HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 01/25/1989 GEORGIA RAMIREZ
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
A G E N D A
JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Wednesday, January 25, 1989 7 :30 p.m.
Rotunda Room (Fourth Floor) Administration Building
Atascadero, California
Call to Order
Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call
Public Comment
• A. WORKING SESSION
1. ZONE CHANGE 15-88. TREE ORDINANCE REVISIONS.
Request initiated by the City Council to consider pro-
posed amendments to the City' s Tree Ordinance.
Adjournment
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council and Planning Commission
VIA: Ray Windsor, City Manager
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director
DATE: January 25, 1989
SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE 15-88: PROPOSED REVISIONS TO TREE
ORDINANCE
BACKGROUND:
On October 25, 1988, the Tree Committee presented its recommended
modifications to the City' s Tree Ordinance to the City Council
(see attachments) .' The City Council referred these proposed
modifications to the Planning Commission for a public hearing
which was held on December 20, 1988 (see attached minutes
excerpt) Council' s action was also to hold a working session
with the Planning Commission following said public hearing prior
to returning the matter to the City Council for action. This
meeting has been advertised and noticed as directed by the City
Council.
ANALYSIS:
The Tree Committee's recommended amending language and rationale
is included herewith together with staff reports to the City
Council and Planning Commission raising a variety of policy
issues that should be settled prior to formal action on the
ordinance change. Also included are the minutes to the December
20th meeting reflecting public testimony heard by the Planning
Commission.
RECOMMENDATION:
Following this working session, the Council should direct staff
to prepare an ordinance carrying out the policy , wishes of the
• City Council.
HE:ps
Enclosure: December 20, 1988 staff report to Planning Commission
December 20, 1988 Tree Committee Index and
Corrections and Comments
December 20, 1988 Planning Commission minutes
M S O R A N D U M
•
TO: Planning Commission,
FROM: Steven L. DeCamp, Senior Planner
DATE: December 20 , 1988
RE: Zone Change 15-88
Tree Ordinance Revisions
I
HAGlCG1�DND I,I
The City Council adopted si nificant amendments to the Tree
Ordinance (ZoningOrdinancegSection 9-4.155) on Aril 25, 1988.
p
At that time, the Council directed that the Ordinance and its
implementation be monitored with a report back to the Council on
October 25, 1988. On that date, the "Tree Committee" submitted
its recommendations to the Council (see Attachment A) At that
same meeting, staff presented a memorandum outlining specific`
areas of concern that had evolved during six (6) months of
•
experience pe implementing g the Ordinance (see Attachment B)
ex im
At the conclusion of their discussion of the Tree Committee's
report, the Council directed that the Committee's proposal be
transmitted to the Planning I Commission for a public hearing. The
Council further directed that a joint Planning Commission/City
Council study session be conducted after the Commission's public
hearing and prior to adoptin of any recommended amendments to
the Ordinance (see Attachme t C)
ANALYSIS
Staff did not have an opporunity to review the Tree Committee's
submittal prior to the Octoter 25, 1988 City Council meeting.
Therefore, the staff report presented on that date could not
address the issues raised b the Committee, although 'subsequent
review has revealed numerous areas of concurrence. This report
will provide a recap of previously expressed staff concerns and a
brief discussion of important points raised by the Committee's
suggested revisions.
City Arborist/Urban Forest
The major point of departure between the Tree Committee's package,
• of revisions and the staff' s October 25 issue outline involves
the employment of a City Ar orist/Urban Forester. The revised
tY
Tree ordinance prepared by the Committee is predicated on the •
assumption that the City will hire'a full-time Arborist/Urban
Forester. Although staff does ;not disagree with the need to
utilize professional advice and guidance, alternative means of
obtaining such advice should be investigated.
Decisions regarding the creation of staff positions are made by
the City Council based on perceived 'demand for services and
revenue availability. Until the Council has determined that both '
sufficient demand and funding exist to warrant and support the
creation of an City Arborist/Urban Forester position, revision
of the Tree Ordinance in this regard as suggested by the
Committee may be premature.
Certified >Arborists
The requirement that applicants for tree removals or `development
projects that might impact trees hire Certified Arborist has
proven to be time consuming and of questionable value in some
cases. As an alternative, staff suggests eliminating the need
for individuals to hire Certified Arborists by establishing
specific standards and 'guidelines and allowing staff to obtain
advice on a contractual basis. This approach would also 'ensure
that the City is the "client" and not an individual with a vested
interest in removing a tree. •
Ordinance'-Emphasis
Concern has been expressed regarding the number and types of
trees granted special protection by the existing ordinance.
Staff concurs With the Tree 'Committee proposal that the
protection offered by the Ordinance should be limited to Oak
trees and other specific heritage trees.
Replacement Trees
Policy direction needs to be established relative to the existing
requirement for replacement trees on lots that retain significant
tree cover after development. A defacto policy currently exists
that allows for voluntary donations to a "tree fund" when it is
determined' that adequate tree cover remains. This policy needs
to be clarified with standards set for the value of replacement
trees, cost of planting, etc.
Hazardous Trees
The definition of "hazardous trees" provided by the existing
ordinance is not adequate. The definition should be clarified
and strengthened relative to how "hazardous" is defined as well
as who makes the determination`that a tree is a_ hazard. The Tree
Committee's suggested language in this regard is preferable to •
that in the existing ordinance
Tree Removal Approval
• The existing Ordinance requires that approval for the removal of
any Heritage Tree can only be granted by the' City Council and
then only after a public hearing. This procedure has proven to
be both costly and time consuming for the City and the applicant.
Staff believes the Planning Commission is the appropriate body to
review the removal of heritage trees in conjunction with proposed
development projects in Commercial, Industrial, and Residential
Multiple Family Zones. Likewise, staff review and approval or
denial of tree removals proposed as part of development projects
in Single Family Residential zones appearsmost appropriate. The
existing appeal procedures in the Zoning Ordinance provide ample
assurance of "higher level" review where necessary, particularly
in light of the creation and involvement of the City Council 'Tree
Sub-committee.
Bonding
The current Ordinance requires that a ,performance bond may be
required to "assure protection" of trees located on a building
site. The Ordinance provides that "the amount of any set bond
shall be $1,500 or the value of affected trees, whichever is
greater. . . " Experience has shown that some builders would rather-
remove existing trees and plant replacements than to post a bond
to assure the tree's protection. In most cases it is less
• expensive to plant newtrees than to lose a posted security if
tree protection measures fail. Because thisprovisionappears to
be encouraging tree removal rather than tree preservation, the
amount of the 'security should be reviewed and adjusted asp
necessary..
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that the Commission:
1. Receive and consider testimony relative to 'the- current
Tree Ordinance and its implementation.
2. Receive and consider testimony relative to the proposed
Ordinance revisions drafted by. the Tree Committee.
3. Continue consideration of this issue to a joint study
session to be scheduled with the City Council.
Attachments: A. Tree -Committee Report (10=25-88)
B. October 25, 1988 Staff Report
C. _ October , 25, 1988 City Council Minutes
tTHE TREE COMMITTEE
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
P.O. BOX 747
ATASCADERO, CA 93423
TO: The Atascadero City Council
FROM: Tree Committee
e
DATE: October 2.5, 1988
Subject: Tree Ordinance Review
As indicated in Resolution No. 171 the Tree Committee was
charged with the responsibility and duty to monitor the
effectiveness of Ordinance No. 168 and to make
recommendations for its administration and modification.
The Tree Committee monitored the Ordinance for the past four
months and prepared the enclosed statistics on tree removal
and replacement. The Tree Committeegatheredinput from the
public, experts in the field (professors, city/private
arborists, state foresters, certified nurserymen, landscape
architects, Native Plant Society) , other professionals
(planners in other California cities, architects,
contractors, realtors, attorneys) , Atascadero City Staff,
City Planning Commissioners and City Council Members
Based on the above, we prepared the enclosed recommendations
for modification. of Ordinance No.168, the justifications to
support the recommended changes, and the, supporting
documents
As residents of Atascadero we remain dedicated to the
protection of Atascadero's trees :and we will continue to be
available.
AJohn .pal.e Livia Kellerman Elaine Oglesby
i-„)ti;a.:
f J,,ii�m/Duliitz Steve Lasalle Dr. Tim O'Ke e
�iectM' ct� t-�: w .•�Stubbie FasigUrsula Luna Barbara Sehoenike
- Chairperson
C :
TABLE,- OF CONTENTS
1. Modifications of the Tree ordinance No. 168
recommended by the Tree Committee, pages I thru 11
2. Justification of modifications of Tree Ordinance No.
168 recommended by the Tree Committee, pages '1 thru 13
3. other recommendations,' page ;I
4 . Enclosures 1 thru 15
t
(2) Tree Removal Criteria. A heritage tree shall not
be rem6ved except as follows:
(i) The tree is approved for removal by the City
;Council, following >public hearing, ONLY AFTER FINDING
THAT IT ISA HAZARD.
(ii) The tree 'hes 'died or baccime a ha=aft as d"M in" b a
Cut tified arbortat. IS IN A HAZARDOUS -CONDITION WHICH
PRESENTS AN IMMEDIATE DANGER.
Any removal so authorized shall be granted a tree
removal permit 'subject to replacement tree conditions'
PER SECTION 9-4.155 (e) (5)
(3) TRIMMING/PRUNING: TRIMMING/PRUNING REQUIRES CITYI
COUNCIL APPROVAL FOLLOWING PUBLIC HEARING.
(h) matin-OTHER MATURE Trees: par non-native tress a inch" in
di-nater or star, A removal permit shall be obtained, but tree
protection standards shall- not apply.
(1) TREE REMOVAL CRITERIA TREE REMOVAL MAYBE DENIED
! BY THE ARBORIST/URBAN FORESTER. TREE REMOVAL CRITERIA
SECTION 9-4 .155 (e)'(4) (vi) (vii) SHALL APPLY.
(2) REPLACEMENT TREES:- SEE SECTION 9-4 .155 (e) (5) . '
(1) Tra.a Z,ant-t2:3SaK',8a- Tr"s tsMP far rMoval shall be Identified by the
applicant utilizing a City-Srovicted ld4ntlll^at10A sign. Novice or L1W removal Pewit
shall be P=t0d sc as to be visible MDABLE from the street
(3) EXEMPTIONS:
MSE SECTION 9-4 .155 ;(e) (2) •
(ii)TREES PLANTED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER.
(i) PENALTIES: Penalties for violation of this crdiaence shall be as not
forth in Chanter 3 of Title i of this Cod.. ANY PERSON IN VIOLATION OF
THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE DEEMED GUILTY OF' A MISDEMEANOR AS
SET FORTH IN CHAPTER 3 OF TITLE 1 OF THIS CODE.
9-4 - 156 --- (Reserved- Street Trees)
9-4 . 157 (Reserved Tree Management Plan)
Page 11
. V
•
j
AbcdeR= existing wording
Abode = deleted wording .,
t - ABCDE = new wording
MODIFICATIONS OF`yTREE ORDINANCE NO. 168
RECOMMENDED BY THE TREE; COMMITTEE
"TREE ORDINANCE"
9-4 . 155. TREE PROTECTION: Preservation of natural flora
and fauna is a basic community goal of the Atascadero `
General Plan's
(a) PURPOSE: The trees of Atascadero are valued
communit^'ty`asssets. The purpose of this section is to
establish regulations for the installation, maintenance,
preservation, and selected removal of native and heritage
trees within the City. In establishing these procedures and
standards, it is the City's intent to encourage the .
Preservation of trees and other natural amenities with
sensitive design and development practices. City review of
proposed projects shall take into consideration trees
existing on the property *ith applicants encouraged to
design projects to utilize existing trees in the landscaping
pattern. The provisions of this section shall apply to all
• property within the City of Atascadero, public or private,
and to any person, firm, corporation, AND public or private
utility.
(b)DEFINITIONS:
(i) OAK SAPLING: ANY SPECIES OF THE GENUS kUAL11S,
HAVING A'TRUNK ONE (1) INCH OR: MORE IN DIAMETER, OR
THREE (3), INCHES OR MORE IN CIRCUMFERENCE AT GROUND:
LEVEL. s
(ii) MATURE OAK: ANY SPECIES OF THE GENUS !WAWC1!s'
HAVING A TRUNK TWELVE (12) INCHES OR MORE IN
CIRCUMFERENCE OR FOUR (4) INCHES OR MORE IN DIAMETER
MEASURED FOUR AND ONE HALF (4 1/2) FEET ABOVE GRADE.
(iii) SIGNIFICANT OAK: ANY SPECIES OF THE GENUS
l�UEfiCUS, HAVING A TRUNK FIFTY (50) INCHES OR MORE IN
CIRCUMFERENCE OR SIXTEEN '( 16) INCHES OR MORE IN
DIAMETER, OR A MULTI-TRUNK TREE WITH A CIRCUMFERENCE OF
FIFTY (50) INCHES OR MORE, MEASURED FOUR AND ONE HALF
(4 1/2) FEET ABOVE GRADE.
(iv) HERITAGE TREE: ANY TREE DESIGNATED BY RESOLUTION
OF THE CITY COUNCIL ON THE BASIS OF AGE, SIZE, LOCATION,
VISIBILITY, HISTORIC ORIGIN, OR SPECIAL VALUE TO THE
PROPERTY OWNER, ,DESERVING SPECIAL CONSIDERATION AND
PROTECTION.
Page 1
(v) OTHER MATURE TREE; . ANY OTHER SPECIES BUT THE
GENUS HAVINF. A TRUNK TWENTY-FIVE (25) INCHES
OR MORE IN CIRCUMFERENCE OR EIGHT (8) INCHES OR MORE
IN
DIAMETER MEASURED FOUR
.AND ONE HALF 4 1/2) FEET
E T
ABOVE GRADE.
'(vi) BLUE OAK: �14�d1 tTlI
(vii) LIVE OAK: " AVXrAAMXA
(viii) VALLEY OAK: A'lttwc&s ttt�+,'A,ry
(iX) DRIPLINE: AN IMAGINARY LINE ;EXTENDING DOWNWARD
FROM THE ENDS OF THE OUTERMOST BRANCHES TO THE GROUND.
(x) HAZARDOUS PRESENTING A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER
TO PEOPLE OR REAL PROPERTYTHROUGH FALLING.
(xi) PERMIT: A" WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION BY THE CITY
ARBORIST/URBAN FORESTER OR THE CITY COUNCIL THAT
SPECIFICALLY DESIGNATES THE LOCATION, NUMBER, TYPE,
AND SIZE OF TREES THAT A PERSON HAS PERMISSION. TO TRIM/
PRUNE, IMPACT .IN A'POTENTIALLY 'ADVERSE MANNER, OR
REMOVE.
(xii) REMOVAL: DESTRUCTION OR DISPLACEMENT OF A TREE
BY CUTTING, BULLDOZING, OR OTHER MECHANICAL MEANS WHICH
RESULTS IN PHYSICAL TRANSPORTATION OF THE TREE FROM ITS
SITE AND/OR DEATH OF THE TREE.
(Xiii) TRIM/PRUNE: REMOVAL OF A LIVING LATERAL LIMB
THAT IS SIX (6) INCHES OR GREATER IN DIAMETER AS
MEASURED ONE (1) FOOT FROM THE TRUNK OF THE OAK OR
HERITAGE TREE, OR, REMOVAL OF TWENTY (20) PERCENT OR
MORE FROM THE TREE CROWN, WHICHEVER IS LESS.
(xiv) TOPPING/POLLARDING: REMOVAL OF TERMINAL LIMBS OR
APEX FROM THE LIVING TREE.
(Xv) DEADWOODING: ' REMOVAL OF DEAD OR DYING LATERALS TO
IMPROVE CROWN STRUCTURE OR SAFETY.
(xvi) TREE VALUE: CURRENT DOLLAR APPRAISAL BASED ON
THE "MANUAL FOR PLANT APPRAISERS" , COUNCIL OF TREE AND,
LANDSCAPE APPRAISERS, FIRST EDITION, 1986.
(xvii) CITY ARBORIST/URBAN FORESTER DUTIES: PLANS,
DIRECTS, AND SUPERVISES PROGRAMS FOR THE MAINTENANCE',
PRESERVATION, MANAGEMENT, BEAUTIFICATION OF THE
CITY' S URBAN FOREST, AND FIRE/FUEL MANAGEMENT.
Page 2
(c) PROCEDURES:
(1) POSTING: _ ALL TREES PROPOSED FOR REMOVAL,
REQUIRING REMOVAL PERMIT, SHALL BE IDENTIFIED FOR FIELD
INSPECTION BY THE APPLICANT UTILIZING A CITY-PROVIDED
IDENTIFICATION SIGN.
THE CITY ARBORIST/URBAN FORESTER SHALL POST EITHER:
(i) A "NOTICE OF INTENT" OF THE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT
ISSUANCE AT THE FIRST DAY OF THE 14 DAY APPEAL
PERIOD,OR
(ii) A "NOTICE OF TREE REMOVALREQUEST" TEN (10) DAYS
PRIOR TO TENTATIVE PUBLIC MEETING, STATING THE DATE'
OF TENTATIVE .PUBLIC MEETING CONSIDERATION.
THE NOTICE SHALL BE POSTED ON THE PROPERTY SO AS TO
BE READABLE FROM THE STREET AND SHALL REMAIN UNTIL
TREE REMOVAL HAS OCCURRED. NOTICE SHALL ALSO BE
POSTED IN CITY HALL. EVEN HAZARDOUS TREES SHALL
BE POSTED ON THE PROPERTY.
(2) THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY ACT AS AN ADVISORY
COMMITTEE FOR THE CITY COUNCIL AND MAY,. IN COURSE .OF
REVIEWING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS BEFORE THEM, REQUIRE
THAT CERTAIN TREES BE RETAINED AND OR PROTECTED FROM
DESTRUCTION.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION SHALL NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO
APPROVE REMOVAL OF OAK OR HERITAGE TREES. THE COMMISSION
MAY, HOWEVER, RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE
COUNCIL` PERMIT -OR DENY THAT CERTAIN OAK OR HERITAGE
TREES TO BE REMOVED. ,THE CRITERIA TO BE USED BY THE
PLANNING COMMISSION IN MAKING:SUCH A RECOMMENDATION.
SHALL BE SPECIFIED IN SECTION (e) (4)
(d) TREE PROTECTION PLAN: In order to protect trees
during construction of a project and to maximize chances for
their subsequent survival, a tree, protection plan shall be
required as part of applications subject to this section.
Said plans shall-'be approved by THE CITY ARBORIST/URBAN
FORESTER BASED ON THE FINDING THAT as intornationai Saeioty of.
erboricuiture (ISA) certiried arborist,chosen from a'list recommended by 'the
Trus COIDmlttee and designated by 'revolution of the City Council as acceptable to
the city or Atascadero. The arborist must certify that the project as
proposed complies with the City,rs. criteria to preserve and
protect existing trees from indiscriminate or unnecessary
removal and damage. , The Community Development Director. in'case of
diaagroam ent with the arborist'a roent , adaticas, may seals a second qualified
arboriat's opiniou(at City expense) and reject or modify
Plane as submitter!.
Page 3
HE ,MAY REJECTOR REQUIRE MODIFICATION OF PLANS SUBMITTED. HE
MAY REQUIRE MITIGATION FOR EVERY TREE.FACING IMPACT,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
FENCING
COVERING OF EXPOSED ROOTS -
WATERING AND LONG TERM WATERING SYSTEMS
DRAIN INSTALLATION
AERATION SYSTEMS -
FERTILIZING
YSTEMS .FERTILIZING
PEST CONTROL
DEADWOODING
RETAINING WALL, CRIB WALL USAGE
GRACIE BEAMS AND ENGINEERED FOOTINGS
ALTERNATIVE PAVING SECTIONS
ALTERNATIVE SLOPE AND GRADING DESIGN
BUILDING CUT-OUTS AND ALTERNATIVE ARCIITECTURE
SELF-SUPPORTING PARKING STRUCTURES
STREET REALIGNMENT
ON ;SITE PROFESSIONAL MONITORING
REPLACEMENT TREES
PROTECTION FOR BLUE AND VALLEY OAK SAPLINGS
THE CITY MAY SEEK ADDITIONAL PROFESSIONAL CONSULTATION, TO
RECOMMEND MEASURES NECESSARY TO SAFEGUARD THE TREE(S) . THE 1
CONSULTANT SHALL CERTIFY THAT ALL PROVIDED INFORMATION IS
TRUE UNDER PENALTY OF THE LAW.
(1) When Required. The tree protection plan shall be
required as part-of-materials submitted for ar plot plan,
precise plan or conditional use permit approval.
(2) Application Content. Applications shall include
all information specified by Section 9-2. 107(b) (Plot
Plan Content) and:
(i) size, `species, AESTHETICS, state of health, and
e*t1vated dripline (MEASURED IN FOUR (4) COMPASS
POINTS)of each tree THAT REACHES TO within twenty
( 20) feet of an ANY development areas (including any
areas where trenching is proposed)
(ii) measures proposed to ensure the survival of
remaining trees through the construction process and
thereafter'.
(iii) size and species of trees proposed to replace
those proposed for removal
Page, 4
(3) Tree Protection Standards. Approval of tree
protection p ans s a require compliance With the
following standards: _.
cis *`m_Tig, ? baa"
ins7 a prgp for oval bhetll be identified for
a
Strict
Pield Pectton by the arborist utilizing a city-provided Identification sign.
street.of Trte.AeaaDva1 Permit ahsll be P=ted 40 a& to be visible Pram the
{i)
Drip Line Protection. The developer is
responsi - e, tFirou-gh—f al building inspection, for
the preservation of all trees which are to remain on
the project site. Towards this end, the following are
required:
Par.ki3Q of vehicles or storage of'equipmant and nateriala under the dripline of
Protected tra" in Prohibited during' construction.
Each tree or group of trees to be preserved shall be
protected by enclosure OF THE ENTIRE DRIPLINE AREA
with a five foot fence prior to grading, movement of
heavy equipment, or approval of, any plans . U)cation of the
fence ahali be at the discretion of the arborist subject tQ City approval. AS
A GENERAL RULE, THE EXISTING GROUND SURFACE WITHIN
THE DRIP LINE OF ANY OAK OR HERITAGE TREE SHALL NOT
BE CUT, FILLED, COMPACTED OR PAVED. EXCAVATION
ADJACENT TO ANY OF THESE TREES SHALL NOT , BE
PERMITTED WHERE, IN THE JUDGEMENT OF THE CITY
ARBORIST/URBAN FORESTER, MATERIAL DAMAGE TO THE ROOT
SYSTEM WILL RESULT. HE MAY SEEK ADDITIONAL
PROFESSIONAL CONSULTATION TO ASSURE THAT THE TREE
WILL NOT BE DAMAGED THE CONSULTANT SHALL CERTIFY
THAT ALL PROVIDED INFORMATION IS TRUE UNDER PENALTY
OF THE LAW, EXCEPTIONS MAY BE APPROVED BY THE CITY
ARBORIST/URBAN FORESTER.
I
OIL, GASOLINE, CHEMICALS, CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS,
EQUIPMENT OR VEHICLES WHI MIGHT BE HARMFUL TO OAK
TREES SHALL NOT BE STOREDINDER THE PROTECTED
DRIPLINE OF THE TREE NO PAINT THINNER, PAINT, PLASTER
OR OTHER LIQUID OR SOLID EXCESS OR WASTE CONSTRUCTION
MATERIALS OR WASTE 'WATER SHALL BE DUMPED ON THE
GROUND BETWEEN THE DRIPLINE ,AREA AND THE BASE OF THE
OAK TREES OR UPHILL FROM ANY OAK TREE WHERE SAID
SUBSTANCE MIGHT REACH THE ROOTS THROUGH A LEACHING
PROCESS. ,
WIRES, SIGNS, AND OTHER SIMILAR ITEMS SHALL NOT BE
NAILED OR OTHERWISE ATTACHED TO OAK OR HERITAGE
TREES
r Page 5
ALL CUTS OR TRENCHING 'WITHIN THE 'DRIPLINE OF A
PRdT- ECTED TREE AND ALL ROOTCUTTINGS ARE TO BE MADE BY
HAND (NO BACKHOES OR,GRADERS) . APPROPRIATE MEASURES
SHALL BE TAKEN TO PREVENT SOIL AND EXPOSED ROOTS FROM
DRYING OUT, CAUSING' DAMAGE THERETO.
(ii) Landscape plans, when required, must show the
proposed landscaping within the dripline ;of trees.
DROUGHT TOLERANT LANDSCAPING OR MULCHING MAY BE
REQUIRED AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO IRRIGATED LANDSCAPING
WHERE APPROPRIATE.
(iii) A Performance bond maybe required in a form
acceptab a to t e City prior to issuance of an
entitlement to assure protection of trees on the
site. The amount of any set bond shall be $1,500 or
the value of THE affected tree(s) , whichever is
greater. bated on --x=ual for Plant AgpraisssOrss", Council of Trac a"
Lan>yecape;Appralsers, First fidition. 3,986, a copy or which is available for
review in the commsu►ity Development Dapartmwst. if, ;in the opinion of
the certified 'CITY' arborist/URBAN FORESTER,no violation
or no damage has ocpurred during construction, the
bond shall be returned upon final building
inspection.< if VIOLATION OR damage, however, has
occurred, the bond shall be held for three years and
forfeited if, in the opinion of the certified arborist CITY
ARBORIST/URBAN FORESTER, permanent damage has
occurred. IN CASE OF VIOLATION, THE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF
ANY SET BOND SHALL BE $ 1,500 OR THE VALUE OF THE
AFFECTED TREE(S) , WHICHEVER IS GREATER.
(iv) Nonconformance In case of nonconformance with
tree protection requirements, the Community
Development Director shall Issue a Stop Work order
until all requirements have been met.
(v') Unauthorized Work. Should unauthorized work
lead to tree damage or destruction, the Community
Development Director shall issue a Stop Work Order
until the developer has mitigated the damage done
pursuant, but not limited to, criteria contained in
Subsection' (d);(3) (iii) `Performance Bonds and
Subsection' (e) ( 5) Replacement Trees . The matter may
be appealed to the Planning commission.
(e) TREE REMOVAL PERMIT: Tree reegovai means destruction or displacement of
a trey joy cum9g, ru-iloozing. or other mecttanical or chemical meanss, which results in
physical transportation of the tree from its site gond/or doath of tho tree.
A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR MATURE OAKS,
SIGNIFICANT OAKS, HERITAGE TREES AND OTHER MATURE TREES.
`TOPPING/POLLARDING SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED FOR MATURE OAKS,
1►.- SIGNIFICANT OAKS, AND HERITAGE TREES. •�
Page 6
(FOR SIGNIFICANT OAKS REFER TO SECTION 9-4.155 . (f)") '`.
r (FOR HERITAGE. 'TREES REFER TO SECTION 9-4.155 (9) ) .
(FOR OTHER MATURE TREES REFER TO SECTION 9-4.155
(1) When Required: For na lre tuns, no person shall &ilea or cause
the Iva '(12) inches or more in elrC=teren0Q<O Or f0W (4)
anon" or mare in diamoeter mesasuea four (4) test awve grade NO PERSON SHALL
ALLOW OR CAUSE THE REMOVAL OR TRIMMING/PRUNING OF A
MATURE OAK without first obtaining a tree removal permit
unless otherwise exempted herefrom. (Aafor to section 9".155(d)
for s:I 1 '1141 FE 091a1000 fort harita" trams): Native traces =hall'be those ,Ipociee as
defined by r"Clution of ,the city council.
For wm-nates tri. reser to Subsection (c)(6).
(2) Exemptions: A tree removal permit is not required
for two owing: ,
(i) Trees that are identified and approved for -
removal in an approved plot plan, precise plan, or
conditional use permit provided ,that such removal is
subJect to .removal criteria of Section ,
9-4 .155(e) (;4) or
(ii) Trees in hazardouscondition which present an
immediate danger to health or property, or
(Ili) Trees that are to be Pruned, out above ground, removed. or othervice
disturbed affecting lava than 30% of the tri cs csna.
- (iii)' Trees that are to`be removed as part of
management practices in orchards, Christmas Tree
Farms,or nurseries, OR TREES S,,PECIFICALLY PLANTED AS A
WOODLOT AND INTENDED TO BE HARVESTED AS A FOREST `
PRODUCT (THESE TREES SHALL BE REGISTERED WITH THE
CITY FREE OF CHARGE) .
(3) Application Content: Applications that propose
tree removal_ shall include all information specified' by
Section 9-2 . 107(b) (Plot Paan Content) and the following:
(i) The size, species, and condition (e.g. diseased, `
healthy, etc. ) of each tree proposed for removal.
(ii) The purpose for removal.
(iii) The size and the species of any tree(s)
proposed to replace those intended for removal.
Page 7.
(4) Tree Removal Criteria: tar rawaval ah*11 be
ImMuTim rw 7103 M3P=Tl0n7VrTW&Wll0Mt u'Clilzing a caty-provIded
I*MnIfIcaTion sign. Notice of tree puuiv mail be pmmea so so to in visible
from the ftrest. ,An application for tree 'removal may 'be,
approved only when at least one of the following
conditions is satisfied and cami-rima by a camtriza 9rwf2"ist amt
approved by the, CITY ARBORISTJURBAN FORESTER: cmamity ,
1iopap�s Diroctc�: -
(i) IF dead, diseased beyond reclamation, or hazardous.
(ii) IF crowded, with good horticultural practices
dictating thinning;
(iii) IF interfering with existing utilities,
structures, or' rght-of-way improvements; provided that
right-of-way improvements - especially sidewalks
shall accommodate existing trees whenever possible.
(iv) IF obstructing existing or proposed improvements
that can not be reasonably designed to avoid the need
for tree` removal
IN THIS CONTEXT, :IT SHALL BE THE BURDEN OF THE PERSON
SEEKING THE PERMIT TO DEMONSTRATE TO THE SATISFACTION
OF THE CITY ARBORIST/URBAN FORESTER THAT THERE ARE NO
REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED DESIGN AND USE •
OF THE PROPERTY. EVERY REASONABLE EFFORT SHALL BE MADE
TO AVOID IMPACTING OAKS AND HERITAGE TREES, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED ,TO THE USE OF CUSTOM BUILDING DESIGN.
(v) IF inhibiting sunlight needed for either active or
passive solar heating or cooling, and the building of
solar collectors can not be oriented to collect
sufficient -sunlight without total removal of the tree.
THE CITY ARBORIST/URBAN FORESTER'S DECISION SHALL TAKE
INTO CONSIDERATION:
(vi) THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE LAND, AND THE POTENTIAL
EFFECT OF THE REQUESTED TREE REMOVAL ON SOIL
RETENTION, WATER RETENTION, AND DIVERSION OR INCREASED
FLOW OF SURFACE WATERS. HE SHALL CONSIDER HOW EITHER
PRESERVATION OR REMOVAL OF THE TREE(S) WOULD RELATE
TO GRADING AND DRAINAGE. EXCEPT AS SPECIFICALLY
AUTHORIZED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE CITY
COUNCIL, HILLTOPS, RAVINES, STREAM BEDS, AND OTHER`
NATURAL WATER COURSES THAT PROVIDE' A HABITAT FOR TREES
AND WILDLIFE SHALL NOT BE ;DISTURBED.
Page 8
-
t Ivii) THE NUMBER,.. SPECIES, SIZE, AND LOCATION OF
., EXISTING TREES IN THE AREA AND THE EFFECT OF THE
REQUESTED ACTION ON SHADE, AIR POLLUTION, SOUND
POLLUTION, HISTORIC VALUES, SCENIC BEAUTY, AND THE
GENERAL WELFARE OF THE CITY AS A WHOLE.
(viii} THE SPECIAL NEED TO PROTECT EXISTING BLUE AND
VALLEY OAKS AND EXISTING REGENERATIONOFBLUE AND
VALLEY OAK SAPLINGS:
(5) Replacement Trees: , ahem, upon tion ane the
arbori v to 00 extensive t"t tree replacement would eve
no %rem hichPurpWill
rprov" Cres(s) "all bs replace with a simiiar Cres or a number
Cyr trams trAseh aili provide equal aesthetic quality. The minUrm size ce a replant
tree &hail be 1n a fifteen 415) gallom container.
(i) OTHER MATURE TREES:
EVERY TREE REMOVED SHALL BE REPLACED.THE MINIMUM SIZE
OF A REPLACEMENT TREE FOR AN OTHER MATURE \TREE SHALL
BE IN A FIVE (5) GALLON CONTAINER.
MATURE AND SIGNIFICANT OAKS AND HERITAGE TREES:
EVERY MATURE AND SIGNIFICANT OAK AND HERITAGE TREE
REMOVED SHALL BE REPLACED WITH TREES OF SIMILAR
SPECIES.. (OAKS REPLACED WITH OAKS) . THE PLANTING OF BLUE
AND VALLEY OAKS SHALL BE ESPECIALLY ENCOURAGED. EVERY
• OAK AND HERITAGE TREE REMOVED SHALL BE REPLACED WITH A;
MINIMUM OF TWO (2) TREES, EACH IN A MINIMUM OF A
FIFTEEN (15) GALLON CONTAINER (ONE INCH MINIMUM
TRUNK CALIPER MEASURED TWELVE INCHES ABOVE SOIL
LEVEL) . THE VALUE OF THE REPLACEMENT TREES MAY BE
REQUIRED TO EQUAL THE VALUE OF THE TREE REMOVED.
FIFTY (50) PERCENT OF THE REQUIRED REPLACEMENT TREES
MAY BE SUBSTITUTED BY PROTECTING EXISTING BLUE AND
VALLEY OAK SAPLINGS BETWEEN ONE (1) AND TWO (2) INCHES
IN DIAMETER. THREE (3) SAPLINGS 'SHALL COUNT AS ONE
REPLACEMENT TREE. THE SAPLINGS MUST BE ON THE SAME
PROPERTY AND LOCATED WITHIN SEVENTY-FIVE (75) YARDS OF
THE REMOVED TREE. PROTECTIONSHALL INCLUDE; BUT NOT BE
LIMITED TO, A SIX (6) FOOT HIGH FENCE TOTALLY
SURROUNDING THE SAPLING. THE FENCE SHALL BE LEFT IN
PLACE UNTIL THE SAPLING REACHES THREE (3) INCHES IN
DIAMETER.
REPLACEMENT TREES SHALL BE PLANTED WITHIN TWELVE (12) `
MONTH OF THE TREE REMOVAL OR BEFORE ISSUANCE OF THE
FINAL INSPECTION.
Page 9
(iii) IF THE SITE CAN NOT ACCOMMODATE THE REPLACEMENT
TREES; THEN AN APPROPRIATE AMOUNT MAY BE PLACED IN AN
OAK TREE PRESERVATION..AND REPLACEMENT `FUND TO BE
UTILIZED FOR THE PRESERVATION AND `REPLACEMENT "OF OAK
-TY -ARB
ORIS
T URBAN
FORESTER
TREES WITHIN THE CITY. THE CI /
SHALL COORDINATE USE OF THIS FUND'-
(f) SIGNIFICANT
UND.(f) ,SIGNIFICANT OAKS
(I) APPLICATION CONTENT: SEE SECTION 9-4.155 (e) (3)
THE CITY ARBORIST/URBAN FORESTER SHALL PREPARE A. REPORT
TO THE CITY COUNCIL, OUTLINING THE PROPOSAL AND HIS
RECOMMENDATION, CONSIDERING TREE REMOVAL CRITERIA AS
OUTLINED IN SECTION (e) (4)
(2) TREE REMOVAL CRITERIA: A SIGNIFICANT OAK SHALL NOT
BE REMOVED EXCEPT AS OLLOWS:
(i) THE TREE HAS` DIED OR IN A HAZARDOUS . CONDITION
WHICH PRESENTS AN IMMEDIATE DANGER.
(ii) THE TREE HAS BEEN APPROVED FOR -REMOVAL BY THE
CITY COUNCIL, FOLLOWING PUBLIC HEARING.
(3) TRIMMINGJPRUNING: TRIMMING/PRUNING REQUIRES CITY
COUNCIL APPROVAL FOLLOWING PUBLIC HEARING.
ANY REMOVAL SO AUTHORIZED SHALL BE GRANTED A TREE REMOVAL
PERMIT SUBJECT TO REPLACEMENT TREE CONDITIONS PER SECTION
9-4 .155 (e) (5) , s
(Q) HERITAGE TREES: Heritage trees are established as a special group of
trees which - TO' to a55. size. visibility. or hi6toric nature - deserve special;
consideration for preservation and protection.
tl) �3glnitions
(1) ,Any tree designated by Aescluticn of the City Council on the basis of age. s1=s,
location. visibility or historic omgin.
(1) ,APPLICATION CONTENT: SEE SECTION 9-4 .155 (e)'(3) .
THE CITY ARBORIST/URBAN FORESTER SHALL PREPARE A REPORT ,
TO THE CITY COUNCIL, OUTLINING THE PROPOSAL AND HIS
RECOMMENDATION.
Page 10
I .
I
I ..
•
JUSTIFICATION FICATION OF"
MODIFICATI€?NS OF TREE ORDINANCE N0: 168
RECOMMENDED BY THETREECOMMITTEE
The Tree Comiaittee is basing their recommended modifications
of Tree Ordinance No. 168 upon the need to clarify and
strengthen the document.
Any change can create unanticipated loopholes The Tree
Committee has carefully considered the recommended changes
after extensive study and is justifying all changes in
writing.
The modifications of Tree Ordinance No. 168, recommended by
the Tree Committee, provide basic consideration for all
trees eight (8) inches in,'diameter or greater, virtually
unchanged from the pre May 1988 Tree ordinance The major
difference between the pre May 1988 and the revised
• Ordinance No 168 as proposed, is stronger oak tree
protection.
Page 1 �
I
1. Page 1, Sect. (b) Definitions.
This section adds clarification.
2. sect. (b) (ii) Mature Oak:
"Native tree" has been changed to "mature oak" because:
1, most people support strong oak tree protection.
2. the General Plan update questionnaires as well as
the-Atascadero HomeownerAssociationsurvey clearly
show that oaks are considered to be one of the
great assets of the City, being closely related to
its identity and aesthetic quality (see enclosures
10 and I1) .
3. the protection and regeneration of oak trees should
be especially encouraged because
a. oaks are the predominant native tree cover of
Atascadero.
b. water is a limited resource in this area.* oaks '
are drought #olerant and do not require
additional watering.
c. oaks grow on steep slopes in poor soil. They
stabilize hillsides and prevent erosion.
d. oaks are fire retardant, especially when the '
dead branches have been removed. •�
e. oaks provide food and shelter for;wildlife.
Many animal species depend. on= the oaks and
would disappear with them Oaks are an
important part in the local eco-system.
f., oaks are adapted to this climate.
4. see enclosures 1 and 14 . .
5. some peo le` ob _e.
t to s ronq Protection
measures
for other native trees( illow, cottonwood, digger
pine, etc)
6 . the statistics indicate relative few removals of
other native trees (see enclosure 2)
7 . the Paso Robbs tree ordinance concentrates on
oak trees. This ordinance seems to enjoy general
public support (;see enclosure 6)
3 . Sect. (b) (iii) Significant Oak:
1. Under the old "heritage tree" category several
different concepts were clustered together. The
Tree Committee separated this into two categories,
the "significant oaks" and the "heritage trees" , to
add clarity..
Page 2
2. The "significant oak" category will assure that
.� every oak of sixteen (16.) inches in diameter and
above will be ;looked at twice, before a removal
permit is issued.
3. The twenty (20) inch diameter has been reduced to
sixteen (16) inches requiring Council approval
because: ;
a. this category is now limited to oaks and does
not require Council; approval for other native
trees.
b. the statistics indicate that, on the average,
only one application per month came before the
Council (see enclosure 2) .
c. Mr. Elmendorf (with years of experience as a
City Arborist/Urban Forester in Thousand oaks)
points out that the twenty (20) inch diameter
is much to large (see enclosure 5) .
d. the Paso Robles Tree Ordinance requires City
Council approval for oaks six (6) inches
in diameter or larger!
It has been argued that _Paso Robles has fewer
oaks than Atascadero. Are we to wait until we
have as few oaks as Paso Robles before the City
Council sets a more stringent limit?
4 . Significant oak removal (inallzones of the City)
needs to be approved by the City Council because:
a. , 85% of the tree removal occurs in the
residential zones (see enclosure 2) .
b. Public. pressure initiated the moving of the
Proposed Vista and Garciero Roads
C. the public hearing will assure that residents
have the opportunity to give input.
d. tree removal permits processed by, Staff do not
get Publicized until they have been approved.
2t requires a $100. appeal to the Planning
Commission for a resident to give input.
The decision to remove an oak of this size
should be shared by staff (recommendation) ,
Residents (public input) and the City Council
(decision)
4 . Sect. (b-) (iv) Heritage Tree:
1. Many people expressed the desire to make heritage
trees very special . This has been done by:
Page 3
e
I
a. not specifying an genus
Y g
Y
b. not specifying an size
Y
_c. requiring designation by theCity council for
every heritage tree. M r
2. The City may consider a tracking system by:
a. putting -every heritage tree on a map
b. marking every ;heritage` tree with a pin (that
will not damage the tree)
S. Page 2, Sect. ''(b) (v) Other Mature Tree:
1. Other mature trees (all but oaks) will require
removal permits when eight (8) inches .in diameter
and above. There has been no change from the old
tree 'ordinance that was in effect before May 1988
(see enclosure 3) `and the present ordinance #168.
2. The Atascadero General Plan states on page 58 that
"a program shall be developed to encourage the
preservation of trees, watersheds and natural
slopes . . . " (see enclosure 4) . it does not limit it
to oaks.
3. Protection for these trees is very limited.
It will, however, allow the protection of a tree
other than an oak if it is in the public' s interest
(Sycamore in front of Pipin's Chicken) This
Provides basic consideration (see enclosure 14 ) .
4. Most street and park trees are not oak trees.
Without this provision they will not have any
protection.
5. This permit requirement will assure that the tree
proposed for removal has been properly identified
and is not an oak
6. sect. (b) (x) Hazardous:
1. This term required clearer definition.
7 . sect. (b)'(xiii) Trim/Prune:'
1 . This has been redefined because:
a. this will onlyapply to oaks and heritage trees
b.. addressing, percentage of tree crown removal
makes enforcement difficult.
c. Mr. Elmendorf expressed great concern on this
point (see enclosures 5 and 9c) .
Page 4 .
` S. Sect. (b) (xvii) City Arborist/Urban Forester:
It is recommendedthat the .current Tree Ordinance be changed
to require City Employment of a full-time Professional urban
Forester. This change to `City' employed Urban Forester can
be justified as follows:
A. Administrative
1. Compliance with Tree Ordinance will be fully within
City::: control.
2. Improved Tree Ordinance efficiency,` by:
a. single responsible ' and knowledgeable individual
b. hong-term cost-savings
c. more direct accountability
3 Closer coordination on tree questions with other
City Departments, like:
a. Fire (wildfire fuel management) ,
b. Public Works (street-side 'shade trees)
c. Parks and Recreation (park trees)
4 . Reduce utilization in Planning Department for
• planners to work on tree permits, since
a`, it is estimated, by staff, that currently
processing tree permits require one professional
Planner about twenty hours per week.
5. Develop and prepare annual report "state of City
trees",. with full record/and compliance statistics,
for City Council review,
6. Improved public relations:
a. strong public opposition to `applicant 'hire
of certified arborist
b. faster response time to public tree removal
requests; public complaint about difficulty
reaching certified arborists
c. provide expert advice/service to the public
d. assist interested citizens in forming local
tree support group, like "Tree People", or
"Friends of Atascadero Trees"
e. represent City to organizations like California
Urban Forestry Council and
f.. maintain City status, "Tree City" recognition'
with National Arbor Day Foundation.
Page 5
i
7. Urban Forester will' eliminate need for tree removal
A applicant to seek out and hire an arborist. This -
requirement can be removed from the current
ordinance,
S. Of the thirteen (13) California cities that were
surveyed, Atascadero is the only city using the
flawed system of applicants hiring the outside
arbori`sts. ' They determine compliance with the
Ordinance rather than City Staff. This presents a
potential conflict of interest and does not assure
uniform standards ('see enclosure 12) .
B. Technical
Since Atascadero City area is largely open oak-woodland.
an Urban Forester could:
1. Provide timely, technical assistance to evaluate
Tree Ordinance:
a. recommendations on Tree Removal request.
b. citizen or staff complaints about violations
of Tree ordinance
c. determine` value of trees to set bond
requirements and replacement trees
2. Provide advice to City emergency tree removal
problems
3. In cases of litigation about City tree damage,
provide expert witness for City.
4. Develop public education programs, like:
a. general tree information for adults
b. youth programs, like,AFAJState Project
Learning Tree, for schools
c. techn al program fqr wildfire hazard
reduction
Christmas tree and wo odit t
el
d. pamphlets and AV materials'' for local
information about tree management.
5 . Provide technical shade tree advice to City on
maintenance and improvement, like:
a. scheduled tree maintenance; pruning watering,
fertilization, etc.
b. thinning, removal
C. regeneration; planting and/or oak sapling
protection
6 . Develop a` full, City shade tree inventory:
a. tree vigor and root conditions, using
Specimen Tree concept
Page 6
b. identify,
Potential hazard _trees
heritage trees
c.- develop full value of City trees, by '
formula
d. computerized cost/benefit and rotation
schedules
7. Develop complete tree protection program:
a. insect/disease" damage
b. animal/weather-related
c. wildfire hazard reduction
- wildland fuel management
• - public education
with CDF and City Fire Department
8. Help City and land-owner develop plans to
maximize forest related benefits, like:
a. noise, and visual and air-pollution
screens with trees
b. improved wildlife and watershed
C. improved recreation and visual resources
9. Provide technical forest management advice to local
woodland owners about:
a. development of woodland forest management
plans; possible
• qualification for state/federal
assistance payments under CFZP and FTP
b woodlot improvement
c. woodlot regeneration
d. -woodlot harvest., and utilization.
C. Economic
Addition of a City Urban Forester does represent an
additional budget expense to the City. However, there is
also potential for added City income by this action, from:
1 . reduced litigation costs to City for tree related
damages
2 . potential for possible reduction in City fire
insuranceremi
ums
p based on improved
w'
ed
P wildfire
fuel management program
3 . better use of inexpensive labor for tree management,
through:
a. CDF, Conservation Corp crews
b Usps, yCC
C. State, CCC
d. Cal Poly, internships and cooperative
education
Page 7
4 . indirect cost-savings from wildfire fuel
management program, through:
a. better pre-planning to reduce risk to
human"life
b. owner risk of residential home 'loss in
wildfire
C. possible ownerresidential house fire
insurance premiums
5. under State ERMA, City with- urban forestry ,plan
may receive additional state funding supports
6. Urban Forester can also apply to CLF, for:E
a. special urban 'forestry grant funds to
support urban forestry project; from
Jim Geiger, CDF/Sacramento (from Prop. 180)
b. on-going forest/woodlot improvement payments
federal and state, PIP and <CFIP programs;
from Fen Parker, CDP/San Luis Obispo
7. more precise value base on all City trees
S. indirect cost savings, by improved water-yield,
which extends water supply, locally.
9. See enclosures 1 and 7a.
9. Page 3, Sect (c) (1) Posting:
•
g
1 . Stating this at the beginning of the ordinance
avoids repeating it throughout the ordinance
2. Posting requirements have been added for trees that
go before the City Council because:
a. it keeps residents informed
b.' it may avoid calls from concerned residents
that may think that illegal cutting is taking
place.
3. Hazardous tree removal should be posted at the
street to avoid calls from concerned residents .
4 Posted signs need to be readable, not just visible,
from the street.
10. sect`. (c)'(2) Planning Commission-
1 . This was added' for:
a. checks and balances <
b.' so decision making and responsibility is shared
between Staff, Planning Commission and City
Council'.
Page 8
. fd Tree
Sect 'Protection Plan. .
1. The Tree` Committee-recommendation needs to be
removedsince the Tree Committee has been
abolished.
2• The certified arborists have been replaced with a
City Arborist/Urban Forester because:
a. see item 8 above
b. Mr. Elmen3orf voiced strong concerns (see
enclosure 5)
3• The ordinance needs to be more specific on
mitigation.
4. To avoid a potential conflict of interest the
developer should not hire the consultant.
5. the general public has expressed resentment
against being required to hire an arborist. i
12 Page 4, Sect. (d) (2) (i) :
f
• 1 • This will make dripline information more specific
(see enclosure 5)
13 Page 5, sect. d) (3) (1) : Tree Identification:
1• This part 'has been moved to the beginning of the
ordinance See item 9 above.
14 Sect. (d) (3) (i) Dripline Protection:
1. This section has' been modified because:
a• many People continue► to be under the false
impressionthat the dripline can never be
• invaded.
b• much clarity will be added by stating that the
entire dripline of an oak is protected but that
exceptions may be approved (see enclosure e 6
C
professional ssional experts stress in publications the
importance of dripline protection for oak trees
(see enclosure 9a) .
d. Cal Poly Professor Dr. Tim O'Keefe, City of' San
n
.Luis '
obis
P0 Arborists Jack Brazeal and Art
Tonneson , and City of Thousand Oaks Urban
Forester Bill Elmendorf have all Pointed out
the importance of Protecting the dripline and
have guided the Tree Committee with their
• professional advice.
Page g
e. Atascadero has Lost and continues to lose many
large oaks because of damage within the . .
dripine (see numerous examples on El Camino
Real)
15. Page 6, 'Sect (d) (3) (ii) Landscape Plans:
1. . This ;added information will help to clarify.
Irrigation should be avoided under established
oaks (see enclosure 9b) .
16. Sect. (d) (3) (iii) Performance Bond:
1`. The minimum bond per tree in case of violation was
added because:
a. after a violation has occurred it is often
difficult to appraise the value of the tree
before it was damaged.
b. this is an answer to the repeated request to be
tough with violators.
17. Sect. (e) Tree Removal Permit:
1 . The definition has been moved to the list of
definitions, page 2, section (b) (xii)
2. Topping/pollardinng should not be allowed on oaks •
and heritage trees because:
a. it can cause long-term damage due to reduced
photosynthetic ability and structurally
inferior sprouts subject to subsequent
breakage
b. it may serve as an entry point for tree
disease and decay that could lead to tree
death.
18. Page. ?, 'Sect`. (e) (1) When Required:
1. The definition has been moved to the list of
definitions, page 1, section (b) ( i) . °See also
item 2 above.
2. The existing ordinance states when you do not need
a permit to prune (section (e) (2) (11i) ) . It is
clearer to state when a permit is required to
trim/prune.
Page 10
sect. (e) (2) (iii) Exemptions:
1. The portion on planted woodiots has been added
because many people expressed concerns that they
could not harvest oak trees if they had
specifically planted thew for this purpose.
2. Registration is required because of the ,possible
confusion between self-generated and planted trees.
20. Page 8, Sect. (e) (4) Tree Removal Criteria•
I. Posting has been moved to the front of the
ordinance. See item 9 above.
21. Sect. (e) (4) (iv) ;
1. This ordinance revision is primarily concentrating
on oak preservation. Every effort should be made to
accomplish this goal (see enclosure 4 and 6)
22. Sect. (e) (4') (vi) (vii) Points of Consideration:'•
1. These sections have been added to address some of
the requirements stipulated in the Atascadero
• General plan (see enclosure 4) .
2. Basic environmental impacts need to be addressed
before approval 'of tree removal (see enclosures 6
and 14) .
23. Page 9, Sect. (e) (4)'(vii ) Blue and wales oaks•
1. This section has been added because:
a. blue and `valley, oaks are not, regenerating in
sufficient numbers.
b. blue oaks are very slow growing; for example
on a poor site, a four inch diameter blue oak
may be fifty years old!
c, valley oaks grow in the valley areas where they
find deep soil and ground water. These are the
areas in the City that experience ,the densest
development.
24 . Sect. (e) (5) Replacement trees:
1. This section has been revised because;
a. the General Plan requires on page 158 that any
trees removed be replaced (see enclosure 4)
Page i1
b. it seems punitive to require a 15 gallon .
replacement tree for trees other than oaks.
This -has been reduced to a tree in a .5 gallon
container..
c. oak regeneration is poor due to:
browsers like deer
rodents like gophers and acorn eaters
livestock like horses and goats . :
competition with annual grasses --
poorly understood weather cycles
In addition, annual acorn crops are, also
-
'hghly variable and frequently good acorn
crops are inversely correlated with good
weather (little rain to get their started) .
This explains why high replacement tree
requirements are needed.
d. it has been pointed out that the average
survival rate for planted replacement trees is
500. Trees in 'larger containers (15 gal. or box
trees) have a better survival chance than
smaller ones (per 'Jack Brazeal, San
Luis Obispo City Arborist),
2 Replacement trees may be required to equal the
value of the removed tree because:
a. some projects have considerable impact.
Replacement trees are only, an attempt to
restore what has been removed. A two-hundred
year old oak can be replaced only by planting a
tree and waiting two-hundred years (see
enclosure 5 and 8)
b. it will provide an incentive to save oaks and .
provide for their protection (retaining walls,
alternative architecture, etc. )'
c. it may act as an incentive not to violate the
ordinance.
d. it will provide a `strong mitigationmeasure.
3. Existing sapling protection should be allowed to
fulfill some .of the replacement tree requirements
because:
a. blue and valley oaks are not adequately
regenerating.
b. blue oaks are difficult to obtain as nursery
stock.
c. this is one of the few ways to realistically
expect to' have' blue oaks in the future (see
enclosure 1 ) .
d. it will reduce the property owners expense.
4 . A City fund for replacement trees has been added
because: •
Page 12
a. it gives property owners who do not want to
plant the trees on their property another
option.
b. it will provide funding for street and park
trees.
c. this fund can be used in cases of violation.
Mitigation measures include replacement trees.
25. Page 10,, Sect. (f) Significant Oaks:
1. See item 3 above.
26. Sect (g) Heritage Trees:
1. See item 4 above.
27 . Page 11, Sect. (h) Other Mature Trees:
1 . See item 5 above.
2. Tree identification has been moved to the beginning
of the ordinance under posting. See item 9 above.
3. Exemptions need to be listed.
28. Sect. (i) Penalties:
1. This changes wording, not content. It adds clarity.
I
i
Page 13
I
OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS BY THE TRES COMMITTEE
The Tree Committee recommends that:
1. mitigation measures (replacement trees,, bond, etc)
shall not be limited to construction sites
2. in ease of failure to obtain a required permit for
tree removal, a retroactive permit shall be required
and a double ;permit fee shall be imposed.
3. the fee for removal permits for dead or diseased
trees be; eliminated (see encl. 13 and 7b) .
r
l
AWEMA
- �
'Iffir &*WA0 „
MBMt1RANDU 'M
TO: City Council October 25, 1988
VIA: Ray Windsor, City Manager
II' FROM. Henry Engen, Community Developmenttopme_ nt Director
for
SUBJECT: Consideration of Initiation of Changes to the "Tree
Ordinance"
BACKGROUND:
When the -Tree Ordinance - actually an amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance - was adopted on April 12, 1988 as Ordinance No. 168
(see attached) , it was donewith the understanding that the
ordinance would be monitored and there would be a six-month
report back on October 25, 1988 to consider possible refinements.
TheTree Committee has b meetin en extensively on this subject
. e Q
• and will be presenting a special report to the Council on this
date.
ANALYSIS:
All zoning ordinance amendments that the Council may wish to
consider must be referred to the Planning Commission for staff
report, public hearing and recommendation back to the Council.
The Council then also holds public hearings before any, changes
can be made.
At this writing, we do, not have the specific recommendations of
the Tree Committee but would suggest that amendments initiated
for consideration generally deal with the following subjects:
A. Arborists - expand the definition to allow for the selection
of the most appropriate type of professional to assist
staff, Planning Commission and Council in making their
determinations on tree protection measures.
B. Replacement Trees - there needs to be a policy determination
made as to whether tree replacement should be mandated on
the single family properties that have extensive tree cover
and no need for replacement on site. Related to this policy
issue is whether replacement trees should be required for
non-native trees.
• C. Heritage Tree Definition - there has been debate as to
whether t e 20-inch iameter basic definition of heritage
tree is too stringent, except perhaps in the case of Blue
and Valley Oaks
D. Citj Council Hearings - staff would recommend that consider-
ation e i given to delegating the current City Council
required hearings to the Planning Commission for high
density zones (commercial), industrial, multi-family) and .to
staff for single family projects.
E. Hazardous Trees - Council has previously directed that
guidelines bi established for determining when a tree is
hazardous.
F. Citx Forester - in lieu of a City Forester or permanent City
Arborist, staff would recommend consideration for a supple-
mentary' appropriation to "contract services tree protec-
tion" , to enable staff to retain professional services. We
would like to use such an account to get second opinions
when staff cannot determine if a tree is dead, diseased, or
dying, and it would relieve citizens of this extra charge.
In addition, the staff could utilize professional services
in the review of tree protection plans where there is a need
or controversial call in the offing.
RENDATIQN: •
Following review of the Tree Committee's report, initiate
consideration for a `zoning text amendment covering the points
raised above, together with any other items Council desires.
HE:ph
Encl: ordinance No. 168
cc: Tree Committee
•
• THE TREE COMMITTEE
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
P.O. BOX 747
ATASCADER01 CA 93423
TO: Mayor and City Council
From: Tree Committee
DATE: October 17, '- 1988
SUBJECT: Urban Forester Bill Elmendorf
In light of the upcoming Tree Ordinance review;' the Tree
Committee would like to suggest informal meetings with City
Council members, Planning Commissioners, City 'Manager, Staff,
and City of Thousand oaks Urban Forester Bill Elmendorf.
Mr. Elmendorf has been very helpful and supportive and ,has
advised the Tree Committee on matters of tree protection. He
has offered to share hisexperience and knowledge, and would
like to answer questions and be of assistance:
George and I offer to host Mr. Elmendorf at our home.
• A letter of invitation may be mailed to:
Mary-Jane Lazz
Assistant City Manager
City of Thousand Oaks
P.O. Box 1496
Thousand Oaks, California 91360
Mr. Elmendorf may be reached at:
Dept. of Planning and Community Development
City,-of Thousand Oaks
P.O Box 1496
Thousand Oaks, California 91360
Telephone: 497-8611
VurS
Ursula Luna
Chairperson ,
Tree Committee
•
_.. �.• ORDINANCE NO. 168
Adopted'April 12,1988
s City of Atascadero
siss i r
MAS i!�`Tii• � •
TREE ORDINANCE
9-4.f55_• TREE PROTECTION: certified arborist chosen erfrom. .
-Preservation o nature ora a list recommended by, the Tree
and fauna is a basic community Committee and designated by
goal of the Atascadero General resolution •of the City Council
Plan. as acceptable to the City of
Atascadero The arborist must
(a) POSE: The trees of certify that the project as,
Atascadero are valuedro osed complies with the
community assetsThe u P PP �
purpose City's criteria to preserve
i
of this section s to and protect existing trees
establish regulations for the from indiscriminate or
installation, maintenance, unnecessary removal and Q,
preservation, and selected damage;. The Community r
removal of native and heritage Development Director, in case
.trees within.the City. In of disagreement with the
establishing these procedures arborist's recommendations, `
and standards, it is the may seek a' second qualified '
City's intent to encourage the arborist's opinion (at City
preservation of trees and expense) and reject or modify
other natural amenities with plans as submitted.
• sensitive design and
development practices. City (1) When Required. The .tree
review of proposed projects protection plan shall be
shall take into consideration required as part of the
trees existing on the property materials submitted: for a plot
with applicants encouraged to plan, precise plan or
design projects to utilize conditional use permit "
existing trees in the approval.
landscaping pattern. The
provisions of this 'section (2) Application Content.
shall apply to -al property Applications shall include all
within the City of Atascadero, information specified by
.*Public or private, and .to any Section 9-2.107 (b) (Plot Plan
person, firm, corporation, Content) and:
public or private utility.
(i) size, *species,` state of
(b) TREE PROTECTION PLAN: In health, and estimated
order to protect trees during dripline of each tree
construction of a project and within twenty (20) feet
to maximize chances for their of all development areas
subsequent survival, a tree (including any areas
protection plan shall be where trenching is
required as part of proposed) .
applications subject to this (ia ) measures proposed to
section. Said plans shall be ensure the survival of
approved by an International remaining trees through
Society of Arboriculture (ISA) the construction process
' and thereafter, .
•• r.
• -(iii) size and species of trees
proposed to replace those (iii)Landscape plans, when
proposed for removal. required, must show the
proposed landscaping
(3) Tree Protection within the dripline of
Standards. Approval of tree trees.
protection plans shall require
compliance with 'the following (iv) Performance bond may be
standards: required in a form
acceptable to the City
(i) Tree Identification. prior to issuance of an
Trees proposed for entitlement to assure
-removal shall be protection of trees on
identified for field the site.: The amount of
inspection by the any set bond shall be .`
arborist utilizing 'a $1,500 or the value of �
City-provided affected trees, whichever
identification sign. is greater, based on '
Notice of Tree--Removal "Manual for Plant • -
Permit shall bepostedso - ,Appraisers", Council Of
as to be visible from the. Tree and Landscape
street. Appraisers, First
(ii) Drip Line ProtectionEdition, 1986 a copy of
. which is available for
The developer is review in the Community
• responsible, through Development Department,
final building If, in the opinion of the
inspection, for the certified arborist, no
preservation ofalltrees violation or no damage:
which are to remain on, has occurred during
- the project site. construction, the bond
Towards this end, the shall be returned upon
following are required: final `building -
Parking of vehicles or inspection. If however, has occdamage,
urred the
storage of equipment and bond shall beheldfor
materials under the threeyears and forfeited
dripline of protected if, in the opinion of
trees is prohibited the certified arborist
during construction. permanent damage has
occurred.
'Fencing. Each tree or
group of trees to be (v) Nonconformance. In case
preserved shall be of nonconformance with
protected by enclosure tree protection
with a five foot fence requirements, the - '
prior to grading, Community Development
movement of heavy Director shall issue a
equipment, or approval of Stop Work Order until all
an plans. Location of
y p requirements have been
• the fence shall be at the met.
discretion of 'the
arborist subject to City
approval. 2
(vi) Unauthorized Mork.
Should unauthorized work (i) Trees that are identified -O
lead to tree damage or and approved for removal
destruction, the in an approved plot plan, ,
Community Development precise plan, or
Director shall issue a conditional use permit
Stop Work Order until the provided that such
developer has mitigated removal is subject to
the damage done pursuant, removal criteria of
but not lim ted.to, Section 9-4.155(c) (4) s or
criteria contained in
Subsection (b) (3) (iv) (ii) Trees :in a hazardous
Performance Bonds and condition which presents
Subsection (c) (5) an immediate danger to
Replacement Trees. The health or property; or
matter maybe appealed to
the Planning Commission. (iii)Trees that are to be
pruned, cut above ground,
(c) TREE REMOVAL PERMIT: removed, or otherwise
Tree removal means destruction -disturbed affecting less
or displacement of a tree by than 30% of the tree
cutting, bulldozing, or other crown.
mechanical or chemical means,
which results in physical (iv) Trees that are to be
transportation of the tree removed as part of
from its site and/or death of management practices in
the tree. orchards, Christmas Tree •
Farms, or nurseries.
(1) When Required: For
native trees, no person shall (3) Application Content:
allow orcause the removal of Applications that
a tree over twelve (12) inches propose tree removal
or more in circumference or shall include all
four (4) inches -or more in information specified by
diameter measured four (4) Section 9-2.107 (b) (Plot
feet above grade without first Plan Content) and the
obtaining a tree removal following: `
permit unless otherwise
exempted herefrom. (Refer to (i} The size, species, and
Section 9-4.155 (d) for special condition (e.g. diseased,
provisions for heritage healthy, etc.) of each
trees) . Native trees shall be tree proposed for
those species as defined by removal.
Resolution of the City
Council. _ (ii) The purpose for removal.
For non-native trees, refer to (iii) The size and the species
Subsection (c) (7) ' of any tree proposed to
replace those intended
(2) Exemptions: A tree for removal.
removal permit isnot required
for the following:
3
• 'i4) Tree Removal Criteria: with--out total removal of
Trees proposed for removal the tree.
shall be identified for field
inspection by the applicant (5) Replacement Trees:
utilizing a City-provided Except where, upon recommen-
.identification sign:' Notice -dation of the arborist, the
of tree removal permit shall remaining tree cover is so
be posted so as to be visible extensive that tree
from the street. An replacement would serve no
application for tree removal useful purpose, removed
may be approved only when at tree(s) shall be replaced with
least one of the following a similar native tree ora
conditions is satisfied and number of treep_ which will
certified by a certified provide equal aesthetic
arborist and approved by the quality. The minimum size of '
Community Development a replacement tree shall be in , .
Director: a',fifteen (15) gallon
container.
(i) Dead, diseased beyond
reclamation', or (6)' Non-Native Trees. For
hazardous. non-native trees-9 inches -i.n
diameter or greater, a removal
(ii) Crowded, with good permit shall be obtained, but
horticultural practices tree protection standards
dictating thinning; ' shall not apply,
• (iii) lnterfering with existing (i) Tree Identification.
utilities, structures, or Trees proposed for
right-of-way removal shall be
improvements; provided identified by the
that right-of-way applicant utilizing a
improvements - especially City-provided
sidewalks - shall identification sign.
accommodate existing Notice of tree removal
trees whenever possible.
permit shall be postedso
as to be visible from the
•(iv) Obstructing existing or street.
proposed improvements
that cannot be (d) HERITAGE TREES: Heritage
reasonably designed to trees are established as _a
avoid the need for tree special group of trees which
removal. due to age, size, visibility,
or historic nature - -deserve
(v) ` Inhibiting sunlight special consideration for `
needed for either active preservation and protection.
or passive solar heating
or cooling, and the (1) Definition
building of solar
collectors cannot be (i.) Any natives tree, as
oriented to collect defined by City Council
sufficient sunlight` -- Resolution, over sixty
• three (63) inches in
4
circumference or twenty
(2 0) inches or more m
diameter measured four
(4) feet above grade or a
multi-trunk tree with a
circumference of seventy
(70) inches or more.
(ii) Any other tree designated
by Resolution of the City
Council on the basis of
age, size, location,
visibilityor historic
origin.
(2) Tree Removal Criteria. A
heritage tree shall not be
removed except as follows:
(it The tree is approved for
removal by the City
Council, following public
hearing.
(ii) The tree has died or,
become a hazard as
determined by a
certified arborist.
Any removal "`so authorized
shall be granted a gree
removal permit subject to
replacement tree conditions.
(e) PENALTIES: Penalties for
violation of this ordinance
shall be as. set forth in '
Chapter, 3 of Title 1 of -this
Code.
99-4----'156• {Reserved- Street
Trees) :
9-4_ 157 (Reserved - Tree
Management Plan)
5
ADOPTED JUNE 27, 1987 1-8
9-1.111 Appeal: Decisions of the Planning Department or
Planning Commission may be appealed by an applicant or any
aggrieved person, including the Planning Commission and the City
Council, and individual members thereof. An appeal shall be
filed in the form of a letter setting forth the reasons for the
appeal. An appeal shall be accompanied by any fees required
Appeal fees shall not be required for appeals initiated by the
Planning Commission or the City Council. When an appeal has been
filed, the Planning Director will prepare a report on the matter
and schedule the appeal for consideration by the appropriate body
within thirty (30) days of receipt of the appeal. The hearing
body may affirm, affirm in part, or reverse .the action, decision
or determination which is the subject of the appeal, based upon
findings of-fact regarding the; particular case. Such findings
shall identify the reasons for the action on the appeal, and
verify the compliance or non-compliance of the subject of the
appeal with the provisions of this Title. Appeals relating to
matters which are resolvable through adjustment, variance or
amendment of this Titles shall be processed according to the
procedures of Section 9-1.112, 9-1. 113, 9-1.114 and 9-•1.115,
respectively.
(a) Planning Department Actions: Determinations on the
meaning or applicability of the provisions of this
Title which arebelievedto be in error, and cannot be
resolved with staff, and any decision of the Planning
Department to approve or deny an application may be
appealed to the Planning Commission. The Planning
Department shall provide the Planning Commission and
City Council with notification of its actions. Appeals
shall be filed with the Secretary of the Planning'
Commission within fourteen days after the decision of
the Planning Department. The appeal will be decided by
the Planning Commission following-a public hearing
conducted in accordance with, Section 9-1.110 (Public
Hearing) .
(b) Planning Commission Decisions: Any decision of the
Planning Commission may be appealed to the City
Councilbyfiling a letter of appeal with the City
Clerk within fourteen (14) days of the action of the
Planning Commission. The Planning Department shall
provide the City Council with notification of Planning
Commission actions. Appealswillbe decided by the
City Council following a public hearing conducted
pursuant to Section 9-1. 110 (Public Hearing) .
IWA
a ria ' k �w�� ►� { AC
r:N y� �,,,. p � d Mk p '"f'.��` .K. Y^�h � #�.� ..:.1 3` ,t° �� '"' ; x}.x f,b4'•:
- r ,;+'�" �+w a� + �;_��t "`e'.,.•. ,x � �'',. x,,, u�l �� ': $"� ,S's., i i'� � � #•." � a.. ..g �y,.r.;s. .t�,y .9� '<,-
'',.. st- r i;, ;�,c, � x,xf '•' #� s s' a& +�" *'s3 s 4t i ewe,, r k,
bbie! Mul"ler4'~ employee of° i tascadelro f; Ford;` said'"Sha;
ru 'Y;called•`and'she'was- asked' to remove the''banners- qns
a x t k i•, r
r -
!,,The ners4 etre..i+amiediat$1y taken down..-4ixhe sale snags
3 iN�is neW �,
ttst �City`artd` a id t resii"a:'that'x Ity h
}} so }=Aa t"'e at tide M"iv,
a 'ham" !3
5 s'�e j��+3
Vince 'Lennon- fro ....'"tascadera Ford i` :'Bald
sure 'g i van r. .
perei t ' they .Live u to ,their contract nd thinks' the` City ; r
should as well:
Council and staffdiscusio lowed.
L a
ft ions 8: Mayor Barg �.: ' u
Y Y g , Seco ed by Councilman
Shiers for vial of th ppeal. Passed 3:2 b
roll, call ate wi"th Council n Mackey and rt
CouncI an 'Lilley voting
The mayor sed far a`reCess at 9:15. Council convened`a
a 9:30 p.m
LL
C. INISHED, BUSINESS:
1. CONSIDERATION OF INITIATION OF CHANGES TO THE -TREE-
ORDINANCE-
Staff
TREEORDINANCE"Staff report was given by Henry Engen, Community Development
Director.
Ursula` Luna, Chairman v Tree Committee,'`: said the committee .
is recommending =the ordinance bee simplified ;and the previous :
list' of native trees 'should be reduced to oaks only. . They
recommend the city employ an urban forester. This will '
eliminate the requirement for the oublic to hire a certified
arborist. They are proposing to define the heritage tree
category to make it very special. They recommend that trees
planted by, the property owner may; be removed ' without a
permit. The- tree committee continues to recommend that the
s35 fee be eliminated for dead and diseased trees.
Sarah Gronstrand said please do not. lose site of the fact
thee Council is `art elected legislative body. `It is the
Council's responsibility to act on these matters. and' not
the -responsibility, of an
Y. appointed group, be they-
Commissioners or members f
o the tree mm tee nor the
CJ it s
paid employees.; _ This Is, much too much power for the
` Council to
de l eegate - 85% of the' permits are for :single
" houses:. ,' S the staff .have, so much extra time that it
can hand 1 e thye extra work? - If so.- perhaps the department
is over staffed;. The,•second amendment to be addressed' is
the city forester. The; work of a "IL-trained city forester
is specialized and should be performed by a well-trained
�°r,
i_ ,"'� � t? �� ��t�; � `r;{ ��T•� �`•���°?a's � '�`r„� .h� ,t ;� a *���T, r�.,. a� g ( .;;
°`u.t+�� � f� +"• �,� a �x ,�d ,'� .� � � s � ,��1 �,�� s�; t°' `=r ' ;�"��` �' �� r�
� - aF :�� s ,. �, Y � ��'s�: n :,1� ���� t f .�'' + � � f+ �ti. �Jrr"^�'`t s. ;"m �,'hs,,'h�k�'Afiha kY y, • ' 4f t`r
i
v 6,
i•°
E
~� fl
arson n. • l«te"do ,need, he: &ct of
.p
the=city:' growing at' such fastThe people hired,
be "able tomaintain"Independence'and, ob3ecti'yj-t
The perso 'atu
n st•' bi* resp®risible `atrtd ;answeerabie aanly�
loons i t "arid th+e C i til'.: tanageer n a
jv
t= x �� feor a H Mand�.. su sated for acouneil consideration thatw
.` � s,ehen the ordinances reequi res the property owners to get then ...
permit, we are overlooking the fact- that. the property owner i
` very seldom actually removes the tree themselveas. There
'= should be some,
sort of measure of r-aspona b i l i ty an the '
part of those engaged professionally indoing this type of
" thing to mak "certain that a permit is inexistence. That
Is not required in the current ordinance and is not evert
suggested• $t'' v,`� i� '� a $s 4"`• '7a`- 3 • '' ., s, a'
t t 344 f k ri +
A yresident of, Seen Luis Obispospo�a in favor of hiring
"i an Urban Foreester..
Elaine Oglesby spoke in favor of employing a full time Urban
Forrester.
Dave Duncan read the letter that he had submitted earlier to
the City Council. He asked that a tree management ordinance
be included in the tree ordinance and feels other native
trees besides oaks should be included.
Celia Moss, Vice President of the ' Home Owners Assoc. does
support I the recommendations' of . thea. Tree Committee to
strengthen and clarify thea tree ordinance.:' They, oppose
I any efforts ,to dilutethe provisions of-the-ordinance and
� r also recommend the employment of a full time arborist.
Dorothy McNeal, Sierra Vista, finds the only objectionable .
pant of the cure-ant tree =ordinance is the requirement ,that
an applicant must find an arborist, pay that person for
expert opinion and also pay the city a fee in order to ,
remove. a tree- on his property. She strongly favors hiring
a city arborist/urban forester and the elimination of the
city fee.
Others speaking in favor of hiring an urban forester
includeds Ben Parker, Fred Frank x Joe: Beatty, and Mike
Plat=.
Motions ,,,.,.By Councilman Shiers; seconded by Mayon 'Borgeson
to foward the Tree ,Committee recommendations ;to
, the. Planning Commission to 'look a# and possibly .
adoq t• as. the Tree Ordinance.
nanee.
. ..... .. ....
D i scuss i on( fol lowed by the Council . ': `
SY y �r.°• 7 � n!3!�� 'a ?r r"fir, :
Councilman Shiers withdrew his motion,
Motions Hy Couuncilman Dexter, seconded by Councilman
Lilley, to send this suggestion for modification
of ,the Tree Ordinance to the Planning Commission
for a Public Hearing. After the testimony of the
Public Hearing to arrange for a' working session
between the Council and the Planning Commission
which will be advertised and noticed and at that
time it will be returned to the City Council for
action. Passed unanimously by roll call vote.
NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL. CENTER (Hurricane Investment
Corporation)
y Windsor, City Manager, gave the staff report.
Fran Plat--, member of the Mutual Water Co. Board f
Direc rs statedthe! wel is are "marginal at best' .
Consensus of the council was to continue o support the
Com North Coy. Regional Center at the Roc Ile Site and t . '
direct the C ty Manager to appear before a Water Company
at its next m ting the water company o service the site
for the' North. 0 my Government Center
D. NEW BUSINESS
1. FIRE INSURANCE KENO' BUILDIN (5505 El Camino Real )
Staff report given by Ray i sor, City Manager.
Consensus is in concur ren th the City Manager's report.
2. RESTRICTION ON LIQUQ SALES OUTLE THROUGH ZONING AND SALE
L USE OF ALCOHOL. I CITY PARKS/FACI TIES '
Report was give by Mayor Borgeson.
Following di ussion by the Council and, taff Ray Windsor'
City Mana r, said he would like to itiate 1 som
discussio during the staff meeting on Thu day. He wit
bringb k a report to the Council at a late date as a
acend item.
Mo on: 8v Lilley, seconded by Mackey, that council irect
staff to take a look at it and report back a an
agenda item to include reference, to the use o
conditional use permits as outlined by the Mayo
Passed unanimously.
AA4*1 uA1414.* VI-4 .
• TREE ORDINANCE
(as recommended by the Tree Committee ;
INDEX
Section ( a) , pace 1: Purpose
Section (b) , page 1 : Definitions
Section (c) , page 3 : Procedures (general procedures)
Section ( d) , race Tree Protection Flan (construction)
Section (e ) page E: Tree Remcval Perm-- t
Mature Oaks
Section ( f) , page 10: Tree Removal Permit
S-gnificant Oaks
Section ( g) , page 10 : Tree Removal Permit
Heritage Trees
Sect--on (h) , page 11 : Tree Removal Permit
• OtAer :Mature Trees
Section ( i) , pace 11 . Penalties
':ire Tree Committee would like to make the following
correcti,:n to their Tree Ordinance Review:
Under: A�od-ficatios of Tree Ordinance No. 168
Recommended by t:`ie Tree Committee
Page
Section: ( d) ( 3' ) ; iii) Performance bond
Ad d: PER TREE
The last sentence of „:is paragraph should read:
IN C.�SE OF 'VIOLATION, THE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF ANY SET
BOND PER TREE SHALL BE S 1 ,5^00 OR THE; VALUE OF THE
a_FFECTED TREE WHICHEVER g3 GREATER.
Page : 7
Section: (e) (Mature Oaks ) ( 2 ) Exemptions ( iii)
Delete : TREES THAT ARE TO BE REMOVED AS PART OF MANAGEMENT
PRACTICES IN ORCHARDS, CHRISTMAS. TREE FARMS, OR
NURSERIES, OR
Page : 11
Sec i n (h'_(^t)xe- Mature Trees '
(3 ) Exemptions
Ad
(iii) TREES THAT ARE TO BE REMOVED AS PART OF
MANAGEMENTPRACTICES IN ORCHARDS, CHRISTMAS TREE •
FARMS, OR NURSERIES.
Response to Staff Report Dammed december 13 , 1988
Regarding: Zone Change 15-$8
Tree ordinance Revisions
City Arborist/Urban Forester
The Tree Committee' s recommendation regarding this position
is t;; establish a working title, ( see Tree Committee
Recommendation Report Section (b) Definitions page 2
(_zvii) ) . The recommendation only outlines the duties and
responsibilities, it does not specify -;;ob qualifications ,
education; or salary. A member of the City Staff could fill
_*.'C�e posit—ion until the City Council chooses to hire the
appropriate professional . Therefore, the recommended
revision is not predicated on the hiring of an urban
forester or city arborist.
Certified Arborists
The Tree Committee made the same recommendations that staff
has suggested, see Tree Committee Recommendation Report page
4 lire 22-35 and page 5 under Fencing line 12-15 .
ly rrefer::ed. this statement could be made at the beginning
cf page 3 cf the Recommendations under Section (c
rccedure , a:. item (3 ) "The City may seek additional
professionall vr' a u_t:;._ori, l+0 recommend msir:s necessary
to safeguard the trees) The consultant shall certify that
all provided infcrmat—ion is true under penalty of the law. "
Staff~agrees wit?i the Tree Committee's compromise proposal
Replacement Trees
The Tree Committee Recommendations address reguiraments f:.r
replacement tress on lots with Significant tree cove in
accordance wit?: the General Plan (P. 153 ) . The Tree
Committee agrees with staff that the value deposited into
the account needs to be clarified. it should require
replacement tree, labor, delivery, and material (gopher
baskets , mulch, stakes , etc . ) costs .
Hazardous Trees
Staff agrees with the Tree Committee' s compromise proposal .
Tree Removal Approval
The Tree Committee has no objections if significant oak or
I-Leritage tree removal goes before the Planning Commission
and then onto the consent calendar of the City Council
This should def_nitely include removal in residential single
family zones . See Tree Committee Recommendation Report
Justifications page 3 Section 4 :
+c- n 1- = ta e 'tree a removal ( 'n all zones of •
.,_grlfiCarit oak and u2r�....g_ Lr_mo .. t�
the City) needs to be approved by the City Council because,:
a. 350 of the tree removal cccurs in residential zones .
b. Public pressure initiated the moving of the proposed
Vista and Carciero Roads .
c . The public hearing will assure that residents have the
opportunity to give input. ,
d. Tree _emoval permits processed by Staff do not get
publicized until they have been approved. It requires
a _00 appeal to the Planning Commission. for a resident
to g1ve input . The decision to remove an oak of this
size should be shared by staff (recommendation) ,
Residents (public input) , and the City Council
Staff stater that tie "existing appeal procedures in the
Zoning Ordinance provide ample assurance of "higher level"
review where necessary, particularly in light of the
creation and involvement of the City Council Tree -Sub-
Committee" . The internal decision making policies by staff
with rega=ds to tree removal is inappropriate. The tree
removal issue is too broad and it generates too much. public
conceir_, as haE; been amply demonst_ated in the past; to
leave it t. the internal decision maki g processes of t. e •
staff. Tree rem:val ,saesshould have an open public forum
and shculd be dealt wit:. by our elected officials . The
res.orisibility shlou_d be theirs . Tree removal issues which
have come before the City Council number only four or five
in the past six or seven months . This is not an e.rcessive
burden of time or money on such an important issue.
Bonding
The staff recommendation concerning bonding is totally
inappropriate . If implemented it would again create a
gigantic loophole . Their recommendation proposes allowing
the pLs ,ibility to 'adjust the amount of the security to the
value of a 15 gallon replacement tree, approximately $60 . 00 .
What the Tree Committee recommends is :
If a tree can be saved, staff should not` approve it' s
removal nor should it recommend to the Planning Commission
or the City Council it' s removal . Such a recommendation or
approval would violata the General Plan ( see enclosure C of
the Tree Committee recommendations) .
The ^ree Committee Recommendation Report on page 9 Item 5
( ii) states "The value of the replacement trees may be
required to equal t.1e value of the tree removed. " If staff
requires that the replacement value equal the value of the
t:-ee removed then the incentive for the builder to remove •
the tree would be gone .
Staff has the con..rol .
; 1 ) They allow or deny removal or, they rec mmend to the
Planning Ccmrt ission and the City Council to allow or
deny removal.
(2) They set the replacement trey rer�uiremerts
(3) Bond ea_uirement is at their discretion.
•
•
DECEMBER 20 , 1988
f PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES EXCERPTS
ION: Made by Commissioner Highland, seconded by Comm' -
sioner Waage and carried 7:0 to approve C di-
tional Use Permit 14-88 subject to the fuldings
and conditions contained in the staff re rt with
odification to #2 to read:
112. ite signing shall be limited o:
a. 42 square foot mo ent sign, as-,shown
o Exhibits B (s a plan) and G (monu-
men sign) .
b. A 39 s r foot building wall mounted
sign, 1 ed over the public entrance
door a shown n Exhibits B (site plan)
and (building levations) .
C. 30 square foot sp el sign, as shown
on Exhibit H, limite to the company
logo only."
• Commis oner Lopez-Balbontin stated his "ye ' vote was
wit eservations with regard to the possibi y of a
if hour" window sign as opposed to the wall sign.
Ch rperson Lochridge called a recess at 8:10 p.m. ; meetin
econvened at 8:25 p.m.
3. ZONE CHANGE 15-88:
Request iniUated by City Council to consider amending
the provisions of the City' s "Tree ordinance. "
Henry Engen presented the staff report noting the background
involved with this matter and proceeded to address some of
the points of staff concern raised by the Committee's sug-
gested revisions in their report to the City Council on
October 25, 1988.
In response to question from Chairperson Lochridge, Mr.
Engen stated the purpose of this hearing is to receive and
consider public testimony. This matter will be considered
at a future joint study session between the Council and
Commission and the Council is desirous of hearing the Com-
mission's thoughts and input on the suggested revisions.
Commissioner Highland felt that the Commission's discussion
• of this item should be delayed until the joint study session
with the Council. Discussion followed. It was noted that
no decision would be made this evening by the Commission.
1 •
Commissioner Luna asked by what procedure is the tree re-
placement fundbeingregulated. In addition to information
concerning the tree ordinance which has been already sent to
arborists, landscapers, etc. , he suggested that similar in-
formation also be sent to people who are proposing grading.
There was discussion concerning violations to date, the need
for an urban forester vs. staff time being spent on monitor-
ing the tree ordinance vs. a certified arborist
There was discussion concerning violations to date; whether
there is a need for an urban forester paid by the City to
monitor the tree ordinance and costs involved; certified
arborists utilized by the City for second opinions; and
discussion on the costs involved with people obtaining tree
permits needing to have a certified arborist' s
recommendation.
Ursula Luna, former Chair of the Tree Committee, summarized
the Tree Committee's suggested revisions to the existing
ordinance and then addressed certain points raised in the
staff report.
Marge Kidwell, 9980 Old Morro Road East, commended the Tree •
Committee for all their work, but felt that the Committee is
attempting to solve problems of the current ordinance before
the public has identified what the problems are. She added
that the definition of "native trees" should be limited to
oak trees; that no permit should be required to remove a
dead or diseased tree; and she noted she was not in favor of
an urban forester.
Maggie Rice, representing the Chamber of Commerce, did not
see the need nor could justify the cost of an urban forester
or City arborist except on a consultant basis. She spoke on
the need for an ordinance which is clear in its intent and
can be applied effectively by the city. Mrs. Rice spoke on
the Chamber' s recommendation for the definition of a hazard-
ous tree and felt that the current formula for determining a
tree's value is unreasonable in that the value of certain
trees on a property far exceed the value of that property.
She asked for possible modification to the dripline plan.
In conclusion, she thanked both staff and the Tree Committee
for their work. The ordinance needs more finetuning and re-
quested that staff come up with more revisions.
Lon Allan, asked for clarification on whether the Tree Com-
mittee's revisions were part of a new draft ordinance. Mr.
Engen responded that it is a proposed draft ordinance •
prepared by the Tree Committee which could be formatted to
amend the existing ordinance.
Joe Grisanti, 41 year resident, felt this ordinance is too
restrictive and has not seen any abuse of oak trees in the
community. He proposed that this ordinance be simplified so
every one can understand it. Oaks should be preserved in a
democratic way and that the citizens of Atascadero should
decide by way of an election.
Steve LaSalle, former Tree Committee member, clarified that
the Committee has only submitted suggested revisions to the
current ordinance.
Fred Frank, 7755 Graves Creek Road, called for a simplified
ordinance but felt that the City does need an urban forester
to implement the ordinance in an expeditious and reasonable
manner. He suggested that such a forester could also have
other duties, i.e. , tree management protection, fire
protection with regard to wildland fires, etc. In response
to question from Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin, Mr. Frank
explained the difference between an urban forester and cer-
tified arborist.
Steve Sylvester, Paso Robles resident and registered civil
• engineer, expressed concern that in order for the ordinance
to be effective and enforceable, it needs to be accepted and
fair. He suggested that an ad-hoc committee be formed to
represent a broad spectrum of citizens which could provide
input as a lot more consideration needs to be given to this
ordinance and added that more definitive guidelines need to
be given. A tree in Atascadero can be valued up to
$250,000. It would be a still steep $38,000 in Paso Robles.
In response to question from Commissioner Waage, Mr. Sylves-
ter stated that he has encountered some problems with the
Paso Robles' tree ordinance but cited some of the definitive
guidelines contained in that ordinance.
Glen Lewis, Atascadero attorney, stated he has evaluated the
tree ordinance and feels it is too discretionary. His main
concern is based on how the ordinance is going to be
applied. More definitive guidelines need to be established
with the ordinance.
Livia Kellerman, Atascadero resident, spoke about confusion
she encountered when trying to obtain a tree permit to
remove a dead pine tree (non-native tree) with regard to
staff' s interpretation of the ordinance. She spoke in
support of an urban forester to avoid this type of confusion
in the future.
• John Falkenstien, 4600 Viscano Avenue, stated he is a civil
engineer and concurred with Mr. Sylvester's statements. He
spoke about the amount of work that his engineering firm has
encountered when the tree ordinance became effective in how
to implement it. He felt it would be a good idea to have
one designated staff member that people can deal with on
this ordinance. The tree ordinance has caused considerable
lot redesign with many trees being retained as a result.
Mr. Falkenstien also commented on the very serious
liabilities involved with trees located in street rights-of-
way and careful consideration should be given to this.
Chairperson Lochridge called a recess at 10:02 p.m. ; meeting
reconvened at 10:14 p.m.
Ron Vanderpool, 9191 San Diego Road, felt this ordinance has
many problems with one of the biggest being the requirement
for bonding of trees. He stated the language contained in
this section is not definitive and is confusing. Discussion
followed relative to other types of bonding for projects.
Don Messer, 7555 Cristobal, explained the procedures of
typical performance bonds which are to guarantee project
improvements that are part of the project's planned
financing. The protection bonds are not. He spoke on
physical difficulties experienced in trying to build and
move around fences that are around the dripline of trees.
He added that due to the tree 'ordinance,trees are being
saved but cautioned against punitive restrictions. A $51000 •
performance bond would be adequate. A common sense approach
needs to be taken relative to economics realizing that trees
have value but the property value can be destroyed in an
effort to save too many trees.
In response to question from Chairperson Lochridge, Mr.
Messer would like to work with one designated staff member
who is knowledgeable about the tree ordinance so consistency
can be achieved.
Deborah Hollowell, with Cuesta Engineering, explained extra
costs involved in preparing grading plans for single family
residences as a result of the tree ordinance. one of the
difficulties with the current ordinance is that there are no
official guidelines for acceptable construction in the
vicinity of trees. Ms. Hollowell suggested that a consul-
tant be hired by the City to develop specific guidelines. A
possible suggestion would be to provide separate sections
for multi-family development versus single family dwellings.
Doug Filipponi, area resident, noted his concurrence with
comments made by Maggie Rice, Steve Sylvester, John Falken-
stien, and Glen Lewis. He stated there needs to be a
balance of a tree ordinance that every one can live with.
He would like to see the value of trees completely taken out
of the ordinance and instead have a replacement of trees •
which are taken out at some reasonable formula.
Bonita Borgeson clarified that what is before every one this
evening is simply a tree ordinance review and recommended
modifications to the existing tree ordinance. There is no
new tree ordinance being written; this is in response to the
Council's direction to the Tree Committee to monitor
Ordinance No. 168 and to make recommended changes and
recommendations. Mr. Engen affirmed Mrs. Borgeson's
comments that this is not formatted to revise the existing
ordinance.
Norm Canfield, 10690 San Marcos Road resident, talked about
the problem real estate agents have with complying with the
disclosure law as it relates to the value of a tree, etc.
He felt the language should be reviewed in an effort to make
it more definitive.
Don Messer spoke about six trees he has removed for a devel-
opment and has been notified that he must pay an amount to
the City for replacement trees. He suggested a standard
dollar amount ($50) to every permit to go towards tree
replacement City-wide.
Jerry Clay, Atascadero resident, stated there needs to be a
balance of representation and felt this ordinance is
punishing in nature and has no positive effect.
• - End of public testimony
Chairperson Lochridge reminded the public on the reason for
this particular hearing noting this matter will be continued
to a future meeting between the City Council and Planning
Commission.
There was discussion concerning whether there is a staff
member qualified to handle the tree ordinance with regard to
implementation, etc. ; the appropriateness of having one or
more attorney well versed in constitutional law evaluate
this ordinance.
INDIVIDUAL COl4tENT
1. arming Commission
Commissioner bey requested that the City Co review
Ordinance 101 as ertains to the section ich precludes
a Planning Commis er from be on the Planning
Commission while running Cit ouncil. He felt this
represents a double set of ds. Mr. Engen stated this
could be scheduled on next agen
• Commissioner pez-Balbontin referenced a ge sale sign
at the rner of Traffic Way and Olmeda which a rtises a
e sale every week and asked if a business lic is
required for this since it is ongoing. He would like
see the sign removed.