HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04261994 - 2.6 2• b
_v .9
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: VAL ALEXEEFF, DIRECTOR
GROWTH MANAGEMENT&ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
DATE: APRIL 26, 1994
SUBJECT: TREE ORDINANCE
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
REFER Tree Ordinance to Internal Operations Committee to respond to policy issues.
FISCAL IMPACT:
To be determined.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS:
On March 8, 1994, the Board of Supervisors directed GMEDA to review the Tree
Ordinance, to determine outstanding concerns and to return to the Board.
As part of the review, the Director met with County staff, area ranchers, utilities, and oak
preservationists. In each case, two questions were asked, "What is the problem being
addressed?" and "How well is the problem being solved?" From these preliminary
discussions, which by no means included everyone interested, it is felt that the issues of the
Ordinance can be divided into two categories -- Ordinance Corrections and Policy Issues.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATIJRE.
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMIT`ME
C
APPROVE 011-IER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON April 26, 1994 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTIIER X
REFERRED to Internal Operations Committee the report from the Director,
Growth Management and Economic Development Agency on the status of the Tree Ordinance,
and STAYED enforcement 6f sa :d .ordinance_ror 60 days.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND
X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) ENTERED ON TIIE MINUTIS OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
AYES: NOES:
ATTESTED April 26, 1994
ABSENT: ABSTAIN:.
PIIIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY ,DEPUTY
VA-dg
troeord.bo
Contact: Val Aleseelr(646-1620)
CC: County Administrator
County Counsel
GMEDA Departments
Interested Parties(via GMEDA)
Tree Ordinance Page 2 April 26, 1994
Ordinance Corrections
1. Commercial Planting
It appears that no one is interested in regulating Christmas tree farms, fruit and nut
orchards, and nurseries. Those enterprises where trees are planted as a commercial
enterprise. In these cases, trees are planted with the anticipation that they will be
removed.
2. Fire Trails
Ranchers are concerned that normal operations, such as fire trails, drainage
channeling, and other normal activities associated with range management, will force
endless trips for permits. Such activities should be defined and exempt.
3. Selection of Species
There is confusion as to which trees are included under what circumstances. The
Ordinance should be specific and not leave choice of trees to permit counter or
enforcement officer interpretation.
4. Exemption of Trees
Certain species, such as Monterey Pines, English Walnut grafted on to Black Walnut,
Eucalyptus, and Palm trees, have life spans or other problems that require their
removal and should not trigger a review.
5. Reduction of Field Inspection
The issue has been raised about cost of tree removal. When staff has to go into the
field, it requires an average of a two-hour trip, including preparation. This time has
to be compensated. It will be easier and cheaper to submit a plot plan and
photographs. Making the procedure cost efficient will be an important factor in the
success of the Ordinance.
6. Emergencies
Should a tree create an emergency situation, which often happens on a weekend,
some official has to give authorization. It is felt that the property owner should be
able to submit something within 10 days to satisfy the requirement.
Policy Issues
1. Regulations for Large Ranches
There is a dispute as to how large ranches should be treated. From the ranchers'
perspective, tree removal is a significant part of the economic viability of the facility.
From the preservationist perspective, the large ranches represent the largest oak
forests that are a Countywide resource like air and water, and must be treated
following appropriate standards.
2. Size of Tree to be Protected
We have the proposal for 6.5 inches in diameter. There are suggestions that trees
be larger and smaller to be regulated.
3. Extent of Financial Commitment
The permits will not cover the cost of enforcement. Funds need to be set aside to
cover the additional enforcement time necessary.
Note: Other policy issues may be forthcoming.