HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/10/1992CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
Mayor —Jay C. Nm
Mayor Pro Tem — Phyllis E. Papen
Councilman — John A. Forbing
Councilman — Gary H. Werner
Councilman — Gary G. Miller
City Council Chambers
are located at:
South CoastAir Quality Management astrictAudrtonum
21865 East Copley DrA e
reirah ftorr� srnca n �' ea nor 1n �n ncl am ' is ---------------
MEETING DATE: March 10, 1992 Robert L. Van Nort
Room CC -8 City Manager
Andrew V. Arczynski
City Attorney
MEETING TIME: Closed Session - 5:00 p.m. Lynda Burgess
Study Session - 6:00 p.m. City Clerk
Capes.of staff reports or atter writter} documantatn relating tta each iteet referred to �'n this agenda>
are on fte ire tte {}ifica of fhe Crfy clerk and ire avai[at�le fvr public insct�ort. If you have qu®at�ons
regarding art Ag.—de t m.:please.confa�# lfre Ca lc 2t.47-1 i Q 4 uri g bus 030:hours
I uv vnr u, uidfwf a car uses me rcctu paper and encourages you to do the same.
DIAMOND BAR CITY COUNCIL
STUDY SESSION
1. CLOSED SESSION: 5:00 P.M.
Personnel - Section 54957.6
Litigation - Section 54956.9
2. CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 P.M. - Room CC -8
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: MAYOR KIM
ROLL CALL: Councilmen Forbing, Miller, Werner,
Mayor Pro Tem Papen, Mayor Kim
3. ORDINANCE NO. 92-8%: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REPEALING PART 16 OF CHAPTER 22.56 OF
DIVISION 1 OF TITLE 22 OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE AS
HERETOFORE ADOPTED AND ADOPTING A NEW PART 15 OF CHAPTER 22.56
OF DIVISION 1 OF TITLE 22 PERTAINING TO TREE PRESERVATION -
On January 13, 1992, the Planning Commission recommended
referral of a Tree Preservation Ordinance to the Council for
their consideration.
Recommended Action: Review and provide direction as
necessary.
4. ADJOURNMENT:
U,
TO:
FROM:
ADDRESS:
ORGANIZATION:
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY CLERK
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:
IN FAVOR OF/AGAINST?
DATE:
PHONE:
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
Signature
rTTV CSP DUA,(6ND nAD
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA NO.
TO: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
MEETING DATE: March 10, 1992 REPORT DATE: March 2, 1992
FROM: James DeStefano, Community Development Director
TITLE: Tree Preservation Ordinance (Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 91-5)
SUMMARY: On January 13, 1992, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending approval
of a Tree Preservation Ordinance to City Council. Attached to this Agenda Report is the Tree
Preservation Ordinance and a summary of how information was compiled and major differences
between the proposed ordinance and the Los Angeles Country Oak Tree Ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council review the information presented with Agenda
Report and direct staff appropriately.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: -X Staff Report
Resolution(s)
X Ordinances(s)
Agreement(s)
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION:
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
_ Public Hearing Notification
_ Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's Office)
X Other Planning Commission Minutes
1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed
X Yes No
by the City Attorney?
_
2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote?
Majority
3. Has environmental impact been assessed?
X Yes No
4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission?
_
X Yes No
_
Which Commission? Planning Commission
5. Are other departments affected by the report?
X Yes No
Report discussed with the following affected departments:
_
Engineering
VIEWED BY.
P,JbeA L. Van Nort Terrence L. BelangerJames DeStefano
City Manager Assistant City Manager�' Community Devel ment Director
P:\WP51\AOENDA\C0VER. FRM
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
FROM: James DeStefano, Community Development Director
VIA: Ann J. Lungu, Planning Technician
SUBJECT: Tree Preservation Ordinance
(Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 91-5)
DATE: March 2, 1992
BACKGROUND•
In preparing this preliminary draft tree preservation ordinance,
research was done using ordinances which are in effect at other
cities. Sections were taken from these ordinances which seem
compatible with our community for our purpose and intent. The
following cities' tree preservation ordinances were used: Thousand
Oaks, Rancho Cucamonga, LaVerne, San Marino, San Dimas, and Los
Angeles. An ordinance prepared by Don Schad for the City of
Diamond Bar was also used in the research. A pamphlet prepared by
the Los Angeles County Department of Forester and Fire Warden was
used.
The Commission met on June 24, 1991, August 12, 1991, and October
14, 1991 to discuss the issues surrounding a tree preservation
ordinance. At the October 14,1991 meeting, the Commission decided
the ordinance would be preserving not only species of oak trees
but also species of walnut, sycamore and pepper trees.
On December 9, 1991, staff presented the City's draft regulations
concerning tree preservation in ordinance formate to the Planning
Commission. Another public hearing was held on January 13, 1992
and the Commission adopted a resolution recommending approval of a
Tree Preservation Ordinance to City Council. Attached to this
memorandum is that Tree Preservation Ordinance.
DISCUSSION:
The purpose and intent of the Los Angeles County Oak Tree
Ordinance and the proposed Tree Preservation Ordinance are
similar. They indicate the importance and significance of trees
to society and to our environment.
The three major differences between the Los Angeles County Oak
Tree Ordinance and the City's proposed Tree Preservation Ordinance
are the type of trees which are protected, the replacement ratio,
and the size criteria for trees which are preserved.
The type of tree the Los Angeles County Oak Tree Ordinance
protects are species of oak trees. The City's proposed Tree
Preservation Ordinance will protect all genus and species of oak
trees, walnut trees, sycamore trees, and pepper trees on all
public and private property within the City.
The tree replacement ratio of the Los Angeles County Oak Tree
Ordinance is two to one (2:1) . The ratio for the propose Tree
Preservation Ordinance is four to one (4:1). Lots less than one
(1) acre with existing improvements are exempt for the 4:1 ratio
unless the Director of Community Development determines that there
are overriding considerations. The replacement ration for these
lots are 1:1. For lots that are one (1) acre or more shall be
replaced as in the scheduled found in Chapter 22.56, Section
2160.G. (Pg -9) of the proposed ordinance.
The size criteria for tree preservation is drastically different
in the ordinances. The Los Angeles County Oak Tree Ordinance
states that a person shall not cut, destroy, remove, relocate,
otherwise inflict damage or encroach into a protected zone of any
tree of the oak genus which is as follows:
1. 25 inches or more in circumference (8 inches in
diameter) as measured 4h feet above mean natural
grade;
2. In the case of an oak tree with more than one
trunk, whose combined circumference of any 2
trunks is at least 38 inches (12 inches in
diameter) as measured 4h feet above mean natural
grade, on any lot or parcel of land within the
unincorporated area of Los Angeles County, or any
tree that has been provided as a replacement tree,
pursuant to Section 22.56.2180, on any lot or
parcel of land within the unincorporated area of
Los Angeles County, unless and oak tree permit is
first obtained as provided by this part 16.
In the City's proposed Tree Preservation Ordinance, the following
standards apply:
1. All oak, walnut, sycamore, and pepper trees in
excess of 15 feet in height or having a minimum
single trunk circumference of 15 inches measured
4 feet form lowest ground level;
2. Multitrunked tree with a division of its trunk
having a total circumference of a minimum of 30
inches measured 4 feet from lowest ground level
3. A stand of trees which are dependent on each other
for survival or dominance.
The importance of having a tree preservation is evident. Today,
trees are recognized for their tremendous value to our
Communities. Trees add beauty to our landscape, add value to our
home, protect our wild life, and add to our well being.
la 010161aa 0 a 114V 0 CUM
The Planning Commission recommends
Preservation Ordinance.
Attachments:
Tree Preservation Ordinance
Los Angeles Country Oak Tree Permits
Minutes of Planning Commission meetings
approval of the Tree
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
FROM: James DeStefano, Community Development Di
VIA: Ann J. Lungu, Planning Technician
SUBJECT: Tree Preservation Ordinance
(Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 91-5)
DATE: March 2, 1992
BACKGROUND•
In preparing this preliminary draft tree preservation ordinance,
research was done using ordinances which are in effect at other
cities. Sections were taken from these ordinances which seem
compatible with our community for our purpose and intent. The
following cities' tree preservation ordinances were used: Thousand
Oaks, Rancho Cucamonga, LaVerne, San Marino, San Dimas, and Los
Angeles. An ordinance prepared by Don Schad for the City of
Diamond Bar was also used in the research. A pamphlet prepared by
the Los Angeles County Department of Forester and Fire Warden was
used.
The Commission met on June 24, 1991, August 12, 1991, and October
14, 1991 to discuss the issues surrounding a tree preservation
ordinance. At the October 14,1991 meeting, the Commission decided
the ordinance would be preserving not only species of oak trees
but also species of walnut, sycamore and pepper trees.
On December 9, 1991, staff presented the City's draft regulations
concerning tree preservation in ordinance formate to the Planning
Commission. Another public hearing was held on January 13, 1992
and the•Commission adopted a resolution recommending approval of a
Tree Preservation Ordinance to City Council. Attached to this
memorandum is that Tree Preservation Ordinance.
DISCUSSION•
The purpose and intent of the Los Angeles County Oak Tree
Ordinance and the proposed Tree Preservation Ordinance are
similar. They indicate the importance and significance of trees
to society and to our environment.
The three major differences between the Los Angeles County Oak
Tree Ordinance and the City's proposed Tree Preservation Ordinance
Tree Ordinance and the City's proposed Tree Preservation Ordinance
are the type of trees which are protected, the replacement ratio,
and the size criteria for trees which are preserved.
The type of tree the Los Angeles County Oak Tree Ordinance
protects are species of oak trees. The City's proposed Tree
Preservation Ordinance will protect all genus and species of oak
trees, walnut trees, sycamore trees, and pepper trees on all
public and private property within the City.
The tree replacement ratio of the Los Angeles County Oak Tree
Ordinance is two to one (2:1). The ratio for the propose Tree
Preservation Ordinance is four to one (4:1). Lots less than one
(1) acre with existing improvements are exempt for the 4:1 ratio
unless the Director of Community Development determines that there
are overriding considerations. The replacement ration for these
lots are 1:1. For lots that are one (1) acre or more shall be
replaced as in the scheduled found in Chapter 22.56, Section
2160.G. (pg.9) of the proposed ordinance.
The size criteria for tree preservation is drastically different
in the ordinances. The Los Angeles County Oak Tree Ordinance
states that a person shall not cut, destroy, remove, relocate,
otherwise inflict damage or encroach into a protected zone of any
tree of the oak genus which is as follows:
1. 25 inches or more in circumference (8 inches in
diameter) as measured 42 feet above mean natural
grade;
2. In the case of an oak tree with more than one
trunk, whose combined circumference of any 2
trunks is at least 38 inches (12 inches in
diameter) as measured 4k feet above mean natural
grade, on any lot or parcel of land within the
unincorporated area of Los Angeles County, or any
tree that has been provided as a replacement tree,
pursuant to Section 22.56.2180, on any lot or
parcel of land within the unincorporated area of
Los Angeles County, unless and oak tree permit is
first obtained as provided by this part 16.
In the City's proposed Tree Preservation Ordinance, the following
standards apply:
1. All oak, walnut, sycamore, and pepper trees in
excess of 15 feet in height or having a minimum
single trunk circumference of 15 inches measured
4 feet form lowest ground level;
2. Multitrunked tree with a division of its trunk
having a total circumference of a minimum of 30
inches measured 4 feet from lowest ground level
3. A stand of trees which are dependent on each other
for survival or dominance.
The importance of having a tree preservation is evident. Today,
trees are recognized for their tremendous value to our
Communities. Trees add beauty to our landscape, add value to our
home, protect our wild life, and add to our well being.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission recommends approval of the Tree
Preservation Ordinance.
Attachments:
Tree Preservation Ordinance
Los Angeles Country Oak Tree Permits
Minutes of Planning Commission meetings
ORDINANCE NO. 91 -XX
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF DIAMOND BAR REPEALING PART 16 OF CHAPTER
22.56 OF DIVISION 1 OF TITLE 22 OF THE LOS
ANGELES COUNTY CODE AS HERETOFORE ADOPTED AND
ADOPING A NEW PART 16 OF CHAPTER 22.56 OF
DIVISION 1 OF TITLE 22 PERTAINING TO TREE
PRESERVATION.
A. Recitals
1. The City Council of the City of Diamond Bar has heretofore
adopted Part 16 of Chapter 22.56 of Division 1 of Title 22
pertaining to Oak Tree Permits.
2. It is the desire of the City Council to replace said
regulations with new regulations broadening the scope of
coverage afforded indiginous trees.
3. That the Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public
hearings on this proposed ordinance, received testimony and
closed such public hearing on December 9, 1991. It was
determined that this project is categorically exempt from the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970, as amended, and the guidelines promulgated thereunder
pursuant to Section 15307 of Division 6 of Title 14 of the
California Code of Regulations.
4. All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have
occurred.
B. Ordinance
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar does
ordain as follows:
Section 1. In all respects as set forth in Recitals, Part A, of
this Ordinance.
Section 2. Part 16 of Chapter 22.56 of Division 1 of Title 22 (
Sections 22.56.2050.et seq ) of the Los Angeles County Code, as
heretofore adopted, is hereby repealed in its entirety.
Section 3. A new Part 16 of Chapter 22.56 of Division 1 of Title
22 of the Los Angeles County Code, as heretofore adopted, is hereby
declared to read, in words and figures, as follows:
22.56.2050 ESTABLISHED
revised 12!26/91 1
PURPOSE
The Tree Preservation Ordinance is established to create a master plan
governing tree planting, maintenance, and removal; and to recognize oak
trees, walnut trees, sycamore trees, and pepper trees growing within
the City which are a significant historical, aesthetic, and natural
resource definitive of the character of the City. Oak trees, walnut
trees, sycamore trees, and pepper trees are worthy of protection. They
are the prime source of oxygen, preserve the scenic beauty, prevent
soil erosion, provide shade, protect wild life, and counteract air
pollution. It is relevant to the public peace, harmony, and welfare
that such trees be protected from random removal or cutting, especially
where such trees are related to a proposed development.
22.56.2060
INTENT
It is the intent of this ordinance to create regulations for the
preservation and maintenance of oak trees, walnut trees, sycamore
trees, and pepper trees within the City on public and private property
so as to retain as many of these trees as possible. It is also the
intent of this ordinance to perpetuate these trees through planting as
development occurs.
22.56.2070
APPLICABILITY
The provisions of this ordinance shall apply to all genus and species
of oak trees, walnut trees, sycamore trees, and pepper trees on all
public and private property within the City.
22.56.2080
DEFINITIONS
For the purpose of the ordinance, specific words and phrases used are
defined as follows:
A) Arborist: A specialist in the care and maintenance of trees.
B) Certified Arborist: A specialist in the care and maintenance
of trees and certified by the Western Chapter of the
International Society of Arborculture (WCISA) or an equivalent
organization.
C) Compensatory Pruning: Pruning that is necessary to be
performed to reinstate the proper root equilibrium.
revised 12/26191 2
D) Cutting: The detaching or separating from a protected tree any
limb, branch, or root. Cutting shall also include pruning.
E) Damage: Any action causing or contributing injury to
the root system or other parts of a tree, by fire, application
of toxic substances, operation of machinery or equipment;
improper watering; changing natural grade of land by excavation
or filling the drip line area around the trunk; or by attaching
signs or artificial material thereby piercing the bark of the
tree.
F) Diseased Trees: Trees afflicted by but not limited to any of
the following: insect infestation, heart rot, exfoliation,
slime flux, crown rot, leaf scorch, and root fungus which must
be evaluated treated and re-evaluated in an effort to restore
or save the tree.
G) Deadwood: Limbs, branches or a portion of a tree that
contains no green leaves during a period of the year when green
leaves should be present.
H) Director: Director of Community Development for the City of
Diamond Bar or his/her designee.
I) Drip Line: A line which may be drawn on the ground
around a tree directly under its outermost branch tips and
which identifies that location where rainwater tends to drip
from the trees. When depicted on a map, the dripline will
appear as an irregular shaped circle that follows the contour
of the tree's branches as seen from overhead.
J) Tree: Any oak, walnut, sycamore or pepper tree that meets at
least one of the following criteria:
1. All oak, walnut, sycamore, and pepper trees in excess of
fifteen feet (151) in height or having a minimum single
trunk circumference of fifteen inches (1511) measured four
feet (41) from lowest ground level; or
2. Multitrunked tree shall mean a tree with a division of its
trunk having a total circumference of a minimum of thirty
inches (3011) measured four feet (41) from lowest ground
level; or
3. A stand of trees which are dependent on each other
for survival or dominance.
K) Horticulturist: A specialist in the care and maintenance of
fruits, vegetables, flowers, or ornamental plants.
L) Improved Lot: A lot having all pertinent utilities available,
rough grading completed, and public improvements abutting along
the lot frontage.
revised 12/26/91 3
M) Multi -trunk tree: A tree with a division of its trunk having a.
total circumference of a minimum of thirty inches (3011)
measured four feet (41) from lowest ground level and is fed
from the same root system.
N) Protection Zone: The area within the dripline of a
tree and extending to a point at least ten (101) feet outside
from the dripline, or twenty (201) feet from the trunk of a
tree, whichever distance is greater.
o) Pruning: Any and all work performed upon the roots or the
limbs of a tree.
P) Removal: Any action which will cause extraction of a
tree.
Q) stand of trees: Group of trees the nature of which makes each
dependent upon each other for survival.
R) Topping: Also known as pollading. The practice of making large
perpendicular cuts on main trunk or laterals, resulting in a
flush of small brittle branches in an unnatural growth pattern.
Often used to decrease height of trees.
S) Tree Report: A written report prepared by a certified arborist
containing specific information. on the location, condition,
potential impacts of development, recommended actions and
mitigation measures regarding one or more oak, walnut,
sycamore, and pepper trees on an individual lot or project
site.
T) Undeveloped Property: Refers to any parcel or parcels of land
which does not contain physical man-made improvements, and
may be improved in conformance with the applicable
development standards of the zoning classification where
the property is located.
22.56.2090
EXEMPTIONS
The following shall be exempt from the provisions of this ordinance:
A. Trees held for sale by licensed nurseries and/or tree farms or
the removal or transplanting of such trees for the purpose of
operating a licensed nursery and/or tree farm;
B. A tree that is so damaged or diseased, and as such, is verified
by a certified arborist that it can not be effectively
preserved, or its presence is a threat to other protected
trees;
revised 12/26/91 4
C. Trees and shrubs within existing or proposed public right-of-
way where their removal or relocation is necessary to obtain
adequate line -of -sight distances and/or to keep street and
sidewalk easement clear of obstruction as required by the City
engineer or his/her designee;
D. Routine maintenance which is need for the continued good health
of a tree including but not limited to removal of deadwood,
insect control spraying, and watering. Routine maintenance
shall be limited to pruning of branches which do not exceed two
(211) inch in diameter at the point of removal in accordance
with the latest guidelines published by the National Arborists
Association.
22.56.2100
PERMIT REQUIRED
A permit shall be required for removing, trimming or relocating oak,
sycamore, walnut or pepper trees as more fully set forth in the
sections hereinafter.
A. No person, utility company, firm or corporation shall remove,
relocate or destroy any designated tree within the City limits,
including an applicant for a building permit:
B. A permit shall be required for the cutting or pruning of
branches that exceed two (2) inch in diameter at the point of
cut. The maximum amount allowed for the pruning of walnut,
sycamore or pepper trees shall be twenty (20%) percent. The
maximum amount allowed for the pruning of oak trees shall be
ten (10%) percent.
C. Topping shall be prohibited.. The tree crown shall be reduced
by "thinning out" of selected branches in conformance with the
applicable requirements.
D. A permit for tree removal, tree location, or pruning not
associated with a development proposal shall be approved by the
Director or his/her designee.
22.56.2110
TREE REMOVAL/RELOCATION PERMIT APPLICATION
An application for a tree removal/relocation permit shall be filed,
together with any required fee as set by resolution of the City
Council, with the Director on forms provided for such purpose. The
Director shall require a tree removal permit application together with
any application for tentative subdivision maps or other applications
revised 12126/91 5
for development. The application shall contain the following
information:
A. A statement as to the reasons for removal or relocation;
B. The number, species and size (circumference as measured four
feet from lowest ground level) and height of trees;
C. The exact location of all existing on-site trees of all species
on a plot plan in relation to proposed and existing structures
and improvements. If the application is associated with an
application for development, the location of all trees on-site
shall be plotted on a grading plan;
D. Photographs of the entirety of any and all trees to be removed
or relocated;
E. If a tree is proposed to be relocated, the relocation site
shall be identified and site preparation and relocation methods
described;
F. If a tree is proposed to be relocated, the proposed method of
removal shall be described in writing by a certified arborist.
G. The health of any tree declared diseased, infested, or drying
shall be verified by a written report of a certified arborist;
H. In addition, at the applicant's expense, the Director may
require additional written information by a certified arborist
to assist the Director in making a determination on a tree
removal permit application. The Director shall so specify, in
writing, any additional information deamed necessary, prior to
the application being considered complete.
Subsequent to investigation, the Director shall approve, conditionally
approve or deny the application to remove or relocate any tree(s)
specified in this ordinance. The Director may impose conditions deemed
necessary to implement the provisions of this Chapter, including, but
not limited to, replacement of the removed or cut down tree(s), the
species, the quantity or the size commensurate with the aesthetic value
of the tree(s) cut down or removed. Conditions may also be imposed on
tree(s) relocation to another location on the property.
22.56.2120
TREE PRUNING: PERMIT APPLICATION REQUIRED:
No tree regulated by this Chapter shall be pruned except as provided
for herein or unless such is excepted from such permit. The
circumstances and procedures are as follows:
rcviscd 12/26191 6
A. An application shall be submitted along with a written report
which shall contain the following information:
1. A statement as to reasons for the pruning;
2. A site plan depicting the location of the tree(s) to be
pruned in relation to all structures and improvements of
the site. Also the size, species and height of the
tree(s) shall be designated in writing in relation to the
plan;
3. Photographs of the tree(s) to be pruned.
4. Identification of the general scope of branch removal.
The applicant shall specify the proposed cutting with as
much detail as possible.
B. Upon receipt of the application, the Director shall review and
investigate the application within thirty (30) days of
receiving a complete application and evaluate the request to
determine if it conforms to one of the following permissible
grounds for prunning.
1. The condition of the tree(s) with respect to the
interference of branches with existing structures or
vegetation;
2. Structurally unsafe limbs and branches due to decay,
cracking or splitting, or which may hinder the public
health, safety, and welfare;
3. Tree(s) that are alleged to be out of proportion;
C. At the discretion of the Director, the City may employ a
certified arborist, at the sole cost of the applicant, to
provide recommendations for pruning ofthe subject trees.
22.56.2130
APPEAL PROCEDURES
The decision of the Director may be appealed in the manner described
herein below:
A. Administrative Decision. An appeal based on decisions by the
Director shall be filed in writing with the secretary of the
Planning Commission, together with required appeal fee, within
ten (10) calendar days of the Director's action. The Planning
Commission shall consider the matter at a public hearing and
may affirm or reverse wholly or in part the action upon which
the appeal is based.
revised 12/26/91 7
B. Planning Commission Decision. An appeal of the decision of the
Planning Commission shall be filed with the City Clerk, in
writing, within ten (10) calendar days following the decision
of the Planning Commission. The City Council shall hear the
matter and may affirm or reverse wholly or in part the decision
of the Planning Commission.
22.56.2150
EMERGENCY WAIVER
The permit requirement may be waived if a tree is determined by the
Director to be in dangerous condition requiring emergency action to
preserve the public health, safety, and welfare. In the event of an
emergency caused by hazardous of dangerous tree, which condition poses
an immediate threat to person or property, the Director or the Fire
Department may authorize the destruction or removal of such tree
without first securing a permit.
22.56.2150
USE OF EXPLOSIVES
The use of explosives shall be governed by permit issued from the Fire
Department in conformance with the regulations enforced by said
Department.
22.56.2160
TREE REPLACEMENT STANDARDS
A. Tree relocation is to be at another location on the site
whenever possible. (A written report by a certified arborist
is required concerning the feasibility of transplanting the
tree.)
B. Approval Period. Tree removal permits shall be effective,
unless appealed, following the ten (10) day appeal period and
shall be valid for a period of ninety (90) days, subject to
extension. The Director may, from time to time, upon good
cause shown extend the permit (s) previously issued. Where the
tree removal permit is associated with an application for
development, the ninety (90) days shall commence on the
earliest of either the date of final map recordation or the
issuance of a building permit.
C. To assist the City in making a determination, the applicant,
for a tree removal permit, may be required to submit an
8
revised 12/26/91
appraisal prepared by a certified arborist to determine the
value of the tree(s) removed. Such informatiion may be
utilized in determining tree replacement requirements.
D. Replacement trees shall be properly cared for and maintained
for a period of five (5) years and replaced by the applicant or
permittee if mortality occurs within that period.
D. Where feasible, replacement trees should be. indigenous to the
area as determined by a certified arborist.
G. Replacement standards for lots of one (1) acre or more shall be
as follows for trees defined in the Ordinance:
Diameter
Number Removed
Replaced
Min.
Size
10" or under
1
4
24"
box
11" - 14"
1
4
36"
box
15" - 29"
1
4
48"
box
30" plus
1
4
60"
box
Lots less than one (1) acre with existing improvements are
exempt from the above replacement schedule unless Director
determines that there are overriding consideration. The
replacement for trees defined in the. Ordinance, on lots less
than one .(1) acre with existing improvements, shall have a
replaced ratio of 1:1.
22.56.2170
PROTECTION OF EXISTING TREES
Care shall be exercised by all individuals, developers, and contractors
working near oak, sycamore, walnut, and pepper trees so that no damage
occurs to such existing trees. All construction shall preserve and
protect the health of trees to remain, be relocated, and new trees
planted to replace those removed, in keeping with the following
measures:
A. All trees to be retained shall be enclosed by chain link
fencing with a minimum height of five (5) feet or other means
approved by the Director prior to the issuance of any grading
or building permit and prior to commencement of work, all as in
conformance with Section B, herein below.
B. Chain link fencing or other approved barrier shall be erected
at least ten (10) feet outside of the dripline or twenty (20)
feet from the trunk, whichever distance is greater. Said
barrier shall remain in place during all phases of construction
and may not be removed without the written consent of the
Director at the completion of construction.
revised 12/26/91 9
C. Unless otherwised approved by the Director, signs must be
installed on the barrier in four locations equidistant around
each tree. The size of each sign shall be a minimum of two (2)
feet by two (2) feet square and shall contain the following
language:
WARNING
This fence shall not be removed or relocated without written
authorization from the City of Diamond Bar.
D. No disruption or removal of the structural or absorptive roots
of any tree shall be permitted except as set forth in Section
G.
E. No fill materials shall be placed within the dripline of any
tree unless otherwise approved by the Director.
F. No compaction of the soil.within the dripline of any tree shall
be permitted.
G. No construction, including structures and walls, that disrupts
the root system shall be permitted. As a general guideline, no
cutting of the root system shall be permitted within a distance
equal to three and one-half times the trunk diameter as
measured at ground level. This distance may vary to meet the
needs of individual tree species as determined by an arborist.
Where root removal is necessary, the tree crown may be required
to be thinned to prevent wind damage. This shall also be
verified by a certified arborist.
22.56.2180
TAGGING
In the process of preparing a Tree Report, each tree is required to be
phusically marked for identification by consecutively numbered tags.
The following method of numbering the trees shall be used to easily
identify and locate the trees:
A. A permanent tag, a minimum of one and one-quarter
(1-1/411) inches to two (211) inches is to be used for
identifying the trees. The tag must be made from a non-
corrosive, all weather material and be permanently attached to
the tree.
B. The tag shall be located on the north side of the tree at a
height of four and one-half (4-1/21) feet above the natural
elevation.
C. The Director shall approve the tags proposed for use prior to
the installation of such tags.
Section 4. Penalty for violation of ordinance.
revised 12/26/91 10
It shall be unlawful for any person, firm,. partnership, or
corporation to violate any provision, or to fail to comply with any of
the requirements of this Ordinance. Any person, firm, partnership, or
corporation violating any provision of this Ordinance, or failing to
comply with any of its requirements, shall be deemed guilty of a
misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not
exceeding One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), or by imprisonment not
exceeding six (6) months, or by both such fine and inprisonment. Each
such person, firm, partnership, or corporation shall be deemed guilty
of a separate offense for each and every day or any portion thereof
during which any violation of this Orinance is committed, continued, or
permitted by such person, firm, partnership, or corporation, and shall
be deemed punishable therefore as provided in this Ordinance.
Section 5. Civil remedies available.
The violation of any of the provisions of this Ordinance shall
constitute a nuisance and may be abated by the City through civil
process by means of a restraining order, preliminary or permanent
injunction or in any other manner provided by law. Such enforcement or
abatement shall include, but not be limited to, seeking replacement of
such tree(s) in kind, size, and age, or in lieu thereof, paying to the
City the full apraised value of such tree(s), said value to be
determined by a professional appraiser selected by.the City, and the
cost of such appraisal to be paid by said person, firm, partnership,
or corporation, all for the purpose of tree replacement.
Section 6. Severabillity.
The City Council declares that, should any provision, section,
paragraph, sentence, or word of this Ordinance be rendered or declared
invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction,
or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provision,
sections, paragraphs, sentences, and words of this Ordinance shall
remain in full force and effect.
Section 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this
Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted in three (3) public
places within the City of Diamond Bar within fifteen (15) days after
its passage in the manner prescribed by Resolution NO. 89-6.
ADOPTED AND APPROVED THIS day of , 1992.
Mayor
I, LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, do
hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on the
11
rcvised 12/26/91
day of , 1992, and was finally passed at a regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Diamond held on the day
of , 1992 by the following vote:
revised 12126191 12
RESOLUTION NO. 92-2
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR RECOMMENDING THAT
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
APPROVE THE REPEAL OF THE OAR TREE PERMIT
PROCESS AND THE REPLACEMENT OF SUCH WITH
A TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE.
A. Recitals.
(i) The City of Diamond Bar is recognized for its
unique and distinguished natural and improved physical
environment. A major element of such physical environment is the
varieties of trees, including naturally occurring stands of oak,
walnut, scyamore and pepper trees. These trees value to the
community is such that all reasonable efforts should be.
undertaken to preserve and enhance them. Such measures must also
be balanced against the circumstances which may require the
removal, relocation or maintenance of such trees.
(ii) The City of Diamond Bar presently is without
adequate regulations which serve to foster the preservation of
such trees while responding to the needs of owners of the
properties on which such trees may be sited.
(iii) The Planning Commission has extensively
considered the issues related to a balanced tree preservation
ordinance, and has, with the benefit of public input, developed a
proposed tree preservation ordinance which it hereby recommends
to the City Council for its review and adoption.
(iv) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this
Resolution have occurred.
1
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of
Diamond Bar, California finds and resolves as follows:
SECTION 1. In all respects as set forth in the
Recitals, Part A, hereinabove.
SECTION 2. That the Diamond Bar Planning Commission
recommends that the Council of the City of Diamond Bar approve
and adopt the proposed tree preservation ordinance attached
hereto as Exhibit 11111.
SECTION 3. That the City of Diamond Bar is in the
process of finalizing its draft General Plan and that, on the
basis of such draft plan there is a reasonable probability that
the intent of this Ordinance will be consistent with the goals,
e`s policies and objectives of the ultimate General Plan. Further,
there is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or
interference with the ultimately adopted general plan if
inconsistencies are ultimately present because the preservation
of both the naturally occurring and introduced trees.will enhance
the City and the environment which will be of benefit to the
present and future community. Finally, this action is undertaken
in conformance with all applicable laws.
SECTION 4. The Planning Commission finds and
determines that the ordinance proposed by this Resolution is
categorically exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines
promulgated thereunder pursuant to Section 15307 of Division 6 of
f
2
s>
Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.
�,tyd
SECTION 5. That the Secretary to the Planning
Commission deliver this resolution to the City Clerk.
ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 13th day of January, 1992.
Chairman
I, JAMES DESTEFANO, Secretary of the Planning
Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar held on the 13th
s �a day of January, 1992, and was finally passed at a regular meeting
of the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar held on the
13th day of January, 1992, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: GROTHE, HARMONY, FLAMENBAUM
and SCHEY
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: MCBRIDE
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ATTEST:
Secretary
L�1011%USOTREE%DB 6.7 3
MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 24, 1991
Draft Tree Preservation Ordinance
PT/Ann Lungu addressed the Commission regarding a draft Tree
Preservation Ordinance. The primary need is to determine to what
extent the Commission would like this ordinance to establish the
policies for the City of Diamond Bar's tree preservation. Staff
would appreciate comments and suggestions on the ordinance.
VC/Harmony made the following suggestions for the Ordinance: the
definition of multitrunk trees is unclear; there should be some
special leeway to allow closer buildings within the drip line;
nurseries should be included; the City should be involved in the
certification of the diseased tree; the City Engineer should have
to process a request at some level; Public Utility should not be
given authority over Oak Tree/Heritage Tree without some review;
the pruning % of the whole tree may be a more appropriate approach
to regulating trimming; there should be a provision for allowing
instances to chop tree tops, as well as trimming and pruning; the
concepts of item G & H, under the Oak Tree/Heritage Tree Permit
Application, needs clarification; there should be a longer time
period to allow for an appeal; change "dangerous condition" to
"eminent danger", under Emergency Waiver; clarify the difference
between a horticulturist and an arborist; the responsibility for
maintaining replacement trees should be 5 years; broaden the
definition concerning the replacement of trees with the largest
available tree; the Protection of Existing Trees during
construction should include maintenance; and the Enforcement
Officer should have code enforcement authority.
Chair/Schey questioned the appropriateness of a blanket statement
requiring Oak Trees/Heritage Trees to be replaced by the largest
available tree. There needs to be more flexibility to deal with
particular situations.
C/MacBride would like to include, in the list of exceptions, a
consideration for trees on private property that require topping to
prevent damage to the existing structures to the property. He
suggested being more selective on the definition of a Heritage
Tree, with consideration of historic inferences.
C/Lin stated that fencing, for the Protection of Trees, may not
always be warranted. She suggested the statement should include
"where necessary and feasible".
STUDY SESSION: October 14, 1991
Zoning Code Amendment 91-5 (tree preservation)
PT/Lunge addressed the Commission regarding the proposal to amend
certain provisions of the Los Angeles County Code, as adopted by
Diamond Bar, pertaining to Tree Preservation. In preparing the
various drafts for the tree ordinance, research was done using
sections of ordinances from the cities, indicated in the staff
report, that seemed compatible with our community for our purpose
and intent. It is suggested that the Commission address the
following four main issues regarding the tree ordinance: the
criteria to be used to identify trees to be preserved; the minimum
lot size standards for activation of a tree preservation ordinance;
the replacement ratio and size of replacement tree that would be
appropriate for the City's tree preservation ordinance; and the
City's desire to insure that a replacement tree will receive the
proper care and maintenance for a designated period of time. It is
recommended that the Commission direct staff to prepare a "final"
ordinance with the conditions listed by staff.
CD/DeStefano stated that DCA/Curley has suggested some
clarifications of items in the tree ordinance. Staff will review
these at the end of discussion on the four main issues. He
suggested that the Commission begin discussion regarding the
criteria to be utilized.
Chair/Grothe indicated that the criteria, for the replacement of
trees on single family properties, should not be such that it is
difficult to enforce.
C/Schey suggested that a 1:1 replacement ratio is sufficient on a
single family residential lot.
Chair/Grothe concurred that a 1:1 replacement ratio is adequate, as
long as it pertains to only the trees in the preservation list, and
not all types of trees.
CD/DeStefano inquired if a 1:1 replacement ratio would be adequate
in a situation where the tree removed was quite old.
C/Schey responded that, in that situation, no tree could adequately
replace it.
Chair/Grothe stated that the 4:1 replacement ratio for the removal
of a Heritage tree makes sense on a hillside development, but not
within a single family residential yard.
C/Harmony stated that the Pepper Tree should be added to the
Heritage Tree list.
VC/MacBride indicated the following concerns: the definition of a
Heritage tree is much too broad; the problem of a developer
choosing to pay the fine, rather than leave a cluster of trees,
must be addressed; and the issue regarding public safety vs. the
preservation of a tree included in the protective category, need be
addressed.
C/Schey suggested differentiating between a Heritage tree and a
Significant tree. Heritage trees are indigenous trees like the
Oak, Sycamore, Walnut, and Pepper. The Significant trees are those
that have reached some significance due to maturity or historical
value. Short of public safety, there should be absolute
preservation for Heritage trees.
CD/DeStefano stated he has suggested to Staff eliminating the term
"Heritage Tree" because he felt the ordinance was simply a tree
preservation ordinance beginning with whatever size, species or
combination we choose to establish as the minimum tree which we
desire to protect. During Staff's research it became apparent that
there is no common definition as to what the term "heritage tree"
or "significant tree" means.
Chair/Grothe pointed out that the original intention of this
ordinance was to try to save the majority of the tree groves mostly
located in the undeveloped areas of town. Therefore, the care of
trees, located on lots under a specified size, should be left to
the discretion of the homeowner.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
Dan Buffington, residing at 2605 Indian Creek, emphasized the
importance of preserving trees now for the future.
Don Schad, residing at 1824 Shady Wood Rd., suggested that the
concern for tree size, per lot, and tree types should be carefully
considered by a group of arborists, perhaps from a local college.
He explained that a Heritage tree is a tree that has been able to
sustain itself through it's own natural environment. He also
suggested that all the species be protected that have a uniqueness
to them.
C/Schey suggested that the general tree population should not be
preserved until there's some reason to believe that it is being
threatened. The native tree should be established as protected.
CD/DeStefano reminded the Commission that staff needs specific
direction regarding the four major criteria issues previously
indicated by staff.
VC/MacBride suggested defining Heritage trees and Significant trees
separately. Heritage trees would include Oak, Sycamore, California
Pepper, and Black Walnut. Significant trees are trees that have a
definitive historical significance, have a factor of age, and are
outstanding in it's own individual growth, per species.
PD/DeStefano stated that the Commission needs to be more specific
with their definition of a Significant tree. If the Commission is
unable to define it now, staff can, with the Commission's approval,
attempt to come up with a differentiation between Heritage trees
and Significant trees, and return it back to the Commission in an
ordinance format. He then suggested that the Commission discuss if
they want to differentiate any replacement value to the Heritage
tree, the Significant tree, and all others trees.
C/Harmony inquired if the Commission is in concurrence that single
family residential lots are exempt.
VC/MacBride suggested that the four stated categories of a Heritage
tree, plus the historic attributes of a given tree, as well as
significant trees be placed in one category called "Heritage
Trees", and exempting those problems which arise on single family
residential lots of a certain size.
Chair/Grothe suggested, and the Commission concurred on, the
following: the four types of Heritage trees, Oak, California
Pepper, Walnut, and Sycamore, are protected everywhere and can be
removed only by permit; all other trees that exceed the 15' height,
and 15" circumference criteria fall in the Significant tree
category and require a permit if they are on nonresidential or
undeveloped residential property; trees with documented historic
significance require a permit; there is a 1:1 replacement ratio,
for Heritage trees, on existing developed residential properties;
there is a 4:1 replacement ratio for Significant trees on non
residential or undeveloped properties; the replacement tree should
be of an in-kind species; there should be a steep penalty for trees
removed without a permit; the size of the replacement tree is to be
determined per the City of La Verne graph; and anyone removing a
tree should be required to place a bond for insuring maintenance of
the replacement tree.
CD/DeStefano pointed out those items in the draft tree ordinance
that will need further clarification: the definition of a Heritage
tree will be expanded, and the definition of "multi-trunk" and
"stand" needs further clarification; the verbiage regarding
"Routine Maintenance" will be moved to the Exception clause;
verbiage will be added to the Exception clause requiring that a
damaged tree, or diseased tree, be verified by a certified
arborist; in the Tree Permit Application, we must assure that the
plans indicate the existing and the proposed structures; the amount
of photographs required must be clarified in the Tree Permit
Application; the verbiage, of item F of the Tree Permit
Application, will be changed to indicate that "the applicant may be
required to provide..."; add in the Tree Permit Application a
specified time period in which the director will give a forthcoming
decision; there also needs to be a time period indicating when the
Director's decision will be received regarding the Tree Pruning
Permit, item B; the issue regarding public safety vs. convenience
will be addressed in the pruning of a tree section; the word
"unbalanced", written on page 6, will be better defined; under
Emergency Waiver, defining the proper contacts will be better
stated; the word "acceptable" will be changed to "approved" in the
section Protection of Existing Trees, section A & B; the phrase
"unless otherwise approved by the Director" will be added to
subsection E, of Protecting Existing Trees; and the last paragraph
of the section Enforcement, will be removed.
VC/MacBride, concerned with developers that may inadvertently or
intentionally remove trees, suggested that instead of imposing a
penalty, require that the trees be replaced in-kind and maintained.
DCA/Curley stated that if a tree is removed, accidently or
otherwise, the developer could be asked to stop the project, or
meet the conditions that have been established. There are ways to
reach the developer.
Don Schad suggested that the required period of maintenance be
extended from three years to five years.
The Commission concurred with Don Schad's suggestion to extend the
period of maintenance to five years.
Chair/Grothe, concerned with the administrative burden on staff for
enforcement, suggested that the bond requirement for a single tree
on a single residence be excluded.
DCA/Curley suggested, and the Commission concurred, to use a lien
process rather than requesting a deposit or bond up front.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
As directed by the Commission staff will renotice the Public
Hearing when the ordinance is ready to be brought back to the
Commission.
Motion was made by VC/MacBride, seconded by C/Harmony and CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY to request staff to bring the ordinance back to the
Commission the first meeting in December of 1991.
Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting August 12, 1992
Preliminary Draft Tree Preservation Ordinance ZCA 91-3
PT/Lungu addressed the Commission regarding the second draft of the
tree preservation ordinance. Comments from the Commission are
requested. The next time the Commission meets to discuss this
topic, it will be in ordinance form, and a public hearing.
VC/MacBride made the following comments: Under Purpose, amend the
phrase "as well as defined" to "definitive of"; under Intent and
Applicability, the ordinance should pertain to both public and
private property; and page 3, under Exception C, include shrubs,
and add the wording "... necessary to keep street and sidewalk
easements clear of obstruction..."
C/Schey requested that the syntax "shall mean", "mean", etc. be
eliminated from the Definition section. He also stated that
defining a Heritage Tree, simply by size, seems to be an overly
broad definition.
VC/MacBride requested staff to review the item, possibly with Don
Schad, and reword it.
Following discussion, C/Schey suggested that the Significant Tree
and the Heritage Tree be differentiated. The Heritage Tree can
have the full review it is warranted, and the Significant Tree have
at least some review.
C/Harmony made the following comments: Under Diseased Trees, staff
should include some reference to insect infestation, as well as
wording indicating "and others inflicted by, but not limited to.";
he indicated concern regarding the 2 inch guideline referred to in
the Routine Maintenance section and Pruning Permit section; in
reference to the removal or relocation of oak trees or heritage
trees, some significant tree removal should remain in the purview
of the Planning Commission and the Council; and on page 7, item E,
replacement trees should be maintained for a period of five years.
C/Schey discussed item E, page 5, regarding the enforcement of
replacement trees. A warranty period of 3 to 5 years is a long
time, and often the developer has become unavailable. He suggested
that language be included in the context that the applicant,
permittee, or successor, whoever is responsible for that property
when the tree is removed, is responsible for the replacement trees.
C/Harmony suggested that a provision for paying the City the
appraised value of the lost tree, if it cannot be replaced, be
included with the tree replacement clause.
C/Schey, noting that often times developers view the fines as a
more desirable option, requested staff to review the provision in
Claremont, which carries a heavier penalty.
C/Lin inquired how the capabilities of tree specialists are
differentiated.
PT/Lunge stated that they must have proof of qualifications and
references of past work.
VC/MacBride requested staff to determine if there is a California
requirement that establishes standards which indicates that the
specialist is licensed, bonded, or certified.
Chair/Grothe noted that, in the replacement of trees, quantity is
not discussed. Understanding that tree sizes and types must be
varied, he cautioned that unless there is a minimum replacement
number indicated, some developers will manage to elude the
specifications.
PD/DeStefano stated that a section will be added pertaining to the
replacement ratio, and the issues pertaining to the size of the
replacement trees. He then stated that, with the Commission's
comments, staff will prepare the document in full ordinance format,
and establish a public hearing process for the Commission's
recommendation to the City Council.
MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 9, 1992
PUBLIC HEARING:
Zoning Code Amendment 91-5
PT/Lungu reported that the Commission, at the October 14th meeting,
directed staff to have the draft tree preservation ordinance
reformatted for the December 9th meeting. Staff recommended that
the Commission adopt a Resolution recommending that the City
Council approve the Tree Preservation Ordinance.
VC/MacBride, concerned that a situation may arise whereas a
developer may choose to pay the fine for destroying a forest of
trees rather than hold up development, requested that' there be
definitive language in the ordinance indicating that there is an
enormous penalty for such a situation. The intent of such language
would be to influence the developers to think long and hard before
cutting down a forest of trees.
C/Flamenbaum noted that section 5, of the ordinance, under Tagging,
already indicates that the City would have a Civil right to sue for
abatement of a nuisance, and damages that result.
C/Harmony, concurring with VC/MacBride, stated that additional
language, emphasizing the desires of the Commission, helps
establish policy for future administrations and city attorneys to
pursue these cases when they happen.
DCA/Curley stated that provisions in nuisance abatement type
ordinance is already structured, in essence, to say: "The City
Attorney's office is hereby directed to institute proceedings."
Wording to the effect, "... and shall seek to obtain remedial
measures, including restitution or tree replacement.", could be
added to the provision and could be appropriately placed in Section
5, of the ordinance, to amplify the intent. However, the overall
legal impact may not be effective. He reminded the Commission
that, procedurally, the Council must first authorize, and direct
any and all litigation to proceed.
C/Schey suggested, and DCA/Curley concurred, that it may be more
appropriate to place a policy statement, in the beginning of the
Ordinance, under the Purpose and Intent Section, indicating that it
is the intent of the City to preserve these trees, and we will
pursue to the greatest extent.
VC/MacBride, in reference to the tree guidelines manual, inquired
if a statement could be incorporated into the ordinance stating
that each applicant, under this section, shall be furnished, by the
City, with a copy of the guidelines.
DCA/Curley stated that, since the City does not have certified
arborists that can examine each individual tree and give
instructions as to it's proper care, it is strongly advised that
these guidelines are eliminated to avoid future potential
liability.
C/Schey inquired if it is the City Attorney's recommendation that
the City leave the care and feeding of the trees as the
responsibility of the owners, or responsible party, to keep them
alive. The City would then intervene if the trees should die.
DCA/Curley concurred.
Chair/Grothe questioned why a disclaimer could not be placed in the
ordinance, stating that the guidelines is just information gathered
to help in caring fora tree, and is not the full direction of the
City.
CD/DeStefano suggested that the Commission may opt to send the
guidelines to the City Council, with the understanding of the City
Attorney's office's concerns, and including the Commission's
comments, but ultimately letting the City Council decide whether or
not the guidelines are an appropriate attachment to the ordinance.
The Commission concurred.
C/Schey, concerned with section 22.56.2080 Definition (J) of the
ordinance, stated that, to his recollection, it was the
Commission's intent to establish an ordinance that preserves all
Oak, Sycamore, Walnut, and Pepper trees, regardless of size. There
seems to be an inconsistency.
Chair/Grothe stated that he was under the impression that there
would be a provision exempting residential homeowners from the
preservation provision.
CD/DeStefano reminded the Commission that they had developed the
criteria for the size of the tree appropriate for preservation,
after discussion on the matrix presented by staff, which included
information as to what some other cities in the immediate area were
doing.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
Don Schad made the following comments: There are other significant
trees based upon size and heritage, other than the four indicated
trees, that should be considered for preservation; the height and
circumference limit is bearable as stated in the Definition section
(J).1, but he suggested adding the word "dominance" after the word
"survival" to (J)3., page 3; a relocated tree should be given the
same care and consideration as a brand new tree; there is not a
specific chart on tree sizes; and pages 1 through 11, of the
ordinance, does not identify dimensional sizes for tree
replacement.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
Chair/Grothe stated that he was under the impression that the draft
tree ordinance referred to a chart of sizes and quantities
regarding tree replacement.
DCA/Curley suggested that there should be flexibility on tree
replacement ratios because site sizes may vary, and the trees may
or may not fit as directed. The replacement ratio is currently at
the Director's discretion, so that he may analyze the site and
either determine the rational replacement ratio, or refer it to the
Commission.
C/Flamenbaum suggested that section 22.56.2160 Tree Replacement
Standards item A, should read, "... on the basis of the Tree
Report.".
Chair/Grothe stated that he would prefer the ordinance to include
specific replacement quantities or sizes so that when the developer
pulls a permit he is immediately made aware of the guidelines he
must follow.
C/Schey stated his concern that, the way the ordinance is written,
all tree removal permits would come before the Director and would
not come before the Commission unless it is under appeal.
CD/DeStefano recommended that, in order to clarify that the
Planning Commission should review not only the tree removal, but
all other environmental aspects of a project at the time that they
are reviewing the specific project, subsection E. should be added
to section 22.56.2100 Permit Required, stating that, "The Director,
in his/or her discretion, shall refer the decision to the Planning
Commission in the event that such application is in conjunction
with the discretionary approval over which the Planning Commission
has jurisdiction.".
C/Schey, regarding the drafting of the tree report, noted that a
situation could arise whereas the impartiality of the arborist
could be questioned. He suggested that the arborist be employed by
the City to ensure that he/she has the City's, and the tree's, best
interest at heart.
DCA/Curley concurred that the present structure of the ordinance
looks to the applicant to employ the arborist. It could be
modified whereas the applicant up fronts the cost, and the City
would then employ the arborist who would analyze the situation
impartially.
C/Harmony noted that there is no provision in the ordinance
protecting heritage trees that are significant because of size,
age, or historical event, other than the four trees indicated.
DCA/Curley suggested that the Commission may consider separating
cultural significant attributes, versus the broader environmental
significance, and designating those attributes within a separate
culturally significant ordinance.
CD/DeStefano indicated that, at this point and time, staff needs
specific direction from the Commission as to how the Commission
wishes staff to proceed on this issue. It is difficult for staff
to determine historical events recognized by the City.
C/Harmony stated that the historical value can be certified by the
Planning Commission and/or the City Council, or the historical
committee being formed. He would like heritage trees protected in
the ordinance.
C/Flamenbaum suggested that the ordinance be approved, with the
recommendations and corrections made. If the Commission desires
historical items to be preserved, then a separate ordinance should
be created. The Commission concurred.
C/Harmony stated, for the record, omitting reference to heritage
trees, within the tree ordinance, limits the scope of the
ordinance, and is therefore, not a complete ordinance that way.
C/Harmony, referring to the civil remedies, section 22.56.2180
Tagging subsection 5., stated that it is not clear what kind of
civil remedy the City would receive if the developer destroyed, for
example, a 600 year old tree. There should be a clearly stated
penalty that the developer will be responsible for replacing the
tree, and that a neutral arbitrator will be utilized to appraise
the tree, if needed.
DCA/Curley recommended that the wording of subsection E not be
altered. The provision gives full flexibility to pursue whatever
remedy is deemed appropriate by the City Council. It is understood
that the City would seek replacement or replacement costs.
CD/DeStefano suggested that the Chair may wish to appoint a sub-
committee, of the Commission, to work out the specific details and
assist staff in bringing the matter back to the full Commission in
January of 1992.
C/Schey recommended that the subcommittee limit their discussion on
the following two issues that remain unresolved: the delineations
of the penalties; and the minimum replacement standard.
C/Schey and VC/MacBride volunteered to be on the subcommittee.
C/Schey recommended that the matter be continued to January 13th,
with the subcommittee working with staff to reconcile these
matters, and bringing it back to the Commission in final form on
that date. The Commission concurred.
VC/MacBride requested staff to appropriately revise section
22.56.2090 Exemptions subsection D. so that it is more clearly
stated.
Chair/Grothe called a recess at 9:35 p.m. The meeting was called
back to order at 9:44 p.m.
C/Flamenbaum suggested that the Commission recommend to the City
Council to consider the establishment of an ordinance taking into
account all historical items within the City confines. The
Commission concurred.
MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 13, 1992
PT/Lungu reported that on December 9, 1991, at a noticed public
hearing, staff presented a final draft tree preservation ordinance
to the Commission for review. A subcommittee of two Planning
Commissioners, C/Schey and VC/MacBride, were selected to deal with
the issues of heritage trees, replacement standards, and civil
remedies. PT/Lungu reviewed the decisions made by the subcommittee
regarding the three issues, as indicated in the staff report.
Staff recommended that the Commission adopt a Resolution, with
additions resulting from the subcommittee meeting, recommending
that the City Council approve the Tree Preservation Ordinance.
Furthermore, it is recommended that the language, "The Director, in
his/or her discretion, shall refer the decision to the Planning
Commission in the event that such application is in conjunction
with the discretionary approval over which the Planning Commission
has jurisdiction.", should be inserted to subsection 22.56.2110 as
a new addition after subsection H.
CD/DeStefano explained that this addition would allow the Director
to forward the application to the City Planning Commission for
review. It is staff's opinion that applications for discretionary
approval involving the removal of trees, should be reviewed by the
Commission, including the removal of any Oak, Walnut, Sycamore, or
Pepper trees.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
Don Schad complimented the Commission and staff on their job in
developing the Tree Ordinance.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
Motion was made by C/Schey, seconded by C/Harmony and CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY to approve the Ordinance as drafted, with the inclusion
of the Director's discretion to send nondevelopment related permits
to the Commission for their review, and the inclusion of provision
mandating that tree removal permit that relate to development
permits, under the Commission's discretion, be mandatorily brought
with the balance of the package.
Chair/Grothe called a recess at 9:25 p.m. The meeting was called
back to order at 9:42 p.m.
1111/;'Ut;
PART 16 - CHAPTER 22.56
OAK TREE PERMITS
22.56.2050 ESTABLISHED - PURPOSE. The oak tree permit is
established (a) to recognize oak trees as significant historical,
aesthetic and valuable ecological resources, and as one of the most
picturesque trees in Los Angeles County, lending beauty and charm
to the natural and man-made landscape, enhancing the value of
property, and the character of the communities in which they exist;
and (b) to create favorable conditions for the preservation and
propagation of this unique, threatened plant. heritage,.particularly
those trees classified as "heritage oak" trees, for the benefit of
current and future residents of Los Angeles County. It is the
intent of the oak tree permit to maintain and enhance the general
health, safety and welfare by assisting in counteracting air
pollution and in minimizing soil erosion and other related environ-
mental damage. The oak tree permit is also intended to preserve and
enhance property values by conserving and adding to the distinctive
and unique aesthetic character of many areas of Los Angeles County,
in which oak trees are indigenous. The stated objective of the
Oak Tree Permit is to preserve and maintain as many healthy Oak
trees in the development process.
22.56.2060 DAMAGING OR REMOVING OAK TREES PROHIBITED -
PERMIT REQUIREMENTS. A. Except as otherwise provided in Section
22.56.2070,a person shall not cut, destroy, remove, relocate,
otherwise inflict damage or encroach into a protected zone of
any tree of the oak genus which is (a) 25 inches or more in
circumference (eight inches in diameter) as measured four and
one-half feet above mean natural grade; in the case of an oak with
more than one trunk, whose combined circumference of any two
trunks is at least 38 inches (12 inches in diameter) as measured
four and one -�alf feet above mean natural grade, on any lot or
parcel o lar within the unincorporated area of Los Angeles
County, •or (b) any tree that has been provided as a replacement
tree, pursuant to Section 22.56.2180, on any lot or parcel of
land within the unincorporated area of Los Angeles County,
unless an oak tree permit is first obtained as provided by this
part 16.
B. "Damage," as used in this Part 16, includes any act causing
or tending to cause injury to the root system or other parts of a
tree, including, but not limited to, burning, application of toxic
substances, operation of equipment or machinery, or by paving,
changing the natural grade, trenching or excavating within the
protected zone of an oak tree.
C. "Protected zone 11, as used in this Part 16, shall mean that
area within the dripline of an oak tree and extending therefrom to
a point at least 5 feet outside from the dripline, or 15 feet from
the trunk of a tree, whichever distance is greater.
87-035-02
11/15/68
22.56.2070 EXEMPTIONS FROM PART 16 APPLICABILITY. The provi-
sions of this Part 16 shall not apply to:
A. Any permit, variance or tentative map for a subdivision,
including a minor land division, approved prior to the effective
date (8/20/82) of this Part 16 by the Board of Supervisors,
Regional Planning Commission or the Planning Director;
B. Cases of emergency caused by an oak tree being in a
hazardous or dangerous condition, or being irretrievably damaged
or destroyed through flood, fire, wind or lightning, as determined
after visual inspection by a licensed forester with the Department
of Forester and Fire Warden.
�C.�nergency or routine maintenance by a public utility
necessary to protect or maintain an electric power or communication
line or other property of a public utility;
D. -Routine maintenance, limited to medium pruning of branches
not to exceed one inch in diameter in acordance with guidelines
published by the National Arborists Association, intended to insure
the continued health of a protected tree;
E. Trees planted, grown and/or held for sale by a licensed
nursery;
F. Repair and maintenance of existing parkways and streets
and/or other public facilities.
22.56.2080 APPLICATION - FILING - REPEATED FILINGS. Any
person desiring an oak tree permit, as provided for in this Title
22, may file an application with the Director, except that no
application shall be filed or accepted if final action has been
taken within one year prior thereto by the Hearing officer or the
Director or the Commission on an application requesting the same
or substantially the same permit.
22.56.2090 APPLICATION - INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTS REQUIRED.
An application for an oak tree permit shall include the following
information and documents:
A. The name and address of the applicant and of all persons
owning any or all of the property proposed to be used;
B. Evidence that the applicant:
1. Is the owner of the premises involved, or
2. Has written permission of the owner or owners to make
such application;
40,
77 r
67-O35-02
11/15/88
C. Location of subject property (address or vicinity);
D. Legal description of the property involved;
E. 1. A site plan drawn to a scale satisfactory to, and in the
number of copies prescribed by the Director, indicating the location
and dimension of all of the following existing and proposed features
on the subject property:
a. Lot lines.
b. Streets, highways, access and other major public or
private easements.
c. Buildings and/or structures, delineating roof and
other projects.
d. Yards.
e. Walls and fences.
f. Parking and other paved areas.
g. Proposed areas to be landscaped and/or irrigated.
h. Proposed construction, excavation, grading and/or
landfill. Where a change in grade is proposed, the change in grade
within the protected zone of each plotted tree shall be specified.
i. The location of all oak trees, subject to this Part
16 proposed to be removed, and/or relocated, or within 200 feet
of proposed construction, grading, landfill or other activity. Each
tree shall be assigned an identification number on the plan, and a
corresponding permanent identifying tag shall be affixed to the north
side of each tree. These identifications shall be utilized in the
oak tree report and for physical identification on the property where
required. The protected zone shall be shown for each plotted tree.
j. Location and dize of all proposed replacement trees.
k. Proposed and existing land uses.
1. Location of all surface drainage systems.
m. Other development features which the Director deems
necessary to process the application.
2. Where a concurrent application for a permit, variance,
zone change, tentative map for a subdivision, including a minor
land division or other approval, is filed providing the information
required by this Subsection E, the Director may waive such site
plan where he deems it unnecessary to process the application;
-3-
11/15/88
F. 1. An oak tree report, prepared by an individual with
expertise acceptable to the Director and County Forester and Fire
Warden, and certified to be true and correct, which is acceptable
to the Director and County Forester and Fire Warden, of each tree
shown on the site plan required by Subsection E of this section,
which shall contain the following information:
a. The name, address and telephone number during
business hours of the preparer,
follows b. Evaluation of the physical structure of each tree as
i. The circumference and diameter of the -trunk,
measured four and one-half feet above natural grade,
ii. The diameter of the tree's canopy, plus 5 feet,
establishing the dripline protected zone,
iii. Aesthetic assessment of the tree, considering
factors such as but not limited to symmetry, broken branches,
unbalanced crown, excessive horizontal branching,
iv. Recommendations to remedy structural problems where
required,
c. Evaluation of the health of each tree as follows:
i. Evidence of disease, such as slime flux, heart rot,
crown rot, armillaria root fungus, exfoliation, leaf scorch and
exudations,
ii. Identification of insect pests, such as galls, twig
girdler, borers, termites, pit scale and plant parasites,
iii. Evaluation of vigor, such as new tip growth, leaf
color, abnormal bark, deadwood and thinning of crown,
iv. Health rating based on the archetype tree of the
same species,
v. Recommendations to improve tree health, such as
insect or disease control, pruning and fertilization,
d. Evaluation of the applicant's proposal as it impacts
each tree shown on the site plan, including suggested mitigating
and/or future maintenance measures where required and the antici-
pated effectiveness thereof.
e. Identification of those trees shown on the site plan
which may be classified as heritage oak trees. Heritage oak trees
are either of the following: any oak tree measuring thirty-six
inches or more in diameter, measured four and one-half feet above
the natural grade; any oak tree having significant historical or
cultural importance to the community, notwithstanding that the
tree diameter is less than 3,6 inches;
-4-
"11/16/88
f. Identification of any oak tree officially identified
by a county resource conservation district.
2. The requirement for an oak tree report may be waived by
the Director where a single tree is proposed for removal, in con-
junction with the use of a single-family residence listed as a
permitted use in the zone, and/or such information is deemed
unnecessary for processing the application.
G. The applicant shall provide an oak tree information manual
prepared by and available from the Forester and Fire Warden to the
purchasers and any homeowners' association.
22.56.2100 APPLICATION - BURDEN OF PROOF. A. In
addition to the information required in' the application by Section
22.56.2090, the applicant shall substantiate to the satisfaction
of the Director the following facts:
- 1. That the proposed construction or proposed use will be
accomplished without endanering the health of the remaining trees
subject to this Part 16, if any on the subject property; and
2. That the removal or relocation of the oak tree(s)
proposed will not result in soil erosion through the diversion or
increased flow of surface waters which cannot be satisfactorily
mitigated; and
3. That in addition to the above facts, at least one of
the following findings apply;
a. That the removal or relocation of the Oak trees(s)
proposed is necessary as continued existence at present location(s)
frustrates the planned improvement or proposed use of the subject
property to such an extent that:
i. Alternative development plans cannot achieve the
same permitted density or that the cost of such alternative would
be prohibitive, or
ii. Placement of such tree(s) precludes the reason-
able and efficient use of such property for a use otherwise
authorized, or
b. That the oak tree(s) proposed for removal or re-
location interferes with utility services or streets and high-
ways, either within or outside of the subject property, and no
reasonable alternative to such interference exists other than
removal of the tree(s), or
C. That the condition of the oak tree(s) proposed
for removal with reference to seriously debilitating disease
or danger of falling. is such that it cannot be remedied through
reasonable preservation procedures and practices.
-5-
f. Identification of any oak tree officially identified
by a county resource conservation district.
2. The requirement for an oak tree report may be waived by
the Director where a single tree is proposed for removal, in con-
junction with the use of a single-family residence listed as a
permitted use in the zone, and/or such information is deemed
unnecessary for processing the application.
G. The applicant shall provide an oak tree information manual
prepared by and available from the Forester and Fire Warden to the
purchasers and any homeowners' association.
22.56.2100 APPLICATION - BURDEN OF PROOF. A. In
addition to the information required in' the application by Section
22.56.2090, the applicant shall substantiate to the satisfaction
of the Director the following facts:
. 1. That the proposed construction or proposed use will. be
accomplished without endanering the health of the remaining trees
subject to this Part 16, if any on the subject property; and
2. That the removal or relocation of the oak tree(s)
proposed will not result in soil erosion through the diversion or
increased flow of surface waters which cannot be satisfactorily
mitigated; and
3. That in addition to the above facts, at least one of
the following findings apply;
a. That the removal or relocation of the Oak trees(s)
proposed is necessary as continued existence at present location(s)
frustrates the planned improvement or proposed use of the subject
property to such an extent that:
i. Alternative development plans cannot achieve the
same permitted density or that the cost of such alternative would
be prohibitive, or
ii. Placement of such tree(s) precludes the reason-
able and efficient use of such property for a use otherwise
authorized, or
b. That the oak tree(s) proposed for removal or re-
location interferes with utility services or streets and high-
ways, either within or outside of the subject property, and no
reasonable alternative to such interference exists other than
removal of the tree(s), or
C. That the condition of the oak tree(s) proposed
for removal with reference to seriously debilitating disease
or danger of falling.is such that it cannot be remedied -through
reasonable preservation procedures and practices.
-5-
--..I .. -I _
22.56.2140 REVIEW OF OAK TREE REPORT BY COUNTY FORESTER AND
FIRE WARDEN. A. On receipt of an application for an oak tree
permit, the Director shall refer a copy of the applicant's oak
tree report as required by Section 22.56.2090 to the County
Forester and Fire Warden. The County Forester and Fire Warden
shall review said report for the accuracy of statements and, shall
make inspections on the project site. Such inspections shall
determine the health of all such trees on the project site and such
other factors as may be necessary and proper to complete his review,
a copy of which shall be submitted in writing to the Director and/or
Commission within 15 days after receipt from the Director.
B. The County Forester and Fire Warden may at his option also
suggest conditions for use by the Hearing Officer or the Director
or Commission pursuant to Section 22.56.2180.
22.56.2150 APPLICATION -.HEARING OFFICER OR THE COMMISSION
CONSIDERATION WHEN CONCURRENTLY FILED. When an application for a
permit, variance, zone change or tentative map for a subdivision,
including a minor land division, is concurrently filed with an
application for an oak tree permit as provided by this Title 22,
the Hearing Officer or the Commission shall consider and approve
such application for a oak tree permit concurrently with such other
approvals. The Hearing Officer or the Commission, in making its
findings, shall consider each case individually as if separately
filed.
22.56.2160 APPLICATION - PUBLIC HEARING REQUIRED WHEN.
Where no concurrent consideration is conducted by the Hearing
Officer or the Commission pursuant to section 22.56.2150, the
Director shall conduct a public hearing subject to the notice
requirements of Subsection B of Section 22.56.2130; provided,
however, that no hearing shall be required for a filing in conjunc-
tion with the use of a single-family residence when publishing is
not required by said Subsection C of Section 22.56.2130.
22.56.2170 APPLICATION - GRANT OR DENIAL CONDITIONS. The .
Hearing Officer or the Director or Commission shall approve an
application for an oak tree permit where the information submitted
by the applicant and/or brought to their attention during public
hearing, including the report of the County Forester and Fire
Warden, substantiates that the burden of proof set forth in Section
22.56.2100 has been met. The Hearing Officer or the Director or
Commission shall deny such application where the information
submitted fails to substantiate such findings.
22.56.2180 ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS IMPOSED WHEN. The Hearing
Officer, the Director or Commission, in approving an application
for an oak tree permit, shall impose such conditions as are
deemed necessary to insure that the permit will be in accordwith
the findings required by Section 22.56.2100. These conditions
may involve, but are not necessarily limited to, the following:
-7-
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
FROM: James DeStefano, Community Development Di
VIA: Ann J. Lungu, Planning Technician l
SUBJECT: Tree Preservation Ordinance
(Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 91-5)
DATE: March 2, 1992
BACKGROUND•
In preparing this preliminary draft tree preservation ordinance,
research was done using ordinances which are in effect at other
cities. Sections were taken from these ordinances which seem
compatible with our community for our purpose and intent. The
following cities' tree preservation ordinances were used: Thousand
Oaks, Rancho Cucamonga, LaVerne, San Marino, San Dimas, and Los
Angeles. An ordinance prepared by Don Schad for the City of
Diamond Bar was also used in the research. A pamphlet prepared by
the Los Angeles County Department of Forester and Fire Warden was
used.
The Commission met on June 24, 1991, August 12, 1991, and October
14, 1991 to discuss the issues surrounding a tree preservation
ordinance. At the October 14,1991 meeting, the Commission decided
the ordinance would be preserving not only species of oak trees
but also species of walnut, sycamore and pepper trees.
On December 9, 1991, staff presented the City's draft regulations
concerning tree preservation in ordinance formate to the Planning
Commission. Another public hearing was held on January 13, 1992
and the Commission adopted a resolution recommending approval of a
Tree Preservation Ordinance to City Council. Attached to this
memorandum is that Tree Preservation Ordinance.
DISCUSSION•
The purpose and intent of the Los Angeles County Oak Tree
Ordinance and the proposed Tree Preservation Ordinance are
similar. They indicate the importance and significance of trees
to society and to our environment.
The three major differences between the Los Angeles County Oak
Tree Ordinance and the City's proposed Tree Preservation Ordinance
Tree Ordinance and the City's proposed Tree Preservation Ordinance
are the type of trees which are protected, the replacement ratio,
and the size criteria for trees which are preserved.
The type of tree the Los Angeles County Oak Tree Ordinance
protects are species of oak trees. The City's proposed Tree
Preservation Ordinance will protect all genus and species of oak
trees, walnut trees, sycamore trees, and pepper trees on all
public and private property within the City.
The tree replacement ratio of the Los Angeles County Oak Tree
Ordinance is two to one (2:1) . The ratio for the propose Tree
Preservation Ordinance is four to one (4:1). Lots less than one
(1) acre with existing improvements are exempt for the 4:1 ratio
unless the Director of Community Development determines that there
are overriding considerations. The replacement ration for these
lots are 1:1. For lots that are one (1) acre or more shall be
replaced as in the scheduled found in Chapter 22.560, Section
2160.G. (Pg -9) of the proposed ordinance.
The size criteria for tree preservation is drastically different
in the ordinances. The Los Angeles County Oak Tree Ordinance
states that a person shall not cut, destroy, remove, relocate,
otherwise inflict damage or encroach into a protected zone of any
tree of the oak genus which is as follows:
1. 25 inches or more in circumference (8 inches in
diameter) as measured 4'h feet above mean natural
grade;
2. In the case of an oak tree with more than one
trunk, whose combined circumference of any 2
trunks is at least 38 inches (12 inches in
diameter) as measured 4'h feet above mean natural
grade, on any lot or parcel of land within the
unincorporated area of Los Angeles County, or any
tree that has been provided as a replacement tree,
pursuant to Section 22.56.2180, on any lot or
parcel of land within the unincorporated area of
Los Angeles County, unless and oak tree permit is
first obtained as provided by this part 16.
In the City's proposed Tree Preservation Ordinance, the following
standards apply:
1. All oak, walnut, sycamore, and pepper trees in
excess of 15 feet in height or having a minimum
single trunk circumference of 15 inches measured
4 feet form lowest ground level;
2. Multitrunked tree with a division of its trunk
having a total circumference of a minimum of 30
inches measured 4 feet from lowest ground level
3. A stand of trees which are dependent on each other
for survival or dominance.
The importance of having a tree preservation is evident. Today,
trees are recognized for their tremendous value to our
Communities. Trees add beauty to our landscape, add value to our
home, protect our wild life, and add to our well being.
RECOMMENDATION•
The Planning Commission recommends approval of the Tree
Preservation Ordinance.
Attachments:
Tree Preservation Ordinance
Los Angeles Country Oak Tree Permits
Minutes of Planning Commission meetings
ORDINANCE NO. 91 -XX
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF DIAMOND BAR REPEALING PART 16 OF CHAPTER
22.56 OF DIVISION 1 OF TITLE 22 OF THE LOS
ANGELES COUNTY CODE AS HERETOFORE ADOPTED AND
ADOPING A NEW PART 16 OF CHAPTER 22.56 OF
DIVISION 1 OF TITLE 22 PERTAINING TO TREE
PRESERVATION.
A. Recitals
1. The City Council of the City of Diamond Bar has heretofore
adopted Part 16 of Chapter 22.56 of Division 1 of Title 22
pertaining to Oak Tree Permits.
2. It is the desire of the City Council to replace said
regulations with new regulations broadening the scope of
coverage afforded indiginous trees.
3. That the Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public
hearings on this proposed ordinance, received testimony and
closed such public hearing on December 9, 1991. It was
determined that this project is categorically exempt from the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970, as amended, and the guidelines promulgated thereunder
pursuant to Section 15307 of Division 6 of Title 14 of the
California Code of Regulations.
4. All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have
occurred.
B. Ordinance
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar does
ordain as follows:
Section 1. In all respects as set forth in Recitals, Part A, of
this Ordinance.
Section 2. Part 16 of Chapter 22.56 of Division 1 of Title 22 (
Sections 22.56.2050.et seq ) of the Los Angeles County Code, as
heretofore adopted, is hereby repealed in its entirety.
Section 3. A new Part 16 of Chapter 22.56 of Division 1 of Title
22 of the Los Angeles County Code, as heretofore adopted, is hereby
declared to read, in words and figures, as follows:
22.56.2050 ESTABLISHED
roviacd 12/26/91 1
PURPOSE
The Tree Preservation Ordinance is established to create a master plan
governing tree planting, maintenance, and removal; and to recognize oak
trees, walnut trees, sycamore trees, and pepper trees growing within
the City which are a significant historical, aesthetic, and natural
resource definitive of the character of the City. Oak trees, walnut
trees, sycamore trees, and pepper trees are worthy of protection. They
are the prime source of oxygen, preserve the scenic beauty, prevent
soil erosion, provide shade, protect wild life, and counteract air
pollution. It is relevant to the public peace, harmony, and welfare
that such trees be protected from random removal or cutting, especially
where such trees are related to a proposed development.
22.56.2060
INTENT
It is the intent of this ordinance to create regulations for the
preservation and maintenance of oak trees, walnut trees, sycamore
trees, and pepper trees within the City on public and private property
so as to retain as many of these trees as possible. It is also the
intent of this ordinance to perpetuate these trees through planting as
development occurs.
22.56.2070
APPLICABILITY
The provisions of this ordinance shall apply to all genus and species
of oak trees, walnut trees, sycamore trees, and pepper trees on all
public and private property within the City.
22.56.2080
DEFINITIONS
For the purpose of the ordinance, specific words and phrases used are
defined as follows:
A) Arborist: A specialist in the care and maintenance of trees.
B) Certified Arborist: A specialist in the care and maintenance
of trees and certified by the Western Chapter of the
International Society of Arborculture (WCISA.) or an equivalent
organization.
C) Compensatory Pruning: Pruning that is necessary to be
performed to reinstate the proper root equilibrium.
revised 12/26/91 2
D) Cutting: The detaching or separating from a protected tree any
limb, branch, or root. Cutting shall also include pruning.
E) Damage: Any action causing or contributing injury to
the root system or other parts of a tree, by fire, application
of toxic substances, operation of machinery or equipment;
improper watering; changing natural grade of land by excavation
or filling the drip line area around the trunk; or by attaching
signs or artificial material thereby piercing the bark of the
tree.
F) Diseased Trees: Trees afflicted by but not limited to any of
the following: insect infestation, heart rot, exfoliation,
slime flux, crown rot, leaf scorch, and root fungus which must
be evaluated treated and re-evaluated in an effort to restore
or save the tree.
G) Deadwood: Limbs, branches or a portion of a tree that
contains no green leaves during a period of the year when green
leaves should be present.
H) Director: Director of Community Development for the City of
Diamond Bar or his/her designee.
I) Drip Line: A line which may be drawn on the ground
around a tree directly under its outermost branch tips and
which identifies that location where rainwater tends to drip
from the trees. When depicted on a map, the dripline will
appear as an irregular shaped circle that follows the contour
of the tree's branches as seen from overhead.
J) Tree: Any oak, walnut, sycamore or pepper tree that meets at
least one of the following criteria:
1. All oak, walnut, sycamore, and pepper trees in excess of
fifteen feet (15' ) in height or having a minimum single
trunk circumference of fifteen inches (1511) measured four
feet (41) from lowest ground level; or
2. Multitrunked tree shall mean a tree with a division of its
trunk having a total circumference of a minimum of thirty
inches (3011) measured four feet (41) from lowest ground
level; or
3. A stand of trees which are dependent on each other
for survival or dominance.
K) Horticulturist: A specialist in the care and maintenance of
fruits, vegetables, flowers, or ornamental plants.
L) Improved Lot: A lot having all pertinent utilities available,
rough grading completed, and public improvements abutting along
the lot frontage.
rcviwA 12/26/91 3
M) Multi -trunk tree: A tree with a division of its trunk having a
total circumference of a minimum of thirty inches (30")
measured four feet (41) from lowest ground level and is fed
from the same root system.
N) Protection Zone: The area within the dripline of a
tree and extending to a point at least ten (101) feet outside
from the dripline, or twenty (201) feet from the trunk of a
tree, whichever distance is greater.
O) Pruning: Any and ail work performed upon the roots or the
limbs of a tree.
P) Removal: Any action which will cause extraction of a
tree.
Q) Stand of trees: Group of trees the nature of which makes each
dependent upon each other for survival.
R) Topping: Also known as pollading. The practice of making large
perpendicular cuts on main trunk or laterals, resulting in a
flush of small brittle branches in an unnatural growth pattern.
Often used to decrease height of trees.
S) Tree Report: A written report prepared by a certified arborist
containing specific information on the location, condition,
potential impacts of development, recommended actions and
mitigation measures regarding one or more oak, walnut,
sycamore, and pepper trees on an individual lot or project
site.
T) Undeveloped Property: Refers to any parcel or parcels of land
which does not contain physical man-made improvements, and
may be improved in conformance with the applicable
development standards of the zoning classification where
the property is located.
22.56.2090
EXEMPTIONS
The following shall be exempt from the provisions of this ordinance:
A. Trees held for sale by licensed nurseries and/or tree farms or
the removal or transplanting of such trees for the purpose of
operating a licensed nursery and/or tree farm;
B. A tree that is so damaged or diseased, and as such, is verified
by a certified arborist that it can not be effectively
preserved, or its presence is a threat to other protected
trees;
revised 12/26/91
4
C. Trees and shrubs within existing or proposed public right-of-
way where their removal or relocation is necessary to obtain
adequate line -of -sight distances and/or to keep street and
sidewalk easement clear of obstruction as required by the City
engineer or his/her designee;
D. Routine maintenance which is need for the continued good health
of a tree including but not limited to removal of deadwood,
insect control spraying, and watering. Routine maintenance
shall be limited to pruning of branches which do not exceed two
-(211) inch in diameter at the point of removal in accordance
with the latest guidelines published by the National Arborists
Association.
22.56.2100
PERMIT REQUIRED
A permit shall be required for removing, trimming or relocating oak,
sycamore, walnut or pepper trees as more fully set forth in the
sections hereinafter.
A. No person, utility company, firm or corporation shall remove,
relocate or destroy any designated tree within the City limits,
including an applicant for a building permit.
B. A permit shall be required for the cutting or pruning of
branches that exceed two (2) inch in diameter at the point of
cut. The maximum amount allowed for the pruning of walnut,
sycamore or pepper trees shall be twenty (20%) percent. The
maximum amount allowed for the pruning of oak trees shall be
ten (10%) percent.
C. Topping shall be prohibited.. The tree crown shall be reduced
by "thinning out" of selected branches in conformance with the
applicable requirements.
D. A permit for tree removal, tree location, or pruning not
associated with a development proposal shall be approved by the
Director or his/her designee.
22.56.2110
TREE REMOVAL/RELOCATION PERMIT APPLICATION
An application for a tree removal/ relocation permit shall be filed,
together with any required fee as set by resolution of the City
Council, with the Director on forms provided for such purpose. The
Director shall require a tree removal permit application together with
any application for tentative subdivision maps or other applications
revi3ed 12/26/91 5
for development. The application shall contain the following
information:
A. A statement as to the reasons for removal or relocation;
B. The number, species and size (circumference as measured four
feet from lowest ground level) and height of trees;
C. The exact location of all existing on-site trees of a.11 species
on a plot plan in relation to proposed and existing structures
and improvements. If the application is associated with an
application for development, the location of all trees on-site
shall be plotted on a grading plan;
D. Photographs of the entirety of any and all trees to be removed
or relocated;
E. If a tree is proposed to be relocated, the relocation site
shall be identified and site preparation and relocation methods
described;
F. If a tree is proposed to be relocated, the proposed method of
removal shall be described in writing by a certified arborist.
G. The health of any tree declared diseased, infested, or drying
shall be verified by a written report of a certified arborist;
H. In addition, at the applicant's expense, the Director may
require additional written information by a certified arborist
to assist the Director in making a determination on a tree
removal permit application. The Director shall so specify, in
writing, any additional information deamed necessary, prior to
the application being considered complete.
Subsequent to investigation, the Director shall approve, conditionally
approve or deny the application to remove or relocate any tree(s)
specified in this ordinance. The Director may impose conditions deemed
necessary to implement the provisions of this Chapter, including, but
not limited to, replacement of the removed or cut down tree(s), the
species, the quantity or the size commensurate with the aesthetic value
of the tree(s) cut down or removed. Conditions may also be imposed on
tree(s) relocation to another location on the property.
22.56.2120
TREE PRUNING: PERMIT APPLICATION REQUIRED:
No tree regulated by this Chapter shall be pruned except as provided
for herein or unless such is excepted from such permit. The
circumstances and procedures are as follows:
revised 12/26/91 6
A. An application shall be submitted along with a written report
which shall contain the following information:
1. A statement as to reasons for the pruning;
2. A site plan depicting the location of the tree(s) to be
pruned in relation to all structures and improvements of
the site. Also the size, species and height of the
tree(s) shall be designated in writing in relation to the
plan;
3. Photographs of the tree(s) to be pruned.
4. Identification of the general scope of branch removal.
The applicant shall specify the proposed cutting with as
much detail as possible.
B. Upon receipt of the application, the Director shall review and
investigate the application within thirty (30) days of
receiving a complete application and evaluate the request to
determine if it conforms to one of the following permissible
grounds for prunning.
1. The condition of the tree(s) with respect to the
interference of branches with existing structures or
vegetation;
2. Structurally unsafe limbs and branches due to decay,
cracking or splitting, or which may hinder the public
health, safety, and welfare;
3. Tree(s) that are alleged to be out of proportion;
C. At the discretion of the Director, the City may employ a
certified arborist, at the sole cost of the applicantto
provide recommendations for pruning ofthe subject trees. ,
22.56.2130
APPEAL PROCEDURES
The decision of the Director may be appealed in the manner described
herein below:
A. Administrative Decision. An appeal based on decisions by the
Director shall be filed in writing with the secretary of the
Planning Commission, together with required appeal fee, within
ten (10) calendar days of the Director's action. The Planning
Commission shall consider the matter at a public hearing and
may affirm or reverse wholly or in part the action upon which
the appeal is based.
revised 12/26/97
7
B. Planning Commission Decision. An appeal of the decision of the
Planning Commission shall be filed with the City Clerk, in
writing, within ten (10) calendar days following the decision
of the Planning Commission. The City Council shall hear the
matter and may affirm or reverse wholly or in part the decision
of the Planning Commission.
22.56.2150
EMERGENCY WAIVER
The permit requirement may be waived if a tree is determined by the
Director to be in dangerous condition requiring emergency action to
preserve the public health, safety, and welfare. In the event of an
emergency caused by hazardous of dangerous tree, which condition poses
an immediate threat to person or property, the Director or the Fire
Department may authorize the destruction or removal of such tree
without first securing a permit.
22.56.2150
USE OF EXPLOSIVES
The use of explosives shall be governed by permit issued from the Fire
Department in conformance with the regulations enforced by said
Department.
22.56.2160
TREE REPLACEMENT STANDARDS
A. Tree relocation is to be at another location on the site
whenever possible. (A written report by a certified arborist
is required concerning the feasibility of transplanting the
tree.)
B. Approval Period. Tree removal permits shall be effective,
unless appealed, following the ten (10) day appeal period and
shall be valid for a period of ninety (90) days, subject to
extension. The Director may, from time to time, upon good
cause shown extend the permit (s) previously issued. Where the
tree removal permit is associated with an application for
development, the ninety (90) days shall commence on the
earliest of either the date of final map recordation or the
issuance of a building permit.
C. To assist the City in making a determination, the applicant,
for a tree removal permit, may be required to submit an
revised 12126/91
appraisal prepared by a certified arborist to determine the
value of the tree(s) removed. such informatiion may be
utilized in determining tree replacement requirements.
D. Replacement trees shall be properly cared for and maintained
for a period of five (5) years and replaced by the applicant or
permittee if mortality occurs within that period.
D. Where feasible, replacement trees should be. indigenous to the
area as determined by a certified arborist.
G. Replacement standards for lots of one (1) acre or more shall be
as follows for trees defined in the Ordinance:
Diameter Number Removed Replaced Min. size
10" or under 1 4 24" box
11" - 14" 1 4 36" box
15" - 29" 1 4 48" box
30" plus 1 4 60" box
Lots less than one (1) acre with existing improvements are
exempt from the above replacement schedule unless Director
determines that there are overriding consideration. The
replacement for trees defined in the. Ordinance, on lots less
than one .(1) acre with existing improvements, shall have a
replaced ratio of 1:1.
22.56.2170
PROTECTION OF EXISTING TREES
Care shall be exercised by all individuals, developers, and contractors
working near oak, sycamore, walnut, and pepper trees so that no damage
occurs to such existing trees. All construction shall preserve and
protect the health of trees to remain, be relocated, and new trees
planted to replace those removed, in keeping with the following
measures:
A. All trees to be retained shall be enclosed by chain link
fencing with a minimum height of five (5) feet or other means
approved by the Director prior to the issuance of any grading
or building permit and prior to commencement of work, all as in
conformance with section B, herein below.
B. Chain link fencing or other approved barrier shall be erected
at least ten (10) feet outside of the dripline or twenty (20)
feet from the trunk, whichever distance is greater. Said
barrier shall remain in place during all phases of construction
and may not be removed without the written consent of the
Director at the completion of construction.
revised 12/26/91 9
C. Unless otherwised approved by the Director, signs must be
installed on the barrier in four locations equidistant around
each tree. The size of each sign shall be a minimum of two (2)
feet by two (2) feet square and shall contain the following
language:
WARNING
This fence shall not be removed or relocated without written
authorization from the City of Diamond Bar.
D. No disruption or removal of the structural or absorptive roots
of any tree shall be permitted except as set forth in Section
G.
E. No fill materials shall be placed within the dripline of any
tree unless otherwise approved by the Director.
F. No compaction of the soil.within the dripline of any tree shall
be permitted.
G. No construction, including structures and walls, that disrupts
the root system shall be permitted. As a general guideline, no
cutting of the root system shall be permitted within a distance
equal to three and one-half times the trunk diameter as
measured at ground level. This distance may vary to meet the
needs of individual tree species as determined by an arborist.
Where root removal is necessary, the tree crown may be required
to be thinned to prevent wind damage. This _shall also be
verified by a certified arborist.
22.56.2180
TAGGING
In the process of preparing a Tree Report, each tree is required to be
phusically marked for identification by consecutively numbered tags.
The following method of numbering the trees shall be used to easily
identify and locate the trees:
A. A permanent tag, a minimum of one and one-quarter
(1-1/4") inches to two (211) inches is to be used for
identifying the trees. The tag must be made from a non-
corrosive, all weather material and be permanently attached to
the tree.
B. The tag shall be located on the north side of the tree at a.
height of four and one-half (4-1/21) feet above the natural
elevation.
C. The Director shall approve the tags proposed for use prior to
the installation of such tags.
Section 4. Penalty for violation of ordinance.
revised 12!26!91 10
• It shall be unlawful for any person, firm,. partnership, or
corporation to violate any provision, or to fail to comply with any of
the requirements of this Ordinance. Any person, firm, partnership, or
corporation violating any provision of this Ordinance, or failing to
comply with any of its requirements, shall be deemed guilty of a
misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not
exceeding One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), or by imprisonment not
exceeding six (6) months, or by both such fine and inprisonment. Each
such person, firm, partnership, or corporation shall be deemed guilty
of a separate offense for each and every day or any portion thereof
during which any violation of this Orinance is committed, continued, or
permitted by such person, firm, partnership, or corporation, and shall
be deemed punishable therefore as provided in this Ordinance.
Section 5. Civil remedies available.
The violation of any of the provisions of this Ordinance shall
constitute a nuisance and may be abated by the City through civil
process by means of a restraining order, preliminary or permanent
injunction or in any other manner provided by law. Such enforcement or
abatement shall include, but not be limited to, seeking replacement of
such tree(s) in kind, size, and age, or in lieu thereof, paying to the
City the full apraised value of such tree(s), said value to be
determined by a professional appraiser selected by.the City, and the
cost of such appraisal to be paid by said person, firm, partnership,
or corporation, all for the purpose of tree replacement.
Section 6. Severabillity.
The City Council declares that, should any provision, section,
paragraph, sentence, or word of this Ordinance be rendered or declared
invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction,
or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provision,
sections, paragraphs, sentences, and words of this Ordinance shall
remain in full force and effect.
Section 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this
Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted in three (3) public
places within the City of Diamond Bar within fifteen (15) days after
its passage in the manner prescribed by Resolution NO. 89-6.
ADOPTED AND APPROVED THIS day of , 1992.
Mayor
I, LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, do
hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on the
revised 12/26/91 11
day of
meeting of the City
of
, 1992, and was finally passed at a regular
Council of the City of Diamond held on the day
1992 by the following vote:
reviscd 12/26/91 12
r
RESOLUTION NO. 92-2
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR RECOMMENDING THAT
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
APPROVE THE REPEAL OF THE OAK TREE PERMIT
PROCESS AND THE REPLACEMENT OF SUCH WITH
A TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE.
A. Recitals.
(i) The City of Diamond Bar is recognized for its
unique and distinguished natural and improved physical
environment. A major element of such physical environment is the
varieties of trees, including naturally occurring stands of oak,
walnut, scyamore and pepper trees. These trees value to the
community is such that all reasonable efforts should be.
undertaken to preserve and enhance them. Such measures must also
Y
be balanced against the circumstances which may require the
removal, relocation or maintenance of such trees.
(ii) The City of Diamond Bar presently is without
adequate regulations which serve to foster the preservation of
such trees while responding to the needs of owners of the
properties on which such trees may be sited.
(iii) The Planning Commission has extensively
considered the issues related to a balanced tree preservation
ordinance, and has, with the benefit of public input, developed a
proposed tree preservation ordinance which it hereby recommends
to the City Council for its review and adoption.
(iv) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this
Resolution have occurred.
1
r f`' B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of
Diamond Bar, California finds and resolves as follows:
SECTION 1. In all respects as set forth in the
Recitals, Part A, hereinabove.
SECTION 2. That the Diamond Bar Planning Commission
recommends that the Council of the City of Diamond Bar approve
and adopt the proposed tree preservation ordinance attached
hereto as Exhibit "1".
SECTION 3. That the City of Diamond Bar is in the
process of finalizing its draft General Plan and that, on the
basis of such draft plan there is a reasonable probability that
«:f the intent of this Ordinance will be consistent with the goals,
policies and objectives of the ultimate General Plan. Further,
there is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or
interference with the ultimately adopted general plan if
inconsistencies are ultimately present because the preservation
of both the naturally occurring and introduced trees -will enhance
the City and the environment which will be of benefit to the
present and future community. Finally, this action is undertaken
in conformance with all applicable laws.
SECTION 4. The Planning Commission finds and
determines that the ordinance proposed by this Resolution is
categorically exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines
thereunder
-
promulgated pursuant to Section 15307 of Division 6 of
2
Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.
I,
SECTION A. That the Secretary to the Planning
Commission deliver this resolution to the City Clerk.
ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 13th day of January, 1992.
Chairman
I, JAMES DESTEFANO, Secretary of the Planning
Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar held on the 13th
day of January, 1992, and was finally passed at a regular meeting
of the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar held on the
13th day of January, 1992, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: GROTHE, HARMONY, FLAMENBAUM
and SCHEY
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: MCBRIDE
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ATTEST:
Secretary
L\1011\RESOTREE\DB 6.7 3
MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 24, 1991
Draft Tree Preservation Ordinance
PT/Ann Lungu addressed the Commission regarding a draft Tree
Preservation Ordinance. The primary need is to determine to what
extent the Commission would like this ordinance to establish the
Policies for the City of Diamond Bar's tree preservation. Staff
would appreciate comments and suggestions on the ordinance.
VC/Harmony made the following suggestions for the Ordinance: the
definition of multitrunk trees is unclear; there should be some
special leeway to allow closer buildings within the drip line;
nurseries should be included; the City should be involved in the
certification of the diseased tree; the City Engineer should have
to process a request at some level; Public Utility should not be
given authority over Oak Tree/Heritage Tree without some review;
the pruning % of the whole tree may be a more appropriate approach
to regulating trimming; there should be a provision for allowing
instances to chop tree tops, as well as trimming and pruning; the
concepts of item G & H, under the Oak Tree/Heritage Tree Permit
Application, needs clarification; there should be a longer time
period to allow for an appeal; change "dangerous condition" to
"eminent danger", under Emergency Waiver; clarify the difference
between a horticulturist and an arborist; the responsibility for
maintaining replacement trees should be 5 years; broaden the
definition concerning the replacement of trees with the largest
available tree; the Protection of Existing Trees during
construction should include maintenance; and the Enforcement
Officer should have code enforcement authority.
Chair/Schey questioned the appropriateness of a blanket statement
requiring Oak Trees/Heritage Trees to be replaced by the largest
available tree. There needs to be more flexibility to deal with
particular situations.
C/MacBride would like to include, in the list of exceptions, a
consideration for trees on private property that require topping to
prevent damage to the existing structures to the property. He
suggested being more selective on the definition of a Heritage
Tree, with consideration of historic inferences.
C/Lin stated that fencing, for the Protection of Trees, may not
always be warranted. She suggested the statement should include
"where necessary and feasible".
STUDY SESSION: October 14, 1991
Zoning Code Amendment 91-5 (tree preservation)
PT/Lungu addressed the Commission regarding the proposal to amend
certain provisions of the Los Angeles County Code, as adopted by
Diamond Bar, pertaining to Tree Preservation. In preparing the
various drafts for the tree ordinance, research was done using
sections of ordinances from the cities, indicated in the staff
report, that seemed compatible with our community for our purpose
and intent. It is suggested that the Commission address the
following four main issues regarding the tree ordinance: the
criteria to be used to identify trees to be preserved; the minimum
lot size standards for activation of a tree preservation ordinance;
the replacement ratio and size of replacement tree that would be
appropriate for the City's tree preservation ordinance; and the
City's desire to insure that a replacement tree will receive the
proper care and maintenance for a designated period of time. It is
recommended that the Commission direct staff to prepare a "final"
ordinance with the conditions listed by staff.
CD/DeStefano stated that DCA/Curley has suggested some
clarifications of items in the tree ordinance. Staff will review
these at the end of discussion on the four main issues. He
suggested that the Commission begin discussion regarding the
criteria to be utilized.
Chair/Grothe indicated that the criteria, for the replacement of
trees on single family properties, should not be such that it is
difficult to enforce.
C/Schey suggested that a 1:1 replacement ratio is sufficient on a
single family residential lot.
Chair/Grothe concurred that a 1:1 replacement ratio is adequate, as
long as it pertains to only the trees in the preservation list, and
not all types of trees.
CD/DeStefano inquired if a 1:1 replacement ratio would be adequate
in a situation where the tree removed was quite old.
C/Schey responded that, in that situation, no tree could adequately
replace it.
Chair/Grothe stated that the 4:1 replacement ratio for the removal
of a Heritage tree makes sense on a hillside development, but not
within a single family residential yard.
C/Harmony stated that the Pepper Tree should be added to the
Heritage Tree list.
VC/MacBride indicated the following concerns: the definition of a
Heritage tree is much too broad; the problem of a developer
choosing to pay the fine, rather than leave a cluster of trees,
must be addressed; and the issue regarding public safety vs. the
preservation of a tree included in the protective category, need be
addressed.
C/Schey suggested differentiating between a Heritage tree and a
Significant tree. Heritage trees are indigenous trees like the
Oak, Sycamore, Walnut, and Pepper. The Significant trees are those
that have reached some significance due to maturity or historical
value. Short of public safety, there should be absolute
preservation for Heritage trees.
CD/DeStefano stated he has suggested to Staff eliminating the term
"Heritage Tree" because he felt the ordinance was simply a tree
preservation ordinance beginning with whatever size, species or
combination we choose to establish as the minimum tree which we
desire to protect. During Staff's research it became apparent that
there is no common definition as to what the term "heritage tree"
or "significant tree" means.
Chair/Grothe pointed out that the original intention of this
ordinance was to try to save the majority of the tree groves mostly
located in the undeveloped areas of town. Therefore, the care of
trees, located on lots under a specified size, should be left to
the discretion of the homeowner.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
Dan Buffington, residing at 2605 Indian Creek, emphasized the
importance of preserving trees now for the future.
Don Schad, residing at 1824 Shady Wood Rd., suggested that the
concern for tree size, per lot, and tree types should be carefully
considered by a group of arborists, perhaps from a local college.
He explained that a Heritage tree is a tree that has been able to
sustain itself through it's own natural environment. He also
suggested that all the species be protected that have a uniqueness
to them.
C/Schey suggested that the general tree population should not be
preserved until there's some reason to believe that it is being
threatened. The native tree should be established as protected.
CD/DeStefano reminded the Commission that staff needs specific
direction regarding the four major criteria issues previously
indicated by staff.
VC/MacBride suggested defining Heritage trees and Significant trees
separately. Heritage trees would include Oak, Sycamore, California
Pepper, and Black Walnut. Significant trees are trees that have a
definitive historical significance, have a factor of age, and are
outstanding in it's own individual growth, per species.
PD/DeStefano stated that the Commission needs to be more specific
with their definition of a Significant tree. If the Commission is
unable to define it now, staff can, with the Commission's approval,
attempt to come up with a differentiation between Heritage trees
and Significant trees, and return it back to the Commission in an
ordinance format. He then suggested that the Commission discuss if
they want to differentiate any replacement value to the Heritage
tree, the Significant tree, and all others trees.
C/Harmony inquired if the Commission is in concurrence that single
family residential lots are exempt.
VC/MacBride suggested that the four stated categories of a Heritage
tree, plus the historic attributes of a given tree, as well as
significant trees be placed in one category called "Heritage
Trees", and exempting those problems which arise on single family
residential lots of a certain size.
Chair/Grothe suggested, and the Commission concurred on, the
following: the four types of Heritage trees, Oak, California
Pepper, Walnut, and Sycamore, are protected everywhere and can be
removed only by permit; all other trees that exceed the 15' height,
and 15" circumference criteria fall in the Significant tree
category and require a permit if they are on nonresidential or
undeveloped residential property; trees with documented historic
significance require a permit; there is a 1:1 replacement ratio,
for Heritage trees, on existing developed residential properties;
there is a 4:1 replacement ratio for Significant trees on non
residential or undeveloped properties; the replacement tree should
be of an in-kind species; there should be a steep penalty for trees
removed without a permit; the size of the replacement tree is to be
determined per the City of La Verne graph; and anyone removing a
tree should be required to place a bond for insuring maintenance of
the replacement tree.
CD/DeStefano pointed out those items in the draft tree ordinance
that will need further clarification: the definition of a Heritage
tree will be expanded, and the definition of "multi-trunk" and
"stand" needs further clarification; the verbiage regarding
"Routine Maintenance" will be moved to the Exception clause;
verbiage will be added to the Exception clause requiring that a
damaged tree, or diseased tree, be verified by a certified
arborist; in the Tree Permit Application, we must assure that the
plans indicate the existing and the proposed structures; the amount
of photographs required must be clarified in the Tree Permit
Application; the verbiage, of item F of the Tree Permit
Application, will be changed to indicate that "the applicant may be
required to provide..."; add in the Tree Permit Application a
specified time period in which the director will give a forthcoming
decision; there also needs to be a time period indicating when the
Director's decision will be received regarding the Tree Pruning
Permit, item B; the issue regarding public safety vs. convenience
will be addressed in the pruning of a tree section; the word
"unbalanced", written on page 6, will be better defined; under
Emergency Waiver, defining the proper contacts will be better
stated; the word "acceptable" will be changed to "approved" in the
section Protection of Existing Trees, section A & B; the phrase
"unless otherwise approved by the Director" will be added to
subsection E, of Protecting Existing Trees; and the last paragraph
of the section Enforcement, will be removed.
VC/MacBride, concerned with developers that may inadvertently or
intentionally remove trees, suggested that instead of imposing a
penalty, require that the trees be replaced in-kind and maintained.
DCA/Curley stated that if a tree is removed, accidently or
otherwise, the developer could be asked to stop the project, or
meet the conditions that have been established. There are ways to
reach the developer.
Don Schad suggested that the required period of maintenance be
extended from three years to five years.
The Commission concurred with Don Schad's suggestion to extend the
period of maintenance to five years.
Chair/Grothe, concerned with the administrative burden on staff for
enforcement, suggested that the bond requirement for a single tree
on a single residence be excluded.
DCA/Curley suggested, and the Commission concurred, to use a lien
process rather than requesting a deposit or bond up front.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
As directed by the Commission staff will renotice the Public
Hearing when the ordinance is ready to be brought back to the
Commission.
Motion was made by VC/MacBride, seconded by C/Harmony and CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY to request staff to bring the ordinance back to the
Commission the first meeting in December of 1991.
Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting August 12, 1992
Preliminary Draft Tree Preservation Ordinance ZCA 91-3
PT/Lungu addressed the Commission regarding the second draft of the
tree preservation ordinance. Comments from the Commission are
requested. The next time the Commission meets to discuss this
topic, it will be in ordinance form, and a public hearing.
VC/MacBride made the following comments: Under Purpose, amend the
phrase "as well as defined" to "definitive of"; under Intent and
Applicability, the ordinance should pertain to both public and
private property; and page 3, under Exception C, include shrubs,
and add the wording "... necessary to keep street and sidewalk
easements clear of obstruction..."
C/Schey requested that the syntax "shall mean", "mean", etc. be
eliminated from the Definition section. He also stated that
defining a Heritage Tree, simply by size, seems to be an overly
broad definition.
VC/MacBride requested staff to review the item, possibly with Don
Schad, and reword it.
Following discussion, C/Schey suggested that the Significant Tree
and the Heritage Tree be differentiated. The Heritage Tree can
have the full review it is warranted, and the Significant Tree have
at least some review.
C/Harmony made the following comments: Under Diseased Trees, staff
should include some reference to insect infestation, as well as
wording indicating "and others inflicted by, but not limited to.";
he indicated concern regarding the 2 inch guideline referred to in
the Routine Maintenance section and Pruning Permit section; in
reference to the removal or relocation of oak trees or heritage
trees, some significant tree removal should remain in the purview
of the Planning Commission and the Council; and on page 7, item E,
replacement trees should be maintained for a period of five years.
C/Schey discussed item E, page 5, regarding the enforcement of
replacement trees. A warranty period of 3 to 5 years is a long
time, and often the developer has become unavailable. He suggested
that language be included in the content that the applicant,
permittee, or successor, whoever is responsible for that property
when the tree is removed, is responsible for the replacement trees.
C/Harmony suggested that a provision for paying the City the
appraised value of the lost tree, if it cannot be replaced, be
included with the tree replacement clause.
C/Schey, noting that often times developers view the fines as a
more desirable option, requested staff to review the provision in
Claremont, which carries a heavier penalty.
C/Lin inquired how the capabilities of tree specialists are
differentiated.
PT/Lungu stated that they must have proof of qualifications and
references of past work.
VC/MacBride requested staff to determine if there is a California
requirement that establishes standards which indicates that the
specialist is licensed, bonded, or certified.
Chair/Grothe noted that, in the replacement of trees, quantity is
not discussed. Understanding that tree sizes and types must be
varied, he cautioned that unless there is a minimum replacement
number indicated, some developers will manage to elude the
specifications.
PD/DeStefano stated that a section will be added pertaining to the
replacement ratio, and the issues pertaining to the size of the
replacement trees. He then stated that, with the Commission's
comments, staff will prepare the document in full ordinance format,
and establish a public hearing process for the Commission's
recommendation to the City Council.
MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 9, 1992
PUBLIC HEARING:
Zoning Code Amendment 91-5
PT/Lungu reported that the Commission, at the October 14th meeting,
directed staff to have the draft tree preservation ordinance
reformatted for the December 9th meeting. Staff recommended that
the Commission adopt a Resolution recommending that the City
Council approve the Tree Preservation Ordinance.
VC/MacBride, concerned that a situation may arise whereas a
developer may choose to pay the fine for destroying a forest of
trees rather than hold up development, requested that there be
definitive language in the ordinance indicating that there is an
enormous penalty for such a situation. The intent of such language
would be to influence the developers to think long and hard before
cutting down a forest of trees.
C/Flamenbaum noted that section 5, of the ordinance, under Tagging,
already indicates that the City would have a Civil right to sue for
abatement of a nuisance, and damages that result.
C/Harmony, concurring with VC/MacBride, stated that additional
language, emphasizing the desires of the Commission, helps
establish policy for future administrations and city attorneys to
pursue these cases when they happen.
DCA/Curley stated that provisions in nuisance abatement type
ordinance is already structured, in essence, to say: "The City
Attorney's office is hereby directed to institute proceedings."
Wording to the effect, "... and shall seek to obtain remedial
measures, including restitution or tree replacement.", could be
added to the provision and could be appropriately placed in Section
5, of the ordinance, to amplify the intent. However, the overall
legal impact may not be effective. He reminded the Commission
that, procedurally, the Council must first authorize, and direct
any and all litigation to proceed.
C/Schey suggested, and DCA/Curley concurred, that it may be more
appropriate to place a policy statement, in the beginning of the
Ordinance, under the Purpose and Intent Section, indicating that it
is the intent of the City to preserve these trees, and we will
pursue to the greatest extent.
VC/MacBride, in reference to the tree guidelines manual, inquired
if a statement could be incorporated into the ordinance stating
that each applicant, under this section, shall be furnished, by the
City, with a copy of the guidelines.
DCA/Curley stated that, since the City does not have certified
arborists that can examine each individual tree and give
instructions as to it's proper care, it is strongly advised that
these guidelines are eliminated to avoid future potential
liability.
C/Schey inquired if it is the City Attorney's recommendation that
the City leave the care and feeding of the trees as the
responsibility of the owners, or responsible party, to keep them
alive. The City would then intervene if the trees should die.
DCA/Curley concurred.
Chair/Grothe questioned why a disclaimer could not be placed in the
ordinance, stating that the guidelines is just information gathered
to help in caring fora tree, and is not the full direction of the
City.
CD/DeStefano suggested that the Commission may opt to send the
guidelines to the City Council, with the understanding of the City
Attorney's office's concerns, and including the Commission's
comments, but ultimately letting the City Council decide whether or
not the guidelines are an appropriate attachment to the ordinance.
The Commission concurred.
C/Schey, concerned with section 22.56.2080 Definition (J) of the
ordinance, stated that, to his recollection, it was the
Commission's intent to establish an ordinance that preserves all
Oak, Sycamore, Walnut, and Pepper trees, regardless of size. There
seems to be an inconsistency.
Chair/Grothe stated that he was under the impression that there
would be a provision exempting residential homeowners from the
preservation provision.
CD/DeStefano reminded the Commission that they had developed the
criteria for the size of the tree appropriate for preservation,
after discussion on the matrix presented by staff, which included
information as to what some other cities in the immediate area were
doing.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
Don Schad made the following comments: There are other significant
trees based upon size and heritage, other than the four indicated
trees, that should be considered for preservation; the height and
circumference limit is bearable as stated in the Definition section
(J).1, but he suggested adding the word "dominance" after the word
"survival" to (J)3., page 3; a relocated tree should be given the
same care and consideration as a brand new tree; there is not a
specific chart on tree sizes; and pages 1 through 11, of the
ordinance, does not identify dimensional sizes for tree
replacement.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
Chair/Grothe stated that he was under the impression that the draft
tree ordinance referred to a chart of sizes and quantities
regarding tree replacement.
DCA/Curley suggested that there should be flexibility on tree
replacement ratios because site sizes may vary, and the trees may
or may not fit as directed. The replacement ratio is currently at
the Director's discretion, so that he may analyze the site and
either determine the rational replacement ratio, or refer it to the
Commission.
C/Flamenbaum suggested that section 22.56.2160 Tree Replacement
Standards item A, should read, "... on the basis of the Tree
Report.".
Chair/Grothe stated that he would prefer the ordinance to include
specific replacement quantities or sizes so that when the developer
pulls a permit he is immediately made aware of the guidelines he
must follow.
C/Schey stated his concern that, the way the ordinance is written,
all tree removal permits would come before the Director and would
not come before the Commission unless it is under appeal.
CD/DeStefano recommended that, in order to clarify that the
Planning Commission should review not only the tree removal, but
all other environmental aspects of a project at the time that they
are reviewing the specific project, subsection E. should be added
to section 22.56.2100 Permit Required, stating that, "The Director,
in his/or her discretion, shall refer the decision to the Planning
Commission in the event that such application is in conjunction
with the discretionary approval over which the Planning Commission
has jurisdiction.".
C/Schey, regarding the drafting of the tree report, noted that a
situation could arise whereas the impartiality of the arborist
could be questioned. He suggested that the arborist be employed by
the City to ensure that he/she has the City's, and the tree's, best
interest at heart.
DCA/Curley concurred that the present structure of the ordinance
looks to the applicant to employ the arborist. It could be
modified whereas the applicant up fronts the cost, and the City
would then employ the arborist who would analyze the situation
impartially.
C/Harmony noted that there is no provision in the ordinance
protecting heritage trees that are significant because of size,
age, or historical event, other than the four trees indicated.
DCA/Curley suggested that the Commission may consider separating
cultural significant attributes, versus the broader environmental
significance, and designating those attributes within a separate
culturally significant ordinance.
CD/DeStefano indicated that, at this point and time, staff needs
specific direction from the Commission as to how the Commission
wishes staff to proceed on this issue. It is difficult for staff
to determine historical events recognized by the City.
C/Harmony stated that the historical value can be certified by the
Planning Commission and/or the City Council, or the historical
committee being formed. He would like heritage trees protected in
the ordinance.
C/Flamenbaum suggested that the ordinance be approved, with the
recommendations and corrections made. If the Commission desires
historical items to be preserved, then a separate ordinance should
be created. The Commission concurred.
C/Harmony stated, for the record, omitting reference to heritage
trees, within the tree ordinance, limits the scope of the
ordinance, and is therefore, not a complete ordinance that way.
C/Harmony, referring to the civil remedies, section 22.56.2180
Tagging subsection 5. , stated that it is not clear what kind of
civil remedy the City would receive if the developer destroyed, for
example, a 600 year old tree. There should be a clearly stated
penalty that the developer will be responsible for replacing the
tree, and that a neutral arbitrator will be utilized to appraise
the tree, if needed.
DCA/Curley recommended that the wording of subsection E not be
altered. The provision gives full flexibility to pursue whatever
remedy is deemed appropriate by the City Council. It is understood
that the City would seek replacement or replacement costs.
CD/DeStefano suggested that the Chair may wish to appoint a sub-
committee, of the Commission, to work out the specific details and
assist staff in bringing the matter back to the full Commission in
January of 1992.
C/Schey recommended that the subcommittee limit their discussion on
the following two issues that remain unresolved: the delineations
of the penalties; and the minimum replacement standard.
C/Schey and VC/MacBride volunteered to be on the subcommittee.
C/Schey recommended that the matter be continued to January 13th,
with the subcommittee working with staff to reconcile these
matters, and bringing it back to the Commission in final form on
that date. The Commission concurred.
VC/MacBride requested staff to appropriately revise section
22.56.2090 Exemptions subsection D. so that it is more clearly
stated.
Chair/Grothe called a recess at 9:35 P.M. The meeting was called
back to order at 9:44 p.m.
C/Flamenbaum suggested that the Commission recommend to the City
Council to consider the establishment of an ordinance taking into
account all historical items within the City confines. The
Commission concurred.
MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 13, 1992
PT/Lungu reported that on December 9, 1991, at a noticed public
hearing, staff presented a final draft tree preservation ordinance
to the Commission for review. A subcommittee of two Planning
Commissioners, C/Schey and VC/MacBride, were selected to deal with
the issues of heritage trees, replacement standards, and civil
remedies. PT/Lungu reviewed the decisions made by the subcommittee
regarding the three issues, as indicated in the staff report.
Staff recommended that the Commission adopt a Resolution, with
additions resulting from the subcommittee meeting, recommending
that the City Council approve the Tree Preservation Ordinance.
Furthermore, it is recommended that the language, "The Director, in
his/or her discretion, shall refer the decision to the Planning
Commission in the event that such application is in conjunction
with the discretionary approval over which the Planning Commission
has jurisdiction.", should be inserted to subsection 22.56.2110 as
a new addition after subsection H.
CD/DeStefano explained that this addition would allow the Director
to forward the application to the City Planning Commission for
review. It is staff's opinion that applications for discretionary
approval involving the removal of trees, should be reviewed by the
Commission, including the removal of any Oak, Walnut, Sycamore, or
Pepper trees.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
Don Schad complimented the Commission and staff on their job in
developing the Tree Ordinance.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
Motion was made by C/Schey, seconded by C/Harmony and CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY to approve the Ordinance as drafted, with the inclusion
of the Director's discretion to send nondevelopment related permits
to the Commission for their review, and the inclusion of provision
mandating that tree removal permit that relate to development
permits, under the Commission's discretion, be mandatorily brought
with the balance of the package.
Chair/Grothe called a recess at 9:25 p.m. The meeting was called
back to order at 9:42 p.m.
8.7-035-u1
ilj 17; u);
PART 16 - CHAPTER 22.56
OAK TREE PERMITS
22.56.2050 ESTABLISHED - PURPOSE. The oak tree permit is
established (a) to recognize oak trees as significant historical,
aesthetic and valuable ecological resources, and as one of the most
picturesque trees in Los Angeles County, lending beauty and charm
to the naturaland man-made landscape, enhancing the value of
property, and the character of the communities in which they exist;
and (b) to create favorable conditions for the preservation and
propagation of this unique, threatened plant heritage,. particularly
those trees classified as "heritage oak" trees, for the benefit of
current and future residents of Los Angeles County. It is the
intent of the oak tree permit to maintain and enhance the general
health, safety and welfare by assisting in counteracting air
pollution and in minimizing soil erosion and other related environ-
mental damage. The oak tree permit is also intended to preserve and
enhance property values by conserving and adding to the distinctive
and unique aesthetic character of many areas of Los Angeles County,
in which oak trees are indigenous. The stated objective of the
Oak Tree Permit is to preserve and maintain as many healthy Oak
trees in the development process.
22.56.2060 DAMAGING OR REMOVING OAK TREES PROHIBITED -
PERMIT REQUIREMENTS. A. Except as otherwise provided in Section
22.56.2070,a person shall not cut, destroy, remove, relocate,
otherwise inflict damage or encroach into a protected zone of
any tree of the oak genus which is (a) 25 inches or more in
circumference (eight inches in diameter) as measured four and
one-half feet above mean natural grade; in the case of an oak with
more than one trunk, whose combined circumference of any two
trunks is at least 38 inches (12 inches in diameter) as measured
four and one-.alf feet above mean natural grade, on any lot or
parcel 0 1 within the unincorporated area of Los Angeles
County,.or (b) any tree that has been provided as a replacement
tree, pursuant to Section 22.56.2180, on any lot or parcel of
land within the unincorporated area of Los Angeles County,
unless an oak tree permit is first obtained as provided by this
part 16.
B. "Damage," as used in this Part 16, includes any act causing
or tending to cause injury to the root system or other parts of a
tree, including, but not limited to, burning, application of toxic
substances, operation of equipment or machinery, or by paving,
changing the natural grade, trenching or excavating within the
protected zone of an oak tree.
C. "Protected zone_", as used in this Part 16, shall mean that
area within the dripline of an oak tree and extending therefrom to
a point at least 5 feet outside from the dripline, or 15 feet from
the trunk of a tree, whichever distance is greater.
87-035-02
/ 11/15/88
i
22.56.2070 EXEMPTIONS FROM PART 16 APPLICABILITY. The provi-
sions of this Part 16 shall not apply to:
A. Any permit, variance or tentative map for a subdivision,
including a minor land division, approved prior to the effective
date (8/20/82) of this Part 16 by the Board of Supervisors,
Regional Planning Commission or the Planning Director;
B. Cases of emergency caused by an oak tree being in a
hazardous or dangerous condition, or being irretrievably damaged
or destroyed through flood, fire, wind or lightning, as determined
after visual inspection by a licensed forester with the Department
of Forester and Fire Warden.
I/(C'mergency or routine maintenance by a public utility
necessary to protect or maintain an electric power or communication
line or other property of a public utility;
D. Routine maintenance,. limited to medium pruning of branches
not to exceed one inch in diameter in acordance with guidelines
published by the National Arborists Association, intended to insure
the continued health of a protected tree;
E. Trees planted, grown and/or held for sale by a licensed
nursery;
F. Repair and maintenance of existing parkways and streets
and/or other public facilities.
22.56.2080 APPLICATION - FILING - REPEATED FILINGS. Any
person desiring an oak tree permit, as provided for in this Title
22, may file an application with the Director, except that no
application shall be filed or accepted if final action has been
taken within one year prior thereto by the Hearing Officer or the
Director or the Commission on an application requesting the same
or substantially the same permit.
I
22.56.2090 APPLICATION - INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTS REQUIRED.
An application for an oak tree permit shall include the following
information and documents:
A. The name and address of the applicant and of all persons
owning any or all of the property proposed to be used;
B. Evidence that the applicant:
1. Is the owner of the premises involved, or
2. Has written permission of the owner or owners to make
such application;
/) r
/'�U•i !•�.;_�. ;�� . � r'. ,__fir- :. �- �:� L
u < w +••ter( 7 .�� �_� �..
✓L ' ` / ,/
^ �<� • �i.. `. _, f ����•�7/
b7-035-02
?1/15/88
C. Location of subject property (address or vicinity);
D. Legal description of the property involved;
E. 1. A site plan drawn to a scale satisfactory to, and in the
number of copies prescribed by the Director, indicating the location
and dimension of all of the following existing and proposed features
on the subject property:
a. Lot lines.
b. Streets, highways, access and other major public or
private easements.
c. Buildings and/or structures, delineating roof and
other projects.
d. Yards.
e. Walls and fences.
f. Parking and other paved areas.
g. Proposed areas to be landscaped and/or irrigated.
h. Proposed construction, excavation, grading and/or
landfill. Where a change in grade is proposed, the change in grade
within the protected zone of each plotted tree shall be specified.
i. The location of all oak trees, subject to this Part
16 proposed to be removed, and/or relocated, or within 200 feet
of proposed construction, grading, landfill or other activity. Each
tree shall be assigned an identification number on the plan, and a
corresponding permanent identifying tag shall be affixed to the north
side of each tree. These identifications shall be utilized in the
oak tree report and for physical identification on the property where
required. The protected zone shall be shown for each plotted tree.
j. Location and dize of all proposed replacement trees.
k. Proposed and existing land uses.
1. Location of all surface drainage systems.
m. Other development features which the Director deems
necessary to process the application.
2. Where a concurrent application for a permit, variance,
zone change, tentative map for a subdivision, including a minor
land division or other approval, is filed providing the information
required by this Subsection E, the Director may Waive such site
plan where he deems it unnecessary to process the application;
-3-
11/15/88
F. 1. An oak tree report, prepared by an individual with
expertise acceptable to the Director and County Forester and Fire
Warden, and certified to be true and correct, which is acceptable
to the Director and County Forester and Fire Warden, of each tree
shown on the site plan required by Subsection E of this section,
which shall contain the following information:
a. The name, address and telephone number during
business hours of the preparer,
follows: b.
ollowsb. Evaluation of the physical structure of each tree as
i. The circumference and diameter of the. trunk,
measured four and one-half feet above natural grade,
ii. The diameter of the tree's canopy, plus 5 feet,
establishing the dripline protected zone,
iii. Aesthetic assessment of the tree, considering
factors such as but not limited to symmetry, broken branches,
unbalanced crown, excessive horizontal branching,
required, iv. Recommendations to remedy structural problems where
c. Evaluation of the health of each tree as follows:
i. Evidence of disease, such as slime flux, heart rot,
crown rot, armillaria root fungus, exfoliation, leaf scorch and
exudations,
ii. Identification of insect pests, such as galls, twig
girdler, borers, termites, pit scale and plant parasites,
iii. Evaluation of vigor, such as new tip growth,
color, abnormal bark, deadwood and thinning of crown, leaf
iv. Health rating based on the archetype tree of the
same species,
v. Recommendations to improve tree health, such as
insect or disease control, pruning and fertilization,
d. Evaluation of the applicant's proposal as it impacts
each tree shown on the site plan, including suggested mitigating
and/or future maintenance measures where required and the antici-
pated effectiveness thereof.
e. Identification of those trees shown on the site plan
which may be classified as heritage oak trees. Heritage oak trees
are either of the following: any oak tree measuring thirty-six
inches or more in diameter, measured four and one-half feet above
the natural grade; any oak tree having significant historical or
cultural importance to the community, notwithstanding that the
tree diameter is less than 36 inches;
-4-
'1l/16/b 8
f. Identification of any oak tree officially identified
by a county resource conservation district.
2. The requirement for an oak tree report may be waived by
the Director where a single tree is proposed for removal, in con-
junction with the use of a single-family residence listed as a
permitted use in the zone, and/or such information is deemed
unnecessary for processing the application.
G. The applicant shall provide an oak tree information manual
prepared by and available from the Forester and Fire Warden to the
purchasers and any homeowners' association.
22.56.2100 APPLICATION - BURDEN OF PROOF. A. In'
addition to the information required in' the application by Section
22.56.2090, the applicant shall substantiate to the satisfaction
of the Director the following facts:
•1. That the proposed construction or proposed use will be
accomplished without endanering the health of the remaining trees
subject to this Part 16, if any on the subject property; and
2. That the removal or relocation of the oak tree(s)
proposed will not result in soil erosion through the diversion or
increased flow of surface waters which cannot be satisfactorily
mitigated; and
3. That in addition to the above facts, at least one of
the following findings apply;
a. That the removal or relocation of the Oak trees(s)
proposed is necessary as continued existence at present location(s)
frustrates the planned improvement or proposed use of the subject
Property to such an extent that:
i. Alternative development plans cannot achieve the
same permitted density or that the cost of such alternative would
be prohibitive, or
ii. placement of such tree(s) precludes the reason-
able and efficient use of such property for a use otherwise
authorized, or
b. That the oak tree(s) proposed for removal or re-
location interferes with utility services or streets and high-
ways, either within or outside of the subject property, and no
reasonable alternative to such interference exists other than
removal of the tree(s), or
c. That the condition of the oak tree(s) proposed
for removal with reference to seriously debilitating disease
or danger of falling.is such that it cannot be remedied through
reasonable preservation procedures and practices.
-5-
'11/16/88
f. Identification of any oak tree officially identified
by a county resource conservation district.
2. The requirement for an oak tree report may be waived by
the Director where a single tree is proposed for removal, in con-
junction with the use of a single-family residence listed as a
permitted use in the zone, and/or such information is deemed
unnecessary for processing the application.
G. The applicant shall provide an oak tree information manual
prepared by and available from the Forester and Fire Warden to the
purchasers and any homeowners' association.
22.56.2100 APPLICATION - BURDEN OF PROOF. A. In.
addition to the information required in'the application by Section
22.56.2090, the applicant shall substantiate to the satisfaction
of the Director the following facts:
11. That the proposed construction or proposed use will be
accomplished without endanering the health of the remaining trees
subject to this Part 16, if any on the subject property; and
2. That the removal or relocation of the oak tree(s)
proposed will not result in soil erosion through the diversion or
increased flow of surface waters which cannot be satisfactorily
Mitigated; and
3. That in addition to the above facts, at least one of
the following findings apply;
a. That the removal or relocation of the Oak trees (s)
proposed is necessary as continued existence at present location(s)
frustrates the planned improvement or proposed use of the subject
Property to such an extent that:
i. Alternative development plans cannot achieve the
same permitted density or that the cost of such alternative would
be prohibitive, or
able and efficientlusemoftsuch such
property(forprecludes
otherw reason -
authorized, or rwise
b. That the oak tree(s) proposed for removal or re-
location interferes with utility services or streets and high-
ways, either within or outside of the subject property, and no
reasonable alternative to such interference exists other than
removal of the tree(s), or
C. That the condition of the oak tree(s) proposed
for removal with reference to seriously debilitating disease
or danger of falling.is such that it cannot be remedied through
reasonable preservation procedures and practices.
-5-
11/16/8r
22.56.2140 REVIEW OF OAK TREE REPORT BY COUNTY FORESTER AND
FIRE WARDEN. A. On receipt of an application for an oak tree
permit, the Director shall refer a copy of the applicant's oak
tree report as required by Section 22.56.2090 to the County
Forester and Fire Warden. The County Forester and Fire Warden
shall review said report for the accuracy of statements and, shall
make inspections on the project site. Such inspections shall
determine the health of all such trees on the project site and such
other factors as may be necessary and proper to complete his review,
a copy of which shall be submitted in writing to the Director and/or
Commission within 15 days after receipt from the Director.
B. The County Forester and Fire Warden may at his option also
suggest conditions for use by the Hearing Officer or the Director
or Commission pursuant to Section 22.56.2180.
22.56.2150 APPLICATION - HEARING OFFICER OR THE COMMISSION
CONSIDERATION WHEN CONCURRENTLY FILED. When an application for a
permit,. variance, zone change or tentative map for a subdivision,
including a minor land division, is concurrently filed with an
application for an oak tree permit as provided by this Title 22,
the Hearing Officer or the Commission shall consider and approve
such application for a oak tree permit concurrently with such other
approvals. The Hearing Officer or the Commission, in making its
findings, shall consider each case individually as if separately
filed.
22.56.2160 APPLICATION - PUBLIC HEARING REQUIRED WHEN.
Where no concurrent consideration is conducted by the Hearing
Officer or the Commission pursuant to section 22.56.2150, the
Director shall conduct a public hearing subject to the notice
requirements of Subsection B of Section 22.56.2130; provided,
however, that no hearing shall be required for a filing in conjunc-
tion with the use of a single-family residence when publishing is
not required by said Subsection C of Section 22.56.2130.
22.56.2170 APPLICATION - GRANT OR DENIAL CONDITIONS. The .
Hearing Officer or the Director or Commission shall approve an
application for an oak tree permit where the information submitted
by the applicant and/or brought to their attention during public
hearing, including the report of the County Forester and Fire
Warden, substantiates that the burden of proof set forth in Section
22.56.2100 has been met. The Hearing Officer or the Director or
Commission shall deny such application where the information
submitted fails to substantiate such findings.
22.56.2180 ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS IMPOSED WHEN. The Hearing
Officer, the Director or Commission, in approving an application
for an oak tree permit, shall impose such conditions as are
deemed necessary to insure that the permit will be in accordwith
the findings required by Section 22.56.2100. These conditions
may involve, but are not necessarily limited to, the following:
-7-