Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07121994 - IO.8 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS I .O.-8 s....- ? .. Contra FROM: 1 INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Costa County DATE: July 7, 1994 �T cony�` SUBJECT: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ORDINANCE NO. 94-22 HAVING TO DO WITH THE PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION OF OAK AND INDIGENOUS TREES. SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)d BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: 1 . DIRECT the Community Development Director and the County Counsel to prepare and return to the Internal Operations Committee by September 1, 1994, amendments to Ordinance 94-22 (On Oak and ,Indigenous Tree Protection and Preservation) which , will accomplish the following: A. AMEND Ordinance Code Section 816-6 . 1002 as proposed in the attached staff report on page 1 under the section headed "Commercial Planting" . B. AMEND Ordinance Code Section 816-6 . 1002 as proposed in the attached staff report on page 1 under the section headed "Fire Trails, Rangeland Management" except that wording is to .be added to in order to DEFINE "rangeland management" in layman' s terms which are more easily understood to the general public, and to DELETE the sentence which reads : "Exempted activities do not include harvesting of wood for resale" . C. MODIFY the amendments proposed in Ordinance Code Section 816-6 . 6004 ( 1) as proposed in the attached staff report on page 2 under the section headed "Selection of Species" to more narrowly DEFINE protected trees to include oaks and other indigenous trees which require protection, particularly in regard to their contribution to the overall environmental habitat, while excluding from protection those trees which, while they may be indigenous to Contra Costa .County, grow rapidly and CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF O TY ADMINI ATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OT F SMITH MARK DeSAULNIER f SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON July 12, 1994 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. G� CC: ATTESTED County Administrator PHILBATC OR, RK OF THE BOARD OF Community Development Director SUPERVIS RS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR County Counsel M382 (10/88) BY DEPUTY I .O.-8 therefore are in less need of protection or, even though otherwise requiring protection, are isolated or located in an area where their presence or absence does not affect the overall environmental habitat. D. AMEND Ordinance Code Section 816-6 . 8010 as proposed in the attached staff report on page 2 under the section headed "Exemption of Trees" . E. AMEND Ordinance Code Section 816-6 . 8006 as proposed in the attached staff report on pages 2-3 under the section headed "Reduction of Field Inspection" but also DIRECT that a separate policy document be prepared and distributed to those asking for clarification of the County' s policy by providing criteria for what actions would cause a site inspection to be undertaken and the additional cost of such an inspection. F. AMEND Ordinance Code Section 816-6 . 1002 as proposed in the attached staff report on page 3 under the section headed "Emergencies" in order to clarify that generally the Ordinance would exempt appropriate utilities ' activities and facilities from its application.. G. AMEND Ordinance Code Section 816-6 . 6004 ( 3) (d) as proposed in the attached staff report on page 3 under the section relating to the internal consistency of the Ordinance to exclude cultivated orchards . H. AMEND Ordinance Code Section 816-6 . 8004 as proposed in the attached staff report on page 3 under the section headed "Notification" . I . AMEND Ordinance Code Sections 816-6 . 8002 and 816-6 . 8012 as proposed in the attached staff report on page 4 under the section headed "Regulations for Large Ranches" to permit a collective tree permit for a site in a situation where a person would be eligible to apply for three or more individual tree permits . 2 . REQUEST the Community Development Director to report to the Internal Operations Committee by September 1, 1994 the estimated cost of enforcing this Ordinance as it is proposed to be amended by the above actions, and the estimated fee which the Director would propose be imposed for a "Tree Permit" under this Ordinance. 3 . SUSPEND the effective date of Ordinance 94-22 from August 9, 1994 to October 4, 1994 and DIRECT the Internal Operations Committee to report back its recommendations on this subject by that date. BACKGROUND: On March 1, 1994, the Board of Supervisors introduced a Tree Preservation Ordinance. On March 8, 1994, the Board adopted the Ordinance, following considerable discussion, as is reflected in the attached copy of the March 8, 1994 Board Order. The Ordinance was adopted, but the effective date was set as six weeks from March 8, 1994 and the Ordinance and certain concerns about details of the Ordinance were referred to staff and the Internal Operations Committee. On April 26, 1994, the Director, Growth Management and Economic Development Agency (GMEDA) , reported back to the Board on meetings which had been held with a number of interested groups and individuals in an effort to explore and narrow the areas which were in dispute. This report, which is attached, outlined several corrections which should be made to the Ordinance, and explored several policy issues . This report was approved and the effective date of the Ordinance was extended another 60 days to give the Internal Operations Committee an opportunity to complete its review and prepare recommendations on the Ordinance. 2 I .O.-8 r On June 21, 1994 , near the end of the 60-day extension period, the Internal Operations Committee reported that it had been unable to complete work on the Ordinance and asked that the Ordinance be extended an additional 45 days, until August 9 , 1994 . This request was approved by the Board of Supervisors . On July 7, 1994, the Internal Operations Committee held a special meeting with all concerned parties and reviewed the attached staff report from Dennis Barry, on behalf of the Community Development Director. At the July 7, 1994 meeting, Louis E. Ginochio presented the attached written comments on behalf of the Contra Costa Farm Bureau. Karen Lang spoke on behalf of P.G.& E. , seeking clarification of the Ordinance' s application to utilities . Bill Morgan spoke in support of the Farm Bureau' s comments . Frank Pereira spoke against the Ordinance on behalf of the Citizens ' Land Alliance. Ralph Kraetsh raised questions about specific aspects of the Ordinance. Amy Larson, Executive Director of the California Oak Foundation, presented the attached written comments and encouraged the use of a General Plan Amendment to protect Oak Woodlands and urged adoption of a 5 : 1 mitigation where trees are removed. Andrea Mackenzie, on behalf of the East Bay Regional Park District, distributed a copy of the attached Tree Management Policy which was adopted by the District in 1989 . She noted EBRPD's concern that the use of a 61" diameter limit would encourage the cutting of trees just before they reach that size in order to avoid being covered by the Ordinance. Ed Galvan of Davey Tree Surgery Company, which handles tree removal for P.G.& E. , requested clarification of the application of the Ordinance to work they might do to a tree on private property on behalf of P.G.& E. , particularly where the pruning sought by P.G.& E. might not be acceptable to the property owner, who might instead authorize removal of the tree instead of pruning. Elaine Ove of Walnut Creek spoke against the Ordinance as excessively intrusive governmental interference and expressed her agreement with the Farm Bureau' s position. Also received and considered by our Committee was correspondence previously received from Florence Lanam dated March 12, 1994, from Supervisor Tom Powers dated March 30, 1994, and from the Contra Costa/Alameda County Cattlemen' s Association dated April 5, 1994 . Our Committee considered each of the Ordinance modifications outlined in Mr. Barry' s report and each of the three policy issues which are discussed in the report. In general, our Committee believes that there is valid public concern about the preservation of heritage trees and there is a valid public purpose in regulating them. We do not, however, believe that the removal of all species which are indigenous should be regulated simply because the species is indigenous to Contra Costa County, particularly where it grows rapidly and can and will regenerate itself within a very few years . The Ordinance should apply only to those heritage and indigenous species which are endangered and which require a very long period of years in which to regenerate themselves . We also believe that the concept of protecting a habitat, as outlined by the California Oak Foundation makes a great deal of sense. Thus, we believe the Ordinance should focus on protecting or restoring an existing habitat, rather than the single tree on a piece of property which is in no way associated with a habitat. Based on this discussion and our exploration of the subject, we have agreed on the above recommendations . We expect to receive a report from staff by September 1, 1994 and will report a final draft of an Ordinance to the Board of Supervisors before the end of September. We are asking that the implementation of the existing Ordinance 94-22 be further stayed until that report is received and can be considered by the Board of Supervisors. 3 ORDINANCE NO. 94-22 (On Oak and Indigenous Tree Protection and Preservation) The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows (omitting the parenthetical footnotes from the official text of the enacted or amended provisions of the County Ordinance Code) : SECTION I. Chapter 816-6 is added to the Contra Costa County Ordinance to read as follows: CHAPTER 816-6 TREE PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION Article 816-6 . 2 Title and Purpose. 816-6 . 2002 Title. This chapter shall be known as the "tree protection and preservation ordinance,, of Contra Costa County. (Ord. 94-22. ) 816-6 . 004 Purpose. This Chapter provides for the preservation of certain protected trees in the unincorporated area of this county. In addition, this chapter provides for the protection of trees on private property by controlling tree removal while allowing for reasonable enjoyment of private property rights and property development for the following reasons: 1 . The county finds it necessary to preserve trees on private property in the interest of the public health, safety and welfare and to preserve scenic beauty. 2. Trees provide soil stability, improve drainage conditions, provide habitat for wildlife and provide aesthetic beauty and screening for privacy. 3. Trees are a vital part of a visually pleasing, healthy environment for the unincorporated area of this county. (Ord. 94-22. ) 816-6 .2006 Coordination. This chapter's requirements are intended to be in addition to those otherwise required by this code. In the case of any conflicts, the director shall determine the requirements applicable and the director's decision shall be final in the absence of a timely filed appeal pursuant to chapter 26-2. (Ord. 94-22. ) Article 816-6 .4 Definitions 1 ORDINANCE NO. 94-22 816-6 .4002 Generally. The definitions in this article govern the construction of this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires . (Ord. 94-22. ) 816-6 .4004 Arborist. "Arborist" means a person currently certified by the Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture, as an expert on the care of woody trees, shrubs and vines in the landscape, a consulting arborist who satisfies the requirements of the American Society of Consulting Arborists or such other arborist who, after review by the director, is determined to meet the standards established for certified or consulting arborists hereinabove described. (Ord. 94-22. ) 816-6 .4006 Arborist Report. An arborist report is a report prepared by an arborist on: ( 1 ) the possible impact of development on trees or existing tree condition; (2) the impact of any alteration; and/or (3) restorative or other remedial action that might be .feasible to address tree alterations. (Ord. 94-22. ) 816-6 . 4008 Department. "Department" means the Community Development Department. (Ord. 94-22. . ) 816-6 .4010 Development. "Development means any modification of land for human use from its existing state which requires a discretionary entitlement for its establishment or a building and/or grading permit involving a protected tree or trees. (Ord. 94-22. ) 816-6 . 4012 Development Application. A development application is an application for development (as defined in this article) requiring either ministerial or discretionary approvals including design review, use permits, subdivisions, rezoning applications, building and/or grading permits . (Ord. 94-22 . ) 816-6 .4014 Director. "Director" means the director of community development or his/her designee. (Ord. 94-22. ) 816-6 .4016 Routine Pruning. "Routine pruning" mean's the removal of dead or dying, diseased, weak or objectionable 2 ORDINANCE NO. 94-22 branches of a tree in a reasonable and scientific manner which does not structurally harm the tree. (Ord. 94-22. ) 816-6 .4018 Topping. "Topping" is the removal of the upper 25% or more of a tree's trunk(s) or primary leader. (Ord. 94-22. ) 816-6 .4020 Tree. "Tree" means a large woody perennial plant with one or more trunks, branches and leaves, not , including shrubs shaped to tree forms . (Ord. 94-22. ) 816-6.4022 Tree Removal. . "Tree removal,, means the destruction of any protected tree by cutting, regrading, girdling, interfering with water supply, applying chemicals, or by other means. (Ord. 94-22. ) is 816-6.4024 Undeveloped Property. "Undeveloped property" (1) A parcel of private land which is vacant or a developed parcel which has remaining development potential; (2) A parcel of land which can be further divided in accordance with zoning regulations of the county; (3) A parcel of land on which the structures are proposed to be demolished or relocated. (Ord. 94-22. ) Article 816-6 . 6 Protected Trees 816-!-6 , 6002 Prohibition. No person shall trench, grade or fill within the dripline of any protected tree or cut down, destroy, trim by topping or remove any protected tree on private property within the county without a tree permit, except as provided for in section 816- 1002. (Ord. 94-22. ) 816-6 .6004 Protected Tree. A protected tree is any one of the following: (1) On all properties within the unincorporated area of the county: 3 ORDINANCE NO. 94-22 a . All oak trees and indigenous trees measuring 20 inches or larger in circumference (approximately 6 .5, inches in diameter) , 'measured 4 1/2 feet from ground level. Oak trees include but are not limited to: Quercus agrifolia (California or Coast Live Oak) , Quercus douglasi (Blue Oak) , Quercus Kel-loggii (California Black Oak) or Quercus Lobata (VaAley Oak) . Indigenous trees include but are not' limited to: Sequoia Sempervirens (Coast Redwood) , Alnus Rhombifolia (White Alder) , Alnus Ore4ona (Red Alder) , Acer Macrophyllum (Bigleaf Maple) , Aesculus Californica (California Buckeye) , Arbutus Menziesii (Madrone) , Umbellularia Callifornica (California Bay or Laurel) , Juglans Hin'dsii (California Black Walnut) , Platanus Ra6'emosa (California Sycamore) , or Sambucus Callicarpa (Coast Red Elderberry) . b. Any tree shown to be preserved on an approved tentative map, development or site plan or required to be retained as a condition of approval. C. Any tree required to be planted as a replacement for an unlawfully removed tree. (2) On any Of the properties specified in Subsection(3) below: a . Any tree measuring 20 inches or larger in circumference (approximately 6.5 inches diameter) , measured 4 1/2 feet from ground level including the oak trees listed above) ; b. Any multi-stemmed tree with the sum of the circumferences measuring 40 inches or larger, measured 4 1/2 feet from ground level; C. And any significant grouping of trees, including groves of four or more trees. (3) Specified properties referred to in Subsection(2) above includes: a. Any developed property within any commercial, professional office or industrial district. b. Any undeveloped property within any district. C. Any area designated on the General Plan for recreational purposes or open space. 4 ORDINANCE NO. 04-22 d. Any area designated in the County. General Plan Open Space element as visually significant reparian or ridge line vegetation and where the tree is adjacent to or part of a riparian, foo'thill woodland or oak savanna area, or cultivated orchard (within the Open space element) designated. Riparian trees include but are not limited to those listed as indigenous trees in subsection A. (l)a. above. (Ord. 94-22 . ) Article :,816-6 . 8 Applications 816-6 .8002 Permit Reguirement. Any person proposing to trench, grade or fill within the dripline of any protected tree or cut down, destroy, trim by topping or remove any protected tree shall apply to the department for a tree permit, not less than ten days prior to the proposed tree removal or tree alterations. (Ord. 94-22. ) 816-6 . 8004 Application. in addition to any other applicable requirements of this code and county ordinances, the application shall include the "following information and items: (1 ) The number, size (including height and diameter measured 4 1/2 feet above ground) , species, location, driplin6 and condition of each tree proposed to be altered ,or removed; (2 ) The reasons) for alteration or removal; (3) A plot plan showing the approximate location of all trees on the site, including those proposed to remain; (4 ) Proposed method of tree alteration or removal; (5) Information indicating the effect of tree alteration or removal�' on soil stability and erosion if located on a steep slope or near any creek; (6) The signature of the property owner or if the permit is requested by someone other than the owner, a written authorization from the owner. (7 ) Additional information as may be required by the County upon review of the above information. (8) Application and permit fees. (Ord. 94-22. ) 5 ORDINANCE NO. 94-22 816-6 . 8006 Review and Site Inspection. Prior to making a decision, the director or his designee shall make a site inspection and shall review the application using the criteria and factors specified in this article. (Ord. 94-22 . ) 816-6 . 8008 h Arborist Report. If the reasons for alteration or removal relate to the health of the tree or if grading, trenching or filling is proposed under the dripline of an existing tree and the director determines that more technical expertise is necessary to make the decision, a report prepared by an arborist may be required, to be paid for by the applicant. (Ord. 94-22 . ) 816-6 . 8010 Factors. In granting or denying the tree permit the following factors shall be considered: ( 1) General:, a. The proximity and number of other trees in the vicinity; b. The relationship of the subject property to general plan open Ispace or open space plans and policies . ( 2) For Approval. a . The arborist report indicates that the tree is in poor health and cannot be saved; b. The tree is a public nuisance and is causing damage to public utilities or streets and sidewalks that cannot be mitigated by some other means (such as root barriers etc. ) ; , C. The tree is in danger of falling and cannot be saved by some other means (such as pruning) ; d. The tree is damaging existing private improvements ons:the lot such as a building foundation, walls, patios, decks, roofs, retaining walls, etc. ; e. The tree is a species known to be highly combustible and is determined to be a fire hazard; f . The proposed tree species or the form of the tree does not merit saving (i.e. , a tree stunted in growth, poorly formed, etc. ) ; g. Reasonable development of the property would require the alteration or removal of the tree and this development could not be reasonably accommodated on another area of the lot; (3) For Denial. 6 ORDINANCE NO. 94-22 1 i; a. The applicant seeks permission for the alteration or ,,removal of a healthy tree that can be avoided by 'reasonable redesign of the site plan prior to project approval (for non-discretionary permits) ; b. It ,:is reasonably likely that alteration or removal ofthe tree will cause problems with drainage, erosion control, land stability, windscreen, visual screening, and/or privacy and said problems cannot be mitigated as part of the proposed removal of the tree. C. The tree to be removed is a member of a group of trees in which each tree is dependent upon the others for survival. d. The value of the tree to the neighborhood in terms ofvisual effect, wind screening, privacy and neighboring vegetation is greater than the hardship to the owner. e. If .the permit involves trenching or grading and there are other reasonable alternatives including an;; alternate route, use of retaining walls, use of pier and grade beam foundations and/or relocating site improvements . f . Any other reasonable and relevant factors specified by the director. (Ord. 94-22 . ) 816-6 . 8012 Decision. The director shall grant or deny tree permits in accordance with this chapter and code. If a ' permit is granted; the director may attach conditions to insure compliance with this chapter and code. These conditions may include a requirement to replace any or all trees on a comparable ratio of either size or quantity. Permits shall be valid for a period of 90 days'' and may be renewed for additional periods by the director upon request by the applicant. If a permit is denied, the director shall state the reason for denial. Notice of decision shall be mailed to the applicant. (Ord. 94-22. ) 816-6 . 8014 Appeals. Any person may appeal the director's decision within ten calendar days of the director's decision to the planning commission having jurisdiction in accordance with chapter 26-2. Appeals shall be made in writing and state the specific reasons why the decision does not meet the 7 ORDINANCE NO. 94-22 criteria and factors for granting or denial of a permit as stated in this chapter. (Ord. 94-22 . ) Article 816-6 . 10 Permit Exceptions 816-6 . 1002 No Permit. A tree permit is not required for the following situations: I (1 ) Hazardous Situation. Any tree whose condition creates a hazardous situation which requires immediate action as determined by the director, building inspector, sheriff involved fire district or a utility company to protect its facilities. (2) Prior Approval. Any tree whose removal was specifically approved as a part of an approved development plan, subdivision, other discretionary projector a building permit. (3) Routine pruning not involving topping or tree removal. (Ord. 94-22 . ) 816-6 . 1004 Proposed Development. (1 ) On any property proposed for development approval, tree alterations or removal shall be considered as a part of the project application. (2) All trees proposed to be removed, altered or otherwise affected by development construction shall be clearly indicated on all grading, site and development plans. Except where the director otherwise provides, a tree survey shall be submitted as a part of the project application indicating the number, size, species and location of the dripline of all trees on the property. This survey shall be overlaid on the proposed grading and development plans . The plan shall include a tabulation of all trees proposed for removal. (3) The granting or denial of a tree removal program which is a part of a development proposal covered by this section shall be subject to sections 816-6 .8008 and 816-6 .8014 . A separate tree removal permit shall not be required. (Ord. 94-22. ) Article 816-6 . 12 Tree Protection 8 ORDINANCE NO. 94-22 816-6 . 1202 Tree Protection. Except where otherwise provided by the involved development's conditions of approval or approved permit application, on all properties where trees are required to be saved during the course of development, the developer shall follow the following tree preservation standards: (1 ) Prior to the start of any clearing, stockpiling, trenching, grading, compaction, paving or change in ground elevation on a site with trees to be preserved, the applicant shall install fencing at the drip line or other area as determined by an arborist report of all trees adjacent to or in the area to be altered. Prior to grading or issuance of any permits, the fences may be inspected and the location thereof approved by appropriate county staff. ( 2) No grading, compaction, stockpiling, trenching, paving or change in ground elevation shall be permitted within the drip line unless indicated on the grading plans approved by the county and addressed in any required report prepared by an arborist. If grading or construction is approved within the dripline, an arborist may be required to be present during grading operations. The arborist shall have the authority to require protective measures to protect the roots. Upon completion of grading and construction, an involved arborist shall prepare a report outlining further methods required for tree protection if any are required. All arborist expense shall .be borne by the developer and applicant unless otherwise provided by the development's conditions of approval. (3) No parking or storing vehicles, equipment, machinery or construction materials, construction trailers and no dumping of oils or chemicals shall be permitted within the drip line of any tree to be saved. (Ord. 94-22 . ) 816-6 . 1204 Deposit Conditions Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit for a property where trees are required by this chapter to be saved, the owner or developer shall deposit cash or other acceptable security with the department on a per tree basis in the amount established by the involved development's conditions of approval or approved applications . As required, the county may hold the deposit for a two year period to guarantee the health of the trees for a two year period upon completion of construction. In addition, the applicant or developer may be required to enter into a tree maintenance agreement secured by said deposit/bond by which they agree to 9 ORDINANCE NO. 94-22 maintain said trees in a living and viable condition throughout the term of the agreement. This agreement may be transferred to any new owner of the property for the remaining length of the agreement. (Ord. 94-22 . ) 816-6 . 1206 Construction Tree Damage. A development's property owner or developer shall notify the department of any damage that occurs to any tree during the construction process. The owner or developer shall repair any damage as determined by an arborist designated by the director. Any tree not approved for destruction or removal that dies or is significantly damaged as a result of construction or grading shall be replaced with a tree or trees of equivalent size and of a species . a's approved by the director to be reasonably appropriate for the particular situation. (Ord. 94-22 . ) 816-6 . 1208 Violations . Violations of this chapter are punishable and may be corrected in any manner provided by this code or as otherwise allowed by law. Each tree damaged or removed in violation of this chapter shall constitute a separate offense. (Ord. 94-22. ) SECTION II . EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance becomes effective on April 19, 1994,, and within 15 days of passage shall be published once with the names of the Supervisors voting for and against it in the CONTRA COSTA TIMES , a newspaper published in this County. PASSED on March 8, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Powers, Smith, Bishop, Torlakson NOES: ABSENT: McPeak ABSTAIN: ATTEST: PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk of the Board and County Administrator By: (IA4. u y oard Chair M 10(2):tree.ord 10 ORDINANCE NO. 94-22 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE DATE: July 1 , 1994 r I FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY VELOPMENT SUBJECT: Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached text changes to Chapter 816-6,TREE PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION, of the County Zoning Ordinance. FISCAL IMPACT: Generally lower costs for administration of the ordinance primarily for owners of single family residential lots, commercial growers and rural landowners. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: On March 8, 1994,the Board of Supervisors directed GMEDA to review the Tree Ordinance. As part of the review, the Director met with County staff, area ranchers, utilities, and environmental interests. A number of ordinance modifications were suggested and.policy issues were raised.',' On April , •1994, the Board of Supervisors directed Community Development Department staffolT;3o' provide suggested text changes to the ordinance for consideration by thei�intemal Operations Committee. The discussions ands suggested text changes outlined below correspond with the GMEDA report to the Board of Supervisors dated April, 1994. Ordinance Modifications 1. Commercial Planting In enterprises where trees are planted as a commercial venture, trees are planted with the anticipation that they will be removed. The following description would be added under 816-6.1002 (No permit needed) as item (4): r, i -.r.?kvir?:::y:,;v, ',.. •.• :r.•.•:r:..3.:•G^$::...,:�j.;:;::�:+;:{i::i'r'ii::i::tiy;:}{:::iy`j':::::::i l::'::?.2:'::.-:; ' '.�:::<::�.::>:�or :r " r::�a' ::::P :.•�n.':s x:;:�:::�fa�:�rn : ::rema�a1:':::a:r1�:: arue s:�t ;?.�:ri::.c:.:: _. c:rQ:'?:::...:::; tr :� < '�'��:�:I"��+ :�'�:�: f`� 1''� �<`�tf>�•�!�1` t 'i Impact.- Reporting by commercial operations would be eliminated, day to day operation of these commercial ventures would not be impacted by the ordinance. 2. Fire Trails, Rangeland Management Normal activities associated with range management should be defined and exempted. The following 'description would be added under 816-6.1002 (No permit needed) as item (5): T:,...}3.4%?3:•??:.i'>::'.?:;:• :{:1':;is3:•;:r?;{3:3?::{3:•?:?:•?:{3:•:L?:3?'.?±:•?::•{:.;.; �-0 000-101A., , .3 »>;.... wit a ��:c1�udi� :? u:•:rt�f<;�rrr:�a: e•::::t.:.< a:rr�terzarx�e:�af:f�;r:.�;:<tta:���<�:n. ::; :terra e�c r�:+ t •k „rk r •'Fi Impact: Reporting of regular rangeland management activities would be eliminated,day to day operation of ranch would not be impacted by the ordinance. 3. Selection of,Species To make the ordinance discrete regarding the protected tree list and alphabetically ordered for jease of use, the following reordering and additions are provided as suggested wording for 816-6.9444 (1) a: (1)a. All oak trees and indigenous trees measuring 20 inches or larger in circumference (approximately 6.5 inches in diameter), measured 4 1/2 feet from ground level. Oak trees include but aFe net limited to: Quercus agrifolia (California or Coast Live Oak), €# Y' ti Quercus douglasi (Blue Oak), Quercus kellogg i (California Black Oak), Quercus lobata (Valle"' Oak), ti `it ' Ci#( '., Indigenous trees include- fit::':•:,•, :�A•q'•; iSX2>Y.:'{:`r;:^ ;••}x;+: y�},,r� q 4 f •�}{>p .ice ,}� .•y,.. RAI 'r. s :*�:l.Q. !s•: :7: ••''.t::t t i::>jrk7�••'� r'.Li f:: 00 MSr.•�+..•A•.• :F:;i? .4"r�}: i:3`.�' �:Ta�{.' �'�',•':r.et;�;:a:x{{{,�xgt: ,.�:5':� ,r,'.r;.'v6::,5.•k�:`i,: •�a^r; �y YJ .�y. ';:;{,.:n+�.••}r,,y3 yy ♦�G. ��r�.,e�.t•�'•.♦rrr•:.gay:;�a*?''�::y'il:.gi>;ipay�•;}r;•.�•:}:-: :,•t: 7,.•,,.}}< # �'�,tl;:,k'",:{4f'.�,5 �il;:!Ft.: ti ..x.:.C.,.;,r:7;w..f,:C:+6i. r ktl `';i `: fi €li Alnus rhombifolia White Alder),-ik4nus Qfeu-iiriFn r , Arbutus Idenziesii (Madrone), . till= 1 -A 4P.. li'"r-: cy� Juglans hindsii tir'::::.:y::;{;{.;.t.';>.>:>;;..,;:f::?{:.:.yt :it,;..4,:;;:3�.•.'.r•'.Y.t>`',.,:..;':s:; v.:;t•;i:..:::..,r:: >'+r•:.;;:{•'ao::.,;:.: California Black Walnut) ctt' tri} ` 11rii >` I[ t > € r'°fir=`lx ` ::. ... w•.,v.,v w.:... .v::Q>..v;:.;,•}::..;:.:'•::..,•:{::,•:.:::::.:5:{•'r'::.vni.••t{{....nrr.?{: ;:?fj .{.:iif:>:i+ijvibij.`•:v :{?i:ii:,::>:{, •t::,•rrx:: ,r.4.•{:'tt>:�f?{;:<•F: •>.xi:::,,riiw>?::{...::........ ............ .:t.:>:::::v::.xxat•x.::air..{,t::,••;:f:,.;t.;:.:rr,:{{t.::.:,:.... •:.t.{: „a{::•::n{:::t�:r. savi f f � g !r Plantanus racemosa (California Sycamore), :•r ��vt;.,:t .l 'Rlt�2�>{;t:;<y{:>5xr?S .•. ' tr{a;:n::y;rithrr!::;a!vr,>:{fi 4 •¢�v 4:. ..f.{{::.:.. . .r;..t.•r Y. .. ,;;4•:.; {rfh:. ..�1�,.::::._{:•:•.j ,•:r ti::••f•'.w,:: •• iyxr,+..:>�.r:�iw?>•. .s.h<.xi••rt:> ;U••:: .f.;:;>•: •,{:.xir.:• '•�•:: :•:t:{: ;�.f:. ..rt •: .r' :.>..>t,-.. �`;:a::•::?tt,{.:;r;:fir.,.,,.•?��+:>' •.:+ra .a.r:"r{{{.ta..i:{:.r.%;�u:;;:i':;::•tt�:{::h:f?{.:i:':'t: � :d >:�<':�til'>�l�::�'.<i#��:•uw::r�:: �.:.a�' 1�` u� ata::;fd` ta�`���>;�<<S�r��zsfa��• � .r -. ...{rr .:�:a: :::.:,:{.>,.,.t..,,,,r:<,,.....,r.:{:.:.,..,..:.,,.:,<,w.::,.r.:..:,.�>{{tv.,,.......:{.»:•;:»>.........::::.....,..�.:::.�:....,,,:.,::.,.....,,...,:•.,it.:{a.:t•:{{t:.:ri..:>:.�..{..>:pr:<{;• ::::•{::; �I �', e�Sambucus callicarpa (Coast Red Elderberry), �;_" �: +( ii:`' �i� �rrk '..t'�;:;+5:>,•{' ,,>.:;gr�,��'+';zr;•",,}".'•: ,�.;::t•;{>;•"�';:::r`{::i?:;:3:::?:?�?::.,:;::;•?ir':{:::iys?.•tt•,.> �,';x>`:s.>1::k::;?::`;:;::;.{.;.:::;:.. Impact: List is discrete without varying interpretation. 4. Exemption ofTrees Certain species, such as Monterey Pines, English Walnut grafted onto Black Walnut, Eucalyptus, and Palm trees, have life spans or other problems that require their removal and should not trigger a review. Identification of trees that fit such a category may cause confusion if such a list is not complete or based on clear criteria. Since these trees are not regulated in residential areas unless the lot is not developed, we are dealing with commercial, industrial, or developing lands. If the situation is not handled by a discretionary permit,the property is likely maintained by a professional group that can provide evaluation of the health of the tree. The problem may be better handled as an evaluation issue rather than with an exemption list. The following description could be added under 816-6.8010 (Factors for permit approval) as item (2)h.: 2 ( )hx.::•::::..,1as :Gl:a..,. .: 1 ::t :ll:: .:, •::{•::is;. x:, .............. ........:.:......snvfi:::•}:::�•:•:.,{•v::::., r:n� ::•i'�i'i::4::Sii:•:•>i>':.:i}>:v::i:::::•:::..::.�:>::::.....:.........:.ry;;....{::::.w::::::r:: ....................::.: :•.:t•>:.!i:•.::xy::r•{>Y.....t,....:.{�.:..J:.: .....:'i:"�i:�•{y•.y"..::. :•¢::y...: .:::.......:..y.:. ,.::^ii:•:i. :.�:.;:.::�{ii...y:.}'.:.:Y,...;.::.::..:::�'v::ii:t:{{{:.::lry:.:Y.{•y;•1.':.:ii �i�� :.ir:.e�::>csr>:t.�e:sa:��:t..>;�b�::>•.e:o le>;::e�d:::< .ra .e:�:.::« :�(�ese;:>s :�c�:es»�horacter�str:.cs bu�:::�1;.�::::::��:..:�: 1i.C��::�:�t::�1;1.±�.:�::�:::::��l.r:::::::pa.k�:::.�::+�p�:f#�i:::�.:::�:.:� 1� p:l :tt?�.:::►. :�? .................................. Impact: In these cases the landscape maintenance industry will be very nearly self regulating. Staff would issue permits based on applicant's identification of problems with this class of vegetation. 5. Reduction of Field Inspection r' Staff time to field check must be compensated..,This raises the cost of compliance and is expected t6 be a factor in the success of the Ordinance. A submittal of plot plan and photographs, and a tree removal estimate with description of tree if available, should be adequate. On sites governed by a development plan, commercial and industrial sites; and sites where multiple tree removals are to occur, site visits may be necessary to review process. These costs would be covered by normal application fees. Wording for 816-6.8006 (Review and Site Inspection) should be changed as follows: Prior to' making a decision, the director or his designee shall make a site +ns$eeter�—ate shall review the application using the criteria and factors specified in this article. A''°' at�Qrt::f :ri :::r �:::i (' ''I"''"`<""` Wording for 816-6.8004 (Application) should include the following submittal item inserted as item (7). t ♦♦ ♦ ♦ a ......:......nv:;..rr v: .v::r:::.:•,w.:v:.:•.v:•::.v'w:•::.v:::::.v:::::::.:::nv:::v:.v::::.�;..:'::?..�:: ,::v:........ ::vv;..:;:.:: ......}..v......• ..4Y..... .f.. ............ ...:...r.. ....... .......:::}•v v:^:......4.:;::Y,.;.+,i......:{>:i:•::::::L i:•1•:+:i i:Lviii::?:i iii:%;yi 't•: ?iii:Li:;:j;:• .;.:.:;�:Y:n.....: :...::::,':::: :•:v}.....:v. ':: •:..}• :i ...: '...:...:.::...:.:•.:. .. ..}'. •:. r4:4• b:.»:. r acturt :=i: r non ..... ..:.........�/... ..............('�.......:........::::::.�:::::::.�.F.:::::::.P ::::.�.�:.:::::: Impact. Reduced costs to public and County. Increased dependence on applicant to provide adequate application materials for consideration of factors for permit approval or denial (816-6.8010). 6. Emergenciesj� Emergency tree removal situations will often occur on a weekend when timely authorizatiohi by an official is not feasible. In these situations, a property owner should be able to submit description of the situation within 10 days of the event without penalty. The` following change should be made to 816-6.1002 (1): Hazardous Situation. Any tree whose condition creates a hazardous situation which,,, requires immediate action as determined by the director, building inspector, sheriff:, involved fire district or a utility company to protect its 4:.Y.•:{ .v,4:::}?:E v4:: :'i•:}}"{t�X{.}}:^Y{xr+p::•; . . :�: ••vt;}}:•:}:•}>}xS+;i.<}':'::•x5•:;4: {{•'?•}:••. .>:. :...::•:•.}:•:+}:. .. ??•:':t......r:;}:^.,:; facilities. i '?. :,: t' , r ► €:rtf1 ; t 'rjki:: F7 '+::x•:•x:,.};r: •: wr:.;•n;{:},+.•.,.v::.i?:.?}•y::.i:ry}•, : •:•:•:3:n.:::.;?{4::{:{:i.;i::::::.::::::x::rx:.vn}:• .:......;, ;..{.ry,...::}:}+..<..y:.:.a;{}.}}}::.r:.2...,;•.i i:•.....:,},;?.:.;...:::>:•.,i.}::.::•::.i:•i:;;•:<?:,.y.??;i'"i}ri''::.v;.'.;.....::::v'::::....:.,;i.;a:n;.:.,{. ..{.:...i::;;..;:•::: �:.a` .oz.s::>:::�t �::�r1:: • e::•:>>::�e::::::c���ct��:::::ar::��t::.a:::rr:�e :drt: r��:::i:;# :�: :�n�� et:E::.�n .{•::{: ::}'•.:? ::v:v•+.v•x•:v,.}.;.ir•..fi::v:•r r..;;.;.... rm.::::..::::: :::::.:r,•::::::::•::•.•: !'>'?+i+ +?.v.v:'-0i:: ..i?..e.ri.r..:\Y•..r ...:.:r.•.......r:}Y•.•::::.:.t.:?x.;,:•{:'.L::Y,•$}ii:}:?•:at•i::}'.....:::• v:v:':.w.;r,••::•:::{.;..4::+:... ::...:...::.: ... :.::'{;:;i:ii:;r Impact., Hazardous situations do not have to exist for extensive periods due to unavailability of public agency representatives. Applicant is not penalized for taking necessary action. 7. To provide consistency within the Ordinance, regarding commercial operations and the 11 specific species list, the following change would be made to specified properties section in 816-6.6004(3)d: (3)d. Any area designated in the County General Plan Open Space element as visually significant riparian or ridge line vegetation and where the tree is adjacent to or part of,'.'a riparian, foothill woodland or oak savanna area, 8, Notification The Ordinance makes provisions for the appeal process without_companion wording regarding notification. Once the director decides to grant a tree permit, a "Notice of Intent to Issue a Tree Permit" would be sent to adjacent property owners. The appeal period is 10 ;days following the director's decision, Wording for 816-6.8004 (Application) should include the following submittal item inserted as item (8). (8) A list and set of stamped envelopes for adjacent property owners is required for notification of the tentative decision to grant a tree permit. Discussion of 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 County resource like air and water, and must be treated following appropriate standards. The State Forest Practice Act does not include all hardwoods. Species are listed by region and list(A or B), List A species are generally conifers of commercial lumber value. List B species in the Region 1 Coastal Forest Practice District, of which Contra Costa County is a part include: Tanoak, Red Alder, White Alder, Eucalyptus, Pacific Madrone, Golden Chinquapin, Pepperwood, Oregon White Oak, California Black Oak, and Pacific Yew. The species of Oaks, largely Blue Oak, found in the rangelands of Contra Costa County are not included in this list, The County is the responsible Agency for timber management of the Oak forests of Contra Costa County, • Timber harvesting may best be handled with discretionary Permits covering the whole property, ' rather than requiring individual fire removal permits; I Replacement/Reforestation guidelines directed toward sustainability of the resource might be programs that would be implemented with Conditions of Approval. The following changes should be made to 816-6.80021--i'(Permit Requirement) and 816- 6.8012 (Decision): 816-6,.8002 Permit Requirement. Any person proposing to trench, grade or fill within the dripline of any protected tree or cut down, destroy, trim by topping or remove any protected tree shall apply to the department for a tree permit, not less than ten days prior to the proposed tree removal or tree alterations. .....-Per-ff US -te w "N .............. ....-SAWN... 0110 -t ............ DO f. �l.tt�'e..**t*".t.l.;�'.*o*.!�..�.�....o...... .1h t ARIA A".., V "'."s....... - Uft"........-h x,x .0......:n. .. ..... err.N.M... '.V ..-p RiN ........ . . .... .. ...... ..........----— 816-6.8012 Decision. The director shall grant or deny tree permits in accordance with this chapter and code. If a permit is granted, the director may attach;' conditions to insure compliance with this chapter and code. These conditions may include a requirement to replace any or all trees on a comparable ration of either size or quantity. gww � ermits shall be valid for a period of 90 days and may be renewed for additional periods by the director upon request by the applicant. 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. Staff suggests that he size of the tree remain the same. 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. The proposed changes, including reducing the number of site visits, greatly reduce the cost of enforcement to the department by placing the burden of justification and notification on the applicant. Total costs for applicants would be generally lower than under existing provisions. Attachments 1. GMEDA report, to the Board of Supervisors dated Aprj� , 1 994 2. Tree Ordinance Impact Matrix as Ordinance is currently written - Matrix was created to analyze impacts of provisions of the newly adopted tree ordinance. 3. Tree Ordinance Impact Matrix with changes* outlined above - Matrix was created to illustrate areas1where proposed text changes reduced impacts of provisions of the Tree Ordinance TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: VAL ALEXEEFF, DIRECTOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT&ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY MANAGEMENT DATE: APRIL 26, 1994 SUBJECT: TREE!"ORDINANCE SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATIONS)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: REFER Tree Ordinance to Internal Operations Committee to respond to policy issues. FISCAL. IMPACT: To be determined. BACKGROIIND/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 "Hpw 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 ATFAMNIM R. X YES SIGNATURE: r. RECOMMENDATION OF,COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _ RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE 1 _APPROVE _OTHER SIGNATIIItF_()S ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED__ OTHER_ VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND _UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ENTERED ON Tl-IE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. AYES: NOES- ATTESTED ABSENT. ABSTAIN: PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY ,DEPUTY VA dg .. tt ceord.bo Contact: Val Aleseeff(646-1620)` CC County Administrator , County Counsel GMEDA Departments '• Interested Parties(via GMEDA) i 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, andlzurseries. 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. i'. Note: Other policy issues may be forthcoming. �G Z luawgoe}}y O Ln wba Y N { Co CO oy Co 'Co 0o CO hSt co 00 CII CO to Co R1 CO W d 00 0 F-; H 1-; !-r O F H Cj1 H W t-r I CO N•F r !-r i-' h' K !-' 'J 01 Ch C1 (A Q`1 a% tt�, cl f� U1 al CS CR C1 0% 01 Y-C1 to r r c r hi r t Y• r r r @ r r r rr r h3 r Oz „,,, cr(n w C� cn m � oti ' m m rn rn rn I. m I. m rn N rn tD O iD O M • }a.. . f��DDtt . . }a., . �. ("`•.. a. m K d N ct z�o.a H' N F�•N M m 00 a! 00 M 00 00 00 00 0h •rn rt N N Na a a cra a hja Okla a @ a r�o a,� o la c a "CCG 0 cr a N. t-A H a a@ a iD a �H a a 5. 03 rA N +P• N 9A. N a h7 co (A@@ tip rte N @ 140 N @ cr l 'raOw O 4A@O 10t@AM (D M m - O F cr rt cr O . th (D5 m ro K � wJ � rl* � Nrt pm K m� (Dt'h 0 Aj Y ro }odItm a !i C ro HO FJ 0 Y. ro Y-K rn o�o~�i~ rat tom-' N• 0 !��(D hh 0 M Ov rr wrr �'tq jK m ih 0 �C a to {• K W rn -O rn N f6 i - ro CI] hfi o ¢i Orr w . 7c w rA . &P- ror ro .0 P) w acs. 10610, 0 0 $-� OH c 0z +rr rt N @ N M K rt(D rp, a r r F-' {Kp �Ky cFA6t� t� tD U1 @ N. �C * 0 tin to to fD ro r M ro w r� Via° ro ro i1r Y@ a (a cWi rr N w M r7p,• N r Y• Q 4 O v F'• N M C rorT a� rr do�iti 'w Rm m Nom+ 0 n 0. n 0 0 0 n c�'a rt @ rr t rt t� rt it"m 'r r rr� cr� rr� � (cq` t+- K H l0 b Frt'• W tom'- Frt'• irt'- Y Y• P. rr r• 0 `� � K 0 0 O 0 rr n F - o b"Ca rt rt w r•t+•� rr� 0 "ti ^G (� 4A b to 'tS 4A O p rro� r K Bog0 • ° c� "C � M t m rOt,r�r r0r,cON m w m w� p' rLQ I °ty urti �, w• ED n rr CA rr t✓ rt rr'a ro v} rom cn o or�p cmp m K 1 @ m vrti rrrtdi A. rrtu ¢. a ' W - r r a s rr 0 rr° t�- N- {Fps K04rr cn rr 4A r•rt cr: tn, a 1141). rmn rt t y M o 0rj) 0 L r ' . Y-K rt a r UI . . . . . N n co d O H O ro aD x W 0 00C7 co P4 co b co w oo to to ao to 00 C1 co :• or (DH MH y �� off row (DH 01 N P-H mN 0 hN KH w 0 m ro m m ch 0 m m ro m 0 m 0 m tr'm rrm m m 0 m t"01 to m o l• m t ro t to m I w t . cr 1 0 1 m I 1 t rr I to a m;omv H v n crm m m rom m a m m m m m 0 m K m m m F+•oh • o, r rn r•wrm awo • W. rg . r. w. y . P, i..( . �• rr. rt W w a s d r cr r O H d r F+ m O o W m O m o p 0 x 3 r't N N rt N m O •O O ''! O O rt O m 0 hof o R1 O O m 0 rr r•cr mm rr(m m OcrI o /] o m o C o rt o F+ 1-+ F• o ro o m o m o H o O y ro m rr w pan a m O W. N O $O m m m m N N ri 0 rt ro o p r tq p tt r hf m n m m 0 ct0:j0war m m }O ro rt ° EH0rA ":3N K m 0 rrt3w Ort % ::-•.: rr x 0 r•m m (D '� H K W m 'FJ to M m a m w a m to r w @ .7 @ 7 ¢ F' @'C %'sw%%iff:•':::`•: i i '::f if:` n ro m K m N a m rr rr m R7 Fh 0 rt @ i':%:::x:•:4,}:.}; m rt w rr to 3 m A) K o to w m m O r rf $10 rt p %.`•> f^?::A??>:<:::�4::>S1d::::»: m ro w a m x X a K P r•a O :: #::E<•`:#•'•: :<:::>:>:>:: N•tA �' r0 K m m n ::.�i.::.: ; ::..:. K G 0038 @ @ @F,. r N N M Fl- cr O t r O a a H 1-• O m m K ro m m @ � a Fh @ •.`•,i;:%�� •• :efx>k?e:>:::: @ >' :s:•,• rr 0 rr rr m rt to C 3 lq � ro � � � d x aro row row � >P.to M fu ':; *.... m H ra n 0 W K a rt @ a 'tj O @ r• F-•m ;':'�:�5.•<I°'•' :i +%%}silr'r':: K O O w rt K (� �.P. a C p rom m a :�:.s ::::t :> o m rt rt£ w w @ d @ a K m n P K *^'1g•'s t `'.';'<:::::?.r2 Fh rt m 0,a O m (D by a a r r O rt K @ } <%'•`•;:f l k:..fS4 :.: ;'.? @ K m a �' m a @ C m N S m O a b K a aro n rt r•N ::<`z«::fig>' ;;;:: ;.}},}} m o rn ' I- 0, W O ro a ro 1-'K o r a s >'; Ih @ K O �', r Lr f.. '� O v n #•o:.}}:::: :;.5;y:.};.s;} :?i4''.:r�S:.'•: O 7C P.n o x r m C •" O K to a m trt `,v 4• C3z::;::: 0 bo 3 r• n :y a rt H.w rt O tl! K •J Y Q':•`:{:.;i 12#:: •: F•-��•C•. m rr H.< `< rt r O •1•< V :'•,k;`� ;: tvE<'4LT?: 1G4:: m rt rt �'�i:•14+:•:•:�:it v{w;..{.:'•S 5:'{•5'4;t4:};, � .:i{tiSi;:i:4. rt (J :••fir:::}}::}::}:};•,•:;•; 'i::S':;i:}: U,. ro a o is :w:::« « :•Y:•4." . .µ �y� \•..v 0 o Maw .<}.::.;:.;}� .:::�:>}:•:•>•4.:••:::•:::• :;:;;;�.z::.. �.: {;h•`•`.,:,., �?.:..:r.:i:::.:�.:.:`•>:: a Cyt;:;•.:{:}:: .:?!••:: •:•::..i.:.{.. .;s:Mi:•s5 .}:':4:::::4.: •}�.;:..:;;s; m :::•f??: •:: :.::'<#? :'':'•2:'• ?::fid:!fE : . •.� L' ' K ..{} :;:;:$;{�:;:?4;{\\r;.::Y:n.. v•}:•i:4S:4:4:}'}' :n2{v4�'•. m M a m roa y F+m Pd c E @ P' w m a w rt @ tzj [I] r• m rt :}+!}:••}}:•}+.,�..••�:5:::�::z�::;!;�:::�:�:?S:�:kt;::;:t�Si::A?:•}}::•R@i•x•}}:•>:•}:;t.�•:.':•}:•}:�#a::::::•}:;:;:•o-::;;:•:#N•>:.::•xe7.•5:::•:.4::py:•r+.•:•}:c{•:: i•:2•}:•}:•}: r Ur rn EQ KPd tr m �..{ O ..S:i4ii:?ti�ii:�ii:2:}:•:�ii�:i�i C rt .tiF•.:. •..4:.•;...::.... O ..h....::..?:•}:•}}55}::{•5}:•}}:•.`•:::•?:i{':ii i:•:�i:•:•iiti��'i::•:ti4.�i{}:::};.v.5r iK::{ti�:i:•::::F:•}.�i:,::::•:S�ii:•i:•::•v�;'v iii......:•• ...4::. z Fj In 10 PC rr w K't7 ;:'{:;:j;i:•:j;::iv:G:4i5:�iiiiii5 @ rt N ........... ..................... :i>�l:$:•S tr w a :::�;yj;{Y•>:SS?'�} iii/}�::;i;::ti% 1 J ..f O :••Y^4 M r•:t•.::'ryr {4:}5 4'•}}}}•:4}}:•}}}}:•:}..ti+.•:•}�i4'•}5:•}}:?;�•. ... :.;• :.:•�:. •:•:.2v:5:•:•:v,4:4;{{::v::5:••: •..h... K n m ...:: r. :n...•:::::•:+:�i:�Y.•}}:$::.v.v:,rx::::::::::::::.:.::ik•}Srr}:2•Sh•::•. n}v::... i:•:4:.:.}.;, ...... .:..:::.:.::•..r::::::::}}:{��:::�:>ssx:•}.;��r,•};:ori:: • ::} . :...........}.: ••::;4:5'{:4;x.; .. ...........: r� yam. ...�':;:?;'{n•G:v.::v v::• :.rn'S;'{i :•}A... ..t..vt:•:.t,•.ir:::;;.:..:4 .r,}. ...:{:.: rt:4:;r:i:::�£:i:i�:ii�S:;i �+ }5::•C:•{.> :••.ux:•.•r: •::>:?::::{;.�,{{•• :iYK;;,}. �;.:..}ii•}:•:•>}::.:•: .:'s:2i'•. :�:c;...v< . Y rt :i3 v:::.v.tii ::fv:• i4}i.r...:.. .+."f.•:: .Fr.:n.�4: fi.... r... kU'2:{•:i::�•`'' }.:::::iiii:::::::. {..;rri...: . i:..�•. ..i4:\•:.:•.4r.:$:+/+.•:•i�+•.,, v 4'•i:::}i$:j}i: '.':• i: '.S:ti{•}5:•}:':v�ji5:?:;:$;}:: 1•+ Fy ;L'-' :}..{:::$:.v:;:::::•}f;rv; :Y'�{?{4•,•...,}.f$i}••;';,:;;:r:i:}.;.: ..Y..;...::::::. VI m k}44:•}}r F:i'�:�:+ :+ihKtt4 t'{i;.,; {j:`�$::•:}!i::'i"ie vC�{:.?:: f.4. (•r ..��4<::.::}� .h:s}.�•J�?:�i:: ..}<....i4G•.•�f.•.:::n..... •: if{:•:i•5:{r.+;{.:}?X;.?• .}. 4 K 'i:•i4•.4c•. ..'A.'.;.....::.:•:: :�.r:......t..:. ,, ?.'ffi•..��:4}}�}:.. .�r:;?:�:}'•i:f2+;245: A' ...tom:•: v+:a .. •:.5}:���:�%<:<.E•.•':c;:s:::}:4}•45>•::.vr:::?�. ..r...:t{..:..: .: ;.;r};;:;;2; i�:�tYv:;5+2•:::¢�; ••.�•; {ki;:. .r�•..:.:y,•?{•:{i.+5.2h•5:•>:•: m m :ti },�:;ii :`Y':•:. ti a.S..;A .{ii,'';.•:} .::;"' i;4:!;;,.{r.;r 2 �1 5. •../'••"•{:..4 «-•^`.4:• 4�:R:•}x4:•:}}:j�:f..\:1i+ 7vt•:H�.4:{F^i:��ri{;:[:'•,+.j:i'vJ::`.' �.v:0.•},� :i j: ,y{u,,i:�,x''':ti'�.,.} � ✓' ::;• t2;4.:: ,... ,},}.; :. :.::'t:i;;;:"i},},tX7'^:?}:;?:?�;k 1;:5#}.}. •v' :;:?i:pit{i!;!:ii;' .•\''S'4 *u�k.•x�': >:,^•�.+2i:::>;';;.+:;�.'to}•;•r,; t)':};}fi;ti;.:;:{;:,;}:yr; {:;�.v .•:o:};::4..:4../{v::;v...E,.• :4w.•td'�:`.•`2?}{' O v444.it•''t ;c.; :v;:.::.•,h,•..;`,%4.;.t.:. :.;•:.fi•.; ..5;::' .::?ti.. ..4 ;.,Ti:. '??:::' n :•.t:•;;:::; : ;?�c�.�••;••:4:4..:.�4}:..i::.:..�.;:::>s:>.::::;:::::>::;>::s»:: y u a. ....... .:.4:::•. 01 I. - roY m Hw aro P. roa 10P• roa roa roa ###Eroa —0 � rr r•Ci b O @ r• @ r• @ r• @ r- @ w m w `:. a?:<:>: @ P. t1 O a Pd a 100) rr 0 ro m Fl FJ N CDH rmi m m m m m p:?:: m m p rh 10H � m �!a @ G O wK wK wK wK wK F••K :#!!}•' �:`� wK m rt rt it a a C rt @ rr @ rt (p rt @ rr @ rt m :x #'!ft€< 's rt @ N K ED H x a '� K to m a ro rt rt rr rt rt rr Vis..#: :; rt p r m n ro n a P. rK 0H- nw nr- nw nw nr• k<:::;:: n w ro o @ K O Fl• 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 m rt O N4 0 p K ma ma ma ma ma ma W'••`•<<` ma m0 x � � � rom as � # >M:z;? 'Cf r .•���z>ro � H H @ 0 : 5''�T>i>> K O N K c4 0 0 0 0 ::::::<:•4,::t :>: rr :::: ::>::> O m m m r'7f m }1::'t'E::: 1 h rt 0 m a r a @ @ a ;:7l1s: :'• m MiL::<x2:;%::: m O p n Ef a *'`i f` hf::::::: r K 'C rr @ a < i .i}„> r :iii`:?i t>;:;: 0 X rt . .r a .4 ::t >:> a Cr p p ``?^;: ? w ;:}.: N"< to ro rt ”' "►VSs::>: m r `. ri .{; P) rom ro N K 03 0 tq 00 3 #;v#:;:i: t rr cr :@_ :: rt m K 0 o to i,' rr r•r ro m m P,a @ K :>::�l sy hG44 rt 0 #?s :'• H.m � n (D a F'-a m p f::i/Jj:�:?a m ro ti?s': ': a P,0 Fl m a Pi 0 to rr m @ a ti r• 4s> Vit.:. :;:;: 0 m rt if SSS:r r f% ro m roa €tx ► s': £ rt ro » m z x� a J K a rr @ r• w r• F. :: p3#>::: @ @ a k »> @ @ cr ;•:>:#f3>:<::: N C1 It Fh N a rt @ M ro ro K rt :cri:>:: o o :::>::>::>: @ r@ :a:rx:>:: � rt b n 1:11 n P. iQ w2::22:i r K O 0 0 :(»!::r!3:s> r £ rrEO r! s @i3 is p o 10i:j 0 rr ii II 1 2 . 5 (a) THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on March 8 . 1994 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Smith, Bishop, Torlakson and Powers NOES: None ABSENT: Supervisor McPeak ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: Report On Proposed Tree Ordinance On March 1,1994 , the Board of Supervisors introduced the tree preservation ordinance and requested the Community Development Director and the Director of building Inspection to review the components of the proposed ordinance in reference to schedule of notice, implementation, enforcement, and fee structure and to report to the Board on this date . Dennis Barry, Community Development Department, commented on the issues of implementation and establishment of fees . Val Alexeeff, Director of Growth Management and Economic Development Agency, commented on the scope of the ordinance and the issue of enforcement . Janet Cobb, 1212 Broadway, Suite 810, Oakland, representing the California Oak Foundation and the Board of Forestry, spoke in support of the proposed ordinance . Andrea Mackenzie, 2950 Peralta Oaks Court, Oakland, East Bay Regional Parks District, expressed support for the proposed ordinance . Chairman Powers advised the Board of the receipt of a letter dated March 8, 1994 from Theodore Osmundson, Chairman of the Urban Reforestation Task Force, requesting that the matter be held over for a later vote . Guy Bjerke, ' Building Industries Association, commented on the proposed ordinance and expressed a concern with an extra fee being added to the permits. Jim Gwerder, Citizens Land Alliance, advised that they had not had a chance to review the ordinance and he expressed concerns on issues including single family parcels and pruning. Supervisor Torlakson suggested that the issue of the single homeowner might be referred to the Internal Operations Committee . Supervisor Powers advised that he would not support the ordinance if it contained a fee for a permit to trim trees . Supervisor Bishop requested clarification on the part of the ordinance relative to pruning and trimming. Supervisor Smith commented that the ordinance is patterned on one enacted by the City of Martinez . Supervisor Powers suggested putting the matter over for consideration until the afternoon calendar. The Board continued the matter to the afternoon calendar. b i In the afternoon, Mr. Alexeeff responded to concerns that had been expressed that morning, commenting that the chief concern is the single family lot issue . Supervisor Bishop moved to adopt the ordinance as presented. Supervisor Powers suggested the addition of referring the matter to the Internal Operations Committee and to staff to work out the details of the administrative process . Mr. Westman advised that the Board could make the effective date more than thirty days from the date of adoption. Supervisor Powers concurred with six weeks . IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that Ordinance 94-22 on Oak and Indigenous Tree Protection and Preservation is ADOPTED as amended; and the issues of concern are REFERRED to the Internal Operations Committee and Community Development Department staff . I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Su sorathe date shown. ATTESTED: (,L , V- I U i PHIL BA CHELOR,cleric of the Board o upervi nd County Administrator O By A I Deouty Orig. Dept . : Clerk of the Board cc : Community Development Department County Counsel Internal Operations Committee I • PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN PROVISIONS FOR THE PROTECTION OF OAK WOODLANDS GOAL: Oak trees , oak woodlands , and associated habitats have intrinsic aesthetic, environmental , ecological, wildlife and economic values . Therefore, the conservation of oak dominated landscapes is important to the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the city/county . (Woodlands are defined as lands on which there is tree cover of 100 , and oak woodlands exist where the majority of the trees are of the genus Quercus . ) The city/county finds that it is necessary to enact general plan policies and implement ordinances to protect the oak habitats from unnecessary damage, removal or destruction. The city/county also finds that it is necessary to take actions to encourage the planting of native oak trees where appropriate to enhance or restore damaged or degraded oak woodland habitats and mitigate unavoidable losses . Additionally, the city/county must educate landowners and the general public about oak woodland ecological values . POLICIES : 1 . Protect, to the maximum extent possible, the diversity of oak woodlands and associated habitats (defined as lands on which the majority of the trees are of the genus Quercus) through site design and use regulations . 2 . Reduce in scale, redesign, modify, or if no other alternative exists , deny any project which cannot sufficiently mitigate significant adverse impacts to oak woodlands . 3 . Encourage property owners to establish Open Space Easements or deed restrictions for areas containing oak woodlands , and allow access to enable scientific study . 4 . Encourage concentration of development on minimum number of acres (density exemptions) in exchange for maximizing long term open space . 5 . As a mitigation option, allow as a condition of development approval , restoration of any area of oak woodland which is in a degraded condition, with the magnitude of restoration commensurate with the scope of the project which may include planting of native oak trees, removal of non-native or invasive species on appropriate sites with consideration for long term viability, management and protection, and/or modification of existing land uses . The object of habitat restoration shall be to enhance the functional capacity and biological productivity of the oak woodland and to restore it to a condition where it can be self-sustaining through natural occurrences such as fire, natural hydrological processes, etc . ACTIONS : 1 . The Planning Department shall inventory the land in the city/county to determine thelocation of the oak woodlands . City/county actions shall be guided' by a no net loss of oak woodlands . The inventory shall include the type of oak woodland habitats using the classification system of the California Wildlife Habitat Relationships system (WHR) (Mayer and Laudenslayei 1988) available from the California Department of Fish and Game . The inventory shall break down the habitat types using the WHR canopy cover classes and indicate total acres of each oak woodland type by each cover class found in the city/county . 2 . Any project (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21065) proposed for oak woodlands shall be specifically analyzed for ways in which the development affects oak woodlands and their attendant ecological , economic, and aesthetic values . The placement of proposed roads and structures shall avoid oak trees and their drip lines . City/county planners and the project proponent shall consider transferring density, creating parcels with unusual lot line configurations, placing roads within lot boundaries, and other creative design techniques to avoid impacts to oak woodlands . 3 . After consulting with citizens, natural resource specialists or ecologists , the Planning Department shall annually report to the city/county on the status and condition of oak woodlands in the city/county . This may be accomplished through a citizen advisory board. The Department shall recommend any actions it believes are necessary to maintain and/or improve the status and condition of oak woodlands in the city/county . 4 . The city/county shall develop and distribute information to residents on at least the following subjects : the appropriate native oak trees to plant for particular locations; the proper planting and care of oak trees; the identification of oak tree diseases; the barriers to oak tree regeneration; and the values of oak trees . In developing and distributing this information, the city/county arborist, forester , planner or other representative can seek assistance from the agricultural commissioner , U.C . Cooperative Extension, the county or regional parks department and . local representatives of state resource management agencies . 5 . The Parks Department will evaluate oak woodlands in the city/county and identify sites which should be acquired for public open space because of their recreation and natural values . A mitigation plan will be, developed for each city/county to preserve current species . 6 . Encourage policies to maintain privately owned oak woodlands as a cost -effective conservation strategy . COFjc7/1/94 r DRAFT POLICY RESOLUTION FOR OAK WOODLANDS CONSERVATION WHEREAS, oak trees (genus Quercus) and oak woodlands have intrinsic aesthetic, environmental and ecological values , and WHEREAS, the preservation of oak woodlands is important to the health, safety, welfare, and economic health of the community, and WHEREAS, it is necessary to enact general plan policies and implement ordinances to protect oak trees and oak woodlands from unnecessary damage, removal or destruction, and WHEREAS, it is also necessary to encourage planting of native oak trees as appropriate to restore oak woodlands and mitigate unavoidable loss of genus Quercus . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, (name of governmental jurisdiction) hereby establishes the following policies as part of its (general plan, master plan, planning, acquisition and resource management guidelines) : - -Woodlands on which the majority of trees are oaks are to be protected to the maximum extent possible through site design and use regulations . - -Any project which cannot significantly mitigate adverse impacts to oak woodlands will be reduced in scale, redesigned, modified, or , if no other alternative exists , denied a permit . - -Property owners are encouraged to establish open space easements or deed restrictions for areas containing oak woodlands , and allow access for scientific study . - -Land divisions in oak woodlands are allowed only at densities compatible with protection of the resources as determined by environmental assessment . - -As a condition of development approval , restoration is required of any oak woodland which is in a degraded condition, with the magnitude of restoration to be commensurate with the scope of the project . This may include planting of native oaks , removal of non-native or invasive species , and/or modification of existing land uses . The objective of restoration shall be to enhance the functional capacity and biological productivity of the oak woodland to make it self-sustaining through natural processes . ,+ , 4w BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the (name of agency) (department - planning, resources , parks) shall inventory the land in the (jurisdiction) to determine location of oak f woodlands , using the classification system of the California wildlife Habitat Relationships . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that any project (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21065) proposed for oak woodlands shall be specifically analyzed for ways in which the development affects oak woodlands and their ecological , economic and aesthetic values . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that after consulting with a citizen (advisory board, tree council or other related group) , the (planning, resource management or other pertinent department assigned) shall annually report to the (jurisdiction) on the status and condition of its oak woodlands, including any recommended actions it believes are necessary . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the (jurisdiction) arborist shall develop and distribute information to residents on appropriate planting of native oak trees, and information on compatible plants, proper maintenance methods, identification of oak tree diseases and treatments , as well as the values of oak trees to the community . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the (department) will evaluate oak woodlands in the (jurisdiction) and identify sites which should be acquired or otherwise preserved through conservation easements , dedications , and mitigation agreements for public open space, because of their natural and recreational enhancement values . Moved by (name and title) , seconded by (name and title) , and approved this (day) , (month) , (year) by the following vote : FOR : AGAINST : ABSTAIN: ABSENT : r �1 1 CALIFORNIA OAK FOUNDATION Our'miss on is to protect and perpetuate native oak woodlands. .k. i AMY].LARSON Executive Director 1212 BROADWAY SUITE 810 OAKLAND,CA 44612 TEL: 510 763 0282 FAX: 510 834 3741 r U r„ .4 To: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors From: CCCo Farm Bureau Subj : Contra Costa County Tree ordinance (3/8/94) Honorable Supervisors: The subject ordinance was learned of in Contra Costa Times (3/9/94 page 3A) and is of particular concern to some of our livestock producer members. As you are fully aware, a debate rages across the U. S. over the Constitutional right of private landowners versus the right of government to regulate lands for public good, the issue of private property rights is a high priority to agriculturalists . The challenge facing farmers and ranchers is to make full use of their lands and do it in the best possible manner . Present and potential governmental regulatory actions . threatening U. S. farming interests include wetlands , endangered species , open space, recreational trails , etc . Private property owners are faced with the burden and costs of government decisions which go far beyond public health and safety requirements . We are concerned with the far- reaching effects of the subject ordinance in this regard. Range management programs , within the scope of ASCS and SCS practices (as well as independent programs taken by ranchers) include thinning of trees , including oaks , but especially buckeye and other brush-like species , to meet the objectives of better grazing , improved forage production, reduction of silting and sedimentation and more recently in the control and reduction of "non-point" source pollution. Removal of trees , to the benefit of greater forage, is but .one of the tool's employed in these programs . In the past , the exclusion of agriculturalists in the process of developing a suitable ordinance, has lead to the presentation of flawed and/or unrealistic proposals for "tree preservation" in the county . This most recent is no exception. Thisordinanceignores the needs and responsibilities of ranchers to comply with other State and Federal mandates in the above mentioned regulatory actions . Currently-, there are programs under the auspices of the California Board of Forestry, which has been sponsoring workshops , and a co- operative effort between the Agronomy and Range Science To: Inter-11al Operaliow; Contra Cotn-d:} Board of Sup-olvisors From: Louis E. Ginochlo, Sp(.A-,(_-person for COC'O Far-Fri Bureau Stibj: Tree Protection and Pre,eo,;!'R'on Ordini'mce 'The subjec( ot-dinance has becri ro-lered to your committee for review and clarification. I call your at-Umition to -a 1--9_ter, fi-n.,n Contra Cos-la. County Farin Bureau (tui dated dr-aft Copy, provided ) vAiich rcqijc-s*ked, that the ordinance be 41 amended to EXEMPT privately-owned rangelands, which pose no threat to tree: preservation in Contra Costa Couniy, from the permit and requlatoi-y aspects of this regulation." This his request for exemption was primarily for the exemption of Rangeland Management Practices which are designed -for enhariccment of the forage and ull-imatcly lthv. productivity of 1.11-ic-so lands in the pasturing of livestock. The recommendation you are COnSider-ing to&�v -from the Community Developmont Department d,-,M,:,Cd JUlY 1. 1994- contains same jpvc.oposeld modifications fol- the ordinance_ itis requested that. tine Itern 2- Fire Trails, Rangeland Management, be fudher expanded to specifically include "thinning and clearing" as a part of rangeland management practices as pointed out in our letter regarding UM USDA proposaki ;teat are forthc orning. Additionally,. the statement under (5) --"Exempted activities -do not include harvesting of wood for resale"- tends to limit the usz nif vv. ilhat may have been collected/harvested incidental to 11.1he !-angelarid management practice employed. In these instances, the sale of ihc wood (rather than controlled burn under pt-n-mil"for brush a.rid lend clef.iring permitted by BAACD a.nu, fire to the r�_7kngeland improvement practice, 9,enle-rates only limited amount of return to partially Off!3,et 'Zile Cost of doing 'he managumervit pr;--ict.ice and should NOT "T"Y'R f]CF,r, 1i to reqiiiiiennei-a 410;r (A Dept , UCD and Soil Conservation Service , USDA which is developing a "Rangeland Watershed Program" as a portion of its series on "Management Practices for California's Privately Owned' Rangelands" . These are but two of the regulatory and advisory bodies under which private owners must operate. The most recent working "draft" of the above noted UCD/SCS dated 3 November 93 , contains suggested practice for the accomplishment of stated goals which include "thinning" and "clearing" . Respected specialists with long experience and knowledge such as Dr. James Claussen, (an author in this paper) have contributed much to the viability of rangeland improvement in California. As the acreage of privately owned rangeland diminishes , due mostly to takings for park and open space purposes , n.o_t_ homebuilding and development , the need for better utilization and productivity of the remaining lands is more important than ever to the private livestock producer . It is requested that the ordinance you passed on March 8 , 1994 be amended to EXEMET_ privately-owned rangelands , which pose no threat to tree preservation in Contra Costa County, from the permit and regulatory aspects of this regulation. Yours truly , President 2 Bd/SUpervlsors P; EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO. 1989-9-288 September 5 1989 APPROVAL OF TREE MANAGEMENT POLICY WHEREAS, the General Manager and staff have recommended adoption of a Tree Management Policy presented to the Board on September 5, 1989, which describes the system and procedures to be used by the District in identifying and managing trees within recreation and staging units of the District's parklands; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board adopts the attached Tree Management Policy and authorizes its implementation within lands owned and operated by the East Bay Regional Park District. Moved by Director Ted Radke , seconded by Director James H. Duncan and adopted this 5th day of September, 1989 by the following vote: FOR: Directors Jocelyn Combs, James H. Duncan, Mary Lee Jefferds, Harlan Kessel, Kay Petersen, Ted Radke AGAINST: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Director John O'Donnell CERTIFICATION 1,Debra L. Wrobleski.Secretary to the Board of Directors of the bast day Regional Park District,do hereby certify thot the above and foregoing is a full. true and correct copy ofResoiution 1989-9-288 adopted by the Board of Directors ata nquiar meeting held on September�5,,, 1989 r .- EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT TREE MANAGEMENT POLICY September 5, 1989 Background The Park District is responsible for several hundred thousand trees found in its natural forests, planted groves; and landscaped areas. Trees are a vital part of our natural park ecosystems, and are particularly important for shading and screening in high use recreational units and staging areas. The District is dedicated to the principle that native parkland trees will be left in their natural condition and will not be "managed" on an individual tree-by-tree basis. Nonetheless, the District concurrently recognizes that trees are not permanent features of the landscape, and that reasonable management of trees, particularly in developed park areas, will be necessary to sustain their health and to identify and correct problems that might result in tree failure, visitor injury, or property damage. Tree Management Policies The following policies will guide the District in protecting its natural forests, as well as managing trees in designated developed public use areas throughout the District. 1. The Operations and Interpretation Department will prepare a photo or computer map for each regional parkland designating tree areas according to the zoning classifications listed below. This classification program will be used as the zoning system to determine the level of management that will be appropriate for specific trees. Policies in the District's Master Plan, a park's adopted Land Use Plan, or management prescription for a designated species, ecosystem, or unit will also be followed and incorporated in the written prescriptions as they apply to specific park trees and forest areas. In general, trees in categories a., b., and c. will not be managed but will be left in their natural condition with written prescriptions developed to preserve and protect their natural qualities. Category d. and e. trees will be managed to achieve identified goals with plans and prescriptions developed to achieve the desired results. Classifications a. Natural environmental unit b. Special protection unit c. Educational 'resources unit d. Special management unit e. Recreation or staging unit 2. The Operations and Interpretation Department will initiate and maintain a conscientious and systematic program of tree inspections within designated recreation and staging units (category e.) for the purpose of identifying and Tree Management Policy - September 5 1989 Page 2 correcting tree problems in these developed, public use areas. The inspection program serves three major purposes. The first is to identify in a timely manner, problems that are weakening the tree(s), making required corrections to keep park trees healthy and vigorous. The second is to identify and eliminate conditions that would result in tree failure, thereby preventing injury to the tree itself, park visitors, or damage to property. The third is to provide documentation for tree maintenance work as well as removal of potential tree hazards required for a safe park environment. The AGM for Operations and Interpretation will be responsible for implementing the tree inspection program which will involve the following components: a. Park Supervisors or trained Operations employees will conduct annual (February/April) inspections of category e. trees using an aerial photo or other map for designating trees with problems within high use areas. Suspected problem trees will be marked with a small disc and number. Park Supervisors and selected employees will receive training sufficient to accomplish the initial annual inspection task. b. The District's Arborist (an employee or consultant), along with Park Supervisor, will conduct an annual pre-season (prior to May 31) inspection of any newly identified problem trees to jointly develop recommendations for correction or removal. Their recommendations will be submitted to the Chief of Park Operations. c. The District's Arborist will be responsible for the personal bi-annual inspection of all pre-identified category e. high risk trees. To include, as a minimum: all eucalyptus.and Monterey pine trees or forests over 50 years of age, all trees over 50' in height with developed park facilities within their range of failure, all trees in public use areas over 50' in height that have a history of dropping large limbs or exhibit known failure tendencies. Priority shall be given to the following park areas: Kennedy Grove picnic area, Tilden's eucalyptus forest areas overhanging developed facilities, Anthony Chabot's eucalyptus forest areas overhanging developed facilities, Del Valle campground, Point Pinole's eucalyptus forest areas overhanging developed facilities,Crown's matured pine stands, all eucalyptus trees over 50' in height which overhang private residences, or public roadways. Recommendations for correction or removal will be prepared and submitted to the Chief of Park Operations for his review and approval by August 31 of each year. d. Identified high risk trees that fail should be reported to the Chief of Park Operations who will dispatch either the Arborist or an 0&1 management employee to conduct an on-the-spot inspection before the tree is removed to Tree Management Oolicy - September 5, 1989 Page 3 document the actual cause(s) of the failure. If injury or property damage occurs, the call to the Chief of Park Operations should be immediate. 3. The District will implement a tree removal review process to ensure that a recommendation to remove trees is justified and that the appropriate individuals and involved parties`, been informed and consulted. Park Supervisors currently have the authorityto remove, for good cause, individual trees that are not unique, are not nest sites for raptors, or are not a special feature in the park landscape. Damaged, dead,, high risk trees, and trees that are in the way of Board-approved park development may also be removed by a Park Supervisor. The Chief of Park Operations will 'request an annual budget allocation to pay for tree pruning or removal which is beyond the scope of a local park's capabilities. The District will use a review process to make the decision to remove a unique tree or group of trees. The following steps shall be taken by the Park Supervisor to obtain the required authority to proceed: Step #1. The joint recommendation of the Park Supervisor and Arborist will be presented by the appropriate Unit Manager at a Friday 0&1 staff meeting, where a Go/No-Go decision will be considered. If a "Go" decision is agreed to, and further review is not required, permission will be given by the AGM of Operations and Interpretation. If further review and consultation is required, a list of individuals or parties to be contacted will be given to the Unit Manager for follow-up. Step #2. Following a reasonable consultation period, the matter will be scheduled for the next Friday Parklands/Operations staff meeting where the next Go/No-Go decision will be made. If a "Go" decision is agreed to and the matter is within the General Manager's authority (e.g., compliance with CEOA or Board approval are not needed), permission will be given. If Board action is required, an agenda item will be prepared for the next Board meeting. Step #3. The Board will make a final Go/No-Go decision. 4. The District, within recreation and staging units, will initiate a planned program to replace non-native trees which have demonstrated high failure rates with native trees or in the event natives are not appropriate, with non-native species of more suitable qualities. The Conversion of individual trees or small groupings of trees will be accomplished using the procedures outlined in the above removal policy. In certain situations, it may be feasible to relocate public facilities, and save the trees with minor pruning and shaping. The District will use the parkland planning process for deciding how to proceed for tree areas beyon"d the scope of the tree removal process. As each parkland Land Use Plan is prepared or revised, District staff will develop a proposal and action plan for high use or staging areas for converting identified high risk tree and forest areas to species more compatible with concentrated public use. Following approval of the Tree Management Policy - September 5 1989 Page 4 LUDP/EIR, the AGMs for the Parklands/Operations groups will develop a plan to accomplish the conversion process. 5. The District will undertake a conscious planting program to replace removed or lost trees within recreation and staging units. The Chief of Park Operations will be responsible for replacing trees which are lost or removed from all recreational use and staging areas. For areas where irrigation is possible and planting plans exist, trees will be purchased in 5 to 15 gallon containers and replanted. If irrigation is not available or a plan has not been prepared, Design will be contacted to provide the necessary planting plan and specifications. The Chief of Park Operations will request an annual base budget allocation to pay for the re-planting program. 6. The plan and prescription for trees (principally mature eucalyptus and pines) in the special management units, category d., will be developed during the specific Land Use Plan/EIR process for the involved park. The Park Supervisor will use the same removal review process as outlined in Section 3 regarding questions of implementation. TMP.Sep89 NTRA COSTA-ALAMEDA COUNTY CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION 5554 CLAYTON ROAD,CONCORD,CALIFORNIA 94521 (415)672-5115 PIECE ED April 5, 1994 APR CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS To: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors TCOSTA CO- L-IC From: Contra Costa/Alameda County Cattlemen' s Assn. Subject: Contra Costa County Tree Ordinance Dear Members of the Board of Supervisors : The Cattlemen' s Association learned of the above ordinance in an article printed in the Contra Costa Times on March 9, 1994 and it is of great concern to many of our members . 10, At the present time there is a great deal of debate over the Constitutional right of private landowners versus the right of the government ,, to regulate lands for public good, and this issue is of vital concern to farmers and ranchers . Most farmers and ranchers make every effort to make full Use of their land and do it in the best possible manner. In the past , the exclusion of farmers and ranchers in the developing process of an acceptable ordinance, has lead to the development of flawed and unrealistic proposals for "tree preservation" in this county. This new ordinance is certainly no exception. We strongly urge that amendments be made in the ordinance passed on March 8, 1994 to exempt privately owned rangelands , which pose no threat to tree preservation in Contra Costa County, from the permit and regulatory aspect of this regulation . Sincerely, Cletus Gravette, President CONTRA COSTA/ALAMEDA COUNTY CATTLEMEN' S ASSN. CG: ss Q,6 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS .;-— CONTRA COSTA COUNTY oi• rill�ii�t� , TOM POWERS y••�� ti��O SUPERVISOR,FIRST DISTRICT co C� Sp4_CUPt March 30, 1994 To: I.O. Committee From: Tom Powers, District One Supervis Re: Tree Ordinance As I expected the tree ordinance has met with much public resistance. Most significantly it is seen as both another tax and bureaucratic overkill. strongly recommend the I.O. Committee limit this application to heritage Oak Trees above 20 inches in diameter. cc: Vic Westman, County Counsel Phil Batchelor, County Administrator Val Alexeeff, GMEDA CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RECEIVED MAR 31 igg4 s OFFICE OF ° u fi-PHINISSTRAT017 100-37th STREET, ROOM 270 • RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA 9c44805-2136 • TELEPHONE(510)374-3231 FAX(510) 374-3429 March 12, 1994 Y7 Board of Supervisors Re: Tree Ordinance CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Dear Board of Supervisors: It was with alarm and concern that I read about your ill- conceived and Unconstitutional Tree Ordinance. I always believed our Constitution guaranteed us the freedom to own private property and to do what we want on our own property so long as we don' t infringe on the rights of others. What right does anybody else have to tell me what I can or cannot grow on my own . property? To take it to a ridiculous extreme, what right do you have to tell me what I must grow on my property?? I planted 98% of what is growing on .our property, and now the County is trying to tell us we can' t cut down a diseased tree without your permission and without paying $100.00 for the privilege of managing our own trees??? REALLY! ! ! Have you re- written the Constitution in order to raise more money? If your real purpose i.s to protect the native oak trees, why are you approving ridgeline and hill development which destroys many of these trees? You should also consider that it is not safe to have these trees over-hanging a house, because their limbs often snap off and the whole tree could crash down, as our oak did . The only practical way to preserve the native trees, grasses and flora is through designated open space, preserves, parks, and plantings in public areas and along public streets. . The trees that homeowners plant in their own yards are usually not native species, so why should you include them under the guise of preserving native trees? if you really want to encourage homeowners to plant native species ( for their preservation and for conserving water) , it won' t work if you attach restrictions and charge fees and require bureaucratic permission to cut down a tree. Homeowners are capable of deciding when a tree should come down for whatever reason-- whether the tree is diseased , rotting, dying, a hazard , or even if it is shading the vegetable garden too much. The homeowner should not owe the County any amount of money for cutting down a tree on their own property, nor should they have to ask permission. This is an infringement on our personal liberty and our right to the enjoyment of our own property, and should be challenged in Court. Please use your elected power to protect the hills and ridgelines instead of trying to tell homeowners how to manage their own trees in their own yards, most of which they planted themselves. �L4/(lAM --- - -- - . . Yours Truly, Florence Lanam v J Tying Impact Mitigation Requirements to Local General Plans Robert A. Johnston Mary E. Madison Published 1994 by Elsevier Science Publishing Company,Inc. ENVIRON IMPACT ASSESS REV 1994;14:61-74 61 MANAGING THE EIA PROCESS TYING IMPACT MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS TO LOCAL GENERAL PLANS Robert A.Johnston and Mary E. Madison University of California,Davis We review the assessment of impacts to hardwood grassland habitats by counties in California and find that the process is uneven and unreliable. We recommend legislative changes that would require the local general plan to be strengthened by adding a habitat inventory and a set of protection priorities.These policies would then control the adoption of mitigation measures in impact reports.This procedure should increase habitat protection and also speed up assessments in complex situations. Introduction The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) states that " . . . public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there,are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available . . . which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects."I The identification and implementation of mitigation measures is one of the most important issues facing local officials attempting to balance demands for growth with the requirements of CEQA.The identification of effective mitigation measures by local agencies under CEQA is difficult partly because these agencies lack technical expertise (Johnston and McCartney 1991) and partly because measures are determined on a project-by-project basis without comprehensive local guidelines. Presently, the California legislature is deluged with bills addressing the California Environmental Quality Act.' Proponents of the law are lobbying to lCal.Pub.Res.Code,section 21002(West's Cal.Codes Annotated,West Pub.Co.,St.Paul,MN). 2Cal.Pub.Res.Code,section 21000 et seq.(West's Cal.Codes Annotated,West Pub.Co.,St.Paul,MN). Address requests for reprints to:Robert A.Johnston,Division of Environmental Studies,University of California, Davis,CA 95616. ©1994 Elsevier Science Inc. 655 Avenue of the Americas,New York,NY 10010 0195-9255/94/$7.00 C2 ROBERT A.JOHNSTON AND MARY E.MADISON keep it intact while opposing interests seek to limit or expedite the environmental review required by the statute.3 Can efficiency in the environmental review process be increased without compromising the goals of CEQA?We propose that the environmental review process be strengthened and streamlined conjunctively through mandatory biological surveys at the county level along with habitat protection priorities determined by the county and guided by state standards. The Need to Base Mitigation on County Plans The identification of mitigation measures is generally not related to the larger natural systems being affected by the project. This can lead to inefficient and piecemeal resource protection.Moreover,CEQA requires that cumulative impacts be assessed.4 Cumulative impacts are defined as the impacts of closely related projects, past, present, and reasonably foreseeable (Remy et a]. 1989). Local agencies have generally had to develop assessments of cumulative impacts on an ad hoc basis for each project report,which is not only difficult but also costly. One response for local agencies would be to develop sufficient databases of environmental systems,projects approved,impacts,and mitigation measures,so that assessments of cumulative impacts could be made more systematically and efficiently. Studies by the National Research Council found that project-specific assessments are inadequate for identifying and managing cumulative impacts. The National Council recommended using regional databases and monitoring for more effective impact mitigation (Committee on the Applications of Ecological Theory to Environmental Problems 1986). In California,this problem of piecemeal mitigation has been acknowledged by the Governor's Growth Management Council. The Council recommended that "[t]he processes of planning and environmental analysis must be integrated" (Growth Management Council 1993). The Council urged better practice in the assessment of cumulative impacts and their mitigation and the use of regional impact significance criteria (Growth Management Council 1993). The Council also recommended that local general plans and their environmental impact reports (EIRs) both be much more detailed and that these EIRs address cumulative impacts in detail (Growth Management Council 1993). In this paper, we argue for the implementation of these ideas in the area of habitat mitigation by requiring counties to conduct habitat inventories and adopt habitat protection polices in their general plans.These policies would then direct decisions regarding habitat mitigation measures in project EIRs.We demonstrate the need for such policies by examining the regulation of hardwood habitats in the state in some detail. 3For a thorough review of the CEQA debate refer to the Spring 1993 issue of[wand Use Forum,published by the California Continuing Education of the Bar,Volume 2, Issue 2.The issue is devoted to the present legislation affecting CEQA and the pros and cons of CEQA in its present incarnation. 114 Cal.Code Reg.(Guidelines),section 15130(a)(Barclays 1990). TYING MITIGATION TO LOCAL GENERAL PLANS 63 Our research demonstrates the persistent use of subjective case-by-case decisions regarding habitat protection at the county level. California and federal agencies,on the other hand,are intending to perform large-scale assessments of biological resources under their jurisdictions. For these reasons,we believe that the California Legislature should require such surveys by counties.As a result,we drafted legislation that incorporates local planning concerns and develops a biological database appropriate for regional resource management at the county level. The database, accompanied by county priorities and state standards, provides the framework for habitat mitigation decisions in MRS. Such a foundation would expedite the environmental review process under CEQA, because EIR habitat sections could be tiered on the county habitat protection plan and EIR. Implementation would no longer be case-by-case,but would conform to county and statewide goals and priorities. Developers would gain greater certainty in the review process,because basic biological information would be already available for the region, and mitigation could be coordinated among all large developable parcels for more effective habitat protection. Legal History of Hardwood Regulation We focused our research on a specific habitat type to determine how counties approached environmental impact mitigation. We decided upon hardwood grasslands,because this plant community is among those most needing protection in California (Jones and Stokes 1989). An overview of the history of hardwood protection reveals that hardwood loss in California is rising, and effective protection has been lacking. Hardwood communities are especially important because these areas provide significant habitat for California's flora and fauna. The impacts of destroying hardwoods extend beyond tree loss to the loss of these dependent plant and animal species.An understanding of hardwood issues helps us to understand habitat issues in general. In-demonstrating weak and divergent local approaches used for hardwood habitat protection we show the need for coherent state measures to address habitat impacts in general. Hardwood Regulation by the State We reviewed state and federal legal mechanisms for habitat protection and found that most land protection tools do not apply to hardwoods or are not designed to address the loss of hardwood grasslands. Hardwoods have not been previously considered valuable as a commercial product and therefore have not been included in California's regulatory system governing timber harvesting. Historically, oak removal was publicly funded on rangelands from the 1940s to the 1970s through federal cost-sharing programs through what is now the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service. Such policies were advocated by the California Department of Forestry and by the University of California Extension advisors in order to increase range productivity(Hammon et al. 1988). 64 ROBERT A.JOHNSTON AND MARY E.MADISON Presently, forest practices in California are governed by the Z'berg- Nejedly Forest Practices Act of 1973(FPA).5 Under the FPA,the Board of Forestry(BOF) must adopt regulations "to assure the continuous growing and harvesting of commercial forest tree species and to protect the soil, air, fish and wildlife, and water resources. . .."6 This statute has been implemented by administrative regulations governing the preparation and review of timber harvest plans(THPs). THPs are subject to CEQA,pursuant to a 1976 court case,NRDC v.Arcata Nat'l Corp.,and therefore trigger the requirement for FIRS prior to adoption of a plan. Because hardwoods have never been categorized as a commercial species, however, they lie outside of the regulatory scheme in California that governs timber cutting. As a result, California BOF has come under increasing pressure from counties and agencies to designate hardwoods as a commercial species (California Department of Forestry 1988a;Hammon et al. 1988). The California Department of Fish and Game stated to BOF that hardwoods "provide critical habitat for many species of California's wildlife" and "excessive harvests" have resulted in "serious detrimental impacts on soil erosion, water quality, and fish and wildlife populations" (Kribbs 1986). In a memorandum to the BOF, the Attorney General's office stated that the "Forest Protection Act clearly extends to the regulation of hardwood harvesting" (Cunningham 1987). The memorandum noted that BOF could designate hardwoods as a commercial species and that any land "available for" and "capable of growing a crop"fulfilled the definition of timberland under the FPA. Therefore, if hardwoods would be harvested from such areas, this harvesting would qualify as timber operations as defined in the FPA(Cunningham 1987). The BOF has responded to the hardwood issues with more studies but no commercial species designation. BOF first organized a task force on hardwoods in 1981. This task force, the Study Committee on Policies for Forest Practice Regulation in California Hardwood Types, found that foothill and central coast woodlands were under increased pressure for urban and range use.The committee stated that there was potential to manage these hardwoods by BOF (Study Committee 1982).Shortly thereafter,an Interim Department of Forestry Director proposed emergency rules regarding hardwood retention to protect wildlife when a THP threatened to take approximately 1000 acres of black oak,but the rule was withdrawn prior to any hearings(Hammon et al. 1988). A second task force was created that issued a preliminary report in December of 1982. This new Hardwood Task Force recommended that BOF declare hardwoods a commercial species (California Hardwood Resource Task Force 1983), but BOF did not comment on the results. Instead, BOF has continued to study the issues through University of California research and through 'Cal.Pub.Res.Code,sections 4511-4517(West 1986). 'Cal.Pub.Res.Code,section 4551(West 1986). TYING MITIGATION TO LOCAL GENERAL PLANS E5 Cooperative Extension Service programs, and has sponsored seminars and symposiums to centralize the exchange of research (U.S. Forest Service 1986; 1990).In 1987 the BOF did adopt an interim nonregulatory policy for hardwoods pending further study (Hammon et al. 1988) and the BOF's policy statement stresses continued support of research(California Department of Forestry 1988a). Recently, BOF decided to "spearhead a campaign to educate" local leaders and landowners about hardwood preservation,and move toward legislative protection if the education program is unsuccessful(Mayer 1993). Hardwood Regulation by the Counties Because hardwoods are not regulated as a commercial species by the California Board of Forestry,there is no oversight except at the county level.To determine how counties are addressing hardwood issues,we surveyed 20 California county planning departments regarding hardwood habitat protection.The purpose of this survey was to find out how county planning agencies applied the existing laws to hardwood habitat protection,to explore the agencies'attitudes regarding CEQA's effectiveness for this purpose, and to discuss alternative methods of mitigating impacts on hardwood rangelands. Survey of Counties Methods Twenty-one counties were chosen to represent a broad cross-section of views.Of the 21 counties surveyed,only Stanislaus did not respond,so the results are drawn from the remaining 20 planning agencies. Counties were chosen based on their geography, abundance of hardwoods, and current regulatory practices. It was intended that the survey be representative of all of the bioregions of California. Some counties were chosen because of their more rigorous hardwood protection policies, whereas others were chosen because their hardwood policies were less developed. Through such a purposive sampling, it was hoped that the survey results would represent the divergent views throughout the state regarding habitat management and project mitigation. The survey questionnaire was mailed in mid-November, 1990, and follow-up calls began approximately ten days thereafter,continuing for approximately three weeks. The survey specified that the questions were for the planner's reference only and that the actual responses would be elicited over the telephone. The phone calls lasted from 20 minutes to one hour, depending upon the planner's availability and eagerness to discuss the questions. Despite the length of the survey(six pages),nearly all the planners were open to taking the time necessary to respond and were friendly and enthusiastic in their discussions. We also note that there may be some respondent inaccuracy,that the views of one planner may not necessarily reflect those of the entire department,and there is a subtle tendency for respondents to bias their responses in favor of the 66 ROBERT A.JOHNSTON AND MARY E.MADISON interviewer's position, which in this case was supporting the preservation of habitat lands. County Practices Regarding Hardwoods Based upon the survey responses,there is a need for more coherent management of our hardwood habitats in California.Rangeland conversion to agricultural use and the harvesting of hardwoods are not usually mitigated under CEQA,or even recognized as impacts in some counties.Over half of the counties surveyed said potential EIRs involving hardwood protection generally go out as negative declarations,meaning there was a finding of no significant impacts.This means overall,hardwood clearing is not being recognized as having an impact. When asked what factors promote impact mitigation in general,planners listed habitat values as.the number one factor,yet our results indicate that hardwood habitats are being lost because certain activities affecting them are unregulated. Most counties (13 of 20) do not have specific criteria for determining the significance of impacts to hardwoods or to hardwood habitats.Determinations are usually made on a case-by-case basis and factors weighed include the amount cut and the size of the trees involved. Many counties (nine)consider the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) comments to be an important factor regarding impacts to hardwoods and other impacts as well. This is important to note,because statewide policies may be effectively implemented through CDFG guidance documents since many counties already rely on this information. Comments from extension farm advisors were also a factor. Nine counties are designing hardwood/oak protection ordinances,and many of these would provide criteria for determining whether or not impacts are significant. Santa Barbara has developed an Environmental Thresholds Manual, under which the loss of a native tree may be considered a significant impact. Tuolumne has a County Wildlife Project Manual that provides detailed guidelines on mitigating impacts to wildlife habitats(Granholm 1987). County Practices Regarding Hardwood Habitats Counties tend to have more definite criteria for determining impacts to wildlife habitats generally,as opposed to hardwood areas specifically,although this too is frequently done on a case-by-case basis.Here especially,counties tend to look to CDFG for comments,as well as to specialists such as biological consultants and published state databases such as the Natural Diversity Database and Department of Fish and Game Deer Herd maps. Orange County is developing a Wildlife Geographic Information System in coordination with CDFG, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and San Diego County. This interaction provides a model for other jurisdictions. Our surveys exposed inconsistencies in how counties are approaching hardwood habitat protection. There is little networking of existing ideas among TYING MITIGATION TO LOCAL GENERAL PLANS 67 planning departments, and many planners expressed great interest in more education and coordination among involved agencies. Several counties have manuals and ordinances that could provide resources to other counties,yet there is no sharing of this information. The criticism that CEQA mitigation is piecemeal was supported by the divergent county practices we encountered throughout the survey. Only three counties,Shasta, San Luis Obispo, and Santa Cruz,have any kind of forest management plan for the county,and Mendocino is negotiating with BOF on new county guidelines. Most counties do not have areas designated as open space specifically for hardwoods, although four do (Riverside, San Diego, Sacramento, and Los Angeles). Fifteen counties have areas designated for open space lands or easements, but hardwoods are incidentally, not specifically, targeted for protection in these areas.Eleven counties were familiar with Habitat Conserva- tion Plans under the Federal Endangered Species Act,but few were familiar with CDFG's Ranching for Wildlife program. County Attitudes Regarding Proposed State Legislation We asked the planners about our general ideas for state legislation tying mitigation to county plan data and policies for habitat protection.We emphasized that more off-site mitigation would surely result from such county policies.Some counties felt they could better protect areas with state guidelines to follow, as opposed to creating policy first at the county level.Planners expressed distrust of their county's ability to create and enforce strong guidelines,due to the political forces that would oppose strong protection measures or additional fee requirements. With state-mandated policies that were structured to allow variation in each county's approach, counties felt they could create individual plans to protect these resources. Los Angeles said that a state program would provide needed additional leverage to protect resources, and Orange echoed this, adding that the state needed to develop priorities about where no development should be allowed. Monterey wanted state guidelines and fewer or narrower CEQA exemptions. Shasta and Santa Cruz wanted to see state guidelines of no net habitat loss,and TLlare and Nevada wanted some state guidance for planners'with the counties answering to the state to ensure compliance. Mendocino suggested a state habitat preservation statute patterned after the Forest Practices Act,but with more emphasis on enforcement.Such a statute would target specific species with clear, enforceable standards and thresholds, and would give weight to state agency comments, such as CDFG's. Sonoma, Santa Cruz,and San Luis Obispo wanted something similar to the use of timber protection zones(TPZ). If areas fell outside of TPZs,San Luis Obispo suggested that counties be mandated to preserve lands in a way similar to wetlands preservation, where there is also a no-loss policy.Monterey was leery of any approach similar to TPZs because it took 68 ROBERT A.JOHNSTON AND MARY E.MADISON too much staff time and the county would be hostage to the state's wishes as its policies would have to meet with state approval. Sacramento and Riverside emphasized cooperative agreements between owners and agencies'to encourage market incentives for preservation.They also recommended agreements between state and federal agencies themselves. Riverside has a multispecies plan that coordinates efforts among federal, state, and county agencies. Riverside said counties would benefit from knowing how state and federal lands are administered and that jurisdictions lack expert guidance to get regional policy overviews, so that policy applications are not consistent,and key regulatory elements are sometimes omitted. San Diego, Santa Barbara, and Fresno emphasized the need for protection against cutting firewood, and Santa Barbara wanted regional boards governing different habitat zones.Shasta wanted regional carrying capacities for population, whereas Orange wanted regional habitat maps and felt their Geographic Information System was a step in the right direction. Twelve counties were receptive to revising their general plan conservation elements to include a habitat survey and habitat protection policies, four would consider doing this under limited circumstances, and four were opposed to the idea. Of the 12 counties open to this idea,Tuolumne, Los Angeles, and Orange have done a similar kind of revision already. Of the four conditional "yes" answers, Riverside suggested that it would be necessary to look at all species,because in looking at only certain species or areas, other values are lost.Monterey would agree only if the state was prepared to pay, and the policy revisions were subject to local approval only.Kem does not want a new element but would consider revising the existing conservation element. Ventura would consider this if state guidelines were in place. Conclusions from the County Survey Our survey revealed several problems with county habitat management. The conversion of hardwood grasslands to agricultural use and the harvesting of hardwoods are not usually mitigated under CEQA,or even recognized as impacts in some counties. Over half of the counties said such conversions are generally treated as negative declarations. However, habitat value was the highest rated reason for requiring mitigation in general in these counties.It is apparent that the conversion of hardwood rangelands was not controlled in accordance with general county priorities in most of the counties. What protection did exist for hardwoods or for such habitats was generally piecemeal.Counties did not benefit from systematic data and policies or even from good ideas in other counties. Mitigation was on a case-by-case basis and relied on state agencies for advice. Recent Changes at the State and Federal Levels Many recent actions at the state and federal levels make it increasingly necessary TYING MITIGATION TO LOCAL GENERAL PLANS 69 for counties to have better habitat data and more coherent,defensible protection policies. California Memorandum of Understanding to Preserve Biodiversity In October 1991,directors of California natural resources agencies and of similar federal agency field offices in California signed a Memorandum of Understand- ing (MOU) in an effort to preserve California's remaining biodiversity.? Under the MOU, there exists a State Executive Biodiversity Council, separate Bioregional Councils for California's designated watersheds,and Watershed and Landscape Associations within each of the bioregions. Technical panels are to i, provide scientific support at the state, regional, and watershed levels. The bioregional approach under the MOU is a voluntary one,with agencies executing similar memoranda within their own organizations. Under the MOU, the Biodiversity Council sets goals for biological diversity, creates guidelines and standards to meet these goals, helps coordinate the scientific data necessary to most effectively understand and document the issues, and coordinates local and regional groups to implement research and protection strategies. Emphasis is placed on the coordination of federal, state, and local agencies in gathering and organizing the necessary biological and land use information. The council has already begun to implement the policies and principles of the MOU through the encouragement of regional councils in areas such as the Klamath River Basins Federal Concern for Habitat Protection In March 1993,Bruce Babbitt,the Secretary of the Interior,announced plans for a National Biological Survey(NBS)consolidating research and survey activities of eight federal agencies: the Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Minerals Management Service, the Office of Surface Minerals, the Geologic Survey,and the Bureau of Mines(Babbitt 1993).Among the goals of the NBS is ""Memorandum of Understanding: California's Coordinated Regional Strategy To Conserve Biological Diversity"(September 19,1991).The signatories were as follows:California Secretary of Resources,California State Director of the United States Bureau of Land Management,Director of California Department of Fish and Game,Regional Forester of the Pacific Southwest Region of the United States Forest Service,the Director of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection,the Regional Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service,the Director of the California Department of Parks and Recreation,the Regional Director of the Western Region of the United States National Park Service, the Executive Director of the California State Lands Commission, the Vice President of the Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources for the University of California. sThe Klamath Bioregion Project has been initiated by the California Timberland Task Force to coordinate resource conservation activities in northwestern California.The California Resources Agency,the Bureau of Land Management,and the U.S. Forest Service are sponsoring this project and have contracted with the California Institute of Public Affairs to create an outreach effort in this region.Similar efforts are reflected in such meetings as the Sierra Summit held in Sacramento,CA August 7-9, 1992.Minutes of the Sierra Summit are available from Environment Now,24955 Pacific Coast Highway,Suite C-201,Malibu,CA 90265. 70 ROBERT A.JOHNSTON AND MARY E.MADISON giving"land and resource managers more timely,objective scientific information essential for decision-making" thus avoiding conflicts such as those involved in several past Endangered Species Act crises (United States Department of the Interior 1993). Already these kinds of cooperative efforts have been applied in Southern California after the federal government listed the California Gnatcatcher as threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act. Instead of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service halting development on Gnatcatcher habitat,as is required under the act,California Governor Pete Wilson proposed a cooperative solution allowing continued development under the coordinated supervision of an alliance of developers, state and local government planners,biologists, and environmen- talists who would develop regional habitat protection plans(Reinhold 1993;Cone 1993;Hofer 1992). Recommended State Legislation Proposed Plant Community and Wildlife Habitat Legislation After reviewing our research results and examining the recommendations and actions of state and federal agencies,we drafted habitat protection legislation that incorporated the concerns of the county planners surveyed and would provide the needed data to preserve habitat diversity in California.Planners were wary of new laws that would increase the demands on their financial resources,so the_logical approach was to implement a habitat protection plan through an existing statute, such as the Local Planning Act. Such an approach would not disrupt existing protection mechanisms, but enhance them, allowing a standardized procedure with substantive flexibility for each county. Our strategy is to have counties set mandatory habitat protection policies in their general plans and use those policies to control the CEQA habitat mitigation process. Such a policy framework would permit the mitigation of cumulative impacts, replacing the piecemeal on-site project mitigation process now used. Because management practices on private wildlands are largely implemented through counties, we suggest that for successful protection of biodiversity in California, standardized practices need to be incorporated into county general- plans. Our intent is to require counties to create enforceable Plant and Wildlife Habitat Protection Plans without too many substantive requirements.These plans are state-funded($12 million).9 The General Plan component is tied to CEQA and requires an implementation analysis. Guidelines are to be adopted by the State Resources Agency.Many of our ideas come from the Tuolumne County Wildlife 9Recognizing the current fiscal situation in California, we remain open to alternative methods of front-end financial support for habitat inventory.Such options may include funding districts similar to those used to provide education.The challenge is to accurately estimate the costs so counties are recouping the true value of their time by charging mitigation fees through the mitigation process later,based on the habitat inventory and guidelines. TYING MITIGATION TO LOCAL GENERAL PLANS 71 Handbook (Granholm 1987) and from our interviews with the county planners. The full text can be found in our project report to the California Department of Forestry (Johnston and Madison 1991). Policy We recognize that there is a critical need to protect all habitats important to state and federally listed plants and animals.There is a deficit of coordinated biological surveys allowing counties to inventory existing resources. Such an inventory is necessary for implementing effective mitigation and determining thresholds of significance. With a resource database and protection policies in place, the developer gains more certainty in the review process while the preservationist is assured that standards have been set and must be met before development occurs. The signing of the MOU by the state and federal agencies signifies an effort to address resource needs on a bioregional basis instead of addressing a single species at a time. An awareness of the usefulness of this approach sets the foundation for integrated approaches to restoration and mitigation. Such goals require greater communication among all parties involved in resource manage- ment and a sharing of existing knowledge,which our survey demonstrates is both needed and wanted by. the counties. The recommended inventory enhances decision-making regarding the impacts of development"and the standardized biological language helps different counties within the same bioregion coordinate a geographic examination of their resources. Agencies can share management efforts for more efficient resource protection while expediting the development and mitigation process. Implementation The legislation requires that each county add a Plant Community and Wildlife Habitat Component to the existing Conservation Element of their General Plan by a specified date. The inventory applies to only private lands not incorporated in cities,although utilizing information from federal and state agencies is encouraged. Funding is supplied from the state so long as the component is completed by a specified date. Funding is based on a fixed amount plus additional monies per square mile of private land. The component must be designed by biologists and consider comments by CDFG, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the Natural Diversity Database,and the California Native Plant Society. An environmental impact report will be prepared on the component and be funded by the state, if completed by a specified date. If the component is submitted and approved by the CDFG,impacts complying with the component and EIR will be considered insignificant under CEQA. Subsequent revisions will require additional comments by CDFG.Any addition of a state or federally listed species would be an amendment to the component and require approval by CDFG. 72 ROBERT A.JOHNSTON AND MARY E.MADISON All unincorporated land would be inventoried and categorized according to five defined area types, referencing definitions from CDFG's Wildlife Habitat Relations guide (California Department of Forestry 1988b) and the Preliminary Description of Terrestrial Natural Communities of California (Holland 1986). Priority categories for plant and habitat protection are listed, using the defined area types, including goals and permissible uses within those areas. Guidelines for mapping criteria,reference files,and distribution files are also included. The county would draft-an Action Plan implementing the inventory and consequent land use policies. The legislation discusses various restoration and mitigation alternatives including off- site mitigation, transferable development credits, and land banking programs with permanent enforceable restrictions. Guidelines with greater specificity would be drafted by the county to address the use of these and other suggested programs. The Legislature would establish a Plant Community and Wildlife Habitat Program in the State Resources Agency to reimburse counties for the preparation costs in preparing the new component and EIR. This fund would also provide money to CDFG for commenting on these components. Additional State Legislative Changes Needed In addition to adding the Habitat Component to the general plan, we found that there are several other areas in the law which must be strengthened to improve habitat protection under CEQA. If mitigation is to be effective,certain activities need to be defined as "projects" to trigger CEQA review. We also recommend the revising of other statutes that have significant effects on habitat protection in California. We recommend changes regarding the definition of "project" in CEQA to include parcel splits, agricultural conversion from dry grazing to cropland, and hardwood harvesting.These are all activities that are usually not subject to CEQA and that cumulatively have substantial impacts on biodiversity in California. The BOF should define hardwood species as a commercial species, so that Timber Harvest Plans are done and environmental impacts are evaluated and considered. We also recommend the strengthening of California's Native Plant Protection Act.A narrowing of existing exemptions,including the exemptions for agricultural clearing and Timber Harvest Plans,plus stronger policy language and enforcement mechanisms could make this act much more useful in plant community preservation. Additionally, large-scale protection plans similar to HCPs under the Federal Endangered Species Act should be encouraged under the California Endangered Species Act. Conclusions All of these statutory changes are needed to help fulfill the habitat protection needs of counties, the objectives of CEQA, and the goals of the Biodiversity TYING MITIGATION TO LOCAL GENERAL PLANS 73 Council.The Council,by starting a process for protecting habitats using existing California statutes,makes us question whether these statutes are adequate for the task.Our survey of California law and of county practices revealed weaknesses in these laws. The Legislature should remedy these weaknesses in the various underlying statutes. These statutory changes will improve habitat protection and reduce the cost of project review. We thank the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection for its support of this research. Bob Ewing,head of the Forest and Range Resource Assessment program,was invaluable with his advice and encouragement. References Babbitt,B.United States Secretary of the Interior. 1993.Memorandum to the President regarding establishing the National Biological Survey at the Department of the Interior. U.S.Department of the Interior,Washington,DC.April 1, 1993. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection,FRRAP Division. 1988a.Forests and Rangelands:Growing Conflict Over Changing Uses.Sacramento,CA. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 1988b.K.E.Mayer and W.F. Laudenslayer,Jr.(eds). 1988b.A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California.Sacramento, CA. California Hardwood Resource Task Force. 1983.Preliminary Report of the Hardwood Task Force.Sacramento,CA: California Department of Forestry. Committee on the Applications of Ecological Theory to Environmental Problems. 1986. Ecological Knowledge and Environmental Problem Solving:Concepts and Case Studies.Washington,DC: National Academy of Sciences. Cone,M. 1993.U.S.Declares Gnatcatcher to be a Threatened Species,Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles,March 26, 1993,p.A1,col.5. Cunningham,W.D. 1987.California Deputy Attorney General. 1/26/87.Memorandum to Harold Walt,Chairman of the Board of Forestry.Sacramento,CA. Granholm,S. 1987.Wildlife Handbook: Tuolumne County Wildlife Inventory and Evaluation Project.Prepared for Tuolumne County Planning Department.(Sonora, CA).Holton Associates,Berkeley,CA. Growth Management Council of California. 1993.Strategic Growth:Taking Charge of the Future,A Blueprint for California.Report to Governor Wilson.Sacramento,CA: Governor's Office of Planning and Research. Hammon,Jenson,Wallen,and associates. 1988. The Legal Environment for Hardwood Land Ownership in California.Prepared for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection,FRRAP Division.Sacramento,CA. Hofer,G. 1992.A bird in the bush needs a hand.Aqueduct 58:12.Metropolitan Water Dist. of So.Calif.,Los Angeles,CA. 74 ROBERT A.JOHNSTON AND MARY E.MADISON Holland,R.F. 1986.Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California.Sacramento,CA: California Department of Fish and Game. Johnston,R.,and McCartney,W. 1991.Local government implementation of mitigation requirements under the California Environmental Quality Act.Environmental Impact Assessment Review 11:53-67. Johnston,R.,and Madison,M. 1991.Planning for Habitat Protection in California:State Policies and County Actions to Implement CEQA Through Improved General Plans. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection,FRRAP Division,Sacramento, CA. Jones and Stokes Associates,Inc.and Freeman,Sullivan&Company. 1989.A Pilot Study to Identify Habitat Protection Priorities and Develop a Geographic Information System to Evaluate Wildlife Species Richness in California.California Department of Forestry, FRRAP Division.Sacramento,CA. Kribbs,H.C. 1986.Executive Secretary of the California Fish and Game Division.Letter to Dean Cromwell,Executive Officer of the Board of Forestry,Sacramento,CA. October 7. Mayer,J. 1993.Save Oaks Voluntarily or Face Tough Rules,State Wams.Sacramento Bee,Sacramento,May.6, 1993,p.B1,col. 1. Remy,M.H.,Thomas,T.A.,Duggan,S.E.,and Moose,J.G. 1989.Guide to the California Environmental Quality Act.Pt.Arena,CA: Solano Press. Reinhold,R. 1993.U.S.Acts to Save Home of Rare Bird.New York Times,New York, March 26, 1993,p.A 11,col.6. Study Committee on Policies for Forest Practices Regulation in California Hardwood Types. 1982.Forest Practice Regulation in California Hardwood Types:Report of the Study Committee to the State Board of Forestry.Sacramento,CA:California Department of Forestry. United States Department of the Interior,Office of the Secretary. 1993.Memorandum to Secretaries of Agriculture,Commerce,Defense,Energy,State,Transportation,and the Cabinet;the Directors of the Office of Management and Budget,the Office of Science and Technology Policy,the Smithsonian Institution,and the Office of Environmental Policy;the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency;and the President of the National Academy of Sciences,regarding the creation of the National Biological Survey.Washington,DC March 17, 1993. United States Forest Service,Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 1986.Proceedings of the Symposium on Multiple-Use Management of California's Hardwood Resources.Berkeley,CA. United States Forest Service,Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 1990.Proceedings of the Symposium on Oak Woodlands and Hardwood Rangeland Management.Berkeley,CA.