HomeMy WebLinkAbout0423.092I
I
~
" "',
September 17, 1992
THE HONORABLE CITY COlmCIL
Palo Alto, California
Attention: Policy and Services COI1"'L!!1ittee
Members of the Council:
Report in Brief
'-.''-
This report responds to the direction of the Policy and SerJices
Committee to prepare the ele-rnents of a draft ordinance for tree
protection in Palo Alto. Staff has revieved a number of ordinances
in preparing each element of the draft ordinance and has
recommended specific language for most components of the ordinance.
Where staff has not proposed specific language/ alternatives have
been listed for consideration.
Background
At the Policy and Services committee meeting held or: August 4,
1992, staff presented a report an issues related to adopting a
heritage tree ordinance (CMR:356:92 -Attachment A). The committee
directed staff to return with th~ elements of a draft ordinance
which would provide protection for private tre~~ in Pa.lo Alto. The
committee fUrther directed that the elements fer thoa draft
ordinance TJould return prior to revie ..... ' by the City Attorne 1" s
Offie..:!/ and that the elements TIfI'o'.lld be fan-larded to the City
Council for direction and approval.
The cit:r~ of Palo Alto has a co-rnpr-ehensivc street tree ordinance.
that protects and provides control of all trees~ shrubs and plants
in the public right-of-.... 'ay and at all City-cwned parks and
facilities~ The Planning Department requires that all tr-ees be
shown on submittals for subdivisions, use perm~ts£ multiple-family
and commercial development, but does not require any trees to be
shown en single-family developments. Plans :for development are
reviewed by the City }l.rborist for tree protection and proposed neW"
landscape features~ P.etention of some or all of the trees on a
site may be required as a condition of project approval.
Occasionally developers have removed trees on private parcels prior
to submitting a developrr.ent application. This resul ts in a
significant loss of trees in the co~nunity and is unfair to ~ore
responsibl€ developers who do nat c)ear cut their sites prior to
developll1cnt revieTJ.
"--
.~.
o
Pisgussion
Like zoning laws, tree protection ordinances are created to prevent
the deqradatioTl ~ urban life by high-density development.
Preserving signif "ant mature trees, and requiring that new
development and redevelopment accom~onate the~, minimizes
deqradatio~ to a community's urban forest.
In preparing this report, sta:f re~uested and r~ceived copies of
tree protection ordinances from oth~r cities, and also received a
publication from the california DetJartment of Forestr},' s Urban
Forestry program titled nGuid~l ines for Developir!9...--_~_nd Evaluating
Tree (GDEr) ordi~ances." This publication was developed by
revie~inq iS9 enacted city tree ordinances, and 9 enacted County
ordinances. The publication focuses on street tree ordinances"
tr-ee protection ordinances, and .... ie· .... ordinances. Statf used the
guidelines from the state report~ as '\oIr e1l as portions of other
cities' ordinances~ to draft recomm~nded language to be included in
Palo Alto's ordinance.
Staff has proposed language for elements of d draft tree ordinance
that provides protection for all trees over a certain size, instead
of focusing on ~heritage." Heritage tr-ees are usually defined as
significantly sized trees or specific species native to a region.
The draft language [or the t~ e protection ordinance will preserve
a greater number c: trees thar:: .. ",:.uld nor!na lly be inC"luded in just
a heritage ordinance.
Dasic Ordinan£_E Elements
Tree protection ordinances include various elements. but primarily
consist of (1) stating the purpose and intent cf the ordina.:1.ce,
(:2) defining 'What types and sizes of trees are included in the
ordinance, (3) establishing jurisdiction over trees~ (1)
so-:netimes including a disclaimer of liability. {5) providing an
appeal process, (6} establishit"g penalties (or enforcefi1ent), (7)
requiring permits, and (8) defining responsibilities of property
owners. These elemen~:s are discussed more fully in the iolloltlinq
sections.
I. ~ose and Intent
Th-"purpose and intent n elenent of an ordinance clearly states the
qoa ..... S of the ordinance. The goals should be rea.listic ~nd
achievable, as well as quantifiable~ and supported by the balance
of the elements in the ordinance.
STAFF PROPOSED LANGUAGE
This ordinance est&blishes the regulations and standards
necessary to protect. preserve ~ and encou.rage proper
maintenance of private trees in Palo Alto in order to preserve
-2-
CMR:423:92
-.. "-
the community heritage~ m:!intain property value:S<.. and mir,imize
the impact of urban improveillPnts by n:~intaining the maxim~
amount of tree cover on p~blic and private lands in the City.
II. Definitions
This section of the ordinance defines meaning of word5 to be used
in the ordinance. The city currently has deflnitior.s in our st~eet
tree ordinance chapter (6.04) of the Palo P.lto Municipal Code, and
definitions related to private tree protection will be incorporated
in~o this section.
The single most impo~tant element of a tree protection ordinance is
the definition of the sizes and .species of trees that would be
protected by the proposed ordinance language. If Cou~cil
determines that protection of all trees (0: a particular size) is
i~portant, then the size is est~blished in the definition based on
trunk diameter or circumference. Sto ff prepa~ed the proposed
languaqe below to include all trees over a certain size~ without
specifying particular species.
STAFF PROPOSED LANGUAGE:
A protected tree shall consist of any of the followinq:
tA) Any tree having a main stem or trunk that measures
16 inches in diameter (or 50 inches in circumference) or
greater~ at a height of S4 inches above natural gr~dei
(B) Any tree that existed, or ~as required to be planted, at
the time of an approval grantea under this chapter or any
tree required to be preserved as part of a condition for
development.
(CJ Any tree required to be planted as a replacement for an
unlawfully removed tree as provide::i in this sectior..
III. Pernit to Remove Prot~cted Trees
The Palo Alto Municipal Code (FAMC) has detailed descriptions of
permit requireme.nts for removal City street trees, Staff proposes
to revise this section to incorporate protected private trees.
In ~eviewinq ordinances from other cities, staff found most had a
very formal pr~cess established f<..lr consl.dera-cion of private trEe
removal in the protected classes. A few cities used their ~taff to
do full evaluations on all requests for removal. In order to
minimize the additional resources reqLl.ired to imple!!'lent a protected
tree ordinance, staff has developed a c~rnprehenslve permit
application which will require a resident to submit a certified
-3-
CMR:423!92
.'
. ,-.
o
arboristfs report as part of a r~quest to remove a protected ~ree.
The req'oJirement for the certified arbo.: 1st's report ""ill minimize
st~ff impacts (i.e. on-site visitj evaluation of health of tree;
determination of sizes, species and location). other cities with
pr-otection ordinances irispect up to 300 trees per year, 'With an
average inspection (evaluation) t.-:txing t ... 'o to tour hours of staff
time. Under staff's proposal the resident ~ill incur the cost (and
time) to have this evaluation performed by a private firm, and tha
$ubroitted report will be revie',",'ed :fc·r consideration of removal.
The proposed permit (Attachment B) includes all information staff
believes is neces5"ry to make .a determination on a request for
removal. It:: c;:>ses iIIhere there is some doubt, the city Arborist
-"""ill do additional inspection. A full ~ost recovery permit fee
will be established once Council has directed staff to prepare an
ordinance.
The language proposed for requirement of a penni t is a modified
version of the City of San Mateo's ordinance.
STAFF PROPCSED LANGUAGE
REMOVAL -PROBIBI'!'EO -EXCEPTION. It is unlawful for any
pe~son to remove, or cause to be removed, any protected tree
from any parcel of property in the City ~ithout obtaining a
permit for re!:loval from the City. This or6inance provides
that in case of emergency, when a tree is hazardous or
dangerous to life or property. it may be removed by order of
the Police or Fire Department. It is further p~ovided that
the Cit}' may remove trees that interfere with safe and
efficient operation of public service for which the City is
responsible.
REMOVAL -PERMIT. Any person desiring to re~ove one or more
protected trees shall apply to the one-stop permit center in
the Planning Department for a permit. The application for a
permi t shall be made on forms provided tor this purprJse and
shall state, among o~her things, the number ar.d location of
the trees to be re~oved by species and the reason for request
for removal. The applicant must sllbmit a certified arborist's
report 'With the permit application to show cause for removal.
The request for such a permit may be made only by the owner or
owners of the propert;y on which the trees are located.
p,otected tree removal permits are valid for six months from
the date of issue.
The Arborist shall review p~rmit applications and shall
deterrrine from the certified arborist's report:
1. The size and condition of the t ~e or trees with respect
to disease, danger of falling, proximity to eXisting or
-4-
CMR:421:92
•
proposed structures and interference ~ith utilities
services.
2. The number of trees the particular p.a.rcel Can adequately
support according to good arboricultural practices.
3. The topography of the land and the effect of the remcval
of the tree on erosiorl l soil retention ar;d diversion or
increased flow of surface waters.
In addition, the follo .... i:1g shall be considered in evaluating
the permit application:
1. The number of trees existing in the neighbor-hood on
improved property and the efrect the removal would have
on the established standard of the area and property
value.
2. The granting of the permit is necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property
right of the applicant~ and to prevent unreasonable
property loss or unneces$ary hardship.
In reviewing applications, the Arborist shall give priority to
those based on hazard Or danger of disease. Any application may be
referred to another department l co~~ittee, board or commission of
the City for a report and recommendation.
IV~ Pruning of Protected Tree~
Many ordinances reviewed by s~aff i~cluded provisions or language
which restrict severe pruning (over one-third of the crown), or
topping of trees Yhich could result in significant damage, reduced
vigor, decl ine or death of a protected tree. It is often
impossible for a tree t.hat has been topped or severely pl-uned to
recover and restore structure to the t:tee.
To minimize da~age to protected trees staff has proposed language
Which could be incorpor~ted i;1to the ordinance. other actions
Which contribute to the decl ine of trees are the inappropriate
filling l grading or compacting of soil within the root are3. or
severe root pruning ""ithout using good arboricultural practices.
The. language proposed is a cOr.1bindtion of two ordinances {City of
Fairfax and the City of San Jua.n Capistrano} to minimize the early
decline or death of trees in the protected category.
STAFF PROPOSED LANGUAGE:
No person shall cut the branches and/or trunk of a protected
tree in a ~anner which ~ill substantially reduce the overall
-5-
CMR:423:92
o
size or the trae canopjo' area so as to des.troy the sym..lletrical
or natural shape of the tree or in a manner that results in
removal of main lateral branches leaving the trun~ of the tree
'With 3: stubbed apped.rance, excessive root pruning, or by
fi 1.1inq, surfacing, grading. con'''pacting or changing the.
drainage pattern of the soil around any protected tree in a
manner that threatens the vi~or of, or acc~lerates tha decli~e
vr death of, the protected tree.
V. Jyrisdiction ~rees
This section of an ordinance establishes the jurisdiction of the
local government over certain groups or classes of trees.
The current language in the City of P~lo Alto Municipal Co.:le
Section 8.04.015 {Authority of citj) establishes control over all
trees on any street, park, or public place within the City. The
de£inition cf street ~includes all land lying between the
boundaries o~ property abutting on ~ll public streets, boulevards,
alleys, anQ walks."
This section of the current ordinanc~ would be modified to
incorpor~te language to extend the authority of the City to inclUde
protected trees on all private property in Palo Alto.
VI. Liability Discla~m~
This section of the proposed ordinance protects the city from
acceptinq liability for personal injury or property damages as a
result of a protected tree falling. Staff has used lanqua~e from
the GDET pUblication -which was excerpted from the City of TI usand
Oak's municipal ordinance for disclaiming liability.
STAFF PROPOSE~ LA.NGUAGE:
Nothing in this ordi!"lance shall be deemed to impose any
liability for damages or a duty of care and maintenance upon
the City or upon any of its officers or employees. The person
in possession of public property or the owner of any private
property shall have a duty to keep protectea trees upc~ the
property and under their control in a safe and healthy
condition. Any person who feels a tree located on property
possessed I o","ned or controlled by them is a danger to the
safety of the'mselves, others or structural improvements. on
site or off-site shall have an obligation to se<:,,'Jre the area
around the tree or support the tree, as appropriate to
safeguard bo-r.h persons and improve:r:1ents fr-om 'ndrm.
-6-
CMR!423:92
VII. "ppe211s
As 'With any ordinance, there .... i11 be sitLlations when an o' .... ncr wants
to appeal a de:1ial :b::t the City to reMO·,'': a protected tree. In -ma:-.y
cities this at;thori'ty (to appeal a denial) rests W'ith the Planning
commission. The appeal ~ay have many conditions attached including
specific procedure for :iling, specific time period in which the
appeal must be filed, and in some cases rules governing th6 hearing
process. The appeal process allo\o1S for special circumstances, when
the applicant feels the basis for the denial of a permit to remove
a protected tree was unfair.
VIII.
Sl'AFF PROPOSED L.lI,NGUAGE:
Any action of the City Arborist may be 21ppealed to and heard
:by the Planning Commission. P.n appeal must be filed within
ten (10) days after the decision to deny removal. The appeal
shall be in writing and shall be filed at the one-stop permit
counter in the Planning Depar-tment for placement on the next
available Plann~ng com~ission 21genda. The appeal shall
clearly specify the reasons for ~hich a hearing is requested.
After a hearing, the Planning Cornmissicn shall make a
recommendation to the City Council for final action. The
decision of the city couDeil shall be final.
Penalty for ViClJatioD
A violation element of the ordin2lnce establishes specific penalties
and a legal means to stop or correct situatio~s ~hich constitute
violations of the ordinance. The responsibility for the
enfo~cement of violations is assigned under the enforcement section
of this report.
Violations can be minimal (infrdctions), 'with appropriate
penalties, including a fine and a requiremEnt to plant a tree or
trees to replace ti1e protected tree(s) that .... 'ere r<?t!'.oved. 'the City
of sunnyvale has established a civil pel1alty of not less than
$5,000 nor more than $25,000 for i~jury or damage to a protected
tree; if the violation results in destruccio.r.. or improper removal
of a protected tree, the civil penalty shall not be less than
$10,000 nor more than $50,000. Other cities have made violations
misdemeanors which can be up to a $l l OvO fiDe I and/or-up to six
month$ in jail.
As stated in this report, on some occasions developer~ have "clear
Cl.Jt" trees from their property prior to SUbmission of plans for
development. One ordinance that staff reviewed has addressed this
specific situation by prohibiting the approval of any pl21ns for
development or improvement for a period of t'.l'O years frem the date
of the city's discovery of the violation. The ordinance described
-7-
CMR:423:92
•. ~--'. "'"'
o
all prohibited approvals including conditional use permits,
variances, building or demolition perI':',its.
The Folicy and Services Committee directed staff to place emphasis
on ftsense of comm~nity" for retaining protected tr~es, and not on
punitive actions. Therefor ~ the certi fied al"borist' s report,
i:'1cludes a consultation with the property owner of the value of
retaining the tree,s) for e .... viron-mental and community benefit and
th,"", add.ed value to properties having trees of the si ze proposed to
be removed. Staff has not propos.ed specific language for this
section '"'If the ordinance, and requests that the Policy and services
committ :. either provide directior. or select frorn th~ alternatives
listed l..:!oWol:
A. CUrrent languagp-in the Palo Alto Municipal Code for damage to
street trees, which could be amended to include protected
trees:
B.
c.
IX.
8.04.070 DAMAGE TO STREET TREES
C~mage to d"'ly street tree, caused by any act or omission
by any person, whenever such act or omission is
pro.'·,ibited by or not authorized pursuant to this chapter,
shall be charged to such perso~ or persons.
Violatiol". of an} section of this cr .. ::!pter shall be an
inf!"",)ction.
Violation of any S&ct ion of this chi3ipter shall be a
misc1emeanor.
~nfQ[:cell!gDt
This section of the =dinance establishes the pOSition responsible
for enforcing the ..;rdinance. Most ordinances staff reviewed
deSignated a particular positicn in the organization (i.e., Program
Manager, Planning Director, Public Works C':re.::tor; for enforcement.
Staff of the Public ~';"'rks Department .... OL. invest.igate complaints
pertaininq to viola: Jns of the propos~j ordinance. Staff is
un~ble to estimate the num.ber of requests 'Which vill requi::-e
investigation, or the a~ouDt of staff time ~hich will be required
to revie ..... each request. If council adopts a prctected tree
ordinance, staff '-lill ~onitot' the impact of enforcing the ordinance
ove.I'" six months and r:-~J" :'Ieed to return to Council for additional
resources.
STAFF PROPOSED LJI.NGt\z..CE
The Public Works Department is hereby Charged with the
r-esponsibil i ty for the enforcement of th~s ordir,ance and may
serve notice to any person in violation thereof or institute
-s -
·'-," ~'i,
legal proceedings, and the city Attorney is hereby ~uthorized
to institute appropriate proceedings to that end.
Public Educili2n
If Cou~cil di~ects staff to prepare an ordinance for protection of
private trees, staff will prepare ar:: informational brochure to
acco~pany the tree removal permit, include information in permit
packets at the one-stop permit counter, issue press releases,
utility :bill insert and by request ..... ill mail residents
informational materials fer proper care and ~aintenance of
protected trees located on private pro?erty.
~aration of Ordin~y City Attorney
As stated earlier in this report, the proposed language,
definitions, and format for the draft ordinance have not been
reviewed by the City Attorney~
If staff is directed by Council to draft an ordinance for private
tree protection, it is anticipated that language proposed in this
report may require reyision to meet legal requirements. Language
in the current Municipal Coce sections pertaining to trees may also
be re-.dsed. If directed, staff from Public Works and the. city
Attorney's office llTould prepare a draft ordinance and return to
Council in three to four months.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council direct staff to prepare a protected
tre.e ordinance. 'Which incorporates elements selected by the: Policy
and services Committee.
Respectfully submitted,
<?R:L./'/~#t':£
MICHAEL H. MILLER
Deputy Director, Public Works
Oper-ations
~
Assistant City Manager
Attachments! Attachment A -CKR:356:92
~ttachment B -Permit
Related CMR: 356:92
-9-
CMR:423:92
fjud?/j C:!lL<-t
DAVID G~ ADJ'.MS
Director of Public Works
•
. ,!:';"
"":,i
'~""
,,"" ,::,). ,
~. , ',-' -. -' ,'. ~').'
.July 30 t 1992
THE HONORABLE ~ITY COUNCIL
Palo Alto, California
. -. ~ .
Attention: policy and Services committee
Heritage Tree Ordinance
Members of the council:
Report in Brief
, "
~ Attachment ''A''
This report responds to Council's direction to investigate and
identity the issues related to adopting a heritage tree ordinance
in Palo Alt.a. Staff has included a summary (Attachment A) of
surrounding communities' heritage tree removal requests, and
recommends that speci£ic tree protection elements be included in
the comprehensive Plan update~ in lieu of a heritage trEE ordinance
at this time.
Background
It. "Heritage Tree" ordinance protects. and in some situations
prohibits the removal or excessive pruning of trees growing on
private property. Heritage tree ordinances in many communities are
p:ima!:"ily based on th.; circ .... ."fere!ice of native and non-natlve
species which ~ay benefit the neighborhood and the community. The
specifh.:: criterioa of a tree protection ordinance depend on the tree
protection goals determined by the individual c01rnunity.
The city of Palo 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-ovned parks and
facilities. The Planning Department requires that all trees be
shown on sUbmittals for subdivisions, use permits, multiple-family
and commercial development. These plans are reviewed by the City
Arborist for tree protection and proposed new landscape features.
Retention of some or all of the trees on-site may be required as a
c:ondition of project approval. Private. tree revie .... ~ is not required
(or single-family residential development. Public trees have been
removed or daroaged by private parties during cons~ruction of new
~riveway curb cuts~ front yard landscape improvements, ~nd neglec:t
<.'MR: 356: 92 -1-
.'
o o
i~ watering. Also, City projects such as sidewalk replacement a~d
utility underqrounding irr.pact street tree root syster.,s. and 'When in
conflict with sewer lines, utility conduits, or other public
improvements, both public and private trees are sometimes removed.
OCcasionally developers have removed trees on pri ...... ate parcels prior
to submitting a development application. This results in a
siqnificant loss of trees in the community and is unfair to more
responsible developers who do not clear cut their sites prior to
development review.
I ~lte zoning laws, tree. preservation ordinances are created to
~ vent the degradation of urban 1 ife by high-density developrn~;~'7 ..
Preserving significant mature trees and requiring that ne~
development and redevelopment accommodate them~ minimizes
degradation to a community's urban forestj however, there are other
considerations and responsibilities associated with ~he
enfo~cement, restriction on use of property and )iability~
ADV1.N'rAGES OF TREE PRESERVA.TION
Trees that are healthy and an appropriate species with a good
loca~ion, add value to a property~ On identical properties l it is
an established fact that a property with trees will have a higher
market value than one .... 'ithout. The Council of Tree and Landscape
.Appraisers~ an organization that represents five other national
professional horticultural associations~ r :blishes a guide based on
research among similar prope"!'"Cies with :i without trees.. This
guicle places the potential ",lalue of a single: 24-inch dIameter tree
~t approximately $12,000. Developers of multiple-family projects
irl Palo Alto have found that units with yards including an
established tree, are the first units to be sold. Palo Alto's
extensive system of street trees and the generous tree canopy
throughout the City undoubtedly contribut.e to high land val;!es in
the community.
Trees provide summer shade to cool and reduce glare from pavement,
screening of building walls, parked cars, and undesirable views
(parking lots and express~'ays); protection of ozone~ addition of
oxygen~ cooling by evaporation, filtration of particulate matter to
condition the air ~e breathe; muffling of sounds from traffic and
machin~s~ as well as sheltering birds and wildlife.
ISSUES OF A HERITAGE TREE OHDINANCE WHICH WOULD AFFECT RESIDENTS
Econgmic En;ovmennLgf Property
~~:356:92 -2-
'-
The disadvantages of ~djudicatin9 the re~oval of t~ees growing on
private property are similar to the disadvantages of ~oning laws;
those inherent ir. the limitation of development, Preserving a
large tree on an average residential lot may limi t option~ for
huilding additions, adding a pool, or constructing a new residence
on a subdivid~d lot.
Maintenance Exuense
Trees contribute to the maintenance of a property, requiring some
level of cleanup, pruning r fertil i2 ing, pest control and, -when
planted ir. confined paved areas, may do damage to driveways and
other st~ctures.
Potential for Liability
The city may share in liability with the resident for damage caused
by a falling tree that 'Was denied a permit for removal. Aging
trees nearly always have some condition that compromises the
guarantee of perfect health, thus making the measurement of tree
liability a fUnction of probability. cities with heritage tree
ordinances sometimes include a "he Id hannless" clause in their
orcinance to mini~ize their liability.
Staff Issues Re'ating to a Heritage Tree ord~nance
Depending cn the leve.l of protect,ion determined as appropriate in
a city "With as many trees as Palo Alto. the inspection of all
removals and potentially harmful cutting would require significant
staff time. A ma~imum level of service would 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 level ot service would be a cursory revie'IJ of a report
submitted by an owner or the owner's tree consultant. SOMe service
~ould be required for every permit requested to remove or
significantly cut a tree. Even a serious treatment to a tree, su~h
as heavy pr' .. ming or the cutting of many roots, can be a threat to
the tree and may be construed as being grounds for obtaining a
remove 1 perm i t ~
Enforcement and monitoring of a heritage tree ordinance 'Would
include, at a minimum, keeping records of;
1. The number of removal permits denied.
2. The number of removal permits granted with an equivalent site
and a new tree provided.
CMP.! 356: 92 -3-
, . . ,-
3. The number-of remova' pertlits gr.e.nted with no replacement
tr-ees provided.
A survey provided by the city of sun.nyvale (Attachment A)
summarizes surrounding communities tracking of heritage tree
remov~l requests. As shovn in the survey. some communities track
the number of remov2.1s of 'ltheritage trees 11 approved or denied each
year. The survey reflects the: number of requests for heritage tree
remo~al alone, and does not tracK tree removal requests attached to
development or redevelopment sites. In almost all of the surveyed
cIties, denial of a request to remove a tree is very rare as
compared to the total number of approvals.
Alternative to Heritage Tree Ordinar.ce
It 'Would not be appropriate to recommend specific private tree
protection alternatives independent of the Comprehensive Plan
update because the decision to create a heritage tree ordinance
should be made in the context of broader comrn~nity goals.
Staff from public Works and Planning have identified seven ele~ents
for both public and private trees that could be incorporated in the
Comprehensive Plan in lieu of adopting a heritage tree ordinance~
Some of the ele:nents are currently in place. Inclusion as an
element of the Comprehensive Plan 'Would provide signi.ficant
~mprovements to the prDtection of all trees in Palo Alto:
1. Retain and exp3nd the existing trp.:I§;~~nopy throughout th __ §
City .. using aerial photography to determine the extent. if
any, of degradation of the urban for~st.
2. Protect all trees which are of particular significance because
of age, size, species, historic or cultural importance.
J. Increase the use of tree.?J_or the env~ron'rnenJ~~l ___ b02n02fits they
provide to the community.
... Include trees as an eJ,gm§nt of urban desj,sD. __ and historic
pre s e..!:Y.§.ti.Q..!l.
5. Protect trees on single-:fam.i,.J,.y and Illultiple-famlJ . ..YJ:".esidential
properties, and commercial ~9perty. 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. .E.rotect trees in the pl,(tJ_li.c:: ___ right-or-way trom.damage during
-repair,. replacelIlent~ and maintenance of intrastructure;
CI1R:356:92 -4-
,
•
,
•
::.
/' ...
acti~ns of private property owners during construction of
drivevay curb cuts occurring in the public right-of-\oIay, and
front yards being paved or converted to dry landscapes with no
supplemental water provided for street trees.
7. Fevise and update the city of Palo ".lto 15182 street Tree
Management Plan.
Other Tree Protection Alternative_§:
The current level of private tree protec~icn in Palo Alto is the
req~ired identification of all trees on non-single family
development plans submitted to the Planning Department and includes
review by the City Arborist. If Council directs staff to provide
protection for public and private tl:.-ees independent of the
Comprehensive Plan, staff has listed alternative levels of
prot.action. complexity and expense from the lowest level (A) of
protect~on to a very restrictive and expensive protect.ion plan (F) I
including single-family properties. The alterratives are:
(A) Req-tJire that resident (single-fami ly occupancy) proposing
removal of a tree or trees post a public notice in the
neighborhood fOL an appropriate period of time before
proceeding with removal of a yet to be proposed "heritage
tree" class (HTC).
(BJ Require that resident obtain and make available to the public
and the City an evaluation of a tree in the HTC from a private
certified arborist.
(C) Add tc the existing developmEnt revie~ process by the City
(Planning and Public Works), a simi lar process for single
family residential development ..... here trees of the HTC are
impacted.
(D) Identify certain indh'idual trees as Hheri tage trees l1 • This
would likely be done on a voluntary basis by the t.rees'
owners. The tre~s could be offered some ~anctions and
recognition much as historical structures are valued in the
community.
(EJ Write a traditional heritage tree ordinance, identifying and
protecting only private trees by class of species and/or size
that are growing in the building setback area adjacent to a
public street. The elements of the ordinance, procedures for
implementation and necf;.ssary staffing 'Would be brought to
Council for approval.
01,1': 356: 92 -5-
o
(F) write a traditional heritage tree ordinance, identifying and
protecting li.l. private trees by class eli species and/or size..
The e_lements of the ordinance~ procE!dures for-implementation
and: neceseary st.:.ffinq . '?uld be brought to Council for
approval.
Recommendati.Q.D.
It is recommended that Counc.l defer action on a her i tage tree
ordinance and direct staff from Public Works and Planning
Oepartments to incorporate the ~eYen elements identified in thi3
report as part of the Comprehen~ive Pla~ update process.
Respectfully subrnitted l
.~ICHAEL H. MILLER
Deputy Director, Public Works Operations
a~0ljf;Jc~
DAVID G. ADA."!S
Director of Public Works
~~
JUNE FLEMING
Assistant City Manager
Attachmen~s: survey of Surrounding Cities
CHH:356:92 -6-
•
'" ".L' .• *",l.;,'.""";li." ... · .;,;,;:".'1"\." i.l;" . 1:~1 ,\,'t"",:rn'::?"f,~r:;~ ~:'A
"",
"'
Permits ~or trees on private property
when only action is tree removal·
not attached to development or
r('development at $it~,
Juriadiction Permit Oil
P'yt P,opertv Type
Required (applies to)
CAMPBELL (Stlflet tree
Otd. onlVI
No
LOS GATOS Ve. removal &
prunino over
33% of leaf
erea
,
MTN, VIEw Ve. removal 16-
diB. or > or
>50· eire.
SAN JOSE Ve, removal trees
lS-dia,or>
I
SARATOGA Ve, removal 10·
dia. Of >J 3r
eire. 0, >
MENLO PARK Ve. removal trfles
24-dia, or >
BURLINGAME Ve. removal &
pruning
Hefitllge r rees
L. ---" ------Q~ry ______
Attadurent A
SURVEY Of SURROUNOING CITIES
Number Number Number of
Fee Approved Denied Violations Square
Iper vearl (per year' (per Vtt,,) Miles
,
0 276 34 IQ 11
replacement trees
required 12-3 for Bach
"eA tCmoved)
0 129 32 TO 11,5
° 102 4 5 4
(neighbors
ilfe given
leg~1
ntltice)
0 102 4 5 4
(neighbors
ilre giVfm
legal
notice)
° 4G 5 1 or 2
24 2 2 5,5
'--------------------
Population
n,DOO
63,4'15
28,000
-
28,000
28,000
26,Boo
Dept.
wI Admh.,.
Authority
PI8n ni'lg -@~ proce&aing
Pllr;:. -inspects 1.2
week!! for permits)
Perks &: Recfl~,)tion
Pl8r,ning
,
-<
Planning
I ( ~
I
I
Public Works ,
I
Parks and I Recre.';OO
\
:'
~.i~~ .
" fi ·,
:;"
: i
Jurisdiction Permit on Number
P'vt Property Tvpe Fe. Approved
ReQvl(ed fappliel'l to) (pe( vear)
HIU.SaOROUGH Ye. '~moval l'eeli besed on 30
36-die, or > valua of
job
PALO ALTO (Streat Tree
O(d. only)
Na
SANTA CLARA (StrOtlt Tree
Ord.onlv)
No ---
GILROY (SHeet Tr(!c
I Crd.ol'lly)
i LOS ALTOS
No
(Street T(tle
,'; Ord.oniVI , No
LOS ALTOS (StrB~t lrlJe
HILLS Ord.onlv)
No
SANTA CLARA (SVeet Tree
COUNTY Ord.onlyl I No
It ~~P£RlINO Ves ,.mav.' on 'f 1 0 2
L_. l~p~l_y_-. __ ..
.~ "
Number Number of
Dellied Violations Square
(per yea" 'per vear) Milas
a 18 6.'
!fine is
lOx
Pe(mit
Fee)
0 , 14
L-_ . ---_._. _. --
Dept.
Population wI Admin.
Authority
10.670 Building
I
I
-
-
\:
40,000 Planning
-. ._.
i "·" i:~ ',;·1';·1 .... li..,;",'i ".' _, ;, : ~'., ',;) .<i\"')""~';_~;_ .:\!t'}jh.,,)"'( ,~-:
, ·~r
, . '. ~
, .
'I",
'" ~ ~,
~~:MI.II'!";,,-;,!'.:';' '.,~'1'~. "
'.'
,
Loc>tiOll on Propen:j:
Jusd.fication for Removal:
Attachment B
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Tre. Rtmoval PemUi
hrcel No.:
Daytime Pboue Numb • .,
o Front o llack o Side
o Economic or other e:1joyment of property.
o Declining health.
o Diseased I presenting im rrJne:1t daI1 ger of falling,
o Pro:(.irnity to existiJlg or proposed S:I'"uc::ure!., or i:rterfe:e:;.ce
~'iu.'i. overhead utili[)' lines.
Proposed Number of Tre=s To Be Planted A!:. Replacemr;m: G 1 .= 2 Q 3 0 4-or more
I
Species and Size of Replacome."(s): ___ .. ________________________ _
(use anac.hme::ns., if nec--ssary)
A ITACH WRITTEN NARRA TIYE OF eER TIF1ED ARBORIST"S REPORT ~rr:ST '::-;CLUlF. TIll
FOLLOWING FOR FACH TREE:
o Species (comm'an na.."1le ~ scie::J.ti.fic r.ame)
o DWm"" of Tree at Brut Hei." (DBH)
o Conditi'Jn. (i.e., rat<t of gro\lo'th~ strUcrural de--...ays or weaii:nes5es, pf"'....sence of disase or inse::;s)
o Observation (L~_. foilage, vigor, ccloration. scrucru....41 inte:g:icy, diS" .. a.IH:;:~ from cons.trUc.tion) o Prognosis '
o Life Expantency
o Consult:2.tion "'1m Property o...'!le::' On Me:its Of Re2ining T rc: bc~ lJClr g E'1vi:on mel'ca.! Be:lefi c.s
o Value OfTre:: Using The F;)r.r.ula Developed By The Council Of T~ aI1d Landscape Apprais.e:-s
floe., V ... B x S x L xC· see ;attached) o 1.ocazion Diagrun •
o Tr=. Preservation And ProteCtion Measures To Be Taken D!Jrir.2 Con!'..ruc:1on
(i.e., root p!ilI\i!1g, feniliz::anon, pruning and .spraying, crown red-':ction)
Name of Certified Aib{)rist Performing Evalll2.0an: ___ _
lnterr ... tiona! Society of Arboricultun: Cer-cificatioll Number:: ________ _
Business Tr:lep'none Number: Ll_....L. ______ _
.. _-_._----_ ...... _ .. _--_._--.---
Date:
ADDIT!ONAL INFOR.\l\ nON
The iollowmg fomu.!1a was d"!'J1!ioped by the Council or rr~ and Landscape Appraisers.
Fcnnub.
V ~ BxS,l.xC
V E'stirna ted valul!
. B = basl' value-in dotlars per s.quare iro.cl<. of basal area (s'..lbject to d,<'.nge \\ith (nfl.a.l"icn!
5 spt"cies value in peTcent
L =: tocationat ... ·a!\le it'. percent (s~eet trees valued at 70o/d
C :: condition value in percent (good = SOs:'g; fau-:=. 509t; poer = 3a~; dead = 11J"i~)
Trt.mk Caliper or. Diameter Cross:-$ecnon or -,!rea-'. J!!(I5ic VeAle in DoUcns
inches (em) • square Inches (em) . cf $27/.1n7.. .
8 CiO.:m (324.5) S '.378
So ... '!ce" Sere FbeNeci and Gory 11.1011. Shading OlA Cities'" ,!(eSCl..'fCe Gdlce lor Urb':lfl ond CCr;';!'1lu,ij/y FQre;.'s
(\J.JC~iJ~gt(.lr .. C C,: Ame!"CClT1 Forestry ~oc'.cr!ion, \ ge9), p JCS
-.----....---, '
-------'~
f