk diameter to
determine % of roots to be pruned.
5- Root pruning will not exceed 30% of
the total roots within 5x the trunk
diameter.
6- Root pruning will not occur on
three or more sides of the tree.

Body Copy
Title Copy
Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills Appendix N – Online Survey Results
94 Ql How would you rate the condition of public space street trees in Beverly Hills?
....
'"'
-I
Q2 How imponant do you think trees are compared to other infrastructure like streets, sidewalks, water, sewer, traffic signals, lighting, etc.? n-••"
•in'IC>Ort-
APPENDIX N – ONLINE SURVEY RESULTS
95 Q3 What is your opinion regarding the number of trees along streets in the Cny of Beverly Hills?
_,,. -·
... - - - - - - - - --
Q4 Of the following, select your top TWO reasons why you would pick a specific tree to plant on your own propeny if you were able. _,n_,
-
·-·-- ... - - - -· - - - - --
.. ,
Continuation Page Body Copy
Title Copy
96 APPENDIX N – ONLINE SURVEY RESULTS
QS Whal is 1he main 155-,e you would have with a tree on ycu property? _,,. -· Q6 01 !he t(llo,,ing, $$:t ee lop TWO bo.'oelffS t<ee$ JIR)Yl!le ., your ·�bJil.:xod
-=--
. I ._,., -·
...... - - - - - ... --
·--·---
-
----
--==-
_ --- --·-- - .. ___ .. ___
••• • ·- • •
---- ·-
,,_
" • "
--- ·- • ·- • •
-·- ·- • ·- • •
---- ·- ·- ••
"
"
"
•
•
•
••
--
·-
·-
·-
.. ----------
_ .. _ .............
--· --·-·
,._..,_._
,-. .. --
-·-·-�--·
--
·-
Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 97 Q7 ot the folla,,,;ng, select the lop TWO threats lacing trees in your neighborhood.
- ·-·
QB Do you think trimming or pruning a tree is necessary? _,., -
-
-- --
__........
---
----
-
••
--
... - - - - ..... - - - --
·I
-- -
-
... - - ""' - - - - - --
-�-
---
----
-
-
·--- ·---...... -·-·- __ ,_, ... , �- -·
• ·- • • .. _ ., .
• • •
·- • ·- • • ·- •
·- • •
- -- '
98 APPENDIX N – ONLINE SURVEY RESULTS
Q9 If so. v.t.en or how often should a tree be trimmed in your _neighborhood? ,. .. _
... - - - - - - - - --
Q10 How often should a tree be watered in the first year alter il's planted? _.., -"
"';.�
-- .....
-=-
-·-· ... - - - - - - - - --
-- - -·-
_ ..
........ _ ·- ---- ·- •
-- -- - -- ... - ·- • -M- ·- • ·--- ·- " .._,..,,_. ·- - w -· - ·- - �
Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 99 Qll How coohdem do you feel 10 performmg the foUCJINing tree care tasks on a scale ol l to 7, with 1 being not at all confident and 7 being extremely coofident?
-·· -·
=· --�- -·- .. - ,,_ ·
-
,,_
··� ,,_
·- n-
- • • " " • • • w ••
--- ,,_ ,,_ ,,_ ·
- .. - ,,_ ·- -- • • • • " • • - ••
._ ..... - .. ...-. ·
-
,,_ ,,_ ·
-
,,_ ·- 1 .....
• • • •• • • • w ••
Ql2 II you needed to lind a tree-care expert, where would you search or who would you aslc? Select al lhat apply
_,. ._ ..
----
-
··- · �-
-·-·
- -
.:.:=-
.. - .... - - - - - - --
-- -.,., ·- _
, ..... .. _, ___
--·-· ·- -.....-..... -_-- _
---
,,� ...
•
•
•
•
100
APPENDIX N – ONLINE SURVEY RESULTS
Q13 The Ci!y should hiive oronances 10 prtl(ed eees on pnvate property n the same way �prtl(ect trees n the pubk space.
---
--
-- =II
... - - - - - - - - --
Q14 Rate your reaction to the rouowing suuemen1: There is a Wlldlire thre
_
at to Beverty H�ls.
... _,.,
·-·--
--- =II
--- .. - - - - - - - - --
-- -
-- -
- -
-- -
- -
-� - ·- -
•
•
•
•
•
*
--
-- - - -- -- ·-
•
•
•
•
•
Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 101 Ql5 Rrue your reaction to the following statement Trees and slvubs on private property should be regulated by the Cify to reduce the nsk of wilclhres to the communty
-·
---
-
�
·
--· ----- -
Q16 Are you aware that there are guidelines available lor landscaping to red_uce W1 , _1d1
_
i1e nsk?
..
-·
-·
· -
... - - - - .... - - - --
-- -- - - -- ·•- w
·-
·- ·-
-- --
""-·- ... - ..... - - • • - ...... _ ..... _ .. -, .... ·- • • -·--
·- • • .......... _
·- "
=· •
�
102
APPENDIX N – ONLINE SURVEY RESULTS
Q17 Do you work in Beverly Hills?
""' - - - - - - - - --
Ql8 Do you live in Beverly Hills?
_, .. _ ..
·•
°"" '°"' - - - - - - - --
--
·",- , ..
••
•
••
Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 103 Q19 11 you live in lhe City, what part of the city do you live in? -�-
Q20 What bes! describes your housing type?
...,_,., .. -�
"
•
.... - - - - ..... - - - --
-
-· I
-II
""•··-- - - - - ,�.
•
"
• --· --
-· --
..... - - - - - - - --
--
-- �.-
- ·
--- .........
- -
104
APPENDIX N – ONLINE SURVEY RESULTS
021 Wl.::h ul the l'*-lg best _describes your C!.Srent housing srtuabon ..,_.
-·
---
-I
..... - - - - - - - --
-.D _ ..
-
--1 -
--
.. - - - - - - - - -- -- - --
-
·- - -- -
·- •
..... ___ ,_
·- •
,_ ___ ...... ____ ,_
-- -
,_
·--------·- ·- • __ .... _ ·-
- - -- ·- - - ---- .. ---
,_
- '"
Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 105 QZ3 Are you Whole, 81i!,c1o; 111 A11,cm,Alne11can. AnlellCilfl Indian III Alaskan Na!M!, Asian, NalMl Hawaiian OI other Paollc islanclef? IChed< .. tt\1111 WJIJ.
.. - - - - - - - - --
-- -
_ ... _.
.. - - - - - - - - --
024 What is� age?
·• I
-I
-· --
-- ··
---
··-
-- - ·••• ·- - ·- ••
.. ·
- -
- ·- •
- ·- "
··- ·- •
·- -
'
•
-· ·-
- - ·-
-· ·-·
-·
=I
··I
-·1 ·-
-
-·---- ----�-
-- -
------ - ---
106
APPENDIX N – ONLINE SURVEY RESULTS
Q25 What is the hoghesl l!Nel oi school you tlawco,�ed C)' the hqlesl deQree you tla\'9 recei,•ed?
.__, .. -·
--- ·
-
::::=Ill
-=I
-�-
----- ..... - - - - - - - --
-- -- .... -- ·- '
-----�· - ·- __
• .... _ � "
-- ·- '
-- - •
-- - "
- -
Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills General Plan Goal
“A key theme of the City of Beverly Hills General Plan is to “Live Lightly” as a means to reduce our carbon footprint. The General Plan takes steps to address the challenging issue of climate change by reducing GHG emissions, improving energy efficiency, reducing the urban heat island effect, recycling, and managing water use. The General Plan will reduce GHG emissions primarily through public transit, increased opportunities for pedestrians, bicycle, and transit use, and through requirements for “green building” practices and alternative energy systems. Policies also address adaptation to climate change, such as reducing the impacts from the urban heat island effect, managing water use, and increasing flood protection.” Appendix O – General Plan Tree Policies & Goals
Land Use
Section Goals and Policies
LU1 Long-term Stability: Consequently, if Beverly Hills is able to provide an alternative not available elsewhere, it will endure. The characteristics which contribute to the special opportunities available in Beverly Hills include: (lists 7 items) LU 2 Community
Character and Quality
LU 2.2 Public Streetscapes and Land-scape. Maintain and enhance the quality and health of the “green infrastructure” that con-tributes to the City's identity and quality of life, including its street trees, landscaped medians and parkways, parks, and open spaces, while seeking to conserve water resources. (Imp. 3.1, 3.6)
LU 5 Complete,
Livable, and Quality
Neighborhoods
LU 5.5 Walkable Neighborhoods. Maintain sidewalks, parkways, street trees, and landscaping in residential neighborhoods to promote walking as an enjoyable and healthy activity and an alternative to automobile use. (Imp. 3.1) LU 11 Well-Designed and
Attractive Districts
LU 11.5 Retail Streetscapes. Maintain and, where deficient, improve street trees, plantings, furniture, signage, public art, and other amenities that promote pedestrian activity. (Imp. 3.1, 3.6)
LU 14 Environmental
Sustainability and
Carbon Footprint
LU 14.5 Heat Island Effect. Reduce "urban heat island" effect by requiring that new construction and substantial renovation of buildings use techniques to reduce the amount of heat that buildings, outdoor spaces, and parking lots absorb from sunlight. (Imp. 2.4) LU 14 Environmental
Sustainability and
Carbon Footprint
LU 14.7 Public Streetscapes. Design and improve public streetscapes to enhance their attractiveness for walking as an alternative to automobile use and as a demonstration of the City’s commitment to environmental sustainability by using techniques such as: (a) maintaining and enhancing the City’s street trees and installing light-colored hardscapes to reduce heat; (b) selecting tree and plant species and irrigation systems that minimize water consumption; (c) exploring the use of recycled water for irrigation;(d) phasing in pedestrian-oriented energy-efficient lighting that does not result in excessive glare; (e) strategically locating benches and other street furniture that is constructed of recycled materials to provide resting spots and to demonstrate the use of alternative building materials; and (f) other comparable environmentally friendly streetscape improvements. (Imp. 3.1, 3.6) 107
*Imp. references General Plan Implementation Program.
108
APPENDIX O – GENERAL PLAN TREE POLICIES & GOALS
Open Space
Section Goals and Policies
Overview The City of Beverly Hills is committed to the protection of its rich and diverse street tree network and urban forest, and its air and water, and remaining natural habitat; while providing beneficial recreational opportunities to all community members.

Biological Resources
The City of Beverly Hills is located at the southern foothills of the Santa Monica Mountains. Most of the City is fully developed with urban uses however it still contains a few natural areas. Its parks and open spaces support a diverse landscape and rich, mature urban for-est. The City’s residential neighborhoods feature extensive tree canopies which makes its streets and sidewalks pleasant places to live and provide memorable landscapes for those passing through the City. That same urban for-est also serves the more practical end of absorbing carbon dioxide and pollution, producing oxygen that contributes to improved air quality and human health. Though its urban character has left little in the way of native wildlife, the City’s hillsides and canyons still provide shelter and habitat for hawks, falcons and a variety of less spectacular birds as well as the occasional coyote, possum and raccoon. Policies in this section reinforce the existing character.

OS 2 Urban Forest Management of the City's urban forest as an environmental, economic, and aesthetic re-source to maintain the unique character of the City and the quality of life of its residents.

OS 2 Urban Forest
OS 2.1 Trees of Significance. Require the retention of trees of significance (such as heritage trees) by promoting stewardship of such trees and ensuring that the design of development and reuse projects provide for the retention of these trees wherever possible. Where tree removal cannot be avoided, require re-placements with an appropriate species. (Imp. 3.8) OS 2 Urban Forest
OS 2.2 Manage and Enhance. Continue to ensure that new construction incorporates trees where appropriate, and manages and cares for all publicly owned trees, works to retain healthy trees, and encourages planting appropriate species in appropriate locations. Maintain Tree City USA accreditation on an annual basis. (Imp. 3.8)
OS 2 Urban Forest OS 2.3 Urban Forest Management Plan. Maintain and enhance the City's Urban Forest Management Plan. (Imp. 3.8) OS 2 Urban Forest OS 2.4 Viability of Commercial Corridors. Balance the desire for street trees along commercial corridors with the need for clearance and visibility, including selection of tree species with appropriate canopies. (Imp. 3.8) OS 2 Urban Forest
OS 2.5 Urban Heat Island Effects. Continue to promote appropriate species selection and tree placement that encourages adequate shading of rooftops, parking facilities, streets and other facilities to minimize heat island effects. Continue to phase street tree Master Plan projects to minimize tree canopy loss. (Imp. 2.1,3.8)
OS 2 Urban Forest OS 2.6 Public Education. Promote the importance and benefits of trees and the urban forest through awareness campaigns, partnerships, and efforts that educate residents and local tree and landscape professionals on the best methods of preserving and maintaining trees. (Imp. 3.8, 8.1) OS 2 Urban Forest OS 2.7 Funding. Provide adequate funding to manage and maintain the City's urban forest on City properties, parks, and greenbelts, including tree planting, trimming, maintenance, removal, and replacement. (Imp. 4.1, 4.2, 4.3) OS 2 Urban Forest OS 2.8 Species Selection & Diversification. Assure the selection and placement of species suitable to the environment as appropriate. Assure proper diversification to avoid wholesale loss of trees due to disease or species-specific predators and to enhance species diversity. (Imp. 2.1, 2.2) OS 3 Street Trees A strong, healthy, and well-maintained inventory of street trees to enhance the City's natural beauty and quality of life for its residents OS 3 Street Trees
OS 3.1 Street Tree Master Plan. Continue with additional phases of the Street Tree Master Plan to replace and increase the City's tree inventory on an ongoing basis. Update the Master Plan as necessary to include provisions such as allowing voluntary private funding by local residents to cover the cost of purchasing and planting street trees consistent with the adopted plan. (Imp. 3.8) OS 3 Street Trees
OS 3.2 Periodic Assessment of the Street Tree Master Plan. At appropriate intervals, revisit the Street Tree Master Plan and evaluate goals such as aesthetic effect, tree health, water efficiency, fire safety, sidewalk and underground utility impact, historical character of neighborhood, view impact, and heat-reduction through promotion of shade canopy. (Imp. 3.8) OS 6 Visual Resource
Preservation
OS 6.4 Minimize Removal of Existing Resources. Require new commercial, office, and residential development to minimize the removal of mature trees and other significant visual resources present on the site. (Imp. 2.1, 2.2, 3.8) OS 9 Parks and
Recreation Preservation
OS 9.5 Sustainable Design and Operational Concepts. Use sustainable concepts and practices in the design, materials, and operation of parks in the City, and require such concepts with respect to open space required in new developments in the City. Such practices may include, but are not limited to, use of drought tolerant plant palettes in landscaping and strategic use of plants for fire protection near areas of wildland fire hazard, external shading of building and parking lots, and landscape design that allows irrigation and stormwater to recharge groundwater systems and filter out pollutants. (Imp. 3.6)
*Imp. references General Plan Implementation Program.

Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 109 Historic Preservation
Section Goals and Policies
Overview Consequently, if Beverly Hills is able to provide an alternative not available elsewhere, it will endure. The characteristics which contribute to the special opportunities available in Beverly Hills include: (lists 7 items) Circulation
Section Goals and Policies
CIR 7 Pedestrians. CIR 7.3 Streetscape Enhancements. Up-date or prepare Design Guidelines that foster the enhancement of streets, sidewalks, and other public rights-ofway with amenities such as lighting, street trees, benches, plazas, public art, or other measures to encourage walking. (Imp. 3.6, 3.8) Conservation
Section Goals and Policies
Con 22 Conservation of
Natural Re-sources
CON 22.2 Street Tree Master Plan. Maintain the City’s Street Tree Master Plan and revise as needed to help improve the airshed, save water and minimize urban heat island effects through tree specimen choices, giving consideration to the established historic and aesthetic character of streets. (Imp. 3.8)
Programs
Section Goals and Policies

3.0 Master Plans and
Programs (MPP)

3.6 Streetscape Master Plan. Develop a Streetscape Master Plan that outlines im-provements and identified funding sources for improvements to the City’s street system. The Master plan shall include streetscape en-hancements such as lighting, street trees, benches, plazas and other amenities in the public right of way.

3.0 Master Plans and
Programs (MPP)

3.8 Street Tree Master Plan. Continue to implement and comprehensively review the Street Tree Master Plan and update as neces-sary to keep current with the goals and objec-tives for the protection and expansion of the City’s urban forest and evaluate goals related to such topics as aesthetic effect, tree health, fire safety, sidewalk impact, historical charac-ter of neighborhood, view impact, and heat-reduction through growth of tree shade. 2 Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills AN ASSESSMENT OF BEVERLY HILLS’ VERY HIGH FIRE HAZARD AREA,

PUBLIC AND PRIVATE TREES, AND BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Appendix P – Beverly Hills Wildfire Assessment
Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TREE RELATED FIRE HAZARDS .....................................................................................................................................................................6 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ..............................................................................................................................................................6 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................................................................7 2 TREE RELATED FIRE HAZARD ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................................................10

2.1 City Department Interviews ............................................................................................................................................................................10

2.2 Public Survey .....................................................................................................................................................................................................10

2.3 City Information ...............................................................................................................................................................................................10

2.4 Field Assessment and Observations ...............................................................................................................................................................11

2.5 Ember Threat Discussion .................................................................................................................................................................................13

2.6 Specific observations from the VHFHSZ ......................................................................................................................................................13

2.6.1 Public Tree Related Fire Hazards (Benedict, Coldwater, and Franklin Canyons) ................................................................................13

2.6.2 Private Property Tree Related Fire Hazards ...............................................................................................................................................14

2.7 Greystone Mansion Tree Related Fire Hazards ............................................................................................................................................15

2.8 Trousdale Estates Tree Related Fire Hazards ................................................................................................................................................17 3 CODES AND STANDARDS ..............................................................................................................................................................................18

3.1 General Plan Safety Element ...........................................................................................................................................................................18

3.2 Municipal Code ................................................................................................................................................................................................19

3.2.1 Protected Trees ..............................................................................................................................................................................................19

3.3 Fire Code ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................19

3.4 Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. ..........................................................................................................................................................20

3.5 Trousdale View Restoration Ordinance ........................................................................................................................................................20 4 FIRE HAZARD TREES – DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................................................................................21

4.1 Higher Flammability Trees. .............................................................................................................................................................................21

4.1.1 Conifers ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................22

4.1.2 Palms ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................23

4.1.3 Eucalypts .........................................................................................................................................................................................................23

4.2 Fire Related Tree Hazards North of Sunset Boulevard ................................................................................................................................24

4.2.1 City-Managed Trees in VHFHSZ ................................................................................................................................................................24 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS, CONTINUED

4.2.2 Privately Managed Trees in VHFHSZ ......................................................................................................................................................26

4.3 Fire Resistant Trees in VHFHSZ ..................................................................................................................................................................26

4.4 Selecting Appropriate Trees ..........................................................................................................................................................................26

4.4.1 Hillsides ........................................................................................................................................................................................................27

4.4.2 Fuel Modification Zones ............................................................................................................................................................................27 5 ANNUAL MAINTENANCE ...........................................................................................................................................................................28

5.1 Tree Arrangement ..........................................................................................................................................................................................28

5.2 Pruning Practices ...........................................................................................................................................................................................28

5.3 Tree Removal & Replacement Recommendations ....................................................................................................................................29

5.3.1 Tree Removals .............................................................................................................................................................................................29

5.3.2 Tree Replacement .......................................................................................................................................................................................33

5.4 Watering ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................34 6 SPECIFIC UFMP FIRE HAZARD TREE GOAL, OBJECTIVES AND ACTION ITEMS .....................................................................35

6.1 Goal: Reduce Tree Related Fire Hazard Potential in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone ........................................................35

6.1.1 Objective 1. Reduce the City Managed Trees’ Potential Fire Hazard in the VHFHSZ .....................................................................35

6.1.2 Objective 2. Reduce Private Property Fire Hazard Trees’ Potential Fire Hazard in theVHFHSZ ...................................................36 7 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................................................................................39 ATTACHMENT A–GENERAL WILDFIRE GLOSSARY OF TERMS ......................................................................................................41 ATTACHMENT B–PROHIBITED TREE LIST FOR BEVERLY HILLS VHFHSZ AREA ...................................................................46 ATTACHMENT C–CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS SAMPLE DESIREABLE TREE LIST FOR NORTH OF SUNSET........................47 APPENDIX P – BEVERLY HILLS WILDFIRE ASSESSMENT: TABLE OF CONTENTS Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS, CONTINUED

FIGURES
Figure 1. City of Beverly Hills VHFHSZ in LRA..............................................................................................................................................8 Figure 2. Wildfire Evacuation Routes ................................................................................................................................................................9 Figure 3A. Public Tree Locations – Southwest View ......................................................................................................................................12 Figure 3B. Public Tree Locations – Northeast View .......................................................................................................................................12 Figure 4. View along Coldwater Canyon Drive at City Managed Canary Island Pine Trees.....................................................................14 Figure 5. View of Canary Island Pine on Coldwater Canyon Drive with Adjacent Ladder Fuels............................................................14 Figure 6A. Private Tree Locations – Southwest View......................................................................................................................................16 Figure 6B. Private Tree Locations – Northeast View.......................................................................................................................................16 Figure 7. View of Greystone Manison landscaping with cypress and pines................................................................................................17 Figure 8. Typical Deodar cedar..........................................................................................................................................................................22 Figure 9. Typical Italian Cypress at Greystone Mansion................................................................................................................................22 Figure 10. Typical Hollywood Juniper...............................................................................................................................................................23 Figure 11. Typical Canary Island Pines.............................................................................................................................................................23 Figure 12. Palm head burning from ember caused fire, resulting in significant ember prdocution...........................................................23 Figure 13. Blue gum eucalyptus fire hazardous bark.........................................................................................................................................24 Figure 14A. Public and Private Tree Locations – Southeast View ..................................................................................................................25 Figure 14B. Public and Private Tree Locations – Northeast View ..................................................................................................................25 Figure 15. Camp Fire home losses amongst standing pine forest. Homes burned due to ember penetration vs from pine trees burning and igniting the homes..........................................................................................................................................27 Figure 16. Scripps Ranch in San Diego County with numerous burned structures while landscape trees remain largely intact.............................................................................................................................................................................................27 Figure 17. Carla Ridge Alleppo Pine Trees with poor structure and small size, not considered highly valuable trees..........................................................................................................................................................................................................29 Figure 18. View of topped pine trees along Carla Ridge. Note leaning trees, misformed crowns, and because of the slopes, inability to raise crowns well above and away from adjacent homes..........................................................................................................................................29 Figure 19. Street Management Program Schematic .........................................................................................................................................38 TABLE
Table 1. Protected Tree Standards on Private Property.....................................................................................................................................19 APPENDIX P – BEVERLY HILLS WILDFIRE ASSESSMENT: TABLE OF CONTENTS 6 Tree Related Fire Hazards
This appendix has been prepared such that it can function as a stand-alone document and as an integral component of Beverly Hills’ comprehensive UFMP. The content of this appendix focuses evaluation, analysis, conclusions, and recommendations on tree management and policies in the Beverly Hills Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone north of Sunset Boulevard. This appendix also considers and integrates urban forest management strategies and presents goals, objectives and action items developed toward reducing wildfire tree related hazards, which would have a direct effect on reducing the overall wildfire risk to private and public assets and infrastructure. A glossary of terms is provided in Attachment A.

Acronyms and Abbreviations
AMSL Above mean sea level
ANSI American National Standards Institute
BHFD Beverly Hills Fire Department
BHMC Beverly Hills Municipal Code
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CFC California Fire Code
City City of Beverly Hills
FMZ Fuel Modification Zone
FMZP Fuel Modification Zone Plan
ISA International Society of Arboriculture
UFMP Urban Forest Management Plan
VHFHSZ Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
VOC Volatile Organic Compounds
WELO Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance
WUI Wildland-Urban Interface
WUIM Wildland Urban Intermix
APPENDIX P – BEVERLY HILLS WILDFIRE ASSESSMENT
Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 7 1 Introduction
Wildfires throughout California between 2016 and 2019 continued the progressively higher frequency, stronger intensity and larger footprint that the state’s fire environment is facilitating. These fires present a substantial hazard to life and property in communities within the wildland-urban interface1 (WUI), and they are reminders to all municipalities and residents, including Beverly Hills’, that wildfire will occur and that it takes diligent efforts before a fire occurs to reduce the risk, increase resiliency and properly harden the landscape against wildfire. Although wildfires may occur at any time of year and in any climate, the risk of fire increases greatly with increased drought, low humidity and higher winds, and available fuels. California’s predicted future climate of more severe droughts, higher summertime peak temperatures, and presumably lower humidity (Bedsworth et al. 2018), may equate to longer fire seasons, which could expose Beverly Hills to higher wildfire risk, particularly in the WUI areas north of Sunset Boulevard.

Beverly Hills’ inclusion of WUI areas that are characterized by steep topography, shrubland dominated landscapes (primarily to the north of the City) and adjacency to relatively dense, heavily vegetated private properties, results in potential wildfire pathways or corridors. Beverly Hills, as with the majority of Southern California, is subject to the semi-seasonal Santa Ana events, with high, dry winds which create increased likelihood of ignitions and fire spread and wildland fire threat. This extreme fire environment can facilitate what would normally be small, controllable fires to expand into large, uncontrollable fires, which can quickly overburden Beverly Hills Fire Department (BHFD) and other area fire agencies and triggering large-scale evacuations. This Tree Fire Hazard Assessment is specifically prepared to address the City areas most susceptible to wildland fire impacts, which are the foothills and mountainous areas with adjacency to vegetated areas north of Sunset Boulevard, extending north beyond the City limits (City 2019).

Within the WUI, the State of California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) and BHFD have classified the areas north of Sunset Boulevard (and within City limits) as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone2 (VHFHSZ) (Refer to Figure 1). This fire hazard designation is based on the hazardous fire environment, including steep terrain, continuous fuelbeds, access challenges and potential for extreme weather conditions. The BeverlyHills VHFHSZ is a densely populated area with homes embedded in natural and managed landscape vegetation inwhat may be more accurately described as a wildland urban intermix (WUIM).

WUI and WUIM fires are high riskevents in terms of resident life safety and property protection, including homes and other structures. By comparison, Beverly Hills’ “flats”, which is relatively flat land that gently slopes from north to south and is locatedsouth of Sunset Boulevard, is urbanized with predominantly ignition resistant landscapes and inclusive of themajority of the City’s residents and urban treescapes. These areas have minimal to no wildland fire exposure.However, during extreme weather conditions, airborne embers may still threaten portions of the City south of Sunset Boulevard.

It is important to note that the BHFD is aware of the wildfire threat in the WUI and WUIM portions of the City. BHFD has performed numerous assessments and evaluations of the area, including commissioning this 1 The wildland-urban interface is the area where urban and suburban development meets the undeveloped areascontaining natural vegetation. 2 In 1992, Assembly Bill-337, known as the “Bates Bill”, required all cities and counties in California to identify within their communities the VHFHSZ. 8 APPENDIX P – BEVERLY HILLS WILDFIRE ASSESSMENT: INTRODUCTION tree fire hazard assessment, as well as having performed hazard reduction efforts (City 2019). Due to these efforts toward reducing the vulnerability of homes and landscapes to wildfire, the area north of Sunset Boulevard, has been recognized as a Firewise Communities USA (2005) site. The Firewise Communities approach emphasizes City as well as individual homeowner responsibility for creating a wildfire safe community. This approach consists of using ignition-resistant home construction materials and methods and maintaining fire resilient landscapes in wildfire-prone areas. In addition, BHFD requires the management of vegetative fuels, including trees, near homes and along roadways within theVHFHSZ areas. Although these efforts have reduced the area’s fire vulnerability, concerns remain, primarily due to the existence of transitional fuels in the form of dense landscapes, including the use of tree species that are considered highly flammable in close proximity to residences and other structures.

Under clear direction of City Council and Council Priorities #32 (Public Safety) and #49 (Tree Master Plan), the BHFD consulted with David Kerr, Wildland Fire Consultant, to complete the 5-year update report3, which is titled “A Wildland Fire Hazard Assessment of Beverly Hills” (City 2018). This report describes the existing fire hazard for areas north of Sunset Boulevard within the City’s administrative boundary and up to a two mile buffer outside the City’s jurisdictional control. Based on the results of the fire spread simulation modeling (i.e., FARSITE4 fire simulations) for the wildland fire assessment report, it was empirically determined that the greatest threat to theCity would be from a fire burning into Beverly Hills from a northerly jurisdiction. The primary fire hazard areas adjacent to the City are the lands east and north of Franklin Canyon Reservoir and lands west of Carla Ridge Roadin Trousdale (Kerr 2018). The wildland fire assessment report also contemplated urban forest implications, including both City-owned and private property trees 3 Firewise Communities USA requires the City of Beverly Hills to update its wildland fire assessment every 5 years.
4 FARSITE is a fire simulation modeling system that computes wildfire growth and behavior.

City of Beverly Hills VHFHSZ in LRA
Beverly Hills VHFHSZ Tree Related Fire Hazards
FIGURE 1 SOURCE: CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS 2019
Figure 1. City of Beverly Hills VHFHSZ in LRA
·�f i
\ \. \
/
\\
\.. �l \ \ \ J
ltl (
\
Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 9 APPENDIX P – BEVERLY HILLS WILDFIRE ASSESSMENT: INTRODUCTION contributing to the spread of fire in the City’s northern portion. The report addressed the City’s urban forest because a concern had been previously raised from some community members that the presence of certain tree species within the City represented an elevated fire risk (Kerr 2018). Therefore, it was presumed by Beverly Hills residents that these tree species are fire propagators and should be removed from the landscape. The wildland fire assessment identified species of Cypress, Eucalyptus, Juniper, Palm, and Pine as the urban trees of greatest concern from a wildfire perspective. Additionally, the City’s Tree View Restoration Guidelines for the Trousdale community considers Eucalyptus, Pine, and Italian Cypress as nuisance trees5 that should not be newly-planted in Trousdale Estates. These tree species have been widely planted within 100 feet of structures by private residents and by the City along primary travel routes that will be critical wildfire evacuation corridors from the densely populated ridge tops andthree canyons (Franklin, Coldwater, and Benedict), north of Sunset Boulevard (Figure 2).In order to evaluate the City’s urban forest, and including the extent of wildfire prone tree types, the City Council approved (April 2, 2019) the preparation of this Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP). The UFMP is a comprehensive assessment of the urban forest, including publicly- and privately-owned trees, and was prepared in two phases. The first phase, Wildfire Hazard Evaluation and Mitigation, focuses on evaluation of fire propagators (tree species) in the northern portion (e.g., areas north of Sunset Boulevard) of the City6.

This chapter (i.e., Phase One) included summarizing the urban forest-related wildfire hazard presented by certain tree species.Additionally, this UFMP chapter presents a goal for wildfire hazard reduction, objectives toward achieving the goal and recommends specific actions to provide pre-fire landscape hardening, ongoing management, hazard reduction through tree maintenance practices that result in higher ignition resistance, tree spacing, and removal and replacement strategies for both private and public trees.

Further, this analysis includes recommendations for ordinance and policy updates restricting planting of certain tree species in the fire hazard zones.

Whittier
Dr
N Rexford Dr
N Beverly Dr
Coldwater
Canyon Dr
Cherokee Ln
Doheny Rd
Loma Vista Dr
W Sunset
Blvd
Sunset Blvd
Sunset Blvd
Sunset Blvd
Lomitas Ave
Elevado Ave
Carmelita Ave
N Beverly Dr
N Canon Dr
Santa Monica Blvd
Wilshire Blvd
N Hillcrest Rd
Foothill Rd
Burton Way
Clifton Way
N Roxbury Dr
Benedict Canyon Dr
Loma Vista Dr
Doheny Rd
Lexington Rd
Lexington Rd
Tower
Rd
Benedict Canyon Dr
Loma Vista Dr
N Hillcrest Rd
Mountain Dr
N Sie rra
Dr
N Foothill Rd
San Ysidro Dr
N Alta
D r
Document Path: Z:\Projects\j1186800\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT_NAME\Fire\Fig 2 Wildfire Evac Routes.mxd 0 0.20.1
Miles
FIGURE 2
Wildfire Evacuation Routes
Beverly Hills VHFHSZ Tree Related Fire Hazards
SOURCE: ESRI; COUTY OF LOS ANGELES; CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS Evacuation Route
City of Beverly Hills
Beverly Hills Parcels
5 Additional private trees were also noted in View Restoration Guidelines for Trousdale: King Palm, Queen Palm, Canary IslandDate Palm, and Ficus.
6 This appendix focuses on fire-prone trees solely in the VHFHSZ areas north of Sunset Boulevard, even though fires starting in the mountainous regions could burn well into the flatland of Beverly Hills.

Figure 2. Wildfire Evacuation Routes
DUDEK
10 2 Tree Related Fire Hazard Analysis
Dudek’s fire protection planners provide independent evaluation of fire environments and recommendations and approaches to resolve issues.

In order to achieve successful outcomes, Dudek coordinates with and places high value on input provided by City stakeholders. The following information reflects participation by, and input from City staff and decision-makers who agreed to participate in this tree fire hazard study. City input is critical to this process because the people who work day to day in the City understand the issues and can provide perspective on previous studies, current policies, and City-attempts to resolve them. This report also incorporates input from 254 concerned citizens who provided fire comments via a Dudek-City prepared on-line public survey. Public input and value sharing are integral to UFMP’s and as such, this Chapter incorporates the views of Beverly Hills residents who were generous enough to share them. Additionally, Dudek’s Fire Protection Planners reviewed City tree regulation and fire policy information, conducted a visual community assessment of the WUI and WUIM areas north of Sunset Boulevard, and evaluated the locations of fire-prone tree species in the VHFHSZ using high spectral imagery analysis (See Section 4.0).

The following key elements provided valuable insight:

2.1 City Department Interviews
Key personnel from Beverly Hills Fire Department, Planning Department, and the City Manager were interviewed to help inform this analysis. The interviews had a semi-structured format along with time to freely discuss fire hazard tree and urban forestry topics relevant to the departments and their respective missions. The interviews provided a setting where the City could provide feedback to Dudek on their respective roles, experiences, background, and tree related issue history. In addition, they provided perception of what the primary tree related fire hazard issues are, what is currently working and what is not working, their opinions on the most significant impediments to success, and their greatest tree related concerns. Interviewees often expressed a conflict between fire hazard reduction efforts aimed at private property owners while the City includes fire hazardous trees under its own management. Similarly, some City staff commented on the lack of specific expertise to carry out hazard reduction planning and landscape plan reviews.

2.2 Public Survey
A robust public survey was developed by Dudek with City review and input. The on-line survey was reviewed for statistical viability before it was released for public use. The final survey was made available to the public in English and Spanish and was disseminated through the City’s Website, Beverly Hills TV channel, newspapers, events, and social media. A total of 177 surveys were completed by the public. Over 60% of respondents agreed that there is a wildfire threat to Beverly Hills, and over 75% agreed that trees and shrubs should be regulated by the City to reduce the risk of wildfire to the community. About 25% of respondents are not aware that there are guidelines for reducing wildfire risk in the City, and 17% indicated that they were aware of the guidelines, but that they do not apply to where they live.

2.3 City Information
The City provided a variety of documents for Dudek’s review which would ultimately be used to inform the analysis and augment understanding of the current approaches and priorities. The combined data set assisted the wildfire tree hazard analysis, with a focus on certain fire facilitator tree species that are present in the City’s urban forest.

Among the resources reviewed were:

Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 11 • City of Beverly Hills Local Hazard Mitigation Action Plan 2017-2022 • Wildfire Evacuation Routes – City of Beverly Hills, October 2018 • Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Areas as recommended by CAL FIRE, March 2018
• A Wildland Fire Hazard Assessment of Beverly Hills prepared by David Kerr, Wildland Fire Consultant,October 23, 2018
• View Restoration Ordinance and Guidelines, Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC) Section 10-8-101
• Water Efficient Landscaping, BHMC Section 9-4-401
• Landscape Design Plans in City’s VHFHSZ, BHMC Section 9-4-406 • Applicable Beverly Hills Building and Fire Codes, including but not limited to City’s Brush Clearance
• Program and Fuel Modification Standard (currently being developed)

2.4 Field Assessment and Observations
Dudek conducted field evaluations of the VHFHSZ which consisted of driving throughout the area and documenting general tree and fire-related observations. The evaluation did not include extensive vegetation mapping. Field evaluations focused on providing a baseline understanding of the area’s terrain, fuels, and assets (residences and other structural features) and augments and provides perspective to the available digital information that was used to map flammable tree species and inform conclusions and recommendations. As discussed, the City’s VHFHSZ occurs north of Sunset Boulevard. This area includes terrain that slopes from the highest points in the north (just under 1,500 feet above mean sea level (AMSL)) to the lowest points in the south (approximately 370 feet AMSL) and again from higher elevations in the east to lower elevations in the west. The terrain includes steep slopes, flatter canyon bottoms, and generally fire facilitating extreme wind alignments. The VHFHSZ area is characterized by high to moderately dense residential development with primarily estate lots. Vegetation is considered to vary from moderately dense to very dense throughout the urbanized areas including very highly maintained landscapes intermixed with unmaintained native vegetation on slopes, disturbed, highly ornamental/exotic species on other slopes, and heavy tree canopy in some areas, especially along major roadways.

The City’s boundary is directly adjacent to three large, north-south canyons that are dominated by unmaintained native slopes. These canyons are located at the purported geographical center of the City of Los Angeles and present the most significant wildfire threat to Beverly Hills.

Because Beverly Hills’ VHFHSZ is largely converted to urban landscapes, the corresponding risk of ignitions and subsequent wildfire spread is reduced from an unmaintained canyon condition. However, the juxtaposition of Beverly Hills’ VHFHSZ at the downwind end of these deeply incised canyons results in a potentially hazardous condition for wildfire transition into the WUI/WUIM. Red Flag Warnings, which may occur any time of the year, focus extended low humidity periods with high winds. Low humidity quickly dries out native, unirrigated vegetation, resulting in fuel that is readily ignited. High winds exasperate the drying process and quickly spread wildfire through pre-heating vegetation and through ember spotting. Ember storms created by burning vegetation and blown by high winds can ignite downwind structures and landscape vegetation, which in turn creates new fires and ember sources. Trees represent a significant fuel source once ignited and can burn for long durations. The physical stature of trees can result in fire occurring at great heights in the tree crown and creating ember storms that can produce hundreds of thousands of small burning embers that are propelled downwind. The larger of these embers may remain viable, that is able to ignite new fires, for great distances of 1.5 miles or more.

APPENDIX P – BEVERLY HILLS WILDFIRE ASSESSMENT: TREE RELATED FIRE HAZARDS 12 APPENDIX P – BEVERLY HILLS WILDFIRE ASSESSMENT: TREE RELATED FIRE HAZARDS Public Tree Locations
Date: 10/17/2019
Document Path: Z:\Projects\j1186800\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT_NAME\Fire\Fig X BeverlyHills Public Trees.mxd 0 300 600150
Feet
SOURCE:BASE MAP- ESRI 2018
Cedar
Cypress
Eucalyptus
Juniper
Palm
Pine
City of Beverly Hills
Neighborhood
City Fire Hazard Tree Locations

SOUTHWEST VIEW
FIGURE 3A
Beverly Hills VHFHSZ Tree Related Fire Hazards
Trousdale
Estates
Greystone
Park
Public Tree Locations
Date: 10/17/2019
Document Path: Z:\Projects\j1186800\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT_NAME\Fire\Fig X BeverlyHills Public Trees.mxd 0 300 600150
Feet
SOURCE:BASE MAP- ESRI 2018
Cedar
Cypress
Eucalyptus
Juniper
Palm
Pine
City of Beverly Hills
Neighborhood
City Fire Hazard Tree Locations

NORTHEAST VIEW
FIGURE 3B
Beverly Hills VHFHSZ Tree Related Fire Hazards
Figure 3A. Public Tree Locations in Southwest Beverly Hills Figure 3B. Public Tree Locations in Northeast Beverly Hills <,
j e
!
l
-·
' i''' .. ""
...... "'······
.......
l
J
•"''""'
'
;
j
•-. ..... 1
.......... .,.
4,,.,,4
\
��,.,."'
/ / •!
..• ,t
,/
./
r
J
,
..
.. · ," '•
.. },,
\
,•
i
,
s
.. 1
, ..... .,,,' ·
.. ··;
..
,,/'
e
./
' !
,,,,•"' I
I
'
¥ •
,\
- ;
...... --·"
,I
,
J
s
j
..
... .,, ...
""·,,.
!
!
;,
,. \
..
./
I
\
l
l
h
••••••••
\. (
..... �...
\
...... i'
\
I I
I • •
/
\
•••
0 .....
- !
,
' j
i
!
I •
. .......... "' .l
/
................
'\
...... ,•"·
)
............
' ... \
'\
............
11 '· .,
.. ,.,.o•
\. ;\
'\
...... �
'
I J
) J
,, .. ,•"' I
I
\
. -,
..
..... \
'\
·-,,, ...
\
t.,i.-•"*
t. .. ,.,.o• '
,,.

I I ·"
' \ \
...
, ,,
..

I
, ,
•..
, �... , .. . .... �.....
'./
...
•c,,,
...
..
,
.. , ... ··
.. ·
'<, � ,
,
...
<:\.::. ,,,
e , ,,
, ,,
',,,
; ,
I
'.,
....... ,,,
I ··f-',;
, ••. , ... h
-,\
. \
\
""""""o,
\,
I I
.. -
····�
••
,
'·· .... ....
\
I
I
I ...
,
'\,\
(
..........
,;; •... �'
.... "'}.
• ..
-,
..
;
.... ,.
• .. ,"'""•·,
.. o,
'
, ... , ... ,
\-
"' \
\ I ,
�,,
,
.!
•.... ,.,··
;
I \
. ;
\.,
'"\_<?.
\
\
I \
l
f
' ,,
}
.. �
\
., ... , ......
j
··?- ...
l
!
'
,
i .
\
\
I I
\
\
'j
j
I I
-, \
'\4
I
I
r \ t
.,..,,,, ' ·, I •, \
·,
<
\
' J_• \ ..
\
' \
I
Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 13

2.5 Ember Threat Discussion
Wildfires to the north of Beverly Hills, driven by winds may produce spot fires generated by embers. These fires are a function of three elements of the wildland fire environment; firebrand sources, transport mechanism and a receptive fuelbed away from the main fire. Without all of these elements occurring within the fire environment, spot fires will not propagate and spread. A fire burning within or adjacent to Beverly Hills has ready access to fuels that will support fire brand production and the convection column of a fire influenced by the prevailing winds provides the transport mechanism. The component that offers the highest ability for human intervention and control is available fuel sources, otherwise known as receptive fuelbeds. The availability of receptive fuelbeds is highly variable. The definition of a receptive fuelbed is a fuel that will ignite and support the spread of a wildland fire when a fire brand lands on it. This may be native or ornamental vegetation, but could also be leaf litter accumulated in rain gutters, flammable furniture on a deck or a poorly positioned and maintained tree.

There is an abundance of ornamental and native vegetation associated with the residential landscapes and road rights-of-way throughout much of Beverly Hills’ VHFHSZ. This mix of native and ornamental vegetation serves as potential receptive fuels. Land owners and the City can and should take proactive steps to harden their structures and landscapes from the potential damage associated with spot fires. Most important of these steps is compliance with basic defensible space requirements (Beverly Hills Ordinance 16-0-2719), which defines the standards for defensible space near a structure. More details regarding this subject can be found in Section 3.0.

2.6 Specific observations from the VHFHSZ

2.6.1 Public Tree Related Fire Hazards (Benedict, Coldwater, and Franklin Canyons)
Public trees within the VHFHSZ are predominantly located along roadways. The tree types of greatest concern (pines, palms, eucalyptus, cypress, cedar, and juniper) occur throughout the VHFHSZ, but are especially concentrated along Coldwater Canyon Road, within Trousdale Estates (Loma Vista Road and Carla Ridge), along Doheny Road, Lexington Road, southern Benedict Canyon Drive, and at the Greysone Mansion (Figures 3a and 3b). Benedict, Coldwater, and Franklin Canyons tothe north of the City, represent a significantwildfire threat due to the native fuelbeds, steep terrain, wind alignment and connectivity with Beverly Hills’ VHFHSZ. Previous studies (Kerr 2018) have indicated that the greatest wildfire threat to Beverly Hills is from the north and these canyons provide the conduit through which wildfire is facilitated. Each of these Canyons extend north of Beverly Hills’ boundary, and are heavily populated with homes and people along with native vegetation on undeveloped slopes. Within Beverly Hills, the downwind end of these canyons, there is extensive WUIM including landscapes with varying tree canopy densities. It is likely that Benedict Canyon Drive, San Ysidro Drive, N. Beverly Drive and Coldwater Canyon Drive would all be actively used for evacuation during a large, wind-driven wildfire. Of these, Coldwater Canyon Drive would potentially experience the heaviest evacuating vehicle density, and it includes the most dense tree canopy, which is dominated by large Canary Island pine trees (Figure 4).

Similar tree canopy occurs on Doheny Road, Lexington Road, and southern Benedict Canyon Drive. As previously mentioned, any tree can ignite and burn under the right conditions, but some trees, including pines, are considered, under some conditions, more flammable than others due to their leaf and crown form, litter accumulation, resinous exudate, and terpenes. Although the presence of the large trees along Coldwater Canyon Drive represent a potential as wildfire fuel, Dudek’s evaluation concluded that the trees are considered to be currently maintained such that ignition and fire spread is minimized. The trees are maintained with their crowns raised substantially above ground due to their roadside location which reAPPENDIX P – BEVERLY HILLS WILDFIRE ASSESSMENT: TREE RELATED FIRE HAZARDS 14 APPENDIX P – BEVERLY HILLS WILDFIRE ASSESSMENT: TREE RELATED FIRE HAZARDS quires a minimum of 17’ vertical clearance, per City-provided information.

This along with maintenance of the ground vegetation at low heights minimizes the ability for a ground fire to “ladder” into the tree crowns. Exceptions occur where private property adjacent to the pines includes large hedges or other vegetation near the pines (Figure 5).However, even in these locations, the adjacent landscape is highly maintained and irrigated, resulting in high internal fuel moistures and reduced risk of ignition. The Aleppo pine trees along Carla Ridge present a potentially higher risk of ignition due to their previous topping, which resulted in denser canopies and higher stress and incidence of decline.

2.6.2 Private Property Tree Related Fire Hazards
Beverly Hills’ privately owned trees are dispersed throughout private lots which encompass the entire VHFHSZ. Whereas the public trees are primarily linear based along roadways, trees on private properties form a more uniform, although rarely dense canopy. Tree densities vary greatly from property to property with some lots devoid of trees and others heavily populated.

As discussed, most urbanized landscapes are more fire resistive than native landscapes. Ornamental landscapes that are irrigated and receive maintenance (removal of dead and dying plants, trimming, thinning) are generally less receptive fuelbeds than an unmaintained native landscape. Wildfire moving through urban landscapes like those found in Beverly Hills VHFHSZ is patchy, slower spreading, and of lower average intensity, which is the nexus for and intent of fuel modification zones or defensible space. Modified fuel areas work because highly flammable species are removed, vegetation densities are reduced, plants are kept hydrated and healthy, and appropriate setbacks are provided so that if a plant ignites, it will be less likely to compromise the property’s residence. Dudek analyzed the occurrence of the higher flammability species (pines, palms, eucalyptus, cypress, cedar, and juniper) and their distribution throughout the VHFHSZ. The first attempt included the utilization of a sophisticated mapping technique that relies on machine Figure 4. View along Coldwater Canyon Drive at City Managed Canary Island Pine Trees.

Figure 5. View of Canary Island Pine on Coldwater canyon Drive with Adjacent Ladder Fuels.

Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 15 learning (artificial intelligence) to identify the tree types’ crown signatures and identify them throughout the landscape. While image classification and remote sensing are well established technologies, sometimes the results are not as comprehensive or conclusive as anticipated. In the case of using Digital Globes World View 2 data to classify and identify the location of a variety of tree species in Beverly Hills’ VHFHSZ, the classification was not statistically conclusive and reported too many false positives. The main difficulty in this analysis was the sheer number of tree species and varieties.

As this area includes a large variety of tree species, the image classification had a difficult time identifying individual trees. The tree species GIS data from the City of Beverly Hills has over 200 distinct species and varietals and the number of privately owned species, although unknown, would increase this total, potentially substantially. In addition, several of the target tree types are similar physiologically and therefore, typical classifications methods did not produce clear results.

While there was success to a fair degree, the amount of false positives made the result too unreliable for analysis. Substantially more field time to post validate the results might help remove some of the experienced “noise”.

For example, regarding higher fire prone palms, the palm tree spectral signatures are not unique enough to provide a usable image classification product. Image classifications have too much spectral overlap with other features to be useful (generate a high number of false detections). Due to the lack of success experienced, Dudek proceeded to manually digitize the higher flammability trees using a pan-sharpened multispectral image product. Using this image as the base, a trained arborist viewed the entire VHFHSZ area and digitally mapped individual tree crowns and tree grouping canopy. Each mapped polygon was classified by tree type (pine, palm, cypress, eucalyptus, cedar or juniper). The results of this effort are provided in Figures 6a and 6b. As depicted, the majority of privately owned, higher flammability trees are located in the southwest portion of the VHFHSZ, although there are occurrences as far north as the extreme northern end of Trousdale Estates. This effort was informative regarding where higher flammability trees occur in landscapes and generally being able to conclude that there are many instances where these tree types occur too close to structures/residences and may increase the potential fire risk. Not all of the mapped trees are considered highly hazardous, as many of them are setback from adjacent structures and are provided ongoing maintenance and have access to irrigation. These factors decrease the trees’ likelihood of igniting, but less clear than with the Public trees is the actual percentages of these higher flammability trees that are within proximity of private residents and other structures. A widely accepted standard is that these types of flammable trees should be no closer than 30 feet (edge of tree crown) from adjacent structures, but it is considered safer to minimize these trees within the first 100 feet, even when they are provided maintenance.

2.7 Greystone Mansion Tree Related Fire Hazards
The Greystone Mansion was evaluated in terms of its potential fire wildfire hazard. The primary fire concern expressed to Dudek relates to the presence of numerous Italian cypress and pine trees within the landscape (Figure 7). Dudek’s opinion regarding the Greystone Mansion’s overall vulnerability to fire is that the site’s landscape is very highly maintained, plants and trees are irrigated and maintained with high internal moisture contents, and the vegetation is in large part appropriately setback from site structures. The structures themselves appear to be ignition resistant.

There are some areas on the property that include dense tree groupings, mostly eucalyptus and pine trees, such as directly east, west and northwest of the structure, and these areas could benefit from thinning trees and potentially removing trees to create greater setback from the structure.

APPENDIX P – BEVERLY HILLS WILDFIRE ASSESSMENT: TREE RELATED FIRE HAZARDS 16 APPENDIX P – BEVERLY HILLS WILDFIRE ASSESSMENT: TREE RELATED FIRE HAZARDS Private Tree Locations
Date: 10/17/2019
Document Path: Z:\Projects\j1186800\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT_NAME\Fire\Fig X BeverlyHills Private Trees.mxd 0 300 600150
Feet
SOURCE:BASE MAP- ESRI 2018
Cedar
Cypress
Eucalptus
Juniper
Palm
Pine
City of Beverly Hills
Neighborhood
Private Fire Hazard Tree Locations

SOUTHWEST VIEW
FIGURE 6A
Beverly Hills VHFHSZ Tree Related Fire Hazards
Trousdale
Estates
Greystone
Park
Private Tree Locations
Date: 10/17/2019
Document Path: Z:\Projects\j1186800\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT_NAME\Fire\Fig X BeverlyHills Private Trees.mxd 0 300 600150
Feet
SOURCE:BASE MAP- ESRI 2018
Cedar
Cypress
Eucalptus
Juniper
Palm
Pine
City of Beverly Hills
Neighborhood
Private Fire Hazard Tree Locations

NORTHEAST VIEW
FIGURE 6B
Beverly Hills VHFHSZ Tree Related Fire Hazards
Figure 6A. Private Tree Locations in Southwest Beverly Hills Figure 6B. Private Tree Locations in Northeast Beverly Hills __ ., J
....... 1
... ··'
........
�···',;,
-: ..
..............

I
\ \.
\
s
-:
/1
... �··"
..
, ....... ,.
\. (
•·-.�... �.... , .. "' .l
/
;
.. !
I •
. ,
.•.
•'
(
l
f
....
,
!
'
f
l
j
\ '.
l
.)
.,. ...... o.
,,.. .s
'\
"'\�·�i ..
\
.i
J
I
I
1, ..•....
... ,, ......
1 ...,...,
"··o.

J
•••• O'
..:-;,; ...
.. <. ,
...... .,.
l
;
} . .. •· •...
,
.... \
............ ·, �... , ......
��·· : /
1;
... l
./
s
' ,
.. 1
...... .,.' �-
.,
t:
'
.l
•'
,,/'
, •..•... '
\
I
I\
••••• ,1..,
.

J
1 \
;
j
., -
,•
,•
·'
, '
•.....•..•
\
\
' /,
... :
' ' '
I I
\
\,.
l-., ..........

I • -
\
•••
......
)
J
.,
(
�...... ··
\ -,
..
\ .. \
\ ....
,,._.,
I I.
,,
...•..• I
I
/\ 'lg 1' DUD<K
.,······· \
I
- ., \ \ '
'
,
I I
..
\ ..
\
-- ... .
\
····· \
.. �···"'
. ' \
...
, .. ,

I ' , ,
,.•
, �... -·· ····-.. .... " ..
·"'·· .. ..
...
,
,., .....
,·'
•r ..
.,4
..
,
I .. �- ... �
'
.. ..,,,,
, ,,
I: ,
,,
, ,
.... " .... �·
I
'.,.,·-.,',
I , . .-:, ,
-,\
' \
\
...... �a,
\.,
- -
, ,
,,
·· .....
.........

I"'
\
\ ',
·-: ....• ,.,
,-····;
I
\
....... , ....... 0,
' . ,
I
\ '··
\ \
•,
,, .. .,. ..
1 ' ,.,. .. ,.
\
, ... , .. ,
\
\
..
,,
,,
,
!
,/
. "····� ..
,
\
'
,
,,
I: l
I I
\\
,,
,· \
.,.-� ....
\
\
' '
I I
\
.... :�/>, ',q.
\
\
,,
r \
\ i \ I "-.,,,
' !
"· .. ,.
' I
I l.. I \
\ .. \
� \
;
!
',.4
\
.
l
' J_•
\
\
I
I
n\ .,· DUDEK
.�\UY.

Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 17 APPENDIX P – BEVERLY HILLS WILDFIRE ASSESSMENT: CODES AND STANDARDS There is some potential for the Italian cypress to ignite from flying embers, but they are highly maintained, occur in landscapes that are devoid of ground fuels that could ignite and ladder into the trees, are setback a considerable distance from on-site and off-site structures, and are not considered to be the highest priority for fire hazard reduction at the site.

2.8 Trousdale Estates Tree Related Fire Hazards
Trousdale Estates includes a high number of residences within a larger community. The properties vary in size, but generally, the developed component of the lots has converted the majority of the land to the built environment. Residences are large on most of the lots, covering approximately 50 and 75 percent of the land. Some lots include unbuildable slopes that include unmaintained native vegetation, ornamental vegetation or a combination of the two. Tree canopy density varies throughout Trousdale with higher densities occurring on slopes adjacent to homes and along internal roadways. Many of the lots do not include enough room for large-stature trees due to home sizes. Wildfire risk in Trousdale Estates includes potential for short-timeframe wildfire warning due to a nearby fire start (such as north in the canyons), high number of residences and related population, and evacuation routes that could be quickly congested. Wildfire vulnerable fuels throughout the VHFHSZ zone, including Trousdale Estates, could include patchy fire with multiple spot fires, burning slope vegetation, trees and potentially structures. The higher flammability tree types observed in Trousdale are primarily pine trees located on the slopes bordering the eastern and western community boundaries as well as along roads, particularly Carla Ridge Drive. The City-owned Aleppo pine trees are in moderate, but declining health. There are numerous trees with structural maladies, including previous tree topping, which has resulted in poor structure and stressed conditions. Trees on Carla Ridge exhibit the highest level of stress and decline. Many of the declining pines on either side of Carla Ridge have been removed as indicated by several vacant tree planting spots and many more will require removal in the short or mid-term due to their declining or poor overall conditions. Additionally, the slopes adjacent to much of Carla Ridge create a circumstance where creating crown separation from understory plants is difficult or impossible. The tree crowns are situated too close to some adjacent homes. Since access to private lots was not possible, the health and condition of the majority of privately-owned trees in Trousdale Estates could not be determined, but it was observed that trees, including those of the higher flammability tree types, do occur within 30 to 100 feet of structures.

Figure 7. View of Greystone Manison landscaping
with cypress and pines.
18 3 CODES AND STANDARDS
Sustainable and resilient urban forests can be planned and designed to perform well in catastrophic wildfires. The planting, pruning, and maintenance of the City’s and privately owned trees must be coupled with effective policies and ordinances that adhere to best fire-safe landscaping practices. Fire resistant landscapes require that fire-safe practices in the VHFHSZ area extend beyond the public space and onto private property, where a large portion of the urban forest tree canopy exists. City Staff interviews resulted in a clear understanding that Beverly Hills aims to be proactive in urban forest fire management (both City and private trees), north of Sunset Boulvard in the VHFHSZ area. In the past, the City has taken a strong position to create a safer community from fires by adopting the Wood Roof Ordinance (#07-0-2520) in June 2007 and reducing the risk from fire damage and loss through the Firewise Community USA program for the northern portion of Beverly Hills. Similarly, many residents, for example, those in Trousdale Estates, have voiced strong concern about an elevated fire risk in their communities. The efforts the community has taken toward systematically addressing tree-related fire risk is not clear at the time of this report’s preparation. The abundance of privately owned trees within 30 to 100 feet of residences indicates that there are still fire issues to be resolved, possibly requiring policy and code changes.

This section describes existing City fire codes and standards relevant to hazardous trees that are located in the portion of the City north of Sunset Boulevard. It examines these documents for their ability to require and enforce the City and private property owners to properly wildfire harden the landscape.

3.1 General Plan Safety Element
The Safety Element of the General Plan was adopted in 1976 and amended in 2010. The purpose of a safety element is to reduce the potential risk of death, injuries, property damage, and economic and social dislocation resulting from large-scale hazards. The City’s Safety Element specifically addresses fire, flood, geologic and seismic hazards, hazardous materials, noise, and natural and man-made disaster preparedness. The fire hazards section of the Safety Element describes the City’s unique fire risks, including structural fires and wildfires, as well as goals and policies related to emergency response and fire prevention.

Fire-safe landscaping, including public and private properties with trees, is described in Policy: S1-Protection of Life and Property. This policy addresses the need for all property owners to perform regular maintenance on their properties to reduce the fire danger and maintain a fire-safe landscape.

In addition, defensible space is expanded to 200 feet of fuel modification for structures in the City’s VHFHSZ area. The key to protecting life and property from fire begins from the structure outward, rather than from the wildland inward.

Policy S.3.1 Safety Standards, describes proactive and preventative fire protection measures for existing and new development and redevelopment.

This Safety Standard provides for regular updates and enforcement of the City’s building, which includes WUI Building Standard Chapter 7A for new construction in wildfire-prone areas, and fire codes.

Note: Chapter 7A of the California Building Code correlates the ability of a structure to survive a wildfire within VHFHSZ areas, maintenance of the defensible space which includes hazardous trees, and building materials used on the outside of the structure. Some highlights of the Chapter 7A Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 19 building standards regarding exterior materials and construction methods includes the following:
• The required fire rating of roof covering (Class A) and assembly is defined. • Gaps between the roof covering and roof deck, such as clay barrel tile roofs, must be plugged at the ends (i.e., bird stops).
• Energy-efficient dual-pane windows must include at least one pane of tempered glass. • Vents used in eaves and soffits or roof must resist the intrusion of embers and flames.
• Exterior Siding must be classified as noncombustible or ignition-resistant.

3.2 Municipal Code

3.2.1 Protected Trees
Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC, Section 5-6.1001) was enacted to protect and preserve trees by regulating their removal, to prevent unnecessary tree loss and minimize environmental damage during construction-related activities, and to effectively enforce tree preservation regulations on public property. Trees on public property are regulated by the Department of Public Works. The City defines protected trees, which are located on public property, as trees that are indigenous to the Beverly Hills area. Protected trees include Big Leaf Maple (Acer macrophyllum), California Alder (Alnus rhombifolia), Foothill Ash (Fraxinus dipetala), Arizona Ash (Fraxinus velutina) , Southern California Black Walnut (Juglans californica), California juniper (Juniperus californica), California sycamore (Platanus racemosa), Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), Black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), Blue oak (Quercus douglasii), Mesa oak (Quercus engelmannii), Valley oak (Quercus lobata), Red willow (Salix laevigata), Mexcian elderberry (Sambucus mexicana), and California bay (Umbellularia californica). Although California juniper is a protected tree, it is considered highly flammable due to its thin, shredded bark and aromatic, scale-like leaves that contribute to its ignitability. Trees on private property are regulated by the Community Development Department. The City’s municipal code (Section 10-3-2900) defines protected trees on private property as any native tree, heritage tree, or tree within anurban grove as detailed in Table 1, below.

A tree removal permit is required only for trees meeting the tree specifications in Table 1. Prior to issuance of a tree removal permit, the Community Development Department may request that a protected tree report be submitted by a licensed arborist.

3.3 Fire Code
BHMC Chapter 2 (Fire Code- Ordinance 16-0-2719, effective 1-20-2017) and its amendments to the 2016 California Fire Code (CFC) establish regulations regarding the hazard of fire and explosion arising from the storage, handling, or use of structures, materials or devices; conditions hazardous to life, property or public welfare in the occupancy of structures, or premises; fire hazards in the structure or on the premises from occupancy or operation; matters related to fire suppression or alarm systems; and conditions affecting the safety of firefighters and emergency responders during emerAPPENDIX P – BEVERLY HILLS WILDFIRE ASSESSMENT: CODES AND STANDARDS Table 1. Protected Tree Standards on Private Property
Protected Tree Type Tree Specifications and Requirements1 Native Tree Local native trees found on the City's Official Protected Tree list with a circumference of 24 inches or more, measured at a height of four feet six inches or diameter at 4.5 feet above natural grade. This applies to trees in a street side yard or front yard.

Heritage Tree Any tree not listed on the City's official list of native trees with a primary trunk circumference of 48 inches measured at 4.5 feet above natural grade.

Urban Groves 50 or more trees where the branches of each tree are within six feet of the branches of one of the other trees in the grove. Individual trees in an urban grove can be of any size and are not subject to any circumference limitations.

Note:

Identification of tree species is required to be determined by a certified arborist. 20 gency operations. The City adopts new changes to its Fire Code every three years. The Fire Code also includes Section 4902, which defines the City’s VHFHSZ and outlines requirements for defensible space and hazardous vegetation management. Specifically, Section 4906.3.1 of the Beverly Hills Fire Code states that vegetation around all applicable buildings and structures within the VHFHSZ shall be maintained within 200 feet (Note: At the time of preparing this report, BHFD is updating the Fire Code and creating a new Fuel Modification Standard). This Section also addresses requirements to reduce fire spread within the defensible space zone for property owners in the VHFHSZ by disrupting the vertical and horizontal continuity of plants, including eliminating ladder fuels. BHFD provides vegetation maintenance guidelines through its City-wide brush clearance program (http://www.beverlyhills.org/departments/ firedepartment/brushclearaceprogram/).

3.4 Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance
Since 2015, all landscapes are required to comply with California’s Executive Order No. B-29-15 and BHMC. These requirements are commonly referred to as the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO). Per Section 9-4- 405 of BHMC, prior to issuance of a building permit for any project that involves landscaped areas or altered landscaped areas, the project applicant must submit a landscape documentation package for review and approval by the Community Development Department. As part of the submittal package, the landscape design is supposed to address fire safety and prevention, if the project is located in the VHFHSZ. However, the landscape drawings are currently not being reviewed by BHFD staff for compliance with City’s defensible space requirements ( Note: BHFD is developing a Fuel Modification Standard that provides fuel modification landscape plan review and approval by the Fire Code Official for new construction or 2,500 square feet of re-landscaping subject to the WELO). Urban Groves 50 or more trees where the branches of each tree are within six feet of the branches of one of the other trees in the grove. Individual trees in an urban grove can be of any size and are not subject to any circumference limitations.

3.5 Trousdale View Restoration Ordinance
The Trousdale View Restoration Ordinance (Ord. 11-0-2616, effective 1-6- 2012), which is a part of the BHMC, Sections 10-8-101 to 10-8-110, was initially adopted by the City Council in 2011. The primary intent of the ordinance is to encourage Trousdale neighbors to reach early resolution when addressing restoration of views that
have been substantially disrupted by foliage growth on neighboring properties. It also provides landscape standards in a view restoration guidelines document (BHMC Section 10-8-109) for Trousdale property owners in planting trees that will not result in current or future obstruction of neighbor’s views. Although these landscape standards for Trousdale should not be construed to apply to City trees, the City has provided the following guidelines for newly planted trees on hillside view areas:
• Grow to maximum height (e.g., 14 to 15 feet) that would not likely result in disruption of view
• Can be easily and repeatedly pruned to maintain appropriate heights • Are appropriate to the climate and water conditions of Beverly Hills • Would not negatively impact slope stability
In addition, the City has emphasized the importance for plantingtrees that are fire resistant and not in close proximity to the homes in accordance with the City’s Brush Clearance Program.

APPENDIX P – BEVERLY HILLS WILDFIRE ASSESSMENT: CODES AND STANDARDS Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 21 7 Highly flammable tree species are also referred to as pyrophytes or pyrophytic. 8 It should be noted that tree species within the same genus do not always have the same flammability. 9 Deciduous trees are generally more fire resistant than evergreens, because they have higher moisture content when in leaf. 10 Junipers, pines, spruces, firs, and cypresses are resinous or oily and therefore highly flammable. 4 Fire Hazard Trees – Description
It is important to note that, given certain extreme fire conditions, all trees can burn during a wildfire, regardless if they are classified as fire resistive.

Whether a tree species will ignite, sustain the ignition, and spread is determined by characteristics that make them more flammable than others.

Flammability can be defined as a combination of ignitability, combustibility, and sustainability, where ignitability is the ease of or the delay of ignition, combustibility is the rapidity with which a fire burns, and sustainability is a measure of how well a fire will continue to burn with or without an external heat source (White and Zipperer 2010) 7,8. Flammability is influenced by several factors, which can be classified into two groups: physical structure (e.g., branch size, leaf size, leaf shape, surface-to-volume ratio, and/or retention of dead material) and physiological elements (e.g., volatile oils, resins, and/or moisture content) (Moritz and Svihra 1998; UCCE 2016; UCFPL 1997; White and Zipperer 2010). Trees that are less flammable have low surface-to-volume ratios, higher stored moisture contents, and minimal dead material or debris9, while those that are more flammable have high surface-to-volume ratios, exhibit low moisture contents, contain volatile oils, and have high levels of dead material or debris (Moritz and Svihra 1998; UCFPL 1997; UCCE 2016; White and Zipperer 2010). Tree condition and maintenance is also an important factor in flammability. Some tree species that have more flammable characteristics can become less flammable if well maintained and irrigated, but can also be explosively flammable when poorly maintained, or situated on southfacing slopes (high sun and heat exposure), in windy areas, or in poor soils (Moritz and Svihra 1998). In general, most trees north of Sunset Blvd. in the City are regularly irrigated or maintained for the purposes of promoting overall plant health.

Research into plant flammability has resulted in the development of plant lists in many California fire jurisdictions intended to promote the planting and retention of less flammable plants in defensible space zones, the WUI, or areas where vegetation management aims to reduce fire hazard (UCCE 2016; UCFPL 1997; Nader et al. 2007, Moritz and Svihra 1998). Plant lists typically identify recommended lower flammability (or firewise) trees that are acceptable in fire hazard areas, or, conversely, highly flammable trees that are not recommended for retention or planting. Although these lists can be useful for tree selection in the urban forest, it should be noted that there are no fireproof tree species, especially if not provided proper care and maintenance.

4.1 Higher Flammability Trees
Some tree species are more flammable than others and may propagate the spread of a wildfire. In relation to this study of urban trees, the tree type, such as cedar, cypress, eucalyptus, juniper, palm, and pine, were identified as more susceptible to burning, due to rough or peeling bark, production of large amounts of litter, vegetation that contains oils, resin, wax, or pitch, or tree canopies that inherently include a high dead to live fuel ratio (e.g., large amounts of dead material in the tree canopy)10. These trees are widely considered by fire agencies as undesirable and deemed less resistant to ignition.

A recommended list of trees that are prohibited for new planting north of Sunset Boulevard is provided in Attachment B.
22 APPENDIX P – BEVERLY HILLS WILDFIRE ASSESSMENT: FIRE HAZARD TREES – DESCRIPTION These tree types, where they already exist along roadways or on a private property, may be retainable, but that would be subject to it meeting best management practices for
maintenance (pruning, thinning, irrigation, litter removal and ground plant maintenance), setbacks from structures, and spacing from other trees. The goal is to minimize the likelihood of individual trees resulting in direct heat and flame on a structure by setting back distances where these trees occur and breaking any fuel chains that may facilitate fire toward a structure. The above list of tree types is intended as a guide only for trees found in the City’s urban forest north of Sunset Boulevard and does not incorporate all flammable tree species outside of the VHFHSZ. The following are characteristics for each identified genus of tree which makes them less desirable and deemed less resistant to wildfire within 100 feet of a structure or along primary emergency vehicle or evacuation routes.

4.1.1 Conifers
Conifers are evergreen tree species that have needles instead of leaves. Typical examples of conifer genera that are located north of Sunset Boulevard in the City are pine, juniper, cedar, and cypress. Conifers have characteristics that may make them highly flammable, such as the production
of needle or leaf litter and peeling bark, or the presence of volatile oils and resins.
• Cedars – Of the two species of the genus Cedrus north of Sunset Boulevard, Deodar cedar (Cedrus deodora) is predominant (Figure 8). It is a large evergreen coniferous tree developing a pyramidal form reaching 80 feet and higher.

The leaves are needle-like and contain a highly flammable resin. Cedars typically have a conic crown with level branches and drooping branchlets which could encourage maximum updraft during a surface fire. • Cypress – Per the City’s tree inventory, the Italian cypress (Cupressus sempervirens) is the most common cypress tree north of Sunset Boulevard. (Figure 9) Italian cypress is a tall, upright tree, reaching 40 to 60 feet high and is trimmed or grown into many forms, ranging
from broad and open, to narrow and columnar. Italian
cypress has been widely used in ornamental landscapes
as screens, hedges, and individual plantings with their full canopy extending to the ground. The tight, columnar growth form of the tree allows for retention of dead material in the canopy, which is more likely to ignite. As such, Italian cypress are known to become tall torches
during wildfires.
• Juniper – Commonly thought of as a propagator of wildfire, juniper is a landscape large shrub or tree in Beverly Hill. Several juniper varieties, including the Hollywood Juniper (Juiperus chinensis ‘Torulosa’) (Figure 10) that is found in the VHFHSZ area, contain highly flammable resins in the scale-like foliage. As they age, junipers can accumulate dead leaves and branches within the tree crown, which makes them more prone to easily ignite.

Junipers were not present at high densities in the VHFHSZ, but do occur sporadically. They are not considered to be a significant issue, but should not be included in landscapes as new plantings.

Figure 8. Typical Deodar cedar.

Figure 9. Typical Italian Cypress at
Greystone Mansion
Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 23 APPENDIX P – BEVERLY HILLS WILDFIRE ASSESSMENT: FIRE HAZARD TREES – DESCRIPTION • Pines – The majority of the genus Pinus north of Sunset Boulevard consist of Aleppo pine (Pinus halepensis) and Canary Island pine (Pinus canariensis) (Figure 11). Most pines are highly flammable; the fine, pine needles produce a volatile organic compound (VOC) or flammable gasses (Gabbert 2014) that could be released and ignited. Additional features that promote ignition are heavy litter fall, flammable oils in the foliage, and retention of dead needles that promote ignition in the canopy (USFS 2013). Pine trees are common throughout the VHFHSZ, on both private and public property. Pine trees are considered among the top priorities for reducing fire hazards, particularly on private properties, but also on public properties including evacuation corridors.

4.1.2 Palms
Following the 2007 wildfires in San Diego County, it was observed during County damage assessment surveys that certain species of palms increased the fire hazard due to tree-form and lack of maintenance. It was discovered that species of palms that have fibrous tissue or leaf stem bases along the trunk can quickly ignite and consume the rest of the palm tree (Figure 12).

Additionally, dried palm fronds that persist on the trunk, will form a “skirt” or petticoat of brown thatch. Such leaf-base skirts can present a high fire hazard. Once ignited, the dried palm fronds can also detach from the trunk and be carried by a strong wind for great distances igniting anything combustible. Palm trees result in significant ember production that can ignite additional fires downwind. Palms occur throughout the VHFHSZ and after pines, are considered the highest priority in terms of higher flammability tree types. The City’s tree master inventory identifies 1,121 palms north of Sunset Boulevard in the City of which eight genera are known to be fire-prone.

Some examples of genera with fibrous tissue are Chamaerops spp., Phoenix spp., Trachycarpus spp., and Trithrinax spp.

Washingtoina spp. is an example of a genus that has leaf bases and can form a persistent petticoat around the trunk.

4.1.3 Eucalyputs
Per the City’s tree inventory, there are two genera of eucalyptus (Corymbia spp. and Eucalyptus spp.) north of Sunset Boulevard. Privately owned eucalyptus trees occur throughout the VHFHSZ in small groupings and are considered Figure 10. Typical Hollywood Juniper.

Figure 11. Typical Canary Island Pines
Figure 12. Palm head burning from ember
caused fire, resulting in significant
ember production.
24 APPENDIX P – BEVERLY HILLS WILDFIRE ASSESSMENT: FIRE HAZARD TREES – DESCRIPTION moderately high priorities. Eucalyptus stands and individual trees north of Sunset Blvd. are
predominantly blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus) (Figure 13) and desert gum (Eucalyptus
rudis). Eucalyptus trees tend to
promote fire, because they produce a volatile (Gabbert 2014), highly combustible oil, and
VOC or flammable gasses may
be released from trees at very
high temperatures, further increasing the fire hazard (Gross 2013). Fire promotion also occurs with the production of large amounts of litter, which is high in phenolics, preventing its breakdown by fungi (Reed and Potts 2005). This allows the accumulation of large amounts of dry, combustible fuel.

The leaves of blue gum trees may be moderately resistant to combustion under some circumstances (Dickinson and Kirkpatrick 1985). However, these trees are still considered highly flammable as the bark catches fire readily and deciduous bark streamers tend to carry fire into the canopy, which tends to produce embers that can be carried by strong winds. These flying embers are carried downwind and result in the development of spot fires that have ignited in receptive fuel beds in advance of the fire’s leading edge (Ashton 1981; USFS 2015). Peeling bark is typical of many other eucalyptus species and contributes to ground-based fuels (litter) when it falls. Peeling bark is also retained for a period of time on tree trunks, where it can facilitate ground to canopy fire transition (e.g., ladder fuel). Eucalyptus litter has a moderate surface area to volume ratio, requiring moderate heat to remove fuel moisture and raise fuel to ignition temperature. Eucalyptus litter is subject to seasonal drying in the late summer and fall, but solar shading and windbreaks provided by the eucalyptus canopy can sustain high fuel moisture contents.

4.2 Fire Related Tree Hazards North of Sunset Boulevard Figures 14A and 14B display the combination of public and private fireprone tree types throughout the VHFSHZ area north of Sunset Boulevard.

As previously mentioned, the public trees are primarily linear based along roadways in contrast, tree densities for fire-prone trees on private properties vary greatly from property to property with the majority of privately owned, higher flammability trees located in the south-southwest portion of the VHFHSZ. The exception would be the occurrences as far north as the extreme northern end of Trousdale Estates.

4.2.1 City-Managed Trees in VHFHSZ
The City is responsible for the proper care and maintenance of approximately 24,000 trees under their master tree care program. Approximately, 32% (7,619 trees) of the City’s total tree inventory are located along the streets and on City owned properties north of Sunset Boulevard. Of the total number of trees in the City’s VHFHSZ Area, 45% (3,458 trees) of the tree inventory is categorized as those tree types considered to exhibit higher flammability.11
11 Attachment C: Recommended Street Trees was developed for trees to be planted on public property and include individual species that can be planted in VHFHSZ areas. A separate fire resistive tree list should be developed by BHFD to recommend approved trees that can be planted on private property.

Figure 13. Blue gum eucalyptus fire
hazardous bark.

Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 25 APPENDIX P – BEVERLY HILLS WILDFIRE ASSESSMENT: FIRE HAZARD TREES – DESCRIPTION Public and Private Tree Locations
Date: 10/17/2019
Document Path: Z:\Projects\j1186800\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT_NAME\Fire\Fig 14A-B BeverlyHills Public-Private Trees.mxd 0 300 600150
Feet
SOURCE:BASE MAP- ESRI 2018
Cedar
Cypress
Eucalyptus
Juniper
Palm
Pine
Cedar
Cypress
Eucalptus
Juniper
Palm
Pine
City of Beverly Hills
Neighborhood
City Fire Hazard Tree Locations Private Fire Hazard Tree Locations

SOUTHWEST VIEW
FIGURE 14A
Beverly Hills VHFHSZ Tree Related Fire Hazards
Trousdale
Estates
Greystone
Park
Public and Private Tree Locations
Date: 10/17/2019
Document Path: Z:\Projects\j1186800\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT_NAME\Fire\Fig 14A-B BeverlyHills Public-Private Trees.mxd 0 300 600150
Feet
SOURCE:BASE MAP- ESRI 2018
Cedar
Cypress
Eucalyptus
Juniper
Palm
Pine
Cedar
Cypress
Eucalptus
Juniper
Palm
Pine
City of Beverly Hills
Neighborhood
City Fire Hazard Tree Locations Private Fire Hazard Tree Locations

NORTHEAST VIEW
FIGURE 14B
Beverly Hills VHFHSZ Tree Related Fire Hazards
Figure 14A. Public and Private Tree Locations in Southwest Beverly Hills Figure 14B. Public and Private Tree Locations in Northeast Beverly Hills ·,
•.
..... ..,
i, ...
..
'•
/
.,..... .:;.;
_.,.......,..
..
v •.••
,
.. ·
it;'- .••
!
/
.............
l
=
i
,
, .
,
\
\
........
..... � ' ;
:1
f ,·'
, '-,,!
/
·z • ·-·" ....
<,
( / j
1!
� I
e
i
...
.•··
t
l
,.
s
i
!
1 ;
!
i I
r' :
. .......
'
<
' � ; •,\
J
'\
•.\
\
..... ,-"' \'
...... •··· \
\ ' '\ \ '
'
... ..··· �·,· ·"
...
\,,, ( ;}' • .I'
.........
<•�"'"'" , .•. ·"'
\
'·
... v, '
' '· /
#
\
'
f
'- .. _ ..
•••
. .......... !
/
,
} [ j
··- /
'
...... �"'
,,· .-···
....... \ 1'C"
I I
·� ,;\ .....
- \
� .. _ ....... ./
\ .. \
.l
\ �.... ·· _,,
\ ·-··
'·-·",#
, ,:.
_;
\ -,
\ - -
\
....... ".
., .. ' I I \
' f J '
r DUDEK
-� ,=;/"'
' J
j
,,,
.. , ... • I
I
'<, ,/'"'
,
\ ..
\
, .......
·� ..
\
"�',,
, ,,
, ,
,,
, ,
,
\
l
j
,
'��' �,,-.,,,,,
; ',",,,.
.,• �· 11
' '
-1· \
\
·.
\;
\
... _,,,
- -
••
·. '.
....
\
\
•.. -;
'
. . ,
I
\
,
' \ ..
........ ,.
, ......
'•-.,
-,
;
<,
\
\
,,, .... ,
' - \ " .
·····' .,.�
;
\
'
,
l
!
..
,,
,,
,
' '
,
l\ I \
" \. '
·,
, •.
'
\
\
l
,
,
\ '.
\
\ .... �-b,
j
!
l
\ ( \
'\
,.j
I
f
l
...
·,
·�-,
1,\
\
,.

I I \. �\
' '
!
!
\
\
I
I
', ...
.

I
:
; \
\, '
\ \
·'··
\ v,
\ ,
,, "'
\ ,.
\
I
',.
·�.::: ..
1,
f}
,
.-:'\G/f DUDEK
26 APPENDIX P – BEVERLY HILLS WILDFIRE ASSESSMENT: FIRE HAZARD TREES – DESCRIPTION

4.2.2 Privately Managed Trees in VHFHSZ
Privately owned trees are difficult to estimate in any city because of the overlapping canopies and smaller trees beneath larger trees. Typically, in Dudek’s experience, there are between 5 and 9 times the number of private trees as there are city trees. Assuming a similar ratio for Beverly Hills, it is estimated that citywide, there may be between 120,000 and 216,000 privately owned trees. This equates to approximately 38,400 to 69,120 privately owned trees in the VHFHSZ. Based on Dudek’s previously described fire hazard tree mapping analysis, the presence of these higher flammability trees is estimated to be slightly lower than the City’s 45% level, at approximately 25%. Given this estimate, there may be as many as 9,600 to 17,280 trees in the higher fire hazard category.

4.3 Fire Resistant Trees in VHFHSZ
Fire-resistant is a relative term used to describe trees that are “more resistant” to ignition than other tree species. For example, generally, deciduous trees are less flammable than conifers. Wildfire can damage or even cause tree mortality. Trees considered less-flammable there are less prone to ignite and sustain fire because of their physical characteristics. Following is a list of general plant characteristics that contribute to their fire-resistance:
• High moisture content in leaves (9 e.g., ignite and burn more slowly) • Broadleaf trees are less flammable than those with needle and bladelike leaves • Non-resinous material on the tree10 (i.e., stems, leaves or needles that are not resinous, oily, or waxy)
• Thick tree leaves are less flammable than fine or thin leaves • Trees with sap that looks more like water are less flammable than trees with thick, gummy, or resinous sap
• Trees with open branching habits or fewer total branches with leaves (i.e., provide less fuel for fires) • Trees with little or no seasonal accumulation of dead plant material • Trees that produce a low amount of litter are less flammable than those that produce large quantities of litter

4.4 Selecting Appropriate Trees
Tree selection for public and private properties In the City’s VHFHSZ areas should be carefully considered. Sound fire preparation includes the proper selection of fire-resistant tree species in the landscape, suitable locations away from protected assets, and a plan for maintaining the trees throughout their lifespan. Fire resistant trees like drought-tolerant plants, should be able to withstand low water (drought) and high temperature conditions while still maintaining their overall health, aesthetic and functional qualities. When selecting trees for a landscape, the following guidelines are recommended:
• Select fire resistive tree species from a preferred tree list, such as the sample provided in Appendix D, of the Beverly Hills UFMP11 for street tree replacements. • Group trees according to their irrigation needs
• Consider proper setbacks from structures, roadways, and other trees • Provide regular tree care, especially to ensure fire resistance (see section 5.0 for arboriculture care guidelines)

4.4.1 Hillsides
The risks of fire and erosion, along with the costs of installation and maintenance, rise for every degree of a hill’s incline (Kent 2005). The best trees for hillsides produce minimal fuel, grow shorter in height, and are easier to maintain on steeper, erodible slopes. As such, these tree species survive and Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 27 APPENDIX P – BEVERLY HILLS WILDFIRE ASSESSMENT: FIRE HAZARD TREES – DESCRIPTION thrive under the site’s natural conditions, including soil type and depth, sun exposure, and water availability. Likewise, these trees will not result in current or future obstruction of neighbor’s views

4.4.2 Fuel Modification Zones
Providing a fuel modification zone reduces the non-ember related risk of wildfire caused structural damage in the VHFHSZ areas. Fuel modification zones, within 200 feet and up to 250 feet on slopes greater than 25 percent (B.H.M.C. Chapter 4903), is the area between a structure and natural vegetation where drought-tolerant, fireresistant plants are planted and maintained in a way that decreases the wildfire-threat. In addition to protecting structures, fuel modification should occur within 10 feet of the outer edge of usable road surfaces. Fuel modification reduces radiant and convective heat, which reduces the amount of heat exposure on the roadway or structure and provides an area for wildland fire suppression operations to safely occur.

It is recommended that fire resistive/lower flammability tree species be planted in fuel modification areas. Fire resistive trees are acceptable in fuel modification zones as long as they are properly spaced horizontally and are not subject to ladder fuels12.

If a wildfire occurs, horizontal and vertical separation between plants and trees minimizes the spread of fire between the vegetation and structures. Additionally, it reduces the potential hazard associated with roadside vegetation that when fully involved in fire, can result in traffic flow interruption along evacuation routes. 12 Ladder fuels are flammable plant material that can transmit fire burning in low-growing vegetation into a tree crown. Examples of ladder fuels include low-lying tree branches and shrubs, climbing vines, and tree-form shrubs underneath the canopy of a large tree.

Figure 15. Camp Fire home losses amongst standing pine forest. Homes burned due to ember-penetration vs. from pine trees burning and igniting the homes Figure 16. 2003 Cedar Fire in Scripps Ranch, San Diego County, with numerous burned structures while landscape trees remain largely intact. 28 5 Annual Maintenance
Trees in the VHFHSZ (northern portion of Beverly Hills) require maintenance practices that are intended to increase the horizontal spacing between retained trees to reduce the potential for crown fire spread. These practices are also intended to remove fuel ladders by increasing the vertical spacing between surface fuels (shrubs, grasses) and tree crowns to reduce the potential for surface to crown fire transition. Creating more fire resilient trees involves a three-part process: 1) reducing surface fuels, 2) reducing ladder fuels (i.e., fuel that can facilitate fire spread from ground fuels into tree crowns), and 3) reducing tree crown density through crown thinning (USFS 2013). As noted by Nunamaker et al. (2007), surface and ladder fuels should have the highest priority for management to reduce fire intensity, rate of spread, and crown fire potential. Active crown fires are initiated with torching, but are ultimately sustained by the density of the overstory crowns. Reduction in potential surface fire behavior plus an increase in canopy base height minimizes torching potential (Agee and Skinner 2005).

The vegetation management and/or tree maintenance standards presented in this section are intended to reduce fire hazard by rearranging and maintaining the fuels’ spatial distribution. As noted by Reinhardt et al. (2008), all vegetation, including trees, will burn, given the right conditions. Therefore, the goal of fuel treatment is not to remove all of the trees or vegetation, but to minimize the potential for ignitions, crown fires, and extreme fire behavior by reducing fuel loads and altering the retained vegetation’s’ structure, composition, and spacing (horizontal and vertical).

5.1 Tree Arrangement
Fire spreads both horizontally (from shrub to shrub or treetop to treetop) and vertically (from understory vegetation to tree). Greater fire hazard exists where the spacing between trees and between shrubs and lower branches are close enough for fire to preheat vegetation and ignite across the gap, either horizontally or vertically.

If a fire transitions into tree canopy, it will quickly spread from one tree to closely adjacent trees. The primary goal of fuel arrangement is to breakup the continuity of the fuelbed through proper tree spacing. To accomplish this, the following recommendations are provided:

1. For slopes that are less than 20 percent, trim or space trees so that there is 10 feet of space between the tips of their limbs. Trees should be limited to groupings of 2-3 trees with each grouping separated horizontally as described herein.

2. Increase the space to 20 feet for slopes that are 20 to 40 percent.

3. For steep slopes over 40 percent, 30 feet of spacing is needed13.

When planting individual or small groupings of trees, allow for future growth by spacing them 20 to 30 feet apart. The key is keeping the fire on the ground and preventing it from spreading into a tree canopy. To reduce the firespreading potential of trees taller than 18 feet, it is recommended to prune the lower limbs up to a height of 6 feet. If the tree is shorter than 18 feet, all branches and foliage should be removed from the lowest 1/3 of the tree. In addition, other ladder fuels, such as shrubs, should be removed around the base of the trees.
13 Adapted from Simmerman, D.G., and W.C. Fischer. 1990. Wildland home fire risk meter. USDA Forest Service INT-PMS 703. Missoula Fire Sciences Lab: Rocky Mountains Research Station.

Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 29 APPENDIX P – BEVERLY HILLS WILDFIRE ASSESSMENT: ANNUAL MAINTENANCE

5.2 Pruning Practices
Lack of attention to tree crowns can result in trees accumulating dead twigs, leaves, and branches, whether or not they are characterized as “fire resistant.” This buildup of dead fuels in the canopy can easily result in trees that are very flammable. In general, keep trees cleaned of dead limbs and branches adjacent to or overhanging any building or structure. Prune branches to remove flammable vegetation within 10 feet from a chimney outlet. It is recommended that an International Society of Arboriculture-Certified Arborist conduct all pruning according to American National Standards Institute A300 standards (ANSI 2017).

Special Pruning Standards for Palms- If not properly pruned, certain genera of palms, such as Mexican fan palms (Washingtonia robusta) can hold on to their large collars of dried and highly flammable fronds. For established palms in the landscape, maintaining them by removing dead material and skinning their trunks minimizes ignition potential. Removing or reducing flammable vegetation adjacent to or growing along any palm eliminates an ignition source. Watch for signs of disease or stress to ensure that the palm is healthy.

5.3 Tree Removal & Replacement Recommendations

5.3.1 Tree Removals
All trees have a lifespan within the landscape they occur and the length of that lifespan depends, at least partially, on the care and maintenance it receives. When a tree’s related costs (maintenance, watering, pruning, or hazard level) outweigh its benefits (aesthetics, energy conservation, air quality, etc.) then it is time to consider tree removal. Dead, declining and diseased or insect infested public or private trees should be removed from the urban forest well before they represent a hazard. However, tree removals should be justified based on a condition assessment, a cost-benefit analysis, a hazard evaluation, or by other fact-based methods that justify removal as being the best approach. Removing large trees results in a loss of valuable benefits/services that are not easily or quickly replaced.

Figure 17. Carla Ridge Aleppo pine trees with poor structure and small size, not considered highly valuable trees.

Figure 18. View of topped pine trees along Carla Ridge. Note leaning trees, misformed crowns, and because of the slopes, inability to raise crowns well above and away from adjacent homes. 30 APPENDIX P – BEVERLY HILLS WILDFIRE ASSESSMENT: ANNUAL MAINTENANCE

5.3.1.1 Evacuation Corridor Tree Management Recommendations As previously discussed, residents have expressed concern for potential fire hazards along important evacuation corridors within the VHFHSZ.

Residents have focused attention on the publicly owned trees that line roadways including Coldwater Canyon, Carla Ridge, and Benedict Canyon, amongst other lesser connecting roadways. For Coldwater Canyon and Carla Ridge, specifically, publicly managed trees are predominantly Canary Island and Aleppo pines, which, as previously described, is a type that is considered to be potentially more likely to ignite from wildfire and/ or embers. However, fuel receptivity to embers is a key for determining the likelihood of ignitions, and in this case, potential for compromising the ability to evacuate residents along the evacuation routes, including Coldwater Canyon Drive. Fuel receptivity in trees increases when there is a high proportion of dead plant material in the crown or in branch crotches, dry, light and airy foliage, shaggy or peeling bark, very fine leaves, low moisture levels in foliage, high levels of internal gums, terpenes, oils, or resins available to embers and/or accumulated dead, dry material beneath the trees. Based on Dudek’s observations and analysis, the publicly owned trees along the evacuation routes vary in their overall condition. The trees exhibit some of the characteristics that could elevate their potential flammability. For instance, the trees are pine trees, which include fine needle foliage and include internal oils and resins. However, the trees are maintained at a very high level, which minimizes available fuels for embers.

The trees’ crowns are also raised approximately 20 feet above the ground and they are situated in irrigated landscapes, resulting in a high internal moisture level within the foliage twigs, and branches. Further, Beverly Hills’ VHFHSZ is within a highly developed/disturbed condition that does not include large expanses of unmaintained wildland fuels. Wildfire spreads most easily through uninterrupted fuels, such as late dry season chaparral covered slopes. This condition is limited within Beverly Hills and irrigated, high moisture level landscapes dominate the VHFHSZ.

Wildfire can spread from areas north, toward the City, driven by Santa Ana winds and available fuels, but would behave with reduced spread rates once they encroached into Beverly Hills due to the conversion of unmaintained fuels to urban landscapes. The highest risk would be to the homes that have not been hardened against flying embers and that included receptive vegetative fuels within close proximity to structures. Note that pines, eucalyptus, and other trees considered more flammable do not automatically burn in a wildfire, particularly, when they have been maintained. For example, as illustrated in Figures 15 and 16, numerous wildfire after action reports document structure losses while the surrounding landscape, including pines and eucalypts, remained virtually unscathed.

This is a common occurrence and can be explained because the maintained landscape was resistant to ignition, while the homes were vulnerable to ember penetration.

Dudek’s evaluation of the publicly owned trees along evacuation routes indicates that the Aleppo pine trees along Carla Ridge have been previously topped, presumably related to the Trousdale community’s tree height restriction, and many of them have developed poor structure and/or stressed health conditions (Figures 17 and 18). Conversely, the Canary Island pine trees along Coldwater Canyon, and its secondary routes, are predominantly in good apparent health, while some exhibit structural issues (excessive lean, poor branch attachment angles, trunk deformities). These trees are large, spaced approximately 20 to 30 feet on center, and include 5 to 10 feet of spacing between crowns. Also, based on our evaluation of the evacuation corridor trees, it is recommended that the City continue its high level of tree maintenance currently provided to trees along evacuation routes and consider further reducing the potential fuel receptivity, Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 31 APPENDIX P – BEVERLY HILLS WILDFIRE ASSESSMENT: ANNUAL MAINTENANCE where needed. This can be accomplished by providing additional pruning/ crown raising where trees occur in close proximity to private property vertical vegetation.

Dudek recommends that the City consider a short and long range tree removal program. The pine trees along Coldwater Canyon Drive, along with the other higher flammable species the City manages within the VHFHSZ, should be considered for short-term management actions that increase the maintenance levels, resulting in even more reduced fuel receptivity than currently provided. City pines, palms, cypress, eucalyptus, cedars, and junipers should be provided inspections on at least a twice-annual basis and provided maintenance as-needed, which could increase the maintenance cycle to every year for some trees. Because the trees are along critical evacuation corridors, it is recommended that trees that are noted to include health or structural maladies should be removed and replaced with an appropriate species.

This short and long term effort is recommended because it enables short term removal of trees considered the most likely to cause issues based on their exhibited maladies, removal of trees on Coldwater Canyon due to pipeline replacement and hardscape issues, and preservation of trees for an extended time period while the highest priority trees are being phased out and replaced with appropriate trees species that consider diversity goals, climate adaptability, fire and pest resistivity, and return on investment, amongst others.

The Coldwater Canyon Drive pine trees, for example, are large trees that may have very long lifespans. Therefore, it is recommended that an active tree replacement plan be contemplated. It is advisable to phase tree removals over a longer timeframe so that the change is less impactful visually, but also from a tree benefit perspective. It is Dudek’s understanding that planned trenching for water main replacement, paving, and/or curb/gutter work will require the removal of a to-be-determined percentage of the roadside pines along Coldwater Canyon Drive, Loma Vista and San Ysidro. Additionally, some of the trees are causing hardscape damage to curb and gutter and even the paved road surface, and these trees are planned for removal. The combined removals associated with these efforts will result in tree removals and the exact number of trees would be determined during pre-construction tree safety evaluations to determine structural impacts from said work. This effort can be part of the overall tree removal and replacement program and should be followed by replanting with trees from the approved species list for the VHFHSZ. Where possible, the remaining pine trees along Coldwater Canyon Drive and similarly tree-lined streets can be replaced over a 15 or 20 year timeframe, as desired by the City. By the time the last pines were being removed, there would be reduced potential tree and tree part failure hazard, reduced aesthetic impacts and significant replacement tree growth, minimizing visual impacts related to removal of large stature trees.

Conclusions
As previously mentioned, the City-owned Canary Island pine trees are in good health, but there are numerous Canary Island and Aleppo pine trees with structural maladies, some minor, others more significant, with those on Carla Ridge exhibiting the highest level of stress and decline. It is Dudek’s opinion that the City trees do not represent a significant fire risk in their current conditions. The biggest identified risk is associated with tree or tree part failure which could conflict with an evacuation effort by blocking key roadways. For example, large wildfires that often result in evacuations occur during Red Flag Warning weather conditions. A key component of a Red Flag Warning is high wind, which is also an important factor for vulnerable tree or tree part failures. Wind creates a load on trees and branches. High winds can create a load, like a sailboat’s sail, within the trees’ crowns, placing high stress levels on the supporting structural tree components. Large branches and whole trees can topple under these conditions and if it were 32 APPENDIX P – BEVERLY HILLS WILDFIRE ASSESSMENT: ANNUAL MAINTENANCE to occur during an evacuation event, could result in interruptions and the nability to move large numbers of people to the south, out of the City’s VHFHSZ. Dudek’s analysis indicates that the risk of a City-managed tree or tree part large enough to impact evacuation along Coldwater Creek Drive, Carla Ridge, and their intersecting feeder routes is considered a higher risk than the risk of these highly maintained trees impacting an evacuation because they are facilitating fire spread. As mentioned, fire spread in the City’s populated VHFHSZ areas will be spotty, will include homes that are unprotected from embers, and will include landscapes that have not been maintained at high levels. The City-managed trees are not considered to be high on the list of fire hazards.

Very High Fire Hazard Severity Area Evacuation Route Recommendations:
• Trees with deformities/maladies of any type to be removed (lean, poor branch attachments, stressed health condition, or others). • Tree crowns are recommended to be lifted even higher than their current approximately 20 feet above ground where necessary, to create separation from adjacent private trees and landscaping.
• Increase maintenance levels and provide crown thinning to further reduce wind sail. • Elevate tree monitoring levels to occur more frequently (at least twice per year and after major storm events) for structural issues. • Aggressive inspection program during higher extreme fire periods of May through November to occur weekly.
• City emergency management program is recommended to prepare an internal evacuation plan with documented PACE (primary, alternative, contingency, and emergency) plans should evacuation corridors be impacted by a fallen tree or tree part, vehicle accident, or other unforeseen event. • In house crews with back up reliable tree contractor should be on-call and ready during wind events and during elevated fire risk periods so that fast downed tree removal response is possible.

Coldwater Canyon Drive, Loma Vista Drive and San Ysidro Drive Specific Recommendations • Tree removal specifically for fire hazard reduction is not considered necessary • Tree removal is planned to occur based on tree-caused hardscape issues (curb and gutter, pavement, sidewalk).
• Tree removal is planned to occur based on water main installation, paving and curb-gutter repairs, whichwill be determined during pre-construction tree safety evaluations.
• Monitor preserved trees following tree removals as they may be more susceptible to failure, due to new exposure to wind loads. • Do not replace removed trees with any of the trees on the higher flammability tree type list.

Carla Ridge Specific Recommendations
• Remove all topped Aleppo pine trees with a condition rating of less than good and exhibiting decline.
• Remove all trees with any structural issues including excessive lean, poor branch attachments, deformities, etc.
• Remove all trees causing hardscape damage to curb and gutter, street pavement, sidewalk, or other
• Tree replacements should be from the acceptable tree list for the Trousdale Community to respect both fire ignition resistance and tree height restrictions.

Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 33 APPENDIX P – BEVERLY HILLS WILDFIRE ASSESSMENT: ANNUAL MAINTENANCE Benedict Canyon Drive and San Ysidro Drive Specific Recommendations • Prune tree crown’s hanging over roadways back to provide clear to the sky access (trees hanging over these streets have wide crowns that create potential issues due to extreme branch end weights). • Consider removal of trees overhanging the road travelways. The tree crowns hanging over the road travel way and represent a potential issue during evacuation and may not be able to be corrected through pruning.

5.3.1.2 Private Property VHFHSZ Tree Treatment Recommendations As previously discussed, the occurrence of higher flammability tree types within the VHFHSZ and the potentialhazard that they represent is based on:

1. The location on the private property in relation to the residence or other structures and to the neighboring
property’s residence or other structures.

2. The level of maintenance the trees are receiving.

3. The number and configuration of higher flammability trees and the overall density on the property.

Depending on these factors, the fire risk associated with a particular tree or tree group may be very high or within
an acceptable level. The overall approach to managing the higher flammable tree types on private property is
recommended to include a layered approach. This approach would include:

1. Enforce fuel modification zone/defensible space policies that progressively restrict the occurrence of higher flammability tree types in the area within 100 feet of structures.

2. Require higher flammability tree types that are outside of the 30’ structure protection area to be maintained in a condition that reduces ember receptivity. This would include keeping the trees hydrated, crowns thinned and raised above adjacent vegetation, and kept in a healthy condition.

3. Where groupings of higher flammability tree types occur, it is recommended that the distance from structures is increased to at least 50 feet and that the grouping of trees is separated from nearby vegetation by similar distances. All trees in the group to be maintained at high levels.

4. There should be no uninterrupted tree fuel chains from these species to the structure(s). Where necessary, trees and other vegetation should be removed to provide breaks (minimum 10 feet) between tree crowns and/or large shrubs.

5. New homes and remodels with landscape updates are recommended to be reviewed such that they meet the City’s fuel modification requirements and do not include higher flammability tree types. A physical site inspection should occur upon completion of landscape construction.

6. If a property includes a higher flammability tree type that is within a neighboring property’s structure’s 30 or 50 feet structure protection zone, the property owner where the tree occurs is responsible for providing the required clearance.

7. The City may need to provide training, hire expertise, or contract with a qualified consultant to perform these landscape reviews and inspections and to routinely inspect the VHFHSZ areas for use of undesirable/prohibited tree types.

5.3.1.3 Greystone Mansion Tree Recommendations
It is recommended that tree groupings on the west, northwest and east sides of the structure are thinned and greater setback provided between them and the structure. It is also recommended that the City’s fuelmodification requirements be implemented throughout the site and consider off-site 34 APPENDIX P – BEVERLY HILLS WILDFIRE ASSESSMENT: ANNUAL MAINTENANCE properties’ clearance in addition to on-site. Once tree setbacks are provided from the structure, the immediate threat from direct flame and heat would be substantially mitigated. The Italian cypress that occur on site are set back far enough from the structure, are within an ignition resistant landscape, receive irrigation and maintenance, and do not represent a significant fire threat to the structure or off-site structures. However, because they are of a tree type that is not recommended for the VHFHSZ within which they occur, it is recommended that as the trees are lost to age, disease, or other factors, their replacement with a similar appearing tree that is not considered highly flammable be considered.

5.3.1.4 Trousdale Estates Tree Recommendations
It is recommended for properties in Trousdale Estates that the City’s fuel modification requirements are applied and enforced. Because many of the structures on the lots are less than 60 feet apart, the entire sideyards should be considered the structure protection zone. Trees in the first 30 feet may be allowed if they are not of higher
flammability types, are highly maintained, and are provided at least 10 feet of vertical and horizontal separation from the structures. If there is not room on the lot for a tree to be adequately set back from the structure(s), then a smaller stature planting would be appropriate. This would also be consistent with Trousdale Estates view preservation requirements, which limit trees to those that do not exceed 15 feet height at maturity.

5.3.2 Tree Replacement
Replacement or newly planted trees should be selected from the recommended tree list for VHFHSZ areas (Beverly Hills UFMP Appendix D ).

5.4 Watering
Deep watering tree roots is one of the best ways to keep trees hydrated during dry periods and prolonged drought. Deep watering slowly percolates water 12 or more inches into the ground on a longer rotation (i.e., deep watering every 2 to 3 weeks during the summer and less or none during the rainy season), instead of daily short irrigation periods where the applied water doesn’t soak below the upper soil layer. This type of frequent and short timeframe watering results in trees producing shallow root systems. During dry periods and drought, trees with shallow roots struggle to intake enough water from the top of the soil, which dries out first (Davey Research 2016). Deep watering stimulates trees to produce broad and deep root systems, resulting in trees that are better able to survive drought and are more solidly anchored and able to withstand significant winds. This technique also uses less water, which provides greater security that the tree can survive through extended drought conditions where water restrictions might be in place.

Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 35 6 Specific UFMP Fire Hazard Tree Goals, Objectives and Action Items

6.1 Goal: Reduce Tree Related Fire Hazard Potential in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
The primary goal is to, over time, reduce the public and private tree contribution to wildfire hazard in the VHFHSZ. The City has the ability to manage its trees so they are in a lower risk category through maintenance and species selection. Existing City trees, particularly those along road rights of way, including primary evacuation routes, are high priorities. Higher flammability trees on private property cannot be managed by the City, but property owners have the responsibility to conform to City fire protection requirements, which includes avoiding identified tree types and providing ongoing maintenance to minimize ignition, sustained fire and fire spread.

6.1.1 Objective 1. Reduce the City Managed Trees’ Potential Fire Hazard in the VHFHSZ
Action Item 1. Continue public Fire Hazard Tree management to include raised crowns, thinned brancharchitecture, minimal leaf litter accumulation, and crown separation from neighboring trees.

Action Item 2. Evaluate the ability to provide additional crown raising where adjacent private vegetationprovides ladder fuels into City trees. Conversely, where further crown raising is not possible (i.e., would leave too low of a live crown ratio), then evaluate the efficacy of working with the private land owner to reduce the height and/or remove fire hazard trees directly adjacent to the City trees, specifically along evacuation corridors (e.g., Coldwater Canyon Drive, Benedict Drive, etc.)
Action Item 3. Remove City trees along Carla Ridge that are stressed, declining, exhibit poor branch architecture or other maladies. Many of the trees will require removal under this approach, which is the result of previous tree topping and the harmful effects this practice has on trees for the remainder of their lifespan. Trees that are not removed are recommended for annual maintenance, including canopy thinning to reduce wind-sail effect, canopy heights at least 17 feet above the road, and removal of understory plants that could cause a fire ladder affect. Any tree planting provided following tree removals will be from the acceptable tree species list for the Trousdale Community.

Action Item 4. Provide details for the planned water pipeline project along Coldwater Canyon Drive and the hardscape damage that will result in tree removals so that the effects on the overall tree canopy can beevaluated. Tree removals will result in additional gaps between trees, resulting in positive fuel continuity interruption. Tree removals may also predispose retained trees to new stresses from wind exposure that can increase the likelihood of tree failure. This situation would need to be evaluated and additional tree removals provided, as needed. Tree replacements should be from the acceptable tree species list for VHFHSZ areas.

Action Item 5. It is not considered critical for the City trees along evacuation corridors to be removed for fire purposes, but the potential for a downed tree or tree part could interrupt an evacuation effort. Therefore, increased monitoring is recommended of retained trees so that they are inspected at least twice per year and after significant storm events. City trees that exhibit structural or health maladies are recommended for removal.

Poor branch architecture that cannot be corrected through traditional arboricultural methods should be removed to avoid large branch failures that could interrupt an evacuation. Trees that are leaning, stressed, declining, or otherwise inferior are recommended for removal as a proactive evacuation safety approach.
36 APPENDIX P – BEVERLY HILLS WILDFIRE ASSESSMENT: SPECIFIC UFMP FIRE HAZARD TREE GOAL, OBJECTIVES AND ACTION ITEMS Action Item 6. It is recommended that the City develop a short term tree management plan that increases tree maintenance and inspections while the longer term management focus would be removing and replacing the trees not removed by pipeline and hardscape damage over a 15 or 20 year timeframe and in a manner that resulted in the least urban forest lost benefit and visual impact. This removal and replacement method is described in Section 5.3.1.1 and illustrated in Figure 19.

Action Item 7. The City must monitor the public and private WUI and WUIM areas to help achieve the goals of reducing potential landscape fire threat. Specialists who understand fire behavior and vegetative fuels should be involved in landscape plan/fuel modification plan reviews. This will help ensure that new landscapes do not include higher flammability tree species.

Site inspections should occur throughout the private areas identified in Figure 6b such that recommended tree setbacks from structure requirements are achieved and that over time, as trees are lost due to health, age, hazard Consider preparation of a City Landscape Manual which would provide details for City landscapes with a section focusing on the VHFHSZ and specific related to developing fire adaptive/hardened land scapes.

6.1.2 Objective 2. Reduce Private Property Fire Hazard Trees’ Potential Fire Hazard in the VHFHSZ
Action Item 1. Assess BHFD Landscape Review Process for MWELO and New Construction Trigger points. The City is advised to evaluate their internal policies regarding when a landscape review is triggered.

During that review, a site inspection and plan check is recommended and the property would need to come into compliance with VHFHSZ fuel modification requirements. The BHFD should be integrated into this review process as the lead for plan checks and/or field inspections Action Item 2. BHFD staff currently have minimal tree and plant identification background and would need training to be able to perform review functions. Alternatively, a BHFD urban forester, City forester, or third party could perform the reviews and plan checks for conformance with the City’s new fuel modification standard concerning approved or undesirable tree species. Similarly, the City requires staff training or additional staff for public and private property tree inspections. It is recommended that the City consider adding a Public Works inspector for fire hazard work/tree protection issues OR retain a 3rd party ISA Arborist/urban forester with wildfire experience or use City forester to evaluate diseased or dying trees on private property for potential removal or trimming. BHFD does not currently employ trained staff in tree care (arboriculture) and species identification.

Action Item 3. Evaluate the following City policy updates regarding private trees:
• Update or create a new local ordinance and/or polices to restrict planting of certain species in VHFHSZ or high fire threat areas. • The Municipal Code Chapter 4902 should be updated to address private property landscaping within VHFHSZs.
• The BHFD is preparing a Fuel Modification Standard which will significantly address the private property landscape issues. This should include landscape plan review by a fire expert along with site verification after install. Ongoing inspections should also occur to avoid fire hardened landscapes reverting to fire-vulnerable landscapes over time.

Action Item 4. Provide educational outreach to homeowners and landscape and tree contractors regarding the importance of properly maintain trees.

The priority for VHFHSZ homeowners trees is recommended to include:
• Maintain trees on your property – trees that are more ignitable must be highly maintained at all times to avoid accumulations of leaf litter, twigs, and dead components. Trees that are not considered higher fire hazard species, must also be maintained at a higher level because of their Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 37 APPENDIX P – BEVERLY HILLS WILDFIRE ASSESSMENT: SPECIFIC UFMP FIRE HAZARD TREE GOAL, OBJECTIVES AND ACTION ITEMS location in a VHFHSZ. Any tree will burn if it is receptive to embers or direct flame.
a. Raise tree crowns to provide separation from understory (see details herein) b. Thin crowns and remove overly “twiggy” growth and leaf litter buildup
c. Trim crowns away from roofs (horizontal and/or vertical separation) d. Trim trees away from overhead electrical distribution lines so that windy weather would not cause vegetation to come in contact e. Keep trees hydrated with high internal leaf moisture f. Avoid overly fertilizing trees as it can lead to stimulated over growth or to stress and decline, raising susceptibility to ignition g. Monitor for pest/disease presence and treat as necessary h. Provide an inspection at least annually, and after wind/rain storms and have maintenance provided as needed to result in low likelihood of ignition.
• Break up continuous fuel chains that lead from wildlands to structures or even from the non-wildland edges of a property to structures. Trees provide a significant wildfire fuel source. When trees are positioned close enough that their crowns overlap or are within several feet, it is easier for fire to become a crown fire, which generates significant ember storms (which make your home vulnerable) and can burn like a wick toward your home. Break up fuel chains by strategically removing trees that would have minimal impact on tree benefits like shade, erosion, and others, while having a large impact on separating tree crowns and breaking the fuel chain. • Evaluate your property (or have it evaluated) and create an overall fuel modification zone plan (FMZP). It is recommended that the FMZP creates zones where less vegetative and other fuels sources occur in the first 30 feet from structures/residences. This zone is critical for minimizing direct flame impingement.

Action Item 5. Enhance City staff through training, hiring, or contracting so that the expertise to review landscape plans (whether for new projects or remodels) and enforce fuel modification requirements is available. This should include the ability to perform ongoing site inspections throughout the VHFHSZ areas on both public and private property trees. Expertise would include tree and plant species identification, fuel hazard identification, basic fire behavior knowledge, and comprehensive fuel hazard mitigation measure knowledge.

Action Item 6. Perform tree removals and thinning at the Greystone Mansion, specifically focusing on tree groupings to the east, west and northwest of the primary structure. Create defensible space by removing fire hazard tree species within 100 feet of the structure. Continue to maintain Italian cypress in healthy, vigorous condition with no ground fuels that could act as ladders into the tree crowns.

Action Item 7. Evaluate the following City policy updates regarding public trees:
• Update local ordinance and polices to restrict planting of certain species in VHFHSZ or high fire threat areas.
• Currently the Municipal Code Chapter 4201 attempt to address some of these issues, but is not specific or restrictive enough • Currently, BHFD is updating this code to address these issues and is developing a new Fuel Modification Standard. This update should include specific planting, spacing, and approved and prohibited tree species.

FIGURE 19
Street Tree Management Program Schematic
Beverly Hills VHFHSZ Tree Related Fire Hazards
Original Tree Profile
Tree Profile After Removal of Every Third Tree
Tree Profile With Removal of Block of Trees
Tree Profile With Entire Tree Replacement
20’ on center
(typical)
Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 39 APPENDIX P – BEVERLY HILLS WILDFIRE ASSESSMENT: REFERENCES 7 References
Agee, J.K., and C.N. Skinner. 2005. “Basic Principles of Forest Fuel Reduction Treatments.” Forest Ecology and
Management 211: 83–96.

ANSI (American National Standards Institute). 2017. ANSI A300 Standards. https://www.tcia.org/TCIA/BUSINESS/ANSI_A300_Standards_/TCIA/BUSINESS/A300_Standards/A300_Standards.aspx? hkey=202ff566-4364-4686-b7c1-2a365af59669.

Ashton, D.H. 1981. “Fire in Tall Open-Forests (Wet Sclerophyll Forests).” In Fire and the Australian Biota, edited by A.M.

Gill, R.H. Groves, and I.R. Noble, 339–366. Canberra City, Australia:

The Australian Academy of Science.

Barkley, Y., C. Schnepf, and J. Cohen. 2005. Protecting and landscaping homes in the wildland/urban interface.

Idaho Forest, Wildlife, and Range Experiment Station Bulletin No.

67. Moscow: University of IdahoExtension. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station Web site, http//www.fs.fed.us/ rm/pubs_other/rmrs_2004_barkeley_y001.pdf.

Bedsworth, Louise, Dan Cayan, Guido Franco, Leah Fisher, Sonya Ziaja. (California Governor’s Office of Planning
and Research, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, California Energy Commission, California Public Utilities Commission). 2018. Statewide Summary Report. California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment.

Publication number: SUMCCCA4-2018-013.

City of Beverly Hills (City). 2018. Beverly Hills Staff Report with attachments, Re: Wildand Fire Assessment of Beverly Hills. Submitted to Honorable Mayor and City Council on December 18, 2018. 55 pp.

City. 2019. Local Hazard Mitigation Action Plan 2017-2022, Section 7: Wildfire. available at http://www.beverlyhills.org/citymanager/ emergencymanagement/hazardmitigationplan/?NFR=1
Davey. 2016. What is Deep Root Watering of a Tree? July 14, 2016. available at http://blog.davey.com/2016/07/what-is-deep-root-watering-of-a-tree/ Gabbert, B. 2014. “Eucalyptus and Fire.” Wildfire Today: Wildlife News and Opinion. March 3, 2014. http://wildfiretoday. com/2014/03/03/eucalyptus-and-fire/
Gross, L. 2013. “Eucalyptus: California Icon, Fire Hazard and Invasive Species.” KQED Science. http://blogs.kqed.org/science/2013/06/12/eucalyptus-california-icon-fire-hazard-and-invasive-species/.

Kent, D. 2005. Firescaping: creating fie-resistant landscapes, gardens, and properties in California’s diverse environments. Wilderness Press. May 2005.149 p.

Kerr, D. 2018. A Wildland Fire Hazard Assessment of Beverly Hills.

October 23, 2018.

Moritz, R. and P. Svihra. 1998. “Pyrophytic vs. Fire Resistant Plants.” University of California Cooperative Extension.

HortScript No. 18 (October 1996). http://www.cityofmillvalley.org/ civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=22865
40 APPENDIX P – BEVERLY HILLS WILDFIRE ASSESSMENT: REFERENCES Nader, G., G. Nakamura, M. De Lasaux, S. Quarles, and Y. Valachovic. 2007. “Home Landscaping for Fire.” Publication 8228. Davis, California: University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources.

Nunamaker, C., M. De Lasaux, and G. Nakamura. 2007. “Wildfire and Fuel Management.” University of California, Agriculture and Natural Resources. Publication 8245: 12.

Reid, JB and Potts, BM, “Eucalypt Biology”, Vegetation of Tasmania, Australian Biological Resources Study, James B. Reid, Robert S. Hill, Michael J. Brown and Mark J. Hovenden (ed), Canberra, pp. 198-223.

ISBN 064644512X (2005)
Reinhardt, E.D., R.E. Keane, D.E. Calkin, and J.D. Cohen. 2008. “Objectives and Considerations for Wildland Fuel Treatment in Forested Ecosystems of the Interior Western United States.” Forest Ecology andManagement 256:1997–2006.

Simmerman, D.G., and W.C. Fischer. 1990. Wildland home fire risk meter. USDA Forest Service INT-PMS 703. Missoula Fire Sciences Lab: Rocky Mountains Research Station.

UCCE (University of California Cooperative Extension). 2016. Research Literature Review of Plant Flammability Testing, Fire-Resistant Plant Lists and Relevance of a Plant Flammability Key for Ornamental Landscape Plants in the Western States. Final Report. January 2016. http://ucanr.edu/sites/SaratogaHort/files/235710.pdf.

UCFPL (University of California Forest Products Laboratory). 1997.

Defensible Space Landscaping in the Urban/Wildland Interface: A Compilation of Fire Performance Ratings of Residential Landscape Plants. Berkeley,California: University of California, Berkeley.

USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 2013. “AMSET Comments Following Review of Issues Related to East Bay Hills Hazardous Fire Risk Reduction Draft EIS.” Prepared by USFS, Adaptive Management Services EnterpriseTeam. September 27, 2013.

USFS. 2015. “Eucalyptus globulus.” Fire Ecology, Index of Species Information. http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/tree/eucglo/ all.html#FIRE ECOLOGY.

USFS. 2019. FARSITE. Rocky Mountain Research Station Fire, Fuels, Smoke Science Program. https://www.firelab.org/project/farsite. Accessed website on September 25, 2019.

White, R.H. and W.C. Zipperer. 2010. “Testing and Classification of Individual Plants for Fire Behaviour: Plant Selection for the Wildland–Urban Interface.” International Journal of Wildland Fire 19:213–227.

Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 41 Attachment A–General Wildfire Glossary of Terms
Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ): The organization, office, or individual responsible for approving equipment, materials, an installation, or a procedure (NFPA, NFPA 1144, 2002, p. 4).

Aspect: Compass direction toward which a slope faces (NFPA, NFPA 1144, 2002, p. 4).

Building: Any structure used or intended for supporting or sheltering any use or occupancy (NFPA, NFPA 1144, 2002, p. 4).

Combustible: Any material that, in the form in which it is used and under the conditions anticipated will ignite and burn or will add appreciable heat to an ambient fire (NFPA, NFPA 1144, 2002, p. 5).

Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP): Address issues such as wildfire response, hazard mitigation, community preparedness, or structure protection. The process of developing a CWPP can help communities clarify and refine their priorities for the protection of life, property, and critical infrastructure in the wildland-urban interface (Source: Preparing a Community Wildfire Protection Plan.

March, 2004).

Condition Class: Describes fire-related risk to ecosystems and relates current expected wildfires to their historic frequency and effects. Condition class ranks are defined as the relative risk of losing key components that define an ecosystem. Higher ranked areas present greater risk to ecosystem health. Condition class is a measure of the expected response of ecosystems to fire given current vegetation type and structure that often is far different from that historically present.

Defensible Space: An area as defined by the AHJ (typically a width of 30 feet or more) between an improved property and a potential wildland fire where combustible materials and vegetation have been removed or modified to reduce the potential for fire on improved property spreading to wildland fuels or to provide a safe working area for fire fighters protecting life and improved property form wildland fire (NFPA, NFPA 1144, 2002, p. 5), or as defined by PRC 4291.

Disaster: Disaster is characterized by the scope of an emergency. An emergency becomes a disaster when it exceeds the capability of the local resources to manage it. Disasters often result in great damage, loss, or destruction (Greene, R.W., Confronting Catastrophe, ESRI Press, 2002, p. 110).

Dry Hydrant: An arrangement of pipe permanently connected to a water source other than a piped, pressurized water supply system that provides a ready means of water supply for fire-fighting purposes and that utilizes the drafting (suction) capability of fire department pumpers (NFPA, NFPA 1144, 2002, p. 5).

Dwelling: One or more living units, each providing complete and independent living facilities for one or more persons, including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation (NFPA, NFPA 1144, 2002, p. 4).

Emergency: A deviation from planned or expected behavior or course of events that endangers or adversely affects people, property, or the environment (Greene, R.W., Confronting Catastrophe, ESRI Press, 2002, p. 110).

Evacuation/Escape Route: A route away from dangerous areas on a fire; should be preplanned (FIREWISE Communities, 2009, http:// www.firewisewiki.org/main/index.php/Escape_Route)
Fire Behavior: The manner in which a fire reacts to the influences of fuel, weather, and topography (FIREWISE Communities, 2009, http:// www.firewisewiki.org/main/index.php/Fire_behavior).
42 Fire Frequency: A broad measure of the rate of fire occurrence in a particular area. For historical analyses, fire frequency is often expressed using the fire return interval calculation. For modern-era analyses, where data on timing and size of fires are recorded, fire frequency is often best expressed using fire rotation (CDF FRAP 2003 Forest and Range Assessment, p. A-12).

Fire Hazard: A fuel complex, defined by volume, type condition, arrangement, and location that determine the degree of ease of ignition and of resistance to control (FIREWISE Communities, 2009, http:// www.firewisewiki.org/main/index.php/Fire_hazard).

Fire Hydrant: A valved connection on a water supply system having one or more outlets and that is used to supply hose and fire department pumpers with water (NFPA, NFPA 1144, 2002, p. 5).

Fire Lane: A means of access or other passageway designated and identified to provide access for emergency apparatus where parking is not allowed (NFPA, NFPA 1141, 1998, p. 4).

Fire Protection: All measures taken to reduce the burden of fire on the quality of life. Fire protection includes measures such as fire prevention, fire suppression, built-in fire protection systems, and planning and building codes (NFPA, NFPA 1141, 1998, p. 4).

Fire Protection System: Any fire alarm device or system or fire extinguishing device or system, or their combination, that is designed and installed for detecting, controlling, or extinguishing a fire or otherwise alerting occupants, or the fire department, or both, that a fire has occurred (NFPA, NFPA 1141, 1998, p. 4).

Fire Threat: The combination of two factors: 1) fire frequency, or the likelihood of a given area burning, and 2) potential fire behavior (hazard).

Components include surface fuels, topography, fire history, and weather conditions (Source: CDF FRAP, http://frap.cdf.ca.gov/frapgisdata/output/ fthrt.txt, CDF FRAP 2003 Forest and Range Assessment, p. A-12, http:// frap.cdf.ca.gov/assessment2003/).

Fire Regime: A measure of the general pattern of fire frequency and severity typical to a particular area or type of landscape: The regime can include other metrics of the fire, including seasonality and typical fire size, as well as a measure of the pattern of variability in characteristics (CDF FRAP 2003 Forest and Range Assessment, p. A-12).

Fire Rotation: An area-based average estimate of fire frequency, calculated as the length of time necessary for an area equal to the total area of interest to burn. Fire rotation is often applied to regionally stratified land groupings where individual fire-return interval across the variability of the strata (i.e., the fine scale pattern of variation in timing of fires) is unknown, but detailed information on fire size is known. Hence, fire rotation is a common estimate of fire frequency during periods of recorded fire sizes (CDF FRAP 2003 Forest and Range Assessment, p. A-12).

Fire Weather: Weather conditions that influence fire starts, fire behavior or fire suppression (FIREWISE Communities, 2009, http://www. firewisewiki.org/main/index.php/Fire_weather).

Firebreak: A natural or constructed barrier used to stop or check fires that may occur, or to provide a control line from which to work (FIREWISE Communities, 2009, http://www.firewisewiki.org/main/index.php/Firebreak).

Fuelbreak: An area, strategically located for fighting anticipated fires, where the native vegetation has been permanently modified or replaced so that fires burning into it can be more easily controlled. Fuel breaks divide fire-prone areas into smaller areas for easier fire control and to provide access for firefighting (FIREWISE Communities, 2009, http://www. firewisewiki.org/main/index.php/Fuelbreak).

APPENDIX P – BEVERLY HILLS WILDFIRE ASSESSMENT: ATTACHMENT A–GENERAL WILDFIRE GLOSSARY OF TERMS Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 43 Fuels: All combustible material within the wildland/urban interface or intermix, including vegetation and structures (FIREWISE Communities, 2009, http://www.firewisewiki.org/main/index.php/Fuels).

Fuel Loading: The volume of fuel in a given area generally expressed in tons per acre (FIREWISE Communities, 2009, http://www.firewisewiki. org/main/index.php/Fuel_loading).

Fuel Models: Description of the types of vegetative combustible material:

Light Fuels: grasses, forbs
Medium Fuels: short light brush and small trees
Heavy Fuels: tall dense brush, timber and hardwoods
Slash Fuels: logs, chunks, bark, branches, stumps, and broken understory trees and brush.

Fuel Modification: Any manipulation or removal of fuels to reduce the likelihood of ignition or the resistance to fire control (FIREWISE Communities, 2009, http://www.firewisewiki.org/main/index.php/Fuel_modification.

GIS: See Geographic Information Systems
Geographic Information Systems: The combination of skilled persons, spatial and descriptive data, analytic methods, and computer software and hardware – all organized to automate, manage, and deliver information though geographic presentation (i.e., maps) (Zeiler, M., Modeling Our World, ESRI Press, 1999, p. 46).

Ground Fuels: All combustible materials such as grass, duff, loose surface litter, tree or shrub roots, rotting wood, leaves, peat or sawdust that typically support combustion (FIREWISE Communities, 2009, http://www. firewisewiki.org/main/index.php/Ground_fuels).

Hazard: Refers generally to physical characteristics that may cause an emergency. Earthquake faults, flood zones, and highly flammable brush fields are all examples of hazards (Greene, R.W., Confronting Catastrophe, ESRI Press, 2002, p. 110). Also see Fire Hazard.

Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA), 2003: Gives incentives for communities to engage in comprehensive forest planning and prioritization. This legislation includes statutory incentives for the US Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to give consideration to the priorities of local communities as they develop and implement forest management and hazardous fuel reduction priorities.

The Act emphasizes the need for federal agencies to work collaboratively with communities in developing hazardous fuel reduction projects, and it places priority on treatment areas identified by communities themselves in a CWPP (Source: Preparing a Community Wildfire Protection Plan.

March, 2004).

Improved Property: A piece of land or real estate upon which a structure has been placed, a marketable crop is growing (including timber), or other property improvement has been made (NFPA, NFPA 1144, 2002, p. 5).

Intermix: An area where improved property and wildland fuels meet with no clearly defined boundary (NFPA, NFPA 1144, 2002, p. 5).

Ladder Fuels: Fuels that provide vertical continuity allowing fire to carry from surface fuels in the crowns of trees or shrubs with relative ease (FIREWISE Communities, 2009, http://www.firewisewiki.org/main/ index.php/Ladder_fuels).

Mitigation: Action that moderates the severity of a fire or risk (NFPA, NFPA 1144, 2002, p. 5).

National Fire Protection Association (NFPA): An international nonprofit organization, established in 1896, to reduce the worldwide burden APPENDIX P – BEVERLY HILLS WILDFIRE ASSESSMENT: ATTACHMENT A–GENERAL WILDFIRE GLOSSARY OF TERMS 44 APPENDIX P – BEVERLY HILLS WILDFIRE ASSESSMENT: ATTACHMENT A–GENERAL WIRLDFIRE GLOSSARY OF TERMS of fire and other hazards on the quality of life by providing and advocating consensus codes and standards, research, training, and education (NFPA, 2009, http://www.nfpa.org/ categoryList.asp?categoryID=143&URL=About%20Us).

NFPA-1144: Standard for protection of life and property from wildfire developed by the NFPA to be used to provide minimum planning, construction, maintenance, education, and management elements for the protection of life, property, and other values that could be threatened by wildland fire. The standard shall be used to provide minimum requirements to parties responsible for fire protection, land use planning, property development, property maintenance, and others responsible for or interested in improving fire and life safety in areas where wildland fire could threaten lives, property, and other values (NFPA, NFPA 1144, 2002, p. 4).

Noncombustible: Any material that, in the form in which it is used and under the conditions anticipated will not ignite and burn nor will add appreciable heat to an ambient fire (NFPA, NFPA 1144, 2002, p. 5).

Overstory: That portion of the trees in a forest that forms the upper or uppermost layer (FIREWISE Communities, 2009, http://www. firewisewiki.org/main/index.php/Overstory).

Risk: The potential or likelihood of an emergency to occur. For example, the risk of damage to a structure from wildfire is high if it is built upon, or adjacent to, a highly flammable brush field or other area deemed to have a high Fire Threat (Greene, R.W., Confronting Catastrophe, ESRI Press, 2002, p. 110).

Safe Zone: An area cleared of flammable materials used for escape in the event the line is outflanked or in case a spot fire causes fuels outside the control line to render the line unsafe. In firing operations, crews progress so as to maintain a safety zone close at hand allowing the fuels inside the control line to be consumed before going ahead.

Safety zones may also be constructed as integral parts of fuelbreaks; they are greatly enlarged areas which can be used with relative safety by firefighters and their equipment in the event of blowup in the vicinity. (National Wildfire Coordinating Group, 2009, http://www.nwcg. gov/pms/pubs/glossary/s.htm).

Slope: The variation of terrain from the horizontal; the number of feet rise or fall per 100 feet measured horizontally, expressed as a percentage (FIREWISE Communities, 2009, http://www.firewisewiki.org/ main/index.php/Slope). Upward or downward incline or slant (NFPA, NFPA 1144, 2002, p. 5).

Turnaround: A portion of a roadway, unobstructed by parking, that allows for a safe reversal of direction for emergency equipment (NFPA, NFPA 1144, 2002, p. 5).

Turnouts: A widening in a travelway of sufficient length and width to allow vehicles to pass one another (NFPA, NFPA 1144, 2002, p. 5).

Understory: Low-growing vegetation (herbaceous, brush or reproduction) growing under a stand of trees. Also, that portion of trees in a forest stand below the Overstory (FIREWISE Communities, 2009, http://www.firewisewiki.org/main/index.php/Understory).

Water Supply: A source of water for fire-fighting activities (NFPA, NFPA 1144, 2002, p. 5).

Wildfire: Any fire occurring on undeveloped land; the term specifies a fire occurring on a wildland area that does not meet management objectives and thus requires a suppression response. Wildland fire protection agencies use this term generally to indicate a vegetation fire. Wildfire of- Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 45 APPENDIX P – BEVERLY HILLS WILDFIRE ASSESSMENT: ATTACHMENT A–GENERAL WIRLDFIRE GLOSSARY OF TERMS ten replaces such terms as forest fire, brush fire, range fire, and grass fire (CDF FRAP 2003 Forest and Range Assessment, p. A-17).

Wildland: A region with minimal development as evidenced by few structures; transportation networks may traverse region. Region typically contains natural vegetation and may be used for recreational or agricultural purposes (CDF FRAP 2003 Forest and Range Assessment, p. A-17).

Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI): Commonly described as the zone where structures and other human development meet with undeveloped wildland or vegetative fuels. In the absence of a CWPP, Section 101 (16) of the HFRA defines WUI as “ (I) an area extending ½ mile from the boundary of an at-risk community; (II) an area within 1 ½ miles of the boundary of an at-risk community, including any land that (1) has a sustained steep slope that creates the potential for wildfire behavior endangering the at-risk community; (2) has a geographic feature that aids in creating an effective fire break, such as a road or ridge top; or (3) is in condition class 3, as documented by the Secretary in the project-specific environmental analysis; (III) an area that is adjacent to an evacuation route for an at-risk community that the Secretary determines, in cooperation with the at-risk community, requires hazardous fuels reduction to provide safer evacuation from the at-risk community.” A CWPP offers the opportunity to establish a localized definition and boundary for the wildland-urban interface (Source: Preparing a Community Wildfire Protection Plan. March, 2004).

Wildland Urban Intermix: The intermix is an areas undergoing a transition from wildlands to urban land uses. As its name implies, this type of interface involves a mixing of rural and urban land uses with vegetative fuels in the same area.
46 Prohibited Tree List
For Beverly Hills VHFHSZ Area
Botanical Name Common Name Comment1
BH Wildfire Prone Trees (Preliminary Hazard Tree List for VHFHSZ2) Acacia melanoxylon Blackwood acacia L
Archontophoenix cunninghamiana King palm M
Cupressus sempervirens Italian cypress H
Eucalyptus camaldulensis Red river gum H
Eucalyptus globulus Blue gum H
Eucalyptus rudis Desert gum H
Juniperus chinensis 'Torulosa' Hollywood juniper H
Phoenix canariensis Canary island date palm H
Pinus canariensis Canary island pine H
Pinus eldarica Afghan pine H
Pinus halepensis Aleppo pine H
Syagrus romanzoffianum Queen palm M
Washingtonia robusta Mexican fan palm H
Notes:

A. H = High Fuel Plants, M = Moderate Fuel Plants, L = Low Fuel Plants B. VHFHSZ = Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone area north of Sunset Blvd. in the City of Beverly Hills Information:

1. Certain plants are considered to be undesirable in the landscape due to characteristic that make them highly flammable. These characteristics can be either physical or chemical. Physical properties would include large amounts of dead material retained within the plant, rough or peeling bark, and the production of copious amounts of litter. Chemical properties include the presence of volatile substances such as oils, resins, wax, and pitch. Plants with these characteristics should not be planted close to structures in fire hazard areas. These species are typically referred to as “Target Species” since their complete or partial removal from the landscape is a critical part of hazard reduction. These target species are typically referred to as High, Moderate, or Low Fuel Plants. High Fuel Plants are highly flammable trees and should not be planted within 50 feet of a structure. Moderate Fuel Plants are considered moderately flammable and should be avoided when only slow burning/low fuel species are permitted within a given fuel modification zone. Low Fuel Plants (i.e., trees) could be planted and maintained with mature tree canopy at least 30 feet from a structure. Many of these species, if existing on the property and adequately maintained (e.g., pruning, thinning, irrigated, litter removal and weeding), could remain as long as the potential for spreading a fire has been reduced or eliminated.

2. This prohibited list was developed with the assistance of wildland urban-interface fire consultant in relation to the Beverly Hills Tree Hazard Study of urban trees. As such, tree types including Cedar, Cypress, Eucalyptus, Juniper, Palm, and Pine, were identified as more susceptible to burning. Commonly planted trees for the area north of Sunset Blvd. have been included in this “trees not to be planted” list.

3. The absence of a particular tree from this list does not necessarily mean it is fire resistive and does not imply that a particular tree will be approved by the Beverly Hills Fire Code official for landscaping in the VHFHSZ north of Sunset Boulevard.

4. Notwithstanding the type of tree included or not included on this list, tree maintenance, spacing, and configuration of plantings, which are critical to stopping fire spread, shall be in accordance with Beverly Hills Fire Departments Fuel Modification Standard and Fire Code.

Attachment B–Prohibited Tree List for Beverly Hills VHFHSZ Area Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills 47 City of Beverly Hills
Sample Desirable Street Tree List for North of Sunset Boulevard Botanical Name Common Name TypeA Height (feet)
Arbutus marina Strawberry Madrone E 20-35
Albizia julibrissin Silk Tree D 20-40
Cercis candensis Eastern Redbud D <20
Cercis occidentalis Western Redbud D <20
Chilopsis linearis Desert Willow D 20-40
Chitalpa tashkentensis Chitalpa D 20-40
Handroanthus avellandedae Pink Trumpet D 20-40
Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle D <20
Laurus nobilis Sweetbay E 15-40
Ligustrum japonicum Japanese Privet E 10-15
Parkinsonia aculeata 'Cercidium hybrid' Palo Verde D 20-30 Pistacia chinensis Chinese Pistache D 40+
Prosopis chilensis Chilean Mesquite D 30
Prunus ilicifolia Hollyleaf Cherry E 10-30
Tristania laurina Water Gum E 20-35
Notes:

A. D = Deciduous, E = Evergreen
Information:

1. This tree list was developed with the assistance of an urban forestry consultant in relation to the Beverly Hills Tree Hazard Study of urban trees.

2. The absence of a particular tree from this list does not necessarily mean that a particular tree will not be approved by the Beverly Hills Fire Code Official for landscaping in the VHFHSZ north of Sunset Boulevard.

3. Notwithstanding the type of tree included or not included on this list, tree maintenance, spacing, and configuration of plantings, which are critical to stopping fire spread, shall be in accordance with Beverly Hills Fire Departments Fuel Modification Standard and Fire Code.

Attachment C–City of Beverly Hills Sample Desireable Tree List for North of Sunset Boulevard Attachment 2

CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

MEMORANDUM
TO: Public Works Commission
FROM: Ken Pfalzgraf, City Arborist
DATE: November 10, 2021
SUBJECT: Urban Forest Management Plan Update
ATTACHMENT: 1. UFMP Staff Report to Public Works Commission (September 9, 2021)

2. UFMP Staff Report to Planning Commission (September 9, 2021)

3. UFMP Staff Report to Design Review Commission (October 7, 2021)

4. UFMP Draft Document

RECOMMENDATION
.

Staff recommends that the Public Works Commission complete its review of the Draft Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) and consider comments from the Planning and Design Review Commissions and provide comments and an adoption recommendation for consideration by the City Council.

DISCUSSION
In September and October, the Draft UFMP has been presented to the Public Works, Planning and Design Review Commissions. These meetings are summarized below.

Public Works Commission was presented with an overview of the Draft Urban Forest Management Plan at the September 9, 2021 meeting (Attachment 1). The Commission requested additional review time given the scope of the project and long-term potential impacts of the plan on the look of the City, but also offered the following preliminary comments:
 The historic “Garden City” identity of the City should be maintained as drought tolerant trees are introduced on a broad scale. The successful use of these tree types depends on the nursery industry making adaptations and increasing production to supply the types of trees needed in the quantities necessary to meet the demand.  The recommendation to use new, more climate appropriate, tree types should include an analysis of additional maintenance requirements costs (e.g. fruit, litter, root intrusion) that may offset other benefits.
 The historic identities of trees and the economic benefits they provide must be considered in making a recommendation to change the palm palette. Palms can be preserved and canopy goals can be met by interplanting canopy trees between the palms.
2 of 3
 Residents can turn to local non-profit agencies that provide free trees for private property plantings.
 Additional attention should be given to the retention of large trees on private property development projects that increase building footprints at the expense of open space.  It was requested that the plan present action items for the next 3-5 years. The “Strategic Plan” section, starting on page 68, identifies immediate actions (1-3 years), mid-term actions (3-10 years), and long-term actions (10+ years).

In addition to Commission comments, a public commenter suggested the following:
 The valuation of City trees should be based on real value versus average annual environmental benefit.
 Tree removal policies should require the replacement of any tree that is removed, public or private, to include the maximum amount of time a tree site will be allowed to remain vacant.
 Tree planting unit cost data in the study should be reviewed to be sure it is current.  Private property development requirements should assure that any tree that is removed is replaced.

Planning Commission also received a presentation on the UFMP at their September 9, 2021 meeting (Attachment 2). Staff introduced the project consultant, Dudek, who provided an overview of the report. The Planning Commission was complimentary regarding the UFMP in general, but offered the following comments:
 The comparison of the current canopy coverage rate in Beverly Hills (26%) to the City of Los Angeles (25%) is inaccurate in that a significant portion of the Los Angeles canopy lies within naturalized areas and large parks. The inclusion of these trees in the Los Angeles rating masks a lack of equity in canopy coverage in residential areas in comparison to the current Beverly Hills canopy rating.
 Palms are important to the City’s identity.
 The plan should provide “walkability ratings” that denote streets which are most pedestrian friendly in terms of shade coverage.
 Private property tree issues (foliage, root intrusion) affect pedestrian walkability and City budgets.
 The plan should provide photographs of tree types that would be considered appropriate future street tree plantings to address climate change and decreasing water availability, as well as renderings of how these trees would present in the context of a street tree planting. The final document should include a map of which trees are found on what streets.
3 of 3
 A public commenter suggested that the current urban grove and R-1 conditions be reviewed and updated as appropriate and that the updates should be included in the final UFMP document.

Design Review Commission reviewed the UFMP at their October 7, 2021 meeting (Attachment 3). The Design Review Commission offered the following comments/concerns:
 Clarify the definition of “Urban Forest” to capture exactly what is included in the term (e.g. private property foliage).
 Palms are important in terms of the City’s identity, how they lend to the preservation of the City’s history and how they lend economically to the City’s business and tourism interests
 The greening of buildings (green roofs/walls) in lieu of open space on smaller lots should be recognized and promoted as a means of meeting canopy improvement goals.  Does the plan serve as a resource to laypersons the Design Review Commission interacts with? The plan should be expanded to identity and encourage the use of smaller canopy trees, fruit trees and citrus trees as a practical and functional solution to the challenge of improving canopy coverage on smaller properties and within residential back yards. Trees and plants that have invasive or destructive tendencies should be avoided on private properties should be listed in the plan.  In general, can the plan be expanded to be a technical resource for the public to use in design and development?

NEXT STEPS
The Draft UFMP will be presented to the City Council at an upcoming meeting. The final input of the Public Works Commission, along with that of the Planning Commission and Design Review Commissions will be included in the report and presentation to City Council for their consideration.

CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

MEMORANDUM
TO: Public Works Commission
FROM: Ken Pfalzgraf, City Arborist
DATE: September 9, 2021
SUBJECT: Presentation of the Draft Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) ATTACHMENT: 1. Draft UFMP Document

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Public Woks Commission review the Draft Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) and provide comments for City Council consideration for inclusion in the final UFMP.

BACKGROUND
The City’s public tree inventory consists of approximately 25,000 trees in the public right-of-way and City parks. The first street tree plantings date back to 1907 when landscape architect Wilbur David Cook, Jr., prepared the first street plans for the Rodeo Land and Water Company. The City is proud to have received the Tree City USA designation from the Arbor Day Foundation for 37 years. Past tree studies were limited to street trees, including the 1996 Street Tree Master Plan Focused Study and the 2007 Canary Island Date Palm Street Tree Master.

In mid-2019, the City began work on its first ever Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP). The UFMP takes a comprehensive look at the goals, policies and practices that affect the urban forest, including the following focus areas:
 An assessment of the current status of the urban forest to include species makeup, canopy extent and value.
 An evaluation of the City’s current tree inventory system.  A comparison of the City’s current public and private tree management policies and guidelines to urban forest industry best management practices.  Evaluation of the tree canopy, tree planting opportunities and tree canopy goals.  Identify hazardous or undesirable trees and strategies for replacement over time.  Identify issues that will affect the long-term health and resilience of the urban forest, such as drought, disease and climate change.

Following a qualifications-based selection process, the City Council awarded the environmental consulting firm, Dudek, an agreement to prepare the UFMP. Dudek has worked with staff from several City departments and with input from the community through surveys and engagement activities over the past two years to prepare the attached Draft UFMP. Below are summaries of the current status of the urban forest and the key findings and recommendations of the UFMP. 2 of 3

DISCUSSION
Current Status
Canopy Coverage: The Dudek study found that the City’s current 26% overall canopy cover is ahead of the American Forests standard of 20% for a city like Beverly Hills that was historically a grassland vegetation community. Beverly Hills is also at the upper end of regional comparable cities, including Santa Monica, Irvine, Los Angeles and Pasadena, where canopy coverage ranges from 17% to 28% respectively.

Program Support and Funding: The study concludes that the urban forestry program in the City enjoys the support of the community, has effective management practices in place, to include staffing, and that the City’s annual per tree expenditure of $96.12 is at the upper tier in a comparable group (i.e. San Jose, Los Angeles, Downey, San Francisco and Palo Alto) when annual per tree expenditures in the care of public trees is considered ($20.11 to $119.85 respectively).

Sustainability: The consultant calls attention to several issues that limit the ability of the current makeup of the City’s urban forest to be viable into the future including:
 Tree age/species diversity.
 A strong dependence on a tree species that is more important to identity than environmental benefit.
 The inappropriateness of some species that represent a significant percentage of the urban forest makeup and the ability of those species to thrive in an environment that is becoming increasingly hotter and drier.

Tree inventory system: The current inventory system is provided as part of the tree maintenance contract and serves its purpose to schedule and document work histories at the individual tree level. It is useful for defining basic trends within the tree population, as well for tracking and predicting expenditures. The consultant used the Tree Eco tool, which is a component of the iTree tree canopy software, to complete the analysis provided in the report. The consultant provided the methodology used in the current analysis so that a future review of results and trends related to implementation of UFMP recommendations can be completed using the same software.

Findings and Recommendations
Sustainable and Resilient Urban Forest: In identifying climate change as the most critical threat to the sustainability of the City’s current urban forest and its specific characteristics, the consultant suggests focus be given to:
 Changes to the species palette that consider climate appropriateness, water use and long-term nursery availability.
 Limiting any single tree species dependence to 5% or less.  A City-wide assessment of the condition of all public trees at the individual tree level.

Expanding the Urban Forest: With a goal of expanding the current level of canopy coverage trees offer to the community, the consultant suggests:
 Planting 7,500 additional trees by 2041 to improve the City’s canopy coverage from the current 26% to the consultant’s recommended goal of 33%. 3 of 3
 Identifying City managed sites where additional trees can be planted (e.g. planting shade trees between existing palms.
 Codifying or standardizing and improved communication of tree related practices for both public and private trees in the areas of nursery selection and tree installation.  Extending contracted water services for newly planted public trees.

Protecting and Preserving the Urban Forest: The consultant suggests that strengthening City policies and ordinances in the following areas will positively impact the sustainability of the tree canopy:
 Identification of historically important palm trees.
 Alternative means of preserving tree canopy when infrastructure conflicts pose a loss of trees.
 Improve public tree canopy coverage in alternate areas when canopy is diminished in another area.
 Promote canopy preservation on public property though species alignment with existing water efficient landscaping and metering requirements, providing incentives for the retention of mature trees in the improvement of private properties and by providing City arborist support to the broader community.

Providing Sufficient Resources for the Urban Forest: With regards to providing the resources to work towards the goals and recommendations of the UFMP, the consultant suggests:
 Funding the urban forest program to match improvements in lieu of reducing the cost of palm maintenance and by planting smaller nursery stock.  Providing cost effective arborist support for private property tree planting and management.
 Improving the current Street Tree Master Plan process that provides for increased public participation.

Wildfire Assessment
As the first phase of the UFMP project, Dudek was tasked with studying the tree species and conditions present in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) area of the City north of Sunset Boulevard. The purpose was to develop a better understanding of the wildfire risk posed by certain tree species of concern and to develop a framework for future actions to reduce the threat of wildland fires in the VHFHSZ.

The wildfire assessment, included as Appendix P of the UFMP, was presented to the Public Works Commission on December 12, 2019 and to the City Council on December 17, 2019.

Following the Dudek wildfire assessment, the Fire Department initiated a more detailed Wildfire Assessment Report that further examined the threats and vulnerabilities using advanced wildfire modeling. The Wildfire Assessment Report was presented to the public through in-person and virtual meetings in July 2021.

NEXT STEPS
The Draft UFMP will be presented to the City Council at a Study Session this fall. Input received from the Public Works Commission, Planning Commission and Design Review Commission will be included in the report and presentation to City Council for their consideration.

City of Beverly Hills
Planning Division
455 N. Rexford Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210
TEL. (310) 285-1141 FAX. (310) 858-5966
Planning Commission Report
Attachment(s):

A. Draft Urban Forest Management Plan
Report Author and Contact Information:

Ken Pfalzgraf, City Arborist
(310) 285-2540
[email protected]
Meeting Date: September 9, 2021

Subject: DRAFT URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
This is an informational item that provides the Planning Commission with an overview of the final draft of the Urban Forest Master Plan (UFMP) document.

Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the Draft UFMP and provide comments for City Council consideration for inclusion in the final UFMP.

REPORT SUMMARY
The City’s public tree inventory consists of approximately 25,000 trees in the public right-of-way and City parks. The first street tree plantings date back to 1907 when landscape architect Wilbur David Cook, Jr. prepared the first street plans for the Rodeo Land and Water Company. The City is proud to have received the Tree City USA designation from the Arbor Day Foundation for 37 years. Past tree studies were limited to street trees, including the 1996 Street Tree Master Plan Focused Study and the 2007 Canary Island Date Palm Street Tree Master.

In mid-2019, the City began work on its first ever Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP). The UFMP takes a comprehensive look at the goals, policies and practices that affect the urban forest, including the following focus areas:
 An assessment of the current status of the urban forest to include species makeup, canopy extent and value.
 An evaluation of the City’s current tree inventory system.  A comparison of the City’s current public and private tree management policies and guidelines to urban forest industry best management practices.  Evaluation of the tree canopy, tree planting opportunities and tree canopy goals.  Identify hazardous or undesirable trees and strategies for replacement over time.  Identify issues that will affect the long-term health and resilience of the urban forest, such as drought, disease and climate change.

Following a qualifications-based selection process, the City Council awarded the environmental consulting firm, Dudek, an agreement to prepare the UFMP. Dudek has worked with staff from several City departments and with input from the community through surveys and engagement activities over the past two years to prepare the attached Draft UFMP. Below are summaries of the current status of the urban forest and the key findings and recommendations of the UFMP.

Planning Commission Report
Draft Urban Forest Management Plan
September 9, 2021