Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0356.092- ,.". ," July 30, 1992 THE HONORABLE CLTY COUNCIL Palo Alto, California Attention: Policy and Services committee Her itage Tree Q.1:s!iJlgnCe Hembers of the Council: This report responds to Council's direction to investigate :and identify the issues related to adopting a heritage tree ordinance in Palo Alto. Staff has included a slilnmary (Attachlnent A) of surroundinq communities' heritage tree removal requests, a~d reco~mends that ~~ecific tree prote~tion elements be included in the Comprehensive Plan update, in lieu of a heritage tree ordinance at this time. Background A "Heri tage Tree" ordinance protects, and in some situations prohibits the remove;l or excessive pruning of trees growing on private proper'ty. Heritage tree ordinances in Inany communities are primarily based on the circumference of native and non-native species which may benefit the neighborhood and the community. The specific criteria of a tree protection ordinance depend on the tree protection goals determined by the individual co~unity. Th-e City of PalQ Alto has a comprehensive street tree ordinance that protects and provides control of all trees, shrubs and plants in the public right-of-way and at all City-o~ned parks and facilities. The Planning Dere!tment requires tha~ all trees be shown on submittals for subdivisions, use perIllits, multiple-family and commercial development. These plans are reviewed by the City Arborist for tree protection and proposed ne-..,' landscape features. Retention of some or all of the trees on-site may be required as a condition of project approval. Private tree review is not required for single-family residential development. Public trees have been removed or daInaged by private pa!::ties during construction of new driveway curb cuts, front yard landscape improvements, and neglect CMR:356:92 -1- • , <. , :;,,--" . ·~,_':_:':':~i'~_;i~...,.--'_ ~-.';-~-~:;;~-;::'~;;'-': ,<"' ,"<"',:s:~:, " j~~~lr- ---~---"">--""'-'-.~ -- .'l - in watering. Also~ City projects such as sidew~lk replacement and utill'ty underqroundinq impact street tree root systellls, and 'Whzr. in conflict 'With se .. er lines, utility conduits, .or other public improvements, both public and private trees are sometimes removed. occasionally developers hay;;! removed trees on private parcels prier to submittinq a development application~ This results in Cl significant loss o~ trees in the cOmEunity and is unfair to more responsible developers who do not clear cut their sites prior to development review. Like zoni",.g' la~""s, tree preservation ordinances are created to prevent the degradation cf urban life by high-density development. preserving significC'.nt Jr.ature tree.s and requiring that new­ development and redevelopment acco:cucod3.te them, mini:m.Lzes d!!grad.ation to a com.."'lmnityls urban forest; ho'Wever. there are other considerations and responsibilities associated with the. enforcement, restrictio~ on ~se of property a~d liability. DiscU9sion ADVJL~TAGES OF TREE PRESERVATION Trees that are he.althy and an appropriate species vith ;;!: qood location~ add value to a property. On identical properties. it i& an established fact that a property with trees will have a higher maorket value than one without. The Council of Tree and Landscape Appraiser-s. an organization that represent.s fi .... e other national professional t .:-ticultural associations, publish~.s a guide bas'"" .-~ on research among similar propertiea ~ith and 'Without trees. is guide places the potential value of a single 24-inch diameter de at approximately $12~DOO. Developers of multiple-family proj ~~s in Palo Alto have found that units ",'ith yards including an esta.blished tree, are the first. units to be sold. Palo Alto's extensive sy.stem of street trees and the generous tree canopy throughout the City undoubtedly contribute to high land values in the community. Trees provide. sumz;;er shade to cool and reduce glare fr-om pavem~ -It, scZ""ee.ninq of" building walls, parked cars. and undes":'rable views (parking lots and expressways); protection of ozone, addition of oxygen, cooling by evaporation, filtration of particulate matter to condition the air 'We bre.athej l!,uffling of sound~. from traffic and maChines, as well as shelt~ring birds and ~ildlife4 ISSUES OF A HERITAGE TREE ORDINANCE WHICtI WOULD AFFECT RESIDENTS Economi~ Enigyment of property CMR:J56:92 -2- • • ·"'<:--·'..;--·~zt. - .' i \ '.:':;~~;-;-;~ .. - C" ."- - The disadvantages of adjudicating the removal of trees growing on private property are similar to the aisadvantaga's of z:oni:og 1a .... '5; those inherent in the lilllitation of development. Preserving a IBrgc tr.eeo on an ave:rage residential lot ttay limit options: for building additions, adding a pool, or constructing a new residence on a SUbdivided lot. Maintenance E'Xpe_ns~ Traes contribut.e to the maintenance of a property, requiring some level of cleanup, prunin9~ fertilizing, pest control 03.Md, when planted in confined paved areas, may do damage to drive~ays and othe~ structures~ Potential for Liability The city may share in liability 'With the resident. for da::nage caused by a talling tree that 'Was denied a permit for removal. Aging trees near-ly always have some condition that compromises the quarantee of perfect health, thus making the measurement of tr-ee liability a function of probability. Cities with heritage tree ordina.flce60 sometimes include a "hold harmless" clause in their ordinance to minimize their liability. Staff Issu-es Relating to a Heritage Tree ordinance Depending on the 1evel of protection deter~ined a5 appr~priate in .a city with as roany treas a.s Palo Alto, the inspection of all removals and potentially harmful cutting ~ould require significant staff time. A maA:imum level of service liould include a complete evaluation of the tree's size, species, location and condition, including an excavation of the roots to check for stability. A minimum lev!':!l of service would be a cursory re:vic-.. of a report submitted by an owner or the olt/l1er',s tres consultant. SO!ilt' !.:E'.T;riC€ would be r-equired for every permit requ.ested to remove 'Or Significantly cut a tree. Even a serious treatment to a tree, &uch as heevy pruning or the cutting of m3ny roots~ can be a threat to the tre.e and may be construed as being grounds for obtaining-a remova 1 perm it. Enforceme.nt and monit".oring of a heJ:"itage tree ordinance would include, at a ninirnuro t keeping records of: 1. The number of removal permits denied_ 2. The number of removal permits granted ~ith an equivalent site and a new tree provided. CMR:356:92 -3- - 3. 'I'he numbe.r of removal permits grantea ..,i th no replact:!rner.t tr-aes provided. A survey provided by the city ot Sunnyvale (Attachment A) summarites surrounding c~mmunities tracking of heritage tree removal req~ests~ As ~hown in the surv~y, some communities track the number of removals of "heritage trees" approved cr denied each year. The survey reflects the number of requests for heritage tree removal alone, and d<:;es net track tree removal requests attached to developmenT. or redev~lopment sites. In almost all of the surv~yed cities, denial of a request to remove a: tree is vary rare as compared to L~e total number of approvals. Altern~tive tg Heri~age Tree O+din~nc~ rt would not be appropriate. to recommend specific private tree protection alternatives independent of the COl!lprehensive Plan update hecause the decision to create a heritage tree ordi~ance should be made in the context of broader conununity goals. staff from Public Works and Planning have id6ntified seven elements for both public and private trees that c~uld be incorporated in the Comprehensive Plan in li€L_! of adopting a heritage tree ordinance. Some ot the elements: are c'..lrrently in place. Inclusion as an element of the COLprehensive Plan ~ould provide significant ~mprovements to the protection of all trees in Palo Alto: 1. Retaill and expand ~ existina tree canopy throu=hout the ~, using aerial photography to determine the extent. if ~ny, of degradation of the urban forest. 2. Protect all trees which are. of particular significance because of age. size, species, historic or cultural importanc.;:e. 3~ I~crease the use of trees for the environmental benefits they provide to the community~ -4.. Include trees as ?:n element of urban design and hi&toru preseryation~ S. ,F.rotect trees on single-family and rr.ultlple-fami Ly residential Broperties, and co~~ercial prgperty, by enhancing the standards for tree preservation in the existing project review process, and preventing trees from being removed prior to application for project review. 6. Protect trees in the public right-of-waYn......t%9m damage during repair,. replacement, and maintenance of infrastructure; CMR:3S6:92 -4- 'L j ill Xi '- actions of pri .... ate pz."operty o~,mers: durir.g cO:1struction of driveway curb cuts occurring in the public right-of-way. and front y~rd.s being .l)6ved or converted to dry landscapes Yi th no ~upple~ental water provided for street trees, 7. Revise and update the City of PalQ Alto 1982 Street Tree Management Plan.. other Tree Protection Altern~tives The current level of private tree protection in Palo Alto is the required identification of all trees en non-single family d2velopment ~lans submitted to the Planning Department and incl~des review by th~City Arborist. If Council directs staff to provide protection for public and private trees independent of the Comprehensive Plan, staff has listed a-_lternative levels of protection, complexity and expense from the lowest level (A) of protection to a very rest~ictivl2 and expensive protection plan (F), including single-family properties. The alternatives are: (A) Require that resident (single-family occup.ancy) proposing removal of a tree or trees post a public notice in the n~iqhborhood tor an. appropriate period of time before proceeding with removal of a yet to be proposed Uheritage tree~ class (HTC). (8) Require that residp-nt obtain and make available to the public and the City an evaluation of a tree in the H'rc from a private certified arboris~. (C) Add to the existing development review process by the city (Planning and Public Works) I a sindlar process for single­ fami ly residential development 'Wher~ trees of ttle HTC are impacted. CD) Identify certain individual trees as Mheritage trees"', This 'Would likely be done on a voluntary basis by the tr~es" owners, The trees could be offered some sanctions and recognition much as historical structures are valued in the community~ (E) Write a traditional heritage tree ordinance, identifying and protecting only private trees br class of species and/or size that are growing in the building setback arsa adjacent to a public street. The elements of the ordinance, procedures for implementation and necessary staff ing 'Would be brought to Council for approval. CMR: )56: 92 -5- . ...,-~ .... r-'I"'!111-.... ".-.. "~'",; .. ""-.=". _._,...,. ,- . ,,~~"':J.-. ,'.',;_~G· ~_r:-- - - {F) writE Ci tr .. ,.itional heritage tree ordinance, ide.ntifying and protecting All private trees by cl~s6 of species andlor size. The eleQents of the ordinance, procedures tor implementation and necessary staffing vo~ld be brought to Council for approval. ReCOMmendation It is recommended that Council defer action en a !ler-itage tree ordinance ~nd direct staff from Public Works and Pla~ninq Departments to incorporate the seven elements identified in this report aE: part ot the Cotnprehensive Plan update process. Respectfully 5uhmittec r MICHAEL if. KILLER Deputy Director, Public Works operetions ~J)j~l~~ DAVrD G. ADAMS Director of PUblic Works ~~ JUNE nEMING Assistant city Manager Attachments: Syrvey cf Surrounding Cities CJIR: 356: 92 -6- I . '?,;k&I~:;·,}'::tW~;::~ ··'··r··.······ .. ~, '" ~ " f I • i , i t J ___ ~~~~''---_ \1'1' ~ .. (~>i1!! .. fipo"~ Permits tor trQSS on private property when on IV action is tree removal - not attaChed to development or redevelopment of sit~. Jurisdictif)n Permit on P'vt Property Tvpa Required (applies to) CAMPBELL (Street {leo Ord. only) No --- LOs GATOS v., removal & pruning Oi{ef 33% of leaf ar(la MTN. VIEw Yes removal 16- dia, or > or > !JO~ eire. SAN JOSE Ye, removal trees 18-dis_ or > - SARATOGA Yes femovlll 'O~ die, or >.32" eire, O. > MENLO PAFlK y •• removal trees 24" di(l., or > BURLINGAME Vo. removal & pruning Heritage TrenB onlv I ~ .... "~ "w. ___ .,.. __ ....-.~.-.. ~-.-~-.. Attacl'1Jmnt A r- SURVEY OF SURROUNOING CITIES Numbef NumOOf Numbof of Dept. Fee Approved Denied Violations Square Popul.tion wI AJmin. {pe! yoatl (per yeltrl (per vear) MIles Autho,if\l Plann;r." • ~ 1 0 276 34 10 11 23,000 replaC0ment trees processing required (2-3 for each Parks -inspecls (2 tree removed) weeks tor permlt5~ 0 129 32 10 11.5 63,475 P8fks & Recffl8tion - Planni::--j 0 102 4 5 4 28,000 Ir18ighbors l'f. givt'ln I IElQal , notice) --0 102 4 5 4 28,000 Planning I (neighbors sre given legal I notice) 0 46 5 1 or 2 28,000 pl>bric WlJrks 24 2 2 5.5 26,800 Parks and RecreatIon .. L.-______ ---- " " I i .. fJi:.; :~( .. ;. :;~i!i ,; .. " :"'~'~.:,t 'gill!.!,,· '~~\£f;f:",~;~~,,'\_?:!,q~;~S~ . ,i . .):~ .'.\~'~i{~'S:ii~'~;;r": Jurisdiction Permit em P'VI Property hpe F •• RflquiJed ~8Ppli8s tal HILLSBOROUGH V •• ~8moval tree, baaed on 36-dia. or > value of t: job PALO ALTO {StrElet Tree Ord.onM No - SANTA CLARA (Stfeet T (co Ord. only) No GILROY (Street Trel3l Ord,onlyl No LOS ALTOS (Street lref) Ord.onlvl No LOS ALTOS (Snoet Tfflfl HILLS O,d, only) No SANTA CLARA IStrAet T(efl COUNTY Ord.onlyl No CUPERTINO Yes remaval on '!if ° prop.onlv ~ Number Number Number of Approved Cooled Violations Iper ye,r, fper Yflllr} (per veer) 30 0 18 Ifine is lOx Permit he/ 2 ° I Squat • P..,pvl.tion Miles 6.4 10,670 I , 14 40,000 . .,. ,1("',~t'f'V":' ... ,,,,,,, *' ; p; ~--~r'~7- Oept. w,l Admin. Avlhotity 81Jilding Pf"'Ming --- .. " • '--' I' ! ii i r \ .,~,:~ ..