The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07-02-2019 Item 09 - Tree Ordinance Amendment Department Name: Public Works Cost Center: For Agenda of: July 2, 2019 Placement: Public Hearing Estimated Time: 60 Minutes FROM: Daryl Grigsby, Public Works Director SUBJECT: ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO TREE REMOVAL REPORT-IN-BRIEF As Council is aware, staff is updating the Tree Regulations Ordinance to address ongoing challenges with the order of review that have been raised over the last several years. These challenges have created some confusion and tension as it relates to development projects as well as establishing more objective criteria for reviewing tree removal applications. This Ordinance has been discussed at the Tree Committee on December 11, 2017, February 25, 2019, and May 20, 2019 and is scheduled for a final review at the regularly scheduled Tree Committee meeting on Monday, June 24th. Staff intends to then summarize the Tree Committee recommendations from that meeting into the Council Agenda Report for the July 2nd City Council meeting and provide an ordinance for Council consideration. The implication of timing of the Tree Committee’s review is that the Council Agenda Report for this item will be published on Wednesday, June 26th. This will be one day later than the publication date for all the other items for the July 2nd City Council meeting. Packet Pg. 175 Item 9 Page intentionally left blank. Packet Pg. 176 Item 9 RECEIVED JUN 2 4 2019 SLO CITY CLFRK 1010 Marsh St., San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 546-8208 + FAX (805) 546-8641 PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015.5 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, County of San Luis Obispo, I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party interested in the above entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of the New Times, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published weekly in the City of San Luis Obispo, County of San Luis Obispo, and which has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, under the date of February 5, 1993, Case number C.V72789: that notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to -wit: —So yu- zo in the year 2019. I certify (or declare) under the the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at San Luis Obispo, California, this day Z10 of -�JYIC , 2019. Patricia Horton, New Times Legals \,Iniin x PununalhNTMO Ad.,iMyrMri 0111—BUS(NLS.S/Puhlir Nh Proof of Publication of SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING The San Luis Obispo City Council invites all interested persons to attend a public meeting on Tuesday, July 2, 2019, at 6:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chamber, 990 Pifm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, relative to the following: • Introduce an Ordinance and adopt a Resolution to Adopt and Implement Recommended Updates to the Los Osos Valley Road Subarea Traffic Impact Fee Program to reflect current growth assumptions and remaining costs. • Adopt a Resolution updating the Citywide Traffic Impact Fee Program to reflect current growth assumptions and current project cost estimates. For more information, you are invited to contact Jake Hudson of the City's Public Works Department at (805) 781-7255 or by email at jhudson®slocity.org. • Introduce an Ordinance amending the Municipal Code' related to Tree Removals. (Section 12.24 030, 12.24 090, and 12,24.180) For more information, you are invited to contact Matt Horn of the City's Public Works Department at (805) 781-7191 or by email at mhorn®slocity.org. The City Council may also discuss other hearings or business items before or after the items listed above. If you challenge the proposed projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearings. Reports for this meeting will be available for review in the City Clerk's Office and online at www.slocity.org on Wednesday, June 26, 2019. Please call the City Clerk's Office at (805) 781- 7100 for more information. The City Council meeting will be televised live on Charter Cable Channel 20 and live streaming on www,slocityorg. Teresa Purrington, City Clerk City of San Luis Obispo June 20, 2019 Department Name: Public Works Cost Center: 5001 For Agenda of: July 2, 2019 Placement: Public Hearing Estimated Time: 60 Minutes FROM: Daryl Grigsby, Director of Public Works Prepared By: Matt Horn, Deputy Director of Public Works Victoria Tonikian, Management Fellow SUBJECT: ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 12.24.030 AND REPLACING SECTIONS 12.24.090 AND 12.24.180 OF THE CITY’S MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO TREE REMOVAL RECOMMENDATION 1. Review and provide direction on proposed amendments to Section 12.24.030 and replacement of Sections 12.24.090 and 12.24.180 of the City’s Municipal Code relating to Tree Removal as recommended by the Tree Committee. 2. Alternatively, if the ordinance is acceptable to Council in currently proposed form, introduce the Ordinance for adoption. REPORT-IN-BRIEF Chapter 12.24 of the City of San Luis Obispo’s Municipal Code outlines the City’s tree regulations, including those related to tree removal. The City has experienced difficulty in administering the tree removal regulations, and has observed consistent public frustration regarding lack of clarity as to the appropriate timing of input from and role of the Tree Committee, especially as it relates the role of the Committee in the development review process for projects that require tree removals. The City’s current regulations related to tree removals are inconsistent, unclear, and lack functional criteria for evaluating tree removal requests. To better understand the need and issues related to these inconsistencies, City staff has worked with the Tree Committee to identify areas within the Municipal Code that can be amended to better serve members of the public that are applying for tree removal permits and to coordinate the City’s tree regulations with recent modifications to City development review processes. City staff has met with the Tree Committee on three different occasions (December 11, 2017; February 25, 2019; and June 24, 2019) to receive input and recommendations for changes to the Municipal Code that would better serve their committee. During these meetings, members of the public also expressed their recommendations and staff has reflected the consensus recommendations from the Tree Committee’s discussions into amendments to Section 12.24.030 Item 9 Item-9, pg. 1 (Definitions), and replacement of Section 12.24.090 (Tree Removals) and Section 12.24.180 (Appeals) of the City’s Municipal Code. Staff is requesting the City Council to review and provide direction to staff on the proposed changes and, if acceptable, for the Council to adopt an ordinance amending the City’s Municipal Code. DISCUSSION Chapter 12.24 of the City of San Luis Obispo’s Municipal Code outlines the City’s tree regulations. Due to observed lack of clarity in current regulations and feedback received from the Tree Committee and community, revisions to the City’s tree regulations are currently recommended. Recommended Amendments to the City’s Tree Ordinance The City’s existing tree regulations include limited and highly subjective standards that have proven to be challenging in guiding and clearly defining the rationale behind tree removal decisions. The current standards that the Tree Committee can use to either approve or deny the removal of a tree are outlined below (SLOMC 12.24.090(E)(2): a. The tree is causing undue hardship to the property owner. Normal routine maintenance does not constitute a hardship, i.e., cleaning of gutters, leaf raking, pruning or root intrusion into a failed sewer lateral, etc.; or b. Removing the tree promotes good arboricultural practice; or c. Removing the tree will not harm the character or environment of the surrounding neighborhood. The current criteria outlined above are subjective due to the lack of definition or direction to guide findings of what constitutes an “undue hardship”, “good arboricultural practice”, or “harm to the character or environment of the surrounding neighborhood.”. The Tree Committee requested greater clarity, rationale and objective standards to provide the basis for and guide the Tree Committee in making their decisions. Additionally, staff received feedback from the Tree Committee, the City Attorney’s Office, City Council, and other staff involved in the development review process regarding the challenges that the current Municipal Code posed. Specifically, one of the focal points of concern is the scope and timing of the Tree Committee’s involvement where tree removal is a component of a project where architectural review is required for the underlying development. Decisions regarding these specific tree removal requests are currently made by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) without any formal input by the Tree Committee. The Tree Committee only considers such tree removal applications if the City Arborist recommends a denial of the tree removal request and the ARC approves the projects, which sometimes places the tree committee in the untenable position of reviewing tree removal requests on which proposed development relies only after the completion of the otherwise required discretionary entitlement (design) process, rather than at a stage where their input could have been considered by the project applicant, staff and the ARC prior to the consideration of complete project entitlements and potentially incorporated into a modified Item 9 Item-9, pg. 2 project design. The City’s current tree removal regulations both confusingly conflate and artificially segregate the tree removal decision and the discretionary project design approval. The language that creates the circumstance and has raised frustrations with both project applicants and individuals objecting to tree removals is found in SLOMC Section 12.24.090.(E)(2)(c), shown below: c. If architectural review is required for the development, the architectural review commission shall approve or deny the application: i. If the city arborist has recommended denying the application and the architectural review commission has approved the application, the tree committee shall review the architectural review commission’s decision; ii. If the tree committee concurs with the city arborist’s recommendation to deny the application when the architectural review commission has approved the application, the City Council shall review the matter for the final action. The language as currently drafted is internally inconsistent to the extent that it both suggests that the ARC can “approve” an application against the Arborist’s recommendation (which suggests ARC will take final action as to both the tree removal request and the final design approval), but then suggests that the Tree Committee can effectively overturn the ARC’s design approval, requiring the City Council to review the entire application for final action. The goal in amending and replacing sections of the Municipal Code related to tree removals is to have a defined process outlined in the City’s code that will provide further guidance to staff and a greater level of predictability to applicants when processing a project that includes any tree removal components. The proposed changes attempt to provide tree committee input on tree removal requests prior to final development approvals so that permits are issued, or discretionary approvals are granted informed by consideration of both the tree committee’s recommendations and the broader context of all applicable City building and development standards. With these concerns in mind, city staff examined the current Municipal Code and examined areas where amendments could be made to both create more objective standards for the advisory body to use when considering a tree removal application and to align the tree removal regulations with other applicable construction permitting and development review processes and standards. BACKGROUND Community Conversations on Existing Tree Regulations As highlighted above, there are a multitude of concerns surrounding the City’s current Municipal Code related to tree removals. In addition to the subjectivity and inconsistencies related to tree removals and development projects, city staff began to identify amendments that could be made to create more concise and consistent criteria and processes for community members, the Tree Committee and the City Arborist in applying for and reviewing tree removal applications. City staff has taken this item to the Tree Committee for review on three separate occasions, requesting feedback from the Committee members and the community. The summaries of these meetings are listed below and the minutes for each of these meetings have been attached. Item 9 Item-9, pg. 3 December 11, 2017 Tree Committee Study Session (Attachment A) On December 11, 2017 staff requested feedback on the City’s existing tree regulations from the Tree Committee and community at a regularly scheduled Tree Committee meeting. At this meeting, a multitude of recommendations were made to amend the City’s Municipal Code related to trees. The following thoughts and concerns were received: 1. The City’s existing tree removal process is inconsistent. 2. There was general concern about losing tree canopy with changes to the tree regulations. 3. Development applications should be reviewed by staff with a background in urban forestry. 4. The Tree Committee meets once a month and there was concern that a larger volume of tree removal requests would be burdensome to the Tree Committee and community. 5. There is a need to increase education of City Staff and the community on the existing tree regulations. 6. Tree removal requests that are received after a project is underway are challenging to handle within the existing tree regulations framework. 7. The Tree Committee would rather review tree removal applications before other permits or project entitlements are issued by the City. 8. A low number of tree removal requests on a parcel of land that has a high number of trees should be considered differently than a low number of tree removal requests on a parcel of land that has a low number of trees. 9. Additional resources should be provided annually to the City Arborist in order to allow for more new tree plantings. Noted below are observations by staff at the December 11, 2017, Tree Committee meeting while the Committee deliberated on tree removal requests: 1. Should the City Arborist have increased authority to approve tree removal requests when an existing tree has a structural deficit? 2. Would providing standard tree removal compensatory planting help the Tree Committee’s determination and provide community baseline expectations of a tree removal? 3. Should the City Arborist have increased authority to authorize tree removal requests when the tree is afflicted by multiple conditions that will limit the tree’s lifespan such as both drought stress and pest infestation. 4. Should compensatory tree plantings above and beyond minimum compensatory planting requirements be considered when a tree removal request is under consideration? 5. Should the City’s tree removal applications and minimum required information of the applicant be revised to better handle multiple tree removal requests including notification to the applicants that each tree may be considered individually? February 25, 2019 Tree Committee Meeting – Draft Update to Tree Ordinance Presented for Input and Feedback (Attachment B) Following the study session staff took the community and committee input and assessed and Item 9 Item-9, pg. 4 evaluated how the City’s tree ordinance could be modified to address concerns as well as to address the HAA objectives. Staff provided a draft update to the Municipal Code and presented it at the regularly scheduled Tree Committee meeting on February 25, 2019. During this meeting, the Tree Committee and community members were provided with a legislative draft of Section 12.24.090 and Section 12.24.180 in the staff report (Attachment C) and given the opportunity to discuss and provide further recommendations. The additional feedback received during this meeting included the following: 1. The proposed changes to the Ordinance require other Advisory Bodies to make determinations on development related tree removals. The Tree Committee has historically had a member of the ARC on the committee to allow for greater Advisory Body cohesiveness. The Tree Committee recommends that other Advisory Bodies have members of the Tree Committee on their committees or require that some of those members have arboricultural backgrounds. 2. Provide some rationale to allow trees to be removed due to risk or unique hardship. 3. The original Ordinance included a stipulation that a Palm tree with a trunk diameter of 12” or less did not require a removal permit The Tree Committee recommended to retain this criterion. 4. Require the tree removal permit application to be complete prior to Tree Committee consideration and to disallow for subsequent information to be submitted after the agenda is posted. 5. Require that a photo log be submitted with the application that clearly shows the damage the tree is causing. 6. Require that trees that are not removed have a tree protection program. 7. Concern that if a tree is not granted a permit to be removed, it is then considered a significant tree and cannot be considered for removal in the future. 8. Better align the City Arborist’s ability to authorize removal of trees when the existing tree is blocking roadway sight distance and the need for tree removal due to trip and fall considerations. May 20, 2019 Tree Committee Meeting – Request for an Update from Staff (Attachment D) At the May 20, 2019 Regular Tree Committee meeting, an item was on the agenda to discuss the next steps regarding the Tree Ordinance update. There was not a staff report included with this item as it was primarily used to discuss the current status of the Municipal Code Amendments. During the Tree Committee’s discussion, it was requested that staff provide the Tree Committee an opportunity to review the updated proposed Tree Removal Ordinance that incorporated the Tree Committee’s February 25, 2019 feedback. Following these requests, staff presented these updates at the regularly scheduled Tree Committee meeting on June 24, 2019. June 24, 2019 Tree Committee Meeting – Presenting Updates to the Municipal Code (Attachment E) At the regularly scheduled Tree Committee meeting on June 24, 2019, staff presented the changes that were incorporated to the legislative draft of the Municipal Code reflecting Item 9 Item-9, pg. 5 recommendations that the Tree Committee made during the February 25, 2019 meeting. Of the eight recommendations that were presented during the February 25, 2019 meeting, seven were incorporated into the recommended Municipal Code language, which are highlighted below: Feedback Amendments 1. Provide some rationale to allow trees to be removed due to risk or unique hardship. Included in Section 12.24.090(E)(3) 2. Require the tree removal application to be complete prior to going to Tree Committee and do not allow for subsequent information to be sent in after the agenda is posted. Counter staff will be trained to require complete packets prior to the Tree Committee’s review. 3. Require a photo log with the application that shows the damage the tree is causing. Included in Section 12.24.090(D)(1)(b) 4. Require that trees that are not removed have a tree protection plan. Approving authority may include as a site- specific condition. Tree Removal Permit will require compliance with Engineering Standard Specification 77-1.03(A)(2) 5. Concern that if a tree is not granted a permit to be removed, it is then considered a significant tree and, in the future, it may not be granted a removal permit. Staff has removed the addition of ‘significant trees’ in Section 12.24.030. 6. Better align the City Arborist’s ability to remove vision triangle trees and trip and fall within Section G of the ordinance. Included in Section 12.24.090(G) 7. The Tree Committee recommends that other Advisory Bodies have members of the Tree Committee on the committees or require that some of those members have arboricultural backgrounds. Staff will present this recommendation to the City Council. This requirement would have to be included in the Advisory Body Handbook. 8. Require a permit to remove Palm Trees 12” DSH or greater. Included in Section 12.24.090(C)(1)(5) Item 9 Item-9, pg. 6 The Tree Committee engaged in a comprehensive section by section review of the most recently revised proposed ordinance and provided additional consensus feedback on the amendments, which has been reflected in Attachments F, the Draft Replacement of Section 12.24.090 and Section 12.24.180. The additional amendments included incorporating clarifying language, language for a tree protection plan, and adding size requirements for compensatory plantings. Changes to the Municipal Code Further discussion and review brought forth additional amendments that make the regulations clearer. Staff believes that the amendments to the Municipal Code are well -rounded and provide more clarity into what is required of an application for a tree removal, what the process for approval/denial entails, and what criteria will be used to determine approval or denial. Highlighted below are summaries to the changes that were made in the following three sections, 12.24.030, 12.24.090, and 12.24.180. Draft Section 12.24.030 Definitions Amendments After a thorough discussion about definitions that are currently not outlined in the City’s Municipal Code, but could bring the benefit of greater clarity, staff is recommending the addition of three definitions to Section 12.24.030. The recommended definitions of “public traffic”, “discretionary development permit” and “ministerial development permit” which were presented at the February 25, 2019, Tree Committee meeting have been amended following feedback from the Tree Committee and the City Attorney’s office. Staff believes the addition of these definitions will provide greater clarity and understanding to a variety of stakeholders including staff, advisory bodies, the City Council, and members of the public. The proposed definitions are listed below: 1. “Public Traffic” means all motorized vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, and personal mobility devices in and along the public right of way. 2. “Discretionary Development Permit” means a permit issued for any project which requires the exercise of judgment or deliberation by a public official to approve or disapprove an activity, as distinguished from merely determining whether there has been compliance with applicable laws or regulations. 3. “Ministerial Development Permit” means a construction or development permit required to be issued by the City upon confirmation that the project application meets minimum statutory or code requirements and other adopted, uniform standards, the review of which requires little or no personal judgment by the reviewing public official as to the wisdom or manner of carrying out the project, such as the review and issuance of most building permits. For purposes of this Chapter, the discretionary act of issuance of a tree removal permit does not redefine an otherwise Ministerial Development Permit into a Discretionary Development Permit. Item 9 Item-9, pg. 7 Staff believe that the addition of these definitions will provide greater clarity to the public and therefore recommends that they be incorporated into the Municipal Code. Draft Replacement of Section 12.24.090 Tree Removal (Attachment F) Tree Removal Criteria As stated above, the intent of amending this section of the current Municipal Code was to provide greater consistency and increase definition and clarity in the criteria that is used to determine whether a tree removal application will be approved or denied. The proposed changes include replacing the previously referenced, existing criteria with two different sets of criteria to used based on the type of permit application that is being applied for. For tree removal permit applications related to Section 12.24.090(E) – Criteria and Process for Non-Construction Related Tree Removal application determinations related to Tree Health or Hazard Mitigation or Property Owner Convenience, the following criteria is proposed (please reference Section 12.24.090(E) for the full recommended Municipal Code language): a. The tree is an imminent hazard to life or property, and removing it is the only feasible way to eliminate the hazard b. The tree is dead or dying or diseased or damaged beyond reclamation c. The tree’s roots are causing severe damage to public or private property, and removing the tree is the only feasible way to eliminate the damage d. The tree is affected by structural defects and/or deficiencies that will limit lifespan e. The tree is densely clustered amongst other trees and the requested tree removal promotes good arboricultural practice f. The tree is obstructing vision, access, or mobility or public traffic g. The requested tree removal is necessary to alleviate a demonstrated and ongoing maintenance burden for the property owner exceeding routine maintenance For tree removal permit applications related to Section 12.24.090(G) – Criteria for Construction Related Tree Removal Recommendation, the following criteria is proposed (please reference Section 12.24.090(G) for the full recommended Municipal Code language): 1. Size of tree. The scale of a tree shall be considered, as well as the size of the tree’s canopy. 2. Location of Tree on Private Property. The location of the t ree on private property shall be considered. 3. Species of Tree. Native trees shall have a higher preservation priority than non-native trees. 4. Forestry Best Practice. The number of healthy trees that a given parcel of land will support shall be considered. 5. Public Right-of-Way Sidewalk Displacement. The tree is obstructing vision, access, or mobility of public traffic. 6. Compliance with Compensatory Planting Requirements (outlined in Section 12.24.090(J) 7. Heritage Trees are prohibited from removal unless the City Arborist authorizes a tree Item 9 Item-9, pg. 8 removal upon finding that a tree removal would be related to tree health or hazard mitigation as outlined in Section 12.24.090(E)(1). The recommendation to utilize these two sets of criteria instead of the criteria that is currently in the Municipal Code is intended to create more objective standards. Additionally, certain development projects have highlighted the fact that the City’s tree removal regulations do not have any specific standards to determine when a tree removal request should be approved or denied related to development. Specifically, the “Tree Removal Not Related to Property Development” and “Tree Removal with a Development Permit” sections of the code do not specify any criteria by which to evaluate a removal (i.e. non-native or native, age, height, trunk diameter, health, reasonably anticipated life span, etc.) or any guidelines for staff to apply to balance the removal or preservation of trees against potentially competing development objectives. Due to the lack of specific standards, the proposed recommended replacement for Section 12.24.090 clearly identifies the specific standards (listed above). These standards have been reviewed by the Tree Committee, the Community Development Department, the Office of Sustainability, the Public Works Department, and the City Attorney who have found the standards straight forward and clear; they are outlined in subsection G of the recommended replacement of Section 12.24.090 (Attachment F). In addition to these revised removal criteria the process in which these criteria will be used is recommended for revision as well. Tree Removal Request Process Currently, the Tree Removal request process has been referred to as extremely confusing and procedurally illogical when tree removals are requested related to property development. Attachment G illustrates this current process and as outlined on Pages 2 and 3, the language is inconsistent and increases the likelihood of confusion when tree removals are being reviewed after other entitlements for a development project that relies on tree removals has been approved. To mitigate this problem, the Municipal Code language has been amended to provide a section titled: Process for Tree Removals Related to Ministerial or Discretionary Property Development Permits (including construction for disabled access) (12.24.090(F). The intent of this section is to clearly outline the different processes that will be followed related to tree removals based on the type of development permits that are under consideration. The following four process have been outlined in the draft Municipal Code Language (Attachment F): 1. Tree removal requests related to Ministerial Development Permits for the construction of single-family residences of accessory structure on R-1 or R-2 lots or for improvements necessary to accommodate access for a disabled resident of the property (“Minor Ministerial Development Permits”) 2. Tree removal requests related to Ministerial Development Permits 3. Tree removal requests related to any minor or moderate Discretionary Development Permit applications Item 9 Item-9, pg. 9 4. Tree removal requests related to any Discretionary Development Permit applications subject to Major Development Review/Tentative Tract Map/Conditional Use Permit Processes. In addition to providing these four different processes, additional language provides that construction permits will not be issues until any necessary Tree Removal permits have been approved and the time for appeals has expired. The inclusion of these new application processes is intended to mitigate many of the issues that have been raised due to tree removals related to property development. In combination with the criteria established and mentioned above, the outlined process is intended to be clearer for those applying for tree removal permits and the decision-making bodies who are reviewing these tree removal applications. Attachment H includes an infographic of the new proposed process for tree removals. Additional Amendments In addition to the stated concerns above, other sections have been amended and added to provide greater clarity to the City’s regulations related to tree removal. Additional sections that are proposed to be added to the current Municipal Code include: Application for a Tree Removal Permit and Compensatory Tree Planting. Lastly, virtually every subsection of Chapter 12.24.090 has been revised to include greater clarity and detail regarding proposed tree removals, the City’s standards for tree removals relating to permits for removal, permit not required, tree removal applications related to tree health, hazard mitigation, notifications of tree removals, expiration of appeals, and the City’s street and sidewalk maintenance program. These proposed changes have all been shown in the legislative draft of Chapter 12.24.090 of the Municipal Code in Attachment F. These recommended amendments were directly derived from the feedback and recommendations that were conveyed to staff during the December 11, 2017, February 25, 2019, and June 24, 2019 Tree Committee meetings. Draft Replacement of Section 12.24.180 (Attachment F) To create greater clarity regarding the appeals process outlined in Section 12.24.180, staff has included a chart that outlines the appeals process based on the removal application type, decision maker, and appeal body. This section directly mirrors Section 12.24.090(E), Criteria and Process for Tree Removal application determinations related to Tree Health or Hazard Mitigation and Section 12.24.090(F), Process for Tree Removals related to Ministerial or Discretionary Property Development Permits. The addition of this chart is to provide a better understanding as to how the appeals process is implemented based on the removal application type. Policy Context It is the general best practice for the City of San Luis Obispo to provide the most clear and concise regulations to benefit the community, staff, Advisory Bodies, and The City Council. Staff believes that amending the Municipal Code with the recommended amendments will not Item 9 Item-9, pg. 10 only provide more clarity to those applying for tree removal permits, but also clearer guidance and scope of authority for the City Arborist and the Tree Committee in determining whether a tree shall be recommended or permitted to be removed. Public Engagement This Ordinance amendment has been brought before the Tree Committee for review on December 11, 2017; February 25, 2019; and June 24, 2019. Each one of these meetings were properly noticed and provided community members the opportunity to propose recommendations for the Tree Committee to consider. Lastly, in the staff report and during the meeting for the June 24, 2019 Tree Committee meeting, staff stated that this item would be brought before the City Council on July 2, 2019 and they were encouraged to attend and share their recommendations with the City Council. CONCURRENCE Staff from the Community Development Department has been heavily involved in the recommended amendments and replacements of the Municipal Code. Additionally, the City’s Interim Deputy Director of the Office of Sustainability has reviewed the recommended amendments and replacements and has found them to be consistent with sustainable best practices. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed ordinance is exempt from the environmental review requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations because the proposed changes are clarifications and enhancements of existing, longstanding regulations relating solely to procedural requirements for the review of tree removal requests and it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant effect on the environment. Further, the ordinance is exempt from CEQA on the separate and independent ground that it is an action of the City for the protection of the environment because, among other things, it will enhance the process for Tree Committee review of removal requests, it will enhance the scope and quality of the information utilized in tree removal determinations, and it will require compensatory replacement of any trees approved for removal. Thus, the proposed ordinance is categorically exempt from the requirements of CEQA under Section 15308 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. FISCAL IMPACT Budgeted: No Budget Year: 2019-2020 Funding Identified: N/A There is no fiscal impact in amending the Municipal Code related to Tree Removals. Additional staff time may be required in the initial training and procedural change of updating the application requirements and ensuring that tree removal applications are complete. Staff has Item 9 Item-9, pg. 11 determined this to be minimal and the benefit of having these materials submitted at the same time likely will offset any additional staff time. ALTERNATIVES 1. The City Council could introduce an Ordinance (Attachment I) amending Section 12.24.030 and replacing Section 12.24.090 and 12.24.180 of the City’s Municipal Code relating to Tree Removal. 2. The City Council could direct that staff further update the Municipal Code related to Tree Removals by conveying that additional subsections need to be added, removed, or amended. 3. The City Council could direct staff to return to Tree Committee and/or other Advisory Bodies to receive further input on the amendments to the Municipal Code related to trees and then come back to the City Council. 4. The City Council could decide not to move forward with amending the Municipal Code related to trees. This is not recommended, as the current Municipal Code has not been found to be objective, clear, or concise. Additionally, there are many recommended updates that have been conveyed by the public, Advisory Bodies, and staff. Attachments: a - 12-11-2017 Tree Committee Minutes b - 02-25-2019 Tree Committee Minutes c - 02-25-2019 Tree Committee Staff Report d - May 20, 2019 Tree Committee Draft Minutes e - June 24, 2019 Tree Committee Staff Report f - Legistative Draft of Municipal Code Amendments g - Current Tree Removal Process h - Proposed Process for Tree Removals i - Ordinance Item 9 Item-9, pg. 12 Minutes TREE COMMITTEE Monday, December 11, 2017 Regular Meeting of the Tree Committee Commission CALL TO ORDER A Regular Meeting of the Tree Committee was called to order on Monday, December 11, 2017 at 5:03 p.m. in the Corporation Yard Conference Room, located at 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo, California, by Chair Scott Loosley. ROLL CALL Present: Alan Bate, Sean O’Brien, Ben Parker, Rodney Thurman, Jane Worthy, Chair Scott Loosley Absent: Angela Soll Staff: Ron Combs, City Arborist and Lisa Woske, Recording Secretary DISCUSSION: CHAPTER 12.24/SLO MUNICIPAL CODE Public Works Deputy Director Matt Horn discussed the municipal code that provides policies and regulations to govern installation, maintenance, and preservation of trees. He requested input from the public and the Committee as to better clarifying processes and addressing other needs and concerns in order to prepare a proposal to submit to Council for review and approval. Cheryl McLean, resident, felt that all developers should have to come before the Tree Committee when tree removals were involved. She was concerned about losing the urban forest and the trees that have already been lost and reiterated that developers should be treated similarly to residents in terms of tree removals. The Committee discussed various aspects and strongly felt that the process was inconsistent and that any removals at City staff levels should be reviewed by those with an arboricultural background and understanding of trees and further suggested a staff training They also discussed the possibility of creating a “tree fund” that could have donated funds in lieu of replacement plantings, when feasible. Item 9 Item-9, pg. 13 Minutes – Tree Committee Meeting of December 11, 2017 Page 2 Will Powers, did not feel palms should be on any replacement planting list, especially when fronds were not recyclable. He also felt that local government did not pay attention to community feedback and directions, e.g. tree removals, developments, traffic congestion. Francis Villablanca felt that palm trees should remain on replacement planting lists, noting that specific migrant birds next only in palms. The Committee agreed to forward additional comments to Mr. Horn via staff. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Dr. Powers discussed the need for a volunteer follow-up program to assist the City Arborist in ensuring that replacement plantings are in place and are being maintained. Bob Mourenza, resident, did not think deciduous trees in parking lots were a good idea as they often appear barren and look bad. CONSENT AGENDA CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES 1. Consideration of October 23, 2017 Minutes ACTION: MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER WORTHY, SECONDED BY COMMITTEE VICE CHAIR PARKER, to approve the October 23, 2017 minutes of the Tree Committee as submitted. Motion passed 6-0-1 on the following roll call vote: AYES: BATE, LOOSLEY, O’BRIEN, PARKER, THURMAN, WORTHY NOES: NONE ABSENT: SOLL PUBLIC HEARINGS BUSINESS ITEMS 2. Tree Removal Applications 1123 Coral (Modesto ash) Shane Bagnall, applicant, discussed the removal request, stating the tree was aging, diseased, in the wrong location and was negatively impacting the neighbor’s property. The leaves dropped excessively due to the disease and the sticky residue presented a hardship. Ron Combs stated he could not make the findings necessary to allow for removal. Item 9 Item-9, pg. 14 Minutes – Tree Committee Meeting of December 11, 2017 Page 3 Public Comments: Chair Loosley opened the public hearing. Dr. Powers felt the tree was healthy and did not favor removal. Chair Loosley closed the public hearing. Committee member Bate stated he needed to abstain due to a conflict of interest. The Committee discussed the structural issues with the tree. ACTION: MOTION BY COMMITTEE CHAIR LOOSLEY, SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR PARKER, to approve the removal based on promoting good arboricultural practice, requiring one 15-gallon trees to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of tree removal. Motion passed 5-0-1-1 on the following roll call vote: AYES: LOOSLEY, O’BRIEN, PARKER, THURMAN, WORTHY NOES: NONE ABSTAIN: BATE ABSENT: SOLL 3940 Poinsettia (Sycamore) James Overton, applicant, discussed the removal request and the accompanying arborist report findings, as well as noting that the neighbor’s foundation had cracks and that there was evidence of root damage. Mr. Combs stated he could not make his necessary findings to allow removal. Public Comments: Chair Loosley opened the public hearing. Dr. Powers felt the tree looked healthy and was well maintained and did not see any damage; he favored retaining the tree, noting it was a bird habitat. Chair Loosley closed the public hearing. The Committee did not see much evidence of hardscape damage and noted another tree in the area had an approved removal pending. They suggested root pruning and felt the other trees in the area were causing the foundation damage. Item 9 Item-9, pg. 15 Minutes – Tree Committee Meeting of December 11, 2017 Page 4 ACTION: MOTION BY COMMITTEE VICE CHAIR PARKER, SECONDED BY COMMITTEE MEMBER O’BRIEN, to deny the removal request as they could not make the necessary findings. Motion passed 6-0-1 on the following roll call vote: AYES: LOOSLEY, O’BRIEN, PARKER, THURMAN, WORTHY NOES: NONE ABSENT: SOLL 162 Del Norte (Pine) Mike Norby, applicant, discussed the removal request and was concerned about the dangerous lean the tree had towards the house – especially in windy conditions – and stated that the tree was too close to the cement wall. He noted that his property was heavily planted. Mr. Combs agreed with the concern about the lean, but stated he could not make his necessary findings for removal. Public Comments: Chair Loosley opened the public hearing. Dr. Powers felt it could be hazardous, due to being so dry and stressed. Chair Loosley closed the public hearing. The Committee discussed the item; most members noted the nearby oak would thrive if drought-stressed tree were removed and agreed it was too close to the house. ACTION: MOTION BY COMMITTEE CHAIR LOOSLEY, SECONDED BY COMMITTEE MEMBER O’BRIEN, to allow the removal based on removal would not harm the character of the neighborhood or environment, and requiring one 15-gallon Coast Live Oak to be donated to the City Tree bank. Motion passed 5-0-1-1 on the following roll call vote: AYES: LOOSLEY, O’BRIEN, PARKER, THURMAN, WORTHY NOES: NONE ABSTAIN: BATE ABSENT: SOLL Item 9 Item-9, pg. 16 Minutes – Tree Committee Meeting of December 11, 2017 Page 5 1161 Ella (3 pines) Francis Villablanca, applicant, discussed the removal request and the beetle damage and disease evident in the tree. He was also concerned about the tree growing over the house. Mr. Combs stated two of the trees were acceptable to be removed, but could not make his necessary findings for removal of the Aleppo pine. Public Comments: Chair Loosley opened the public hearing. Dr. Powers felt the tree could be removed. Chair Loosley closed the public hearing. Committee member Thurman stated he would be abstaining due to conflict of interest. The Committee discussed the item and the tree’s odd shape and most agreed it was a poor specimen. ACTION: MOTION BY COMMITTEE VICE CHAIR PARKER, SECONDED BY COMMITTEE CHAIR LOOSLEY, to allow the removal based on promoting good arboricultural practice and removal would not harm the character of the neighborhood or environment, and requiring three fruit trees to be planted within 45 days of tree removal. Motion passed 4-1-1-1 on the following roll call vote: AYES: LOOSLEY, O’BRIEN, PARKER, WORTHY NOES: BATE ABSTAIN: THURMAN ABSENT: SOLL 1342 Garden (4 ficus) Ron Rinell, applicant representative, discussed the removal request and stated the trees were out of scale for the area and were causing damage to the curb/gutter/sidewalk. Mr. Combs stated there was some hardscape damage, but could not make his necessary findings for removal. Item 9 Item-9, pg. 17 Minutes – Tree Committee Meeting of December 11, 2017 Page 6 Public Comments: Chair Loosley opened the public hearing. Dr. Powers felt one the trees could be removed and the rest could be maintained. Chair Loosley closed the public hearing. Committee member Worthy felt the trees were beautiful and favored retaining two and remove the two that were lifting the sidewalk. Committee member O’Brien discussed root-pruning options. ACTION: MOTION BY COMMITTEE VICE CHAIR PARKER, SECONDED BY COMMITTEE MEMBER THURMAN, to allow the removal based on promoting good arboricultural practice and requiring four 15-gallon trees to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of tree removals. Motion passed 4-2-1 on the following roll call vote: AYES: BATE, LOOSLEY, PARKER, THURMAN NOES: O’BRIEN, WORTHY ABSENT: SOLL 630 Perkins Lane (Monterey pine) Pete Barclay, applicant, discussed the removal request, noting maintenance issues and past limb drop. He felt the tree was diseased and that the many trees surrounding would thrive with the pine’s removal. Mr. Combs stated the tree was in fair health, but could not make his necessary findings for removal. Public Comments: Chair Loosley opened the public hearing. Dr. Powers felt the tree was dry and dangerous and should be removed. Chair Loosley closed the public hearing. The Committee discussed the item and agreed that there was not much evidence of disease and that drought-stressed trees needed to be maintained. Item 9 Item-9, pg. 18 Minutes – Tree Committee Meeting of December 11, 2017 Page 7 ACTION: MOTION BY COMMITTEE VICE CHAIR PARKER, SECONDED BY COMMITTEE MEMBER BATE, to deny the removal request, as they could not make the findings necessary to allow removal. Motion passed 6-0-1 on the following roll call vote: AYES: BATE, LOOSLEY, O’BRIEN, PARKER, THURMAN, WORTHY NOES: NONE ABSENT: SOLL 902 Peach (Eucalyptus) There was no applicant to speak to the item. 668 Serrano (6 eucalyptus) Ron Rinell, applicant representative, discussed the removal request and stated the trees in the area had many failures and had been approved for removal and that these trees posed hazards and presented bird-dropping issues. Mr. Combs stated he could not make his necessary findings for removal. Public Comments: Chair Loosley opened the public hearing. Bob Mourenza, resident, stated the trees were highly visible and were healthy skyline trees that were not too close to structures. Ms. McLean felt bird habitats are important and that too many trees had been lost in the area. She felt the healthy trees were good for the carbon footprint. Pam Racouillat, resident, agreed with the public comments and suggested maintenance instead of removal. She felt removal would harm the character of the neighborhood. Jodie Volver, resident, agreed with previous comments and did not favor removal. Dr. Powers favored retaining the trees. Chair Loosley closed the public hearing. Item 9 Item-9, pg. 19 Minutes – Tree Committee Meeting of December 11, 2017 Page 8 The Committee discussed the item and felt the six trees needed to be addressed individually. They did not feel the application was complete in terms of diagramming which trees were in question and wanted an arboricultural assessment provided for the trees. The Committee agreed to continue the item until the application diagram was complete and an assessment of each tree could be provided. 945 West St. (5 Canary Island pines) Lois Gaines, applicant, discussed the removal request and felt the trees were too tall for the area and was very concerned about failure in high winds. Mr. Combs reported the trees were approximately 30 years old and would get larger. He stated he could not make his necessary findings for removal. Steve Franzman, applicant’s representative, noted that he had seen the trees significantly sway and lift soil in high winds. Public Comments: Chair Loosley opened the public hearing. Dr. Powers felt the trees were healthy and did not favor removal. Chair Loosley closed the public hearing. Committee member Bate stated he needed to abstain because he hadn’t had a chance to view the trees. The Committee discussed the item and agreed that they were skyline trees and did not believe winds would topple them. They noted that the trees had plenty of room to grow and that removing them would be a significant expenditure. ACTION: MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER O’BRIEN, SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR PARKER, to deny the removal request, as they could not make the findings necessary to allow removal. Motion passed 5-0-1-1 on the following roll call vote: AYES: LOOSLEY, O’BRIEN, PARKER, THURMAN, WORTHY NOES: NONE ABSTAIN: BATE ABSENT: SOLL Item 9 Item-9, pg. 20 Minutes – Tree Committee Meeting of December 11, 2017 Page 9 939 Skyline (Canary Island pine) John Gilbert, applicant, discussed the removal request and stated that the tree presented a hazard, the roots were damaging the drain and was concerned about the nearby utility box lines. He said roots had lifted the driveway and presented a trip hazard and that root pruning was not an option. He noted that the tree also significantly obscured his view and that properties in the immediate area were designated as top-view homes. Mr. Combs agreed the tree was close to infrastructure, but could not make his necessary findings for removal. Public Comments: Chair Loosley opened the public hearing. Dr. Powers understood the view obstruction issue but was inclined to favor retaining the tree. Jack Girolo, neighbor, felt the size of the tree was out of scale with the cul-de- sac neighborhood and would keep growing and stated that his view was obstructed as well. Chair Loosley closed the public hearing. Committee member Bate did not favor removing the tree. The rest of the Committee discussed the item and agreed that the drought- stressed tree was crowding utilities, was planted in poor soil and noted there was evidence of hardscape damage. They felt a smaller species would be more appropriate to area. ACTION: MOTION BY COMMITTEE VICE CHAIR PARKER, SECONDED BY COMMITTEE MEMBER THURMAN, to allow the removal based on promoting good arboricultural practice and that doing so would not harm the character of the neighborhood or environment, requiring one 15-gallon tree to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of tree removal. Motion passed 5-1-1 on the following roll call vote: AYES: LOOSLEY, O’BRIEN, PARKER, THURMAN, WORTHY NOES: BATE ABSENT: SOLL Item 9 Item-9, pg. 21 Minutes – Tree Committee Meeting of December 11, 2017 Page 10 Madonna Plaza (16 trees) Steve Franzman, applicant’s representative, discussed the removal request and project. He outlined root issues and concrete and asphalt uplifting, noting that eucalyptus were not options for root pruning. He distributed a removal/replacement plan, noting a combination of 15-gallon and 24” box replacement trees. Mr. Combs stated he brought the item to committee because the project was large-scale. The Committee discussed bulb-outs and meandering sidewalks and increasing planting areas to avoid “lollipop” tree plantings, e.g. 8’x8’ areas. They wanted more detailed information on what space would be available for planting re a reconfigured planting area, as well as repair work proposed. The Committee agreed to continue the item and requested the applicant provide a replacement plan outlining: Trees 1-8 on El Mercado to include bulb-outs to accommodate tree or provide larger planting areas where root space is limited Trees 9-16: replace all with 24” box trees; plant in 8’x8’ planting wells or make planting islands that can accommodate three or more trees ARBORIST REPORT Mr. Combs recapped the successful November 4, 2017 Arbor Day event at Laguna Lake Park and discussed the Central Coast Regional Urban Forests Council Meeting held on December 7, 2017. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m. The next regular meeting of the Tree Committee is scheduled for Monday, January 22, 2018 at 5:00 p.m., at the Corporation Yard, 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo, California. APPROVED BY THE TREE COMMITTEE ON 01/22/2018 Item 9 Item-9, pg. 22 Minutes – Tree Committee Meeting of February 25, 2019 Page 1 Minutes TREE COMMITTEE Monday, February 25, 2019 Regular Meeting of the Tree Committee CALL TO ORDER A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Tree Committee was called to order on Monday, February 25, 2019 at 5:04 p.m. in Conference Room A, located at 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo, California, by Chair Loosley. ROLL CALL Present: Committee Members Alan Bate, Elizabeth Lucas, Sean O’Brien, Rodney Thurman, Vice Chair Jane Worthy, Chair Scott Loosley Absent: Brian Rolph Staff: City Arborist Ron Combs and Recording Secretary Lisa Woske APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Consideration of Minutes of the Tree Committee Meeting of January 28, 2019: ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER THURMAN, SECONDED BY COMMITTEE MEMBER LUCAS, CARRIED 6-0-1, the Tree Committee approved the minutes of the Tree Committee Meeting of January 28, 2019, as presented. PUBLIC COMMENT Will Powers. End of Public Comment-- TREE REMOVAL APPLICATIONS 2. 848 Venable St. (2 Liquid Ambars) Walt Melton, applicant, provided a brief overview of the tree removal project. Item 9 Item-9, pg. 23 Minutes – Tree Committee Meeting of February 25, 2019 Page 2 City Arborist Combs provided a presentation and responded to Committee inquiries. Public Comment Will Powers. End of Public Comment-- ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE CHAIR LOOSLEY, SECONDED BY COMMITTEE MEMBER LUCAS, CARRIED 4-2-1, the removal request was approved, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, with the requirement of two 15-gallon trees to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of tree removals. 3. 530 Serrano Dr. (Eucalyptus) Erin O’Green, applicant, provided a brief overview of the tree removal project. City Arborist Combs provided a presentation and responded to Committee inquiries. Committee Member Bate abstained, due to conflict of interest. Public Comment Pam Racouillat. Will Powers. End of Public Comment-- ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER O’BRIEN, SECONDED BY COMMITTEE MEMBER THURMAN, CARRIED 5-0-1-1, the removal request was denied, as none of the required findings for approval could be made. 4. 478 & 480 High St. (Eucalyptus) Lindsey Corica, applicant’s representative, provided a brief overview of the tree removal project. City Arborist Combs provided a presentation and responded to Committee inquiries. Public Comment Scott Chapman. Will Powers. End of Public Comment-- Item 9 Item-9, pg. 24 Minutes – Tree Committee Meeting of February 25, 2019 Page 3 ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER LUCAS, SECONDED BY COMMITTEE MEMBER BATE, CARRIED 6-0-1, the removal request was denied, as none of the required findings for approval could be made. 5. 1196 Leff St. (Monterey pine) Lindsey Corica, applicant’s representative, provided a brief overview of the tree removal project. City Arborist Combs provided a presentation and responded to Committee inquiries. Public Comment Will Powers. Scott Chapman. End of Public Comment-- ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE THURMAN, SECONDED BY COMMITTEE MEMBER O’BRIEN, CARRIED 4-2-1, the removal request was approved, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, with the requirement of one 36” box tree to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of tree removal. 6. 833 El Capitan (2 eucalyptus) Ron Rinnell, applicant’s representative, provided a brief overview of the tree removal project. City Arborist Combs provided a presentation and responded to Committee inquiries. Committee Member Bate abstained, due to conflict of interest. Public Comment Will Powers. End of Public Comment-- ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE CHAIR LOOSLEY, SECONDED BY COMMITTEE MEMBER THURMAN, CARRIED 4-1-1-1, the removal request was approved, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, with the requirement of two 36” box trees to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of tree removals. Item 9 Item-9, pg. 25 Minutes – Tree Committee Meeting of February 25, 2019 Page 4 BUSINESS ITEMS 7. NEW BUSINESS None. 8. OLD BUSINESS Review Draft Tree Ordinance staff report Matt Horn, City representative, made a presentation and responded to Committee inquiries and discussion. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION 9. ARBORIST’S REPORT None. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. The next Regular Tree Committee meeting is scheduled for Monday, March 25 at 5:00 p.m., in Conference Room A, located at 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo, California. APPROVED BY THE TREE COMMITTEE: 03/25/2019 Item 9 Item-9, pg. 26 Tree Committee Agenda Report f r5 o ti FROM: Daryl Grigsby, Director of Public Works Prepared By: Matt Horn, Deputy Director of Public Works Victoria Tonikian, Management Fellow SUBJECT: AMENDING SECTION 12.24.030 AND REPLACING SECTIONS 12.24.090 AND 12.24. 180 OF THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO TREE REMOVAL RECOMMENDATION Review proposed amendments to Section 12.24.030 and replacement of sections 12.24.090 and 12.24.180 of the City's Municipal Code relating to Tree Removal. 2. Provide feedback to City Council regarding proposed amendments and replacements to the City's Municipal Code relating to Tree Removal. DISCUSSION Chapter 12.24 of the City of San Luis Obispo's Municipal Code outlines the City's tree regulations. Due to recent changes in the State of California regulations and feedback received from Tree Committee and Community; revisions to the City's tree regulations are currently under consideration. State Regulations The Housing Accountability Act (HAA) is a California state law designed to promote infill development by speeding housing approvals. The Act was passed in 1982 in recognition that the lack of housing, including emergency shelter, is a critical statewide problem". It empowers the State of California to limit the ability of local government to restrict the development of new housing. The Act was strengthened by its amendment in 2017. HAA requires objective standards to apply if project is denied for a variety of reasons, and a tree removal may be such a reason. The City's existing tree regulations could be determined to be more subjective standards rather than objective standards. Feedback Received from the Tree Committee and Community On December 11, 2017 staff requested feedback on the City's existing tree regulations from the Tree Committee and Community at a regularly scheduled Tree Committee meeting. At that time, the following thoughts were received: 1. The City's existing tree removal process is inconsistent Page Number 1 Item 9 Item-9, pg. 27 2. There was general concern about losing tree canopy with changes to the tree regulations I Development applications should be reviewed by staff with a background in urban forestry 4. The Tree Committee meets once a month and there was concern that a larger volume of tree removal requests would be burdensome to the Tree Committee and Community 5. There is a need to increase education of City Staff and the Community on the existing tree regulations 6. Tree removal requests that are received after a project is underway are challenging to handle within the existing tree regulations framework 7. The Tree Committee would rather review tree removal applications before other permits or project entitlements are issued by the City 8. A low number of tree removal requests on a parcel of land that has a high number of trees should be considered differently than a low number of tree removal requests on a parcel of land that has a low number of trees 9. Additional resources should be provided to the City Arborist in order to allow for more new tree plantings annually Observations by staff at the December 11, 2017, Tree Committee meeting while the Committee deliberated on tree removal requests: 1. Should the City Arborist have increased authority to approve tree removal requests when an existing tree has a structural deficit? 2. Would providing standard tree removal compensatory planting help the Tree Committee's determination and provide Community baseline expectations of a tree removal? 3. Should the City Arborist have increased authority to authorize tree removal requests when the tree is afflicted by multiple conditions that will limit the tree's lifespan such as being both drought stressed and infested with pests. 4. Should compensatory tree plantings above and beyond minimum compensatory planting requirements be considered when a tree removal request is under consideration? 5. Should the City's tree removal applications and minimum required information of the applicant be revised to better handle multiple tree removal requests including notification to the applicants that each tree may be considered individually? Draft Section 12.24.030 Definitions Amendments After discussion about definitions that are currently not outlined in the City's Municipal Code staff is recommending the addition of five definitions to Section 12.24.030. Under the current City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, the City's tree removal regulations do not define or otherwise regulate "significant trees" and the City's current standards do not legislatively Page Number 2 Item 9 Item-9, pg. 28 protect against the removal of such trees. In response to this lack of definition, it is recommended that Section 12.24.030 of the City's Municipal code be amended to include the definitions of "significant trees". Additionally, in replacing Sections 12.24.090 and 12.24.180, staff is recommending adding the definitions of "public traffic", "discretionary development permit", "ministerial development permit", and "development permit". Staff believes the addition of these definitions will provide greater clarity and understanding to a variety of stakeholders including staff, advisory bodies, the City Council, and members of the public. The proposed definitions are listed below: 1. Significant Tree means a tree which makes substantial contributions to natural habitat or to the urban landscape due to its species, size, or rarity. Determination of what constitutes substantial contributions to natural habitat or the urban landscape due to its species, size or rarity" shall be evaluated pursuant to the criteria set forth in section 12.24.090. 2. Public Traffic includes all motorized vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, and personal mobility devices. 3. Discretionary Development Permit means a project which requires the exercise of judgment or deliberation when the public agency or body decides to approve or disapprove an activity, as distinguished from situations where the public agency or body merely has to determine whether there has been conformity with applicable statutes, ordinances, or regulations. 4. Ministerial Development Permit requires little or no personal judgment by the public official as to the wisdom or manner of carrying out the project such as the review and issuance of building permits where review is limited to ensuring project meets minimum code requirements of adopted standards. For this definition, the discretionary act of issuance of a tree removal permit does not redefine a Ministerial Development Permit into a Discretionary Development Permit. Draft Replacement of Section 12.24.090 Tree Removal (Attachment 1) In the last few years, recent development projects have highlighted various concerns regarding the City's tree removal regulations which are codified in Section 12.24.090 of the City's Municipal Code. The primary concerns are the following issues: 1. The process for considering tree removal requests when the request is related to a development application; and 2. Tree removal standards. Tree Removal Process Concerns: Page Number 3 Item 9 Item-9, pg. 29 The City's tree removal regulation categorizes tree removal requests into five separate categories: 1. Tree removal not related to property development 2. Tree removal for tree health or hazard mitigation 3. Tree removal with a development permit 4. Unregulated tree removals 5. Tree removals by the City One of the focal points of concern is the Tree Committee's involvement in tree removal where architectural review is a component of the underlying development. Decisions regarding these specific tree removal requests are made by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) without any formal input by the Tree Committee. The Tree Committee only considers such applications if the City Arborist recommends a denial of the request and the ARC approves the projects. This language can be found in SLOW Section 12.24.090.E.2.c, shown below: c. If architectural review is requiredfor the development, the architectural review commission shall approve or deny the application: i. If the city arborist has recommended denying the application and the architectural review commission has approved the application, the tree committee shall review the architectural review commission's decision; ii. If the tree committee concurs with the city arborist's recommendation to deny the application when the architectural review commission has approved the application, the City Council shall review the matter for the final action. The language as currently drafted is internally inconsistent to the extent that it both suggests that the ARC can "approve" an application against the Arborist's recommendation (which suggests ARC will take final action), but then suggests that the Council will review the matter for final action. Based on discussions with City staff and various advisory body members, one consequence of this approach is that the Tree Committee is being tasked to review a removal request for an otherwise approved project. In prior instances, this type of process has resulted in confusion and the goal in amending and replacing sections of the Municipal Code related to tree removals is to have a defined process outlined in the City's code that will provide further guidance to staff and a greater level of predictability to applicants when processing a project that includes any tree removal components. Tree Removal Standards Certain development projects have highlighted the fact that the City's tree removal regulations do not have any specific standards to determine when a tree removal request should be approved or denied. Specifically, the "Tree Removal Not Related to Property Development" Page Number 4 Item 9 Item-9, pg. 30 and "Tree Removal with a Development Permit" sections of the code do not specify any criteria by which to evaluate a removal (i.e. non-native or native, age, height, trunk diameter, health, reasonably anticipated life span, etc.) or any guidelines for staff to apply to balance the removal or preservation of trees against potentially competing development objectives. Due to the lack of specific standards, the proposed recommended replacement for Section 12.24.090 clearly identifies the specific standards in subsection G. of the draft municipal code. Additional Amendments In addition to the stated concerns above, other sections have been amended and added to provide a greater clarity to the City's regulations related to tree removal. Sections that have been added to the current Municipal Code include: Application for a Tree Removal Permit and Compensatory Tree Planting. Lastly, virtually every subsection of Chapter 12.24.090 has been amended to include greater clarity and detail in regard to the City's standards for tree removals relating to permits for removal, permit not required, tree removal applications related to tree health, hazard mitigation convenience, or ministerial permit, notifications of tree removals, expiration of appeals, and the City's street and sidewalk maintenance program. These proposed changes have all been shown in the legislative draft of Chapter 12.24.090 of the Municipal Code in Attachment 1. Draft Replacement of Section 12.24.180 To create greater clarity regarding the appeals process outlined in Section 12.24.180, staff has included a chart that outlines the appeals process based on the type of removal application type, decision maker, and appeal body. CONCURRENCE Staff from the Community Development Department has been heavily involved in the recommended amendments and replacements of the Municipal Code. Additionally, the City's Interim Deputy Director of the Office of Sustainability has reviewed the recommended amendments and replacements and has found them to be consistent with sustainable best practices. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1— Legislative draft of Section 12.24.090 of the City's Municipal Code Attachment 2 — Legislative draft of Section 12.24.180 of the City's Municipal Code Page Number 5 Item 9 Item-9, pg. 31 Attachment 1 12.24.090 Tree Removal A. Policy. The city values trees as an important part of the natural and economic environment and efforts shall be made torop tect, preserve, enev , essi le and f asibk- and create the conditions that will promote the preservation of sin ificant trees and the removal of significant trees when warranted see Section 12.24,030 Definitions,• W. When reviewing requests for tree removal permits, the city shall discourage Feffovi ig des;, -able ;; +d-,ha44 eansider- a. of desirable trees only as a last feseA alter -native fer- the applicant removing significant trees. B. Permits for Removal. , exceptasOtheFWiSO P 'ltd- in *-his ap4er Except as otherwise specified in this chapter, STlifR ilri person shall cut down remove or destroy any tree or cause the Cutting down removal or destruction of any tree unless that person has obtained a tree removal permit issued by the Ci 's Director of Public Works. 1. Remey' M zones exeept as ethepvAse provided in this ehapter- shall requi permit issued by the public weFks depmeanent. 2. An application for- a tfee FemeN,al pepmft issued by the publie weAcs depakmen! shall inelude! a. A site plan showing the laeati on and 9peei.es ef any tfee proposed for- r-emevalj h— .4 11 infefmation ;a suppoft the reason for- vrcrl, e._ A ., ather--peFlinent infefmiAiea to the request, nel.,difig deouffientation of e damage FC. Permit Not Required. 1. Removing a tree in R-1 and R-2 zones only does not require a permit if all of the following conditions exist: a) The tree is a designated native species and the trunk is less than ten inches in diameter as measured by shoulder height -PSH) or four feet sig: inches PCr International Socie of Arboriculture ISA standards (see Section 112.24.030 Definitions; native trees) or when the tree is normative and the trunk is less than twenty inches DSH; and b) _. The tree is more than twenty-Aw feet from the top of a creek bank; and 3-. The tFee is on a lot developed to the maximum allowed density; and - c) 4. The tree is not a designated street tree, and is not located within ten feet of the back of the sidewalk; and Page Number 6 Item 9 Item-9, pg. 32 5-. The tfee was not a condition of develepnienv,-ef d) Planting or retention of the tree was not a condition of development 2. The City Arborist may authorize a tree removal without receipt of a removal application and without issuance of a tree removal pennit upon finding,that the tree is an imminent hazard to life or property+, and removing it is the only feasible way to eliminate the hazard. D. Application for a Tree Removal Permit 1. An application for a tree removal permit shall include: a A site plan showing the location s ecies and size of any tree proposed for removal' and b Each tree identified to be removed must be uniquely identified by number, and e) All information to support the reason for removal; and d Replanting lan showing the size location andspecies of trees identified to be planted to compensate for proposed removal in compliance with section 12.24.0903' and e Any other information deemed necessa by the Director of Public Works or the Director of Community Development to evaluate the proposed removal in accordance with the criteria set forth in Section 12.24.090G. 2. An application for tree removal where the site is subject to a development Rermit shall include the following additional information: a An arborist report that identifies and discusses each tree within the development footprint Uncludin but not limited to structural development, adin staging areas ound cover removal changes in drainage pattems, and associated off-site im rovements including those trees proposed for removal and those trees that will remain; b) Include application materials identified in Section 12.24.090.D.I. the site plan shall include accurate drip line delineation and cross sections of construction work impacting both trees proposed for removal and trees planned to remain; c Any other information deemed necessary by the Director of Public Works or the Director of Community Development to evaluate the proposed. removal in accordance with the criteria set forth in Section 12.24.090G. Page Number 7 Item 9 Item-9, pg. 33 d The tree removal application materials shall be 12rovided in addition to develo meat ermit application requirements identified under Section 17.104. D—.E. n,,,,.tey ' f r Tree Removal Applications Related to Tree Health,$r Hazard Mitigation, Convenience or Ministerial Permit re er to Section 12.24.090.E for Discretionary Pro er Developnient Tree Removal Application Reouirements). 1. The applicant shall prepare a tree removal a lication based on the re uirements set forth in section 12.24.090D. 2. 4-. The e-i-t-y-C af4e4A-Arborist may authorize a tree removal upon receipt of a removal application withek the peed for- a permit ffein public er—lEs up on fbiding and issuance of a tree removal permit upon determination of any of the following circumstances: a) The tree is an imminent hazard to life or property, and removing it is the only feasible way to eliminate the hazard; b) The tree is dead or dying or diseased or damaged beyond reclamation; c) The tree's roots are causing severe damage to public or private property, and removing the tree is the only feasible way to eliminate the damage:; d The true is affected by structural defects and/or deficiencies that will limit lifespan-, e The tree is densely clustered amongst other trees and the requested tree removal romotes good arboricultural practice The tree is obstructing vision access or mobilijy of public traffic Section 12.24.030 - Definitions xx) 3. The Citv Arborist will either atwrove or deny the avvlication for a tree removal request. The City Arborist's determination is appealable to the Tree Committee for final decision. The Tree Committee's decision shall be based on the criteria as set forth in Section 12.24.090G. a. The tFe : ndue 1,.,..dship to the property ownen 1..rma! utine , aintenanee dees ot eansfit ), i.e., cleaning of gut4efs, leaf Faking, p EA iRtFd5iOB WO failed se'4'tiFera4er-Ei);etc.-,--of Page Number 8 Item 9 Item-9, pg. 34 Tv r cnrr ze from a par -eel sem. the I i &-pro etly develop ni by s.ii,. iyis o7, aFmit or other s the developer shall clearly delineate tfees proposed to be e:„r.,ze.l_a ,aFt of the revel-...., ! a «lioation and approval « a, A site plan showing the leemion and speoies of any tree PFOposed for- retneva.1; 1, All information to support the reason for removal; follows: appheatiow, b.ffIE) H i4e.,t,...,1 Y o . e.l « the development, the tree . ..,;fads ..hall «pr-oN,e of de"y the application; c. if architeettwal review is required for the developfneo4, the wehiteetar-al review oommission COMmIssion has approved the application, the tfOe OeffiffiiRee SAM! Feview the architectural dreview «se «; when the architeoturA . . . . tission has approved the applirsatien, the city eatincil shall review the matter- for- final aetion. F. Tree Removal Related to Discretionary Property development, 1. The applicant shall prepare a tree removal application_based on the requirements set forth in Section 12.24.090D. Tree removal requests from the owner of any parcel in the City as a component of discretions roe development shall be evaluated based on the requirements set forth in Section 12.24.090G. 2_ Review of the application shall proceed as follows: a) The Citv Arborist shall review the application, investigate the site, examine the tree or trees in question, review the compensatory planting plan, and either make a recommendations on the tree removals request to the decision-making body for the underlyingdevelopment application in compliance with section 12.24.090E(2) and/or 12.24.0906. Page Number 9 Item 9 Item-9, pg. 35 b) The decision-making body may either approve or den,, eatquested tree to be removed based on the criteria set forth in Section 12.24.090G. c) During property development or construction, any tree that is requested to be removed that was not identified and approved for removal by the decision-making body shalt return to that decision-making body that approved the original development for Uproval. G. Criteria for tree removal approval. The determination of pLny tree removal requests pursuant to Section 12.24.090F or upon a eal of Section 12.24.090E shall be based ul2on the criteria in this section. Any tree authorized for removal under this section is considered a non-significant tree. Any tree denied removal under this section is considered a significant tree. Tree removal determination criteria shall be based on any or all of the following criteria: 1. Size of Tree. The scale of the tree shall be considered, as well as the size of the tree's canopy. Larger, more visually prominent trees shall have a higher presmationpriqd1y than smaller, less visuallyprominent trees, 2. Location of Tree on Private Proa The location of the tree on rivate roe shall be considered. Trees located in a private rear yard which are not highlyvisible from the public right-of-way shall have a lower preservation priority than trees with a high visual impact to the neighborhood, 3. Species of Tree. Native trees shall have a higher preservation priority than non-native trees, 4. Forestry Best Practice. The number of healthy trees that agiven parcel of land will support shall be considered and whetber removal would enhance the survival of remaininjz, trees. Applications that increase biodiversity of native trees and tree ape distribution within a given area are preferred, 5. Public Right -of -Way Sidewalk Displacement. Street tree removal due to sidewalk infrastructure repair or replacement shall have a lower preservation priority when the tree species is known to have invasive root structure and likely to reoccur if not authorized for removal. Tree removal reggests adjacent to sidewalk with a high volume of pedestrian use with large vertical or slope displacements shall have a lower preservation priori . b. Heritage Trees. A tree which has been designated a heritage tree is prohibited from removal unless the Ci Arborist authorizes a tree removal upon findinp, that a tree removal would be related to tree health or hazard mitigation as outlined in Sections 12.24.090.E.2.a and 12.24.090.E.2.b. Heritage trees have the highest preservation priority_. G H. Tree Removal by the City. 1. Tree removal requests for any city project must follow the same procedures as any property owner. Page Number 10 Item 9 Item-9, pg. 36 2. After receiving approval to remove a tree, the city shall replace the tree as soon as feasible during the project at a ratio detennined by the Public Works Director. Notification of Tree Removal. 1. The city's Urban Forest division shall post a sign notifying the public of the date and description of a proposed tree removal hearing for street trees. This sign shall be posted in a prominent location, visible from a public street, for a period not less than five days before either staff consideration of a tree removal permit or a publie searing on a relate{ moment discretions decision on propeM development. 2. The Public Works Director may waive notification requirements for a tree removal when the director determines that a tree's condition threatens public health, safety or welfare. J.CoMpensatory Tree Planting Tree removals authorized under section 12.24.090E or 12.24.090F shall be compensated by Planting a minimum of one new tree for each tree authorized to be removed when planted on the same propeM (onsite)or two new trees for each tree authorized to be removed when planted on a different property or within the public right-of-way _(offsite. In al2proving an Up] ication for tree removal the decision-mak in body through the discretion ermit 12rocess ma re wire more or less compensatortree plantings than the minimum identified and/or may require a bond ensuring that rel2lacement trees shall be plantod and maintained K. Expiration ofAppeals. Decisions on tree removal by the di -eete~ the tFee ...... mittae o the ar-ehiteetur-al review eemmission decision making body shall be subject to appeal according to the appeal provisions of this code, and no permit shall be issued until the appeal period has lapsed. ISL. City Street and Sidewalk Maintenance Program. 1. The city has a program whereby staff evaluates and repairs sidewalks and streets on a predetermined schedule. When the city determines a street tree must be removed to repair the sidewalk, the city will pay all costs to repair sidewalk, curb, and gutter, remove the tree and plant a new tree. 2. If a property owner wishes to remove a street tree and repair hardscape damage they may do so at their own expense, if the removal is approved by the *Fee eommaRee in compliance with section 12.24.090C or 12.24,090.E.2. The property owner shall pay for the necessary hardscape repairs; and be required to plant and maintain a new tree as a Page Number 11 Item 9 Item-9, pg. 37 condition of their approved tree removal, -- wflesg tree replace Vl[itea--- ` ' ' by theJ •4[ieVV wL;rn"r"rrrr"'r`rcino (Ord 154 A !: 1 Page Number 12 Item 9 Item-9, pg. 38 Item 9 Item-9, pg. 39 Item 9 Item-9, pg. 40 Item 9 Item-9, pg. 41 City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle FROM: Daryl Grigsby, Director of Public Works Prepared By: Matt Horn, Deputy Director of Public Works Victoria Tonikian, Management Fellow SUBJECT: AMENDING SECTION 12.24.030 AND REPLACING SECTIONS 12.24.090 AND 12.24.180 OF THE CITY’S MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO TREE REMOVAL RECOMMENDATION 1.Review proposed amendments to Section 12.24.030 and replacement of sections 12.24.090 and 12.24.180 of the City’s Municipal Code relating to Tree Removal. 2.Provide input to staff regarding proposed amendments and replacements to the City’s Municipal Code relating to Tree Removal. DISCUSSION Chapter 12.24 of the City of San Luis Obispo’s Municipal Code outlines the City’s tree regulations. Due to recent changes in the State of California regulations and feedback received from Tree Committee and Community; revisions to the City’s tree regulations are currently under consideration. State Regulations The Housing Accountability Act (HAA) is a California state law designed to promote infill development by speeding housing approvals. The Act was passed in 1982 in recognition that "the lack of housing, including emergency shelter, is a critical statewide problem". It empowers the State of California to limit the ability of local government to restrict the development of new housing. The Act was strengthened by its amendment in 2017. HAA requires objective standards to apply if project is denied for a variety of reasons, and a tree removal may be such a reason. The City’s existing tree regulations could be determined to be more subjective standards rather than objective standards. Feedback Received from the Tree Committee and Community On December 11, 2017 staff requested feedback on the City’s existing tree regulations from the Tree Committee and community at a regularly scheduled Tree Committee meeting. At this meeting, a multitude of recommendations were made to amend the City’s Municipal Code related to trees. Following these recommendations, staff derived a draft update to the Tree Committee Agenda Report Packet Page 1 Item 9 Item-9, pg. 42 City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle Municipal Code and Deputy Director Matt Horn presented the proposed changes at the regularly scheduled Tree Committee meeting on February 25, 2019. During this meeting, the Tree Committee and community members were provided with a draft outline of the new legislative draft of Section 12.24.090 and Section 12.24.180 (Attachment 1) and given the opportunity to discuss and provide further recommendations to Deputy Director Matt Horn. The following recommendations/concerns were received from the Tree Committee at the February 25, 2019 meeting: 1. The proposed changes to the Ordinance require other Advisory Bodies to make determination on development related to tree removals. The Tree Committee has historically had a member of the ARC on the committee to allow for greater Advisory Body cohesiveness. The Tree Committee recommends that other Advisory Bodies have members of the Tree Committee on the committees or require that some of those members have arboricultural backgrounds. 2. Provide some rationale to allow trees to be removed due to risk or unique hardship. 3. Bring Palm Tree 12” diameter back. 4. Require the tree removal permit application to be complete prior to going to tree committee and do not allow for subsequent information to be sent in after the agenda is posted. 5. Require that a photo log be submitted with the application that clearly shows the damage the tree is causing. 6. Require that trees that are not removed have a tree protection program. 7. Concern that if a tree is not granted a permit to be removed, it is then considered a significant tree and, in the future,, it may not be granted a removal permit. 8. Better align the City Arborist’s ability to remove vision triangle trees and trip and fall within Section G of the ordinance. Based on State Regulations and the feedback and recommendations discussed at both Tree Committee meetings, the following amendments to the Municipal Code are being proposed. Draft Section 12.24.030 Definitions Amendments After a thorough discussion about definitions that are currently not outlined in the City’s Municipal Code but would be an added benefit for greater clarity, staff is recommending the addition of three definitions to Section 12.24.030. At the previous Tree Committee meeting, the recommendation to add the definition of “Significant Trees” was presented by staff. After careful consideration due to the precedent that might cause, it was determined that this addition is not recommended and thus has been deleted from the draft section of 12.24.030. In addition, the recommended definitions of “public traffic”, “discretionary development permit”, “ministerial development permit” which were presented at the February 25, 2019 Tree Committee meeting have been amended following feedback from the Tree Committee Packet Page 2 Item 9 Item-9, pg. 43 City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle and the City Attorney’s office. Staff believes the addition of these definitions will provide greater clarity and understanding to a variety of stakeholders including staff, advisory bodies, the City Council, and members of the public. The proposed definitions are listed below: 1. “Public Traffic” means all motorized vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, and personal mobility devices traveling in and along a public right of way. 2. Discretionary Development Permit” means a permit issued for any project the approval of which requires the exercise of judgment or deliberation by a public official to approve or disapprove an activity, as distinguished from merely determining whether there has been compliance with applicable laws or regulations. 3. “Ministerial Development Permit” means a construction or development permit required to be issued by the City upon confirmation that the project application meets minimum statutory or code requirements and other adopted, uniform standards, the review of which requires little or no personal judgment by the reviewing public official as to the wisdom or manner of carrying out the project, such as the review and issuance of most building permits. For purposes of this Chapter, the requirement that discretionary issuance of a tree removal permit is required prior to issuance of an otherwise ministerial permit does not redefine any subsequent, otherwise Ministerial Development Permit, into a Discretionary Development Permit. Draft Replacement of Section 12.24.090 Tree Removal (Attachment 1) After receiving additional feedback from the Tree Committee at the February 25, 2019 regularly scheduled Tree Committee meeting, staff has made additional adjustments to the draft municipal code to present to Council. The changes are reflected in Attachment 1, the Draft Replacement of Section 12.24.090 Tree Removal. Many of the proposed recommendations that were brought forth during the February 25, 2019 Tree Committee meeting have been incorporated and reflected in Attachment 1, including: incorporating rationale for removing a tree due to risk, bringing back the Palm Tree 12” diameter in Section 12.24.090(C), updating the application requirements including having a tree protection program and submitting a photo log, removing the use of significant trees to mitigate an unintentional precedent being set and better aligning the City Arborist’s ability to remove vision triangle trees and trip and fall within Section G of the ordinance. Recommendations that are not able to be incorporated but will be conveyed to the City Council include recommending that other Advisory Bodies have members with arboricultural backgrounds. This is not being incorporated in the draft update of Sections Packet Page 3 Item 9 Item-9, pg. 44 City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle 12.24.030, 12.24.090, or 12.24.180 because these Sections are not related to the Advisory Body handbook or the requirements to serve on these Advisory Bodies. Staff will present it to the City Council to gain further direction. Lastly, the recommendation that was conveyed during the Tree Committee meeting to not allow for additional information to be added to a tree removal permit application subsequent to an agenda being posted was not addressed. The Tree Removal Application requirements in the current draft ordinance are robust. It is staff’s opinion that these robust application requirements will decrease the amount of post agenda publication correspondence. If the Tree Committee finds this not to be the case after Ordinance adoption, staff can develop procedures and timeframes for post agenda publication correspondence for the Tree Committee review and approval. To mitigate incomplete applications being submitted, staff will ensure that counter staff and those receiving tree removal permit applications will be retrained and are aware of the new application process as outline by the new Municipal Code once it is adopted. Draft Replacement of Section 12.24.180 (Attachment 1) To create greater clarity regarding the appeals process outlined in Section 12.24.180, staff has included a chart that outlines the appeals process based on the type of removal application type, decision maker, and appeal body. CONCURRENCE Staff from the Community Development Department has been heavily involved in the recommended amendments and replacements of the Municipal Code. Additionally, the City’s Interim Deputy Director of the Office of Sustainability has reviewed the recommended amendments and replacements and has found them to be consistent with sustainable best practices. Lastly, the City Attorney has reviewed these proposed amendments and finds them to be more clear and concise. NEXT STEPS Subsequent to the June 24th, 2019 Tree Committee meeting, staff will take any additional recommendations proposed during the meeting and will convey them to the City Council on July 2, 2019. The Tree Committee and community members may present additional recommendations to the City Council by providing written correspondence or attending the City Council Meeting on July 2, 2019 at 6:00PM in Council Chambers, 990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401. ATTACHMENTS Packet Page 4 Item 9 Item-9, pg. 45 City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle Attachment 1 – Legislative draft of Section 12.24.090 and Section 12.24.180 of the City’s Municipal Code Packet Page 5 Item 9 Item-9, pg. 46 Attachment 1 Section 12.24.090 – Tree Removal A. Policy. The city values trees as an important part of the natural, urban and economic environment and efforts shall be made to protect, preserve, them whenever possible and feasible and create the conditions that will promote the preservation of trees. When reviewing requests for tree removal permits, the city shall discourage removing desirable trees and shall consider approving removal of desirable trees only as a last resort alternative for the applicant healthy trees that present no threat to people or property. B. Permits for Removal. Removing any tree in the city shall require a tree removal permit, except as otherwise provided in this chapter. Except as otherwise specified in this chapter, no person shall cut down, remove or destroy any tree, or cause the cutting down, removal or destruction of any tree, unless that person has obtained a tree removal permit issued by the City’s Director of Public Works.C. Tree Removal Not Related to Property Development. 1. Removing a tree in all zones except as otherwise provided in this chapter shall require a permit issued by the public works department. 2. An application for a tree removal permit issued by the public works department shall include: a. A site plan showing the location and species of any tree proposed for removal; b. All information to support the reason for removal; c. Any other pertinent information to the request, including documentation of property damage. CF. Permit Not Required. Removing a tree in R-1 and R-2 zones only does not require a permit if all of the following conditions exist: 1. The tree is a designated native species and the trunk is less than ten inches in diameter as measured by shoulder height (DSH) or four feet, six inches per International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) standards (see Section 12.24.030, Definitions; native trees) or when the tree is nonnative and the trunk is less than twenty inches DSH; and 2. The tree is more than twenty-five feet from the top of a creek bank The tree is not located within a creek setback area (See Section 17.70.030); and The tree is on a lot developed to the maximum allowed density; and 3. The tree is not a designated street tree, and is not located within ten feet of the back of the sidewalk; and 4. Planting of retention of Tthe tree was not a condition of development; or 5. 5. The tree is a palm and the trunk is less than twelve inches DSH. Packet Page 6 Item 9 Item-9, pg. 47 D. Application Requirements for a Tree Removal Permit 1. An application for a tree removal permit on a site where no Discretionary or Ministerial Development Permit is requested shall include: a. A site plan showing the location, species and size of any tree proposed for removal; and b. A photo log that clearly shows the damage a tree is causing or the condition for which removal is requested and a notice of application for removal posted on the property on which the tree removal is requested in a location visible from the public right of way as set forth in Section 12.24.090(I); and c. A diagram or site photograph showing each tree identified to be removed with each tree uniquely identified by number; and d. All information to support the reason for removal; and e. A replanting plan showing the size, location and species of trees identified to be planted to compensate for proposed removal in compliance with section 12.24.090(J); and f. Any other information deemed necessary by the Director of Public Works or the Director of Community Development to evaluate the proposed removal in accordance with the criteria set forth in Section 12.24.090(G). 2. An application for tree removal on a site where a Discretionary or Ministerial Development Permit is requested shall include the following information, in addition to application materials identified in Section 12.24.090(D): a. An arborist report that identifies and discusses each tree within the development footprint (including, but not limited to, structural development, grading, staging areas, ground cover removal, changes in drainage patterns, and associated off-site improvements) including those trees proposed for removal and those trees that will remain. An arborist report may not be required for tree removal(s) proposed on a single-family residential site for which only a Ministerial Development permit for construction related to a single-family residence is requested; b. A site plan that includes accurate drip line delineation and cross sections of construction work impacting both trees proposed for removal and trees planned to remain; c. Any other information deemed necessary by the Director of Public Works or the Director of Community Development to evaluate the proposed removal in accordance with the criteria set forth in Section 12.24.090.(G). Packet Page 7 Item 9 Item-9, pg. 48 d. The tree removal application materials shall be provided at the same time and in addition to the development permit application but may reference the development permit application to provide the information required by this section. DE. Criteria for Tree Removal application determinations related to Removals for Tree Health or Hazard Mitigation, (refer to section 12.24.090.(G) for criteria for Ministerial or Discretionary Development Permit related tree removal determinations). 1. The cCity aArborist may authorize a tree removal upon receipt of a removal application without the need for a permit from public works pursuant to Section 12.24.090.(D) and issue a tree removal permit upon finding determination of any of the following circumstances: a. The tree is an imminent hazard to life or property, and removing it is the only feasible way to eliminate the hazard (see section 12.24.090.(I)(2) for Director approval of immediate hazard abatement without a formal application or noticing); b. The tree is dead or dying or diseased or damaged beyond reclamation; c. The tree’s roots are causing severe damage to public or private property, and removing the tree is the only feasible way to eliminate the damage;. d. The tree is affected by structural defects and/or deficiencies that will limit lifespan; e. The tree is densely clustered amongst other trees and the requested tree removal promotes good arboricultural practice; f. The tree is obstructing vision, access, or mobility of public traffic (see Section 12.24.030, Definitions; public traffic). Trees requested for removal due to sidewalk infrastructure damage shall have lower preservation priority when the tree species is known to have invasive root structures that increase the likelihood that damage will recur if the tree is not approved for removal and where trees requested for removal are adjacent to sidewalks with a high volume of pedestrian use and/or with large vertical or slope displacements; g. The requested tree removal is necessary to alleviate a demonstrated and ongoing maintenance burden for the property owner exceeding routine tree maintenance; d.h.The tree removal is requested for the construction of an improvement to a residential property, for which only a Ministerial Development Permit is otherwise required, and which is necessary to accommodate access for a disabled resident of the property. 2. When the city arborist cannot authorize a tree removal, the request shall be reviewed by the tree committee, which may authorize removal if it finds one of the following circumstances: Packet Page 8 Item 9 Item-9, pg. 49 a. The tree is causing undue hardship to the property owner. Normal routine maintenance does not constitute a hardship, i.e., cleaning of gutters, leaf raking, pruning or root intrusion into a failed sewer lateral, etc.; or b. Removing the tree promotes good arboricultural practice; or c. Removing the tree will not harm the character or environment of the surrounding neighborhood. 2. The City Arborist will either approve or deny the application for a tree removal request based on findings regarding the criteria set forth in Section 12.24.090.(E). The City Arborist’s determination under this section is appealable to the Tree Committee for final decision. The Tree Committee’s decision also shall be based on findings regarding the criteria set forth in section 12.24.090.(E). 3. All other tree removals not specified in this section on any site for which a Ministerial Development Permit is sought shall be subject to Tree Committee or other discretionary review related to the Discretionary Development Permit requested and approval in accordance with the additional application requirements set forth in section 12.24.090.(D)(2), process set forth in section 12.24.090.(F) and criteria set forth in section 12.24.090.(G). E. Tree Removal with a Development Permit. 1. To remove a tree from any parcel in the city as part of property development by subdivision, building permit or other entitlement, the developer shall clearly delineate trees proposed to be removed as part of the development application and approval process. All development applications which include tree removals shall include the following documents: a. A site plan showing the location and species of any tree proposed for removal; b. All information to support the reason for removal; c. Any other pertinent information required. 2. Review of the application to remove a tree with a development permit shall proceed as follows: a. The city arborist shall inspect the property and recommend approving or denying the application; b. If no architectural review is required for the development, the tree committee shall approve or deny the application; c. If architectural review is required for the development, the architectural review commission shall approve or deny the application: Packet Page 9 Item 9 Item-9, pg. 50 i. If the city arborist has recommended denying the application and the architectural review commission has approved the application, the tree committee shall review the architectural review commission’s decision; ii. If the tree committee concurs with the city arborist’s recommendation to deny the application when the architectural review commission has approved the application, the city council shall review the matter for final action. F. Process for Tree Removals Related to Ministerial or Discretionary Property Development Permits (except as specified in Section 12.24.090.(E)(1)(h) related to residential construction for disabled access). 1. For Tree Removal requests related to Ministerial Development Permits for the construction of single family residences or accessory structures on R-1 or R-2 lots (“Minor Ministerial Development Permits”) the City Arborist shall review the application, investigate the site, examine the tree or trees in question, review the compensatory planting plan, and either approve, conditionally approve (with additional compensatory planting requirements or tree protection measures), or deny the tree removal request(s), based on the criteria set forth in Section 12.24.090.(G), subject to appeal as set forth in section 12.24.180. 2. For all tree removal requests related to Ministerial Development Permits, other than as specified in 12.24.090.(F)(1) above, the Tree Committee shall review and make a recommendation on the Tree Removal Application to the Community Development Director based on the criteria in 12.24.090(G) and 12.24.090.(J). The Director shall consider the recommendation of the Tree Committee, as well as the consistency of the tree removal application with other City development policies and standards applicable to the site, and shall either approve, conditionally approve or deny the tree removal request, subject to appeal as set forth in section 12.24.180. 3. For any tree removal request related to any Discretionary Development Permit application subject to Director Action/Director Hearing/Minor & Moderate Development Review/Minor Use Permit/Minor Subdivision processes, City Arborist shall review the tree removal application and make a recommendation on the tree removal application to the authorized approving authority based on the criteria set forth in Section 12.24.090(G) and 12.24.090(J). The authorized approving authority shall consider the arborist’s recommendation in addition to the complete development application’s compliance with other applicable City development policies, codes and standards and shall either, approve, conditionally approve or deny the tree removal as a part of the final discretionary approval, subject to otherwise applicable appeal processes for the development entitlement. 4. For any tree removal request related to any Discretionary Development Permit application subject to Major Development Review/Tentative Tract Map/Conditional Use Permit processes, the Tree Committee shall review and make a recommendation on the tree removal application to the authorized approving authority based on the criteria set forth in Section 12.24.090.(G) and 12.24.090.(J). The authorized approving authority shall consider the arborist’s recommendation in addition to the complete development application’s compliance with other applicable City development policies, codes and Packet Page 10 Item 9 Item-9, pg. 51 standards and shall either, approve, conditionally approve or deny the tree removal as a part of the final discretionary approval, subject to otherwise applicable appeal processes for the development entitlement. 5. During property development or construction, any tree that is requested to be removed that was not identified and approved for removal by the authorized approving authority shall return to the authorized approving authority for approval prior to removal. 6. For a tree removal requests related to a Ministerial Development Permit, under section 12.24.090.(F)(1) or 12.24.090.(F)(2) above, where the approving authority for the development permit is the Chief Building Official, the Ministerial Development Permit application shall not be deemed complete and the Chief Building Official shall not issue any construction permit unless any necessary Tree Removal permit has been approved and the time for appeal has expired. G. Criteria for tree removal recommendation. Recommendations and determinations of the City Arborist and the Tree Committee regarding any tree removal requests pursuant to Section 12.24.090(F) shall be based upon the criteria in this section. Tree removal recommendations shall be based on the following criteria: 1. Size of Tree. The scale of the tree shall be considered, as well as the size of the tree’s canopy. Larger, more visually prominent trees may have a higher preservation priority than smaller, less visually prominent trees; 2. Location of Tree on Private Property. The location of the tree on private property shall be considered. Trees located in a private rear yard, which are not highly visible from the public right-of-way may have a lower preservation priority than trees with a high visual impact to the neighborhood; 3. Species of Tree. Native trees shall have a higher preservation priority than non-native trees; 4. Forestry Best Practice. The number of healthy trees that a given parcel of land will support shall be considered, and whether removal would enhance the health or survival of remaining trees. Applications that increase biodiversity of native trees and tree age distribution within a given area are preferred; 5. Public Right-of-Way Sidewalk Displacement. Street trees requested for removal due to sidewalk infrastructure repair or replacement shall have a lower preservation priority when the tree species is known to have invasive root structure and damage is likely to reoccur if not authorized for removal. Tree adjacent to sidewalks with a high volume of pedestrian use with large vertical or slope displacements may have a lower preservation priority. 6. Compliance with Section 12.24.090(J) regarding compensatory plantings. 7. Heritage Trees. A tree which has been designated a heritage tree is prohibited from removal unless the City Arborist authorizes a tree removal upon finding that a tree removal would Packet Page 11 Item 9 Item-9, pg. 52 be related to tree health or hazard mitigation as outlined in Sections 12.24.090.(E)(1) Heritage trees have the highest preservation priority. GH. Tree Removal by the City. 1. Tree removal requests for any city project must follow the same procedures as any property owner. 2. After receiving approval to remove a tree, the city shall replace the tree as soon as feasible during the project at a ratio determined by the Public Works Director. HI. Notification of Tree Removal. 1. The city applicant shall post a sign notifying the public of the date and description of a proposed tree removal. This sign shall be posted in a prominent location on the property on which the tree removal is requested, visible from a public street public right of way, for a period not less than five days before either staff consideration of a tree removal permit or a public hearing on a related development the approval of a Ministerial or Discretionary Development Permit. 2. The public works director may waive notification requirements for a tree removal and immediately permit removal when the director determines that a tree’s condition threatens public health, safety or welfare such that an application and notice are not feasible. The owner of the property on which such a removal is requested shall produce sufficient proof to the Director’s satisfaction that a notice and an application are not feasible. I. Approval Conditions. In approving an application for tree removal, the director, the tree committee, the architectural review commission or the city council may require planting of replacement trees and may require a bond ensuring that replacement trees shall be planted and maintained. J. Compensatory Tree Planting. Tree removals authorized under section 12.24.090(E) or 12.24.090(F) shall be compensated by planting a minimum of one new tree for each tree authorized to be removed when planted on the same property (onsite) or two new trees for each tree authorized to be removed when planted on a different property or within the public right-of-way (offsite). In approving an application for tree removal, the authorized approving authority may require more compensatory tree plantings than the minimum identified and/or may require a bond ensuring that replacement trees shall be planted and maintained. JK. Expiration of Appeals. Decisions on tree removal by the director, the tree committee and the architectural review commission authorized approving authority shall be subject to appeal according to the appeal provisions of this code, and no removal or related development permit shall be issued until the appeal period has lapsed. Packet Page 12 Item 9 Item-9, pg. 53 KL. City Street and Sidewalk Maintenance Program. 1. The city has a program whereby staff evaluates and repairs sidewalks and streets on a predetermined schedule. When the city determines a street tree must be removed to repair the sidewalk, the city will pay all costs to repair sidewalk, curb, and gutter, remove the tree and plant a new tree. 2. If a property owner wishes to remove a street tree and repair hardscape damage they may do so at their own expense, if the removal is approved by the tree committee in compliance with section 12.24.090(E) or 12.24.090(F). The property owner shall pay for the necessary hardscape repairs and be required to plant and maintain a new tree as a condition of their approved tree removal permit unless tree replacement is waived by the tree committee. (Ord. 1544 § 1 (part), 2010), either in the same location or in another more suitable location. Packet Page 13 Item 9 Item-9, pg. 54 Section 12.24.180 - Appeals A. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 1.20, aAny person aggrieved by an act or determination of the staff in the authorized approving authority exercising the authority herein granted shall have the right to appeal to the tree committee, whose decisions are appealable to the city council the decision of the authorized approving authority as set forth in this section. B. Appeals received by the city clerk within ten calendar days from the date of determination or act shall cause the public works director to withhold tree removal permits and any permits for stop any construction or demolition activity affecting relying on the subject tree removal until the appeal is heard and a decision is reached. (Ord. 1544 § 1 (part), 2010) REMOVAL APPLICATION TYPE DECISION MAKER APPEAL BODY Tree Health and Hazard Mitigation (Section 12.24.090E) City Arborist Tree Committee Director Action/Director Hearing/Minor & Moderate Development Review/Minor Use Permit/Minor Subdivision Community Development Director or Hearing Officer Planning Commission Major Development Review/Tentative Tract Map/Conditional Use Permit Planning Commission City Council Minor Ministerial Development Permit (removal for residential or accessory construction on an R-1 or R-2 lot) City Arborist Community Development Director Removal Requests related to other Ministerial Development Permits Director Action City Council Packet Page 14 Item 9 Item-9, pg. 55 Section 12.24.090 – Tree Removal A. Policy. The city values trees as an important part of the natural, urban and economic environment and efforts shall be made to protect, preserve, them whenever possible and feasible and create the conditions that will promote the preservation of trees. When reviewing requests for tree removal permits, the city shall discourage removing desirable trees and shall consider approving removal of desirable trees only as a last resort alternative for the applicant healthy trees that present no threat to people or property. B. Permits for Removal. Removing any tree in the city shall require a tree removal permit, except as otherwise provided in this chapter. Except as otherwise specified in this chapter, no person shall cut down, remove or destroy any tree, or cause the cutting down, removal or destruction of any tree, unless that person has obtained a tree removal permit issued by the approving authority. C. Tree Removal Not Related to Property Development. 1. Removing a tree in all zones except as otherwise provided in this chapter shall require a permit issued by the public works department. 2. An application for a tree removal permit issued by the public works department shall include: a. A site plan showing the location and species of any tree proposed for removal; b. All information to support the reason for removal; c. Any other pertinent information to the request, including documentation of property damage. CF. Permit Not Required. Removing a tree in R-1 and R-2 zones only does not require a permit if all of the following conditions exist: 1. The tree is a designated native species and the trunk is less than ten inches in diameter as measured by Diameter Standard Height (DSH, four feet, six inches per International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) standards). (see Section 12.24.030, Definitions; native trees) or when the tree is nonnative and the trunk is less than twenty inches DSH; and 2. The tree is more than twenty-five feet from the top of a creek bank The tree is not located within a creek setback area (See Section 17.70.030); and The tree is on a lot developed to the maximum allowed density; and 3. The tree is not a designated street tree, and is not located within ten feet of the back of the sidewalk; and 4. Planting or retention of Tthe tree was not a condition of development; or 5. The tree is a palm and the trunk is less than twelve inches DSH. Item 9 Item-9, pg. 56 D. Application Requirements for a Tree Removal Permit 1. An application for a tree removal permit on a site where no Discretionary or Ministerial Development Permit is requested shall include: a. A site plan showing the location, species and size of any tree proposed for removal; and b. A photo log that clearly shows the damage a tree is causing or the condition for which removal is requested; and c. A diagram or site photograph showing each tree identified to be removed with each tree uniquely identified by number; and d. All information to support the reason for removal; and e. A replanting plan showing the size, location and species of trees identified to be planted to compensate for proposed removal in compliance with Section 12.24.090(J); and f. Any other information deemed necessary by the Director of Public Works or the Director of Community Development to evaluate the proposed removal in accordance with the criteria set forth in Section 12.24.090(E). 2. An application for tree removal on a site where a Discretionary or Ministerial Development Permit is requested shall include the following information, in addition to application materials identified in Section 12.24.090(D): a. An arborist report that identifies and discusses each tree within the development footprint (including, but not limited to, structural development, grading, staging areas, ground cover removal, changes in drainage patterns, and associated off-site improvements) including those trees proposed for removal and those trees that will remain. An arborist report may not be required for tree removal(s) proposed on a single-family residential site for which only a Ministerial Development permit for construction related to a single-family residence is requested; b. A site plan that includes accurate drip line delineation and cross sections of construction work impacting both trees proposed for removal and trees planned to remain; c. Any other information deemed necessary by the Director of Public Works or the Director of Community Development to evaluate the proposed removal in accordance with the criteria set forth in Section 12.24.090(G). Item 9 Item-9, pg. 57 d. The tree removal application materials shall be provided at the same time and in addition to the development permit application but may reference the development permit application to provide the information required by this Section. DE. Criteria and Process for Non-Construction Related Tree Removal application determinations related to Removals for Tree Health or Hazard Mitigation or Property Owner Convenience, (refer to Section 12.24.090(G) for criteria for construction tree removal determinations). 1. The cCity aArborist may authorize a tree removal upon receipt of a removal application without the need for a permit from public works pursuant to Section 12.24.090(D) and issue a tree removal permit upon finding determination of any of the following circumstances: a. The tree is an imminent hazard to life or property, and removing it is the only feasible way to eliminate the hazard (see Section 12.24.090(I)(2) for Director approval of immediate hazard abatement without a formal application or noticing; removals pursuant to this Section(1)(a) and Section (I)(2) are not appealable) b. The tree is dead or dying or diseased or damaged beyond reclamation; c. The tree’s roots are causing severe damage to public or private property, and removing the tree is the only feasible way to eliminate the damage;. d. The tree is affected by structural defects and/or deficiencies that will limit lifespan; e. The tree is densely clustered amongst other trees and the requested tree removal promotes good arboricultural practice; f. The tree is obstructing vision, access, or mobility of public traffic (see Section 12.24.030, Definitions; public traffic). Trees requested for removal due to sidewalk infrastructure damage shall have lower preservation priority when the tree species is known to have invasive root structures that increase the likelihood that damage will recur if the tree is not approved for removal and where trees requested for removal are adjacent to sidewalks with a high volume of pedestrian use and/or with large vertical or slope displacements; g. The requested tree removal is necessary to alleviate a demonstrated and ongoing maintenance burden for the property owner exceeding routine tree maintenance; 2. When the city arborist cannot authorize a tree removal, the request shall be reviewed by the tree committee, which may authorize removal if it finds one of the following circumstances: Item 9 Item-9, pg. 58 a. The tree is causing undue hardship to the property owner. Normal routine maintenance does not constitute a hardship, i.e., cleaning of gutters, leaf raking, pruning or root intrusion into a failed sewer lateral, etc.; or b. Removing the tree promotes good arboricultural practice; or c. Removing the tree will not harm the character or environment of the surrounding neighborhood. 2. The City Arborist will either approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application for tree health or hazard mitigation based on findings regarding the criteria set forth in Section 12.24.090(E)(1). The City Arborist’s determination under this Section is appealable to the Tree Committee pursuant to Section 12.24.180. The Tree Committee’s decision also shall be based on findings regarding the criteria set forth in Section 12.24.090(E)(1). 3. Tree removal requests based on property owner convenience shall be subject to Tree Committee review in accordance with the process set forth in Section 12.24.090(F)(2), the relevant additional application requirements set forth in Section 12.24.090(D)(2), and the criteria set forth in Section 12.24.090(G). 4. All other tree removals not specified in this Section on any site for which a Ministerial Development Permit is sought shall be subject to Tree Committee or other discretionary review related to the Discretionary Development Permit requested and approval in accordance with the additional application requirements set forth in Section 12.24.090(D)(2), process set forth in Section 12.24.090(F), and criteria set forth in Section 12.24.090(G). E. Tree Removal with a Development Permit. 1. To remove a tree from any parcel in the city as part of property development by subdivision, building permit or other entitlement, the developer shall clearly delineate trees proposed to be removed as part of the development application and approval process. All development applications which include tree removals shall include the following documents: a. A site plan showing the location and species of any tree proposed for removal; b. All information to support the reason for removal; c. Any other pertinent information required. 2. Review of the application to remove a tree with a development permit shall proceed as follows: a. The city arborist shall inspect the property and recommend approving or denying the application; Item 9 Item-9, pg. 59 b. If no architectural review is required for the development, the tree committee shall approve or deny the application; c. If architectural review is required for the development, the architectural review commission shall approve or deny the application: i. If the city arborist has recommended denying the application and the architectural review commission has approved the application, the tree committee shall review the architectural review commission’s decision; ii. If the tree committee concurs with the city arborist’s recommendation to deny the application when the architectural review commission has approved the application, the city council shall review the matter for final action. F. Process for Tree Removals Related to Ministerial or Discretionary Property Development Permits (including construction for disabled access). 1. For Tree Removal requests related to Ministerial Development Permits for the construction of single family residences or accessory structures on R-1 or R-2 lots , or for improvements necessary to accommodate access for a disabled resident of the property (“Minor Ministerial Development Permits”), the City Arborist shall review the application, investigate the site, examine the tree or trees in question, review the compensatory planting plan, and either approve, conditionally approve (with additional compensatory planting requirements or tree protection measures), or deny the tree removal request(s), based on the criteria set forth in Section 12.24.090(G), subject to appeal as set forth in Section 12.24.180. 2. For all tree removal requests related to Ministerial Development Permits, other than as specified in 12.24.090.(F)(1) above, the Tree Committee shall review and make a recommendation on the Tree Removal Application to the Community Development Director based on the criteria in 12.24.090(G) and 12.24.090.(J). The Director shall consider the recommendation of the Tree Committee, as well as the consistency of the tree removal application with other City development policies and standards applicable to the site, and shall either approve, conditionally approve or deny the tree removal request, subject to appeal as set forth in Section 12.24.180. 3. For any tree removal request related to any Discretionary Development Permit application subject to Director Action/Director Hearing/Minor & Moderate Development Review/Minor Use Permit/Minor Subdivision processes, City Arborist shall review the tree removal application and make a recommendation on the tree removal application to the authorized approving authority based on the criteria set forth in Section 12.24.090(G) and 12.24.090(J). The authorized approving authority shall consider the arborist’s recommendation in addition to the complete development application’s compliance with other applicable City development policies, codes and standards and shall either, approve, conditionally approve or deny the tree removal as a part of the final discretionary approval, subject to otherwise applicable appeal processes for the development entitlement. Item 9 Item-9, pg. 60 4. For any tree removal request related to any Discretionary Development Permit application subject to Major Development Review/Tentative Tract Map/Conditional Use Permit processes, the Tree Committee shall review and make a recommendation on the tree removal application to the authorized approving authority based on the criteria set forth in Section 12.24.090(G) and 12.24.090.(J). The authorized approving authority shall consider the Tree Committee’s recommendation in addition to the complete development application’s compliance with other applicable City development policies, codes and standards and shall either, approve, conditionally approve or deny the tree removal as a part of the final discretionary approval, subject to otherwise applicable appeal processes for the development entitlement. 5. During property development or construction, any tree that is requested to be removed that was not identified and approved for removal by the authorized approving authority shall return to the authorized approving authority for approval prior to removal. 6. For a tree removal requests related to a Ministerial Development Permit, under Section 12.24.090(F)(1) or 12.24.090(F)(2) above, where the approving authority for the development permit is the Chief Building Official, the Ministerial Development Permit application shall not be deemed complete and the Chief Building Official shall not issue any construction permit unless any necessary Tree Removal permit has been approved and the time for appeal has expired. G. Criteria for Construction Related Tree Removal Recommendation. Recommendations and determinations of the City Arborist and the Tree Committee regarding any tree removal requests pursuant to Section 12.24.090(F) shall be based upon the criteria in this Section. Tree removal recommendations shall be based on the following criteria: 1. Size of Tree. The scale of the tree shall be considered, as well as the size of the tree’s canopy. Larger, more visually prominent trees may have a higher preservation priority than smaller, less visually prominent trees; 2. Location of Tree on Private Property. The location of the tree on private property shall be considered. Trees located in a private rear yard, which are not highly visible from the public right-of-way may have a lower preservation priority than trees with a high visual impact to the neighborhood; 3. Species of Tree. Native trees shall have a higher preservation priority than non-native trees; 4. Forestry Best Practice. The number of healthy trees that a given parcel of land will support shall be considered, and whether removal would enhance the health or survival of remaining trees. Applications that increase biodiversity of native trees and tree age distribution within a given area are preferred; Item 9 Item-9, pg. 61 1.5.Public Right-of-Way Obstruction or Displacement. Street trees requested for removal due to obstruction of vision, access, mobility of public traffic or sidewalk infrastructure repair or replacement shall have a lower preservation priority when the tree species is known to have invasive root structure or other characteristics that increase the likelihood that damage is likely to reoccur if not authorized for removal. Tree adjacent to sidewalks with a high volume of pedestrian use with large vertical or slope displacements may have a lower preservation priority. 6. Compliance with Section 12.24.090(J) regarding compensatory plantings. The approving authority may consider an application proposal to provide compensatory plantings in excess of required minimums in evaluating this criterion. 7. Heritage Trees. A tree which has been designated a heritage tree is prohibited from removal unless the City Arborist authorizes a tree removal upon finding that a tree removal would be related to tree health or hazard mitigation as outlined in Sections 12.24.090 (E)(1) Heritage trees have the highest preservation priority. GH. Tree Removal by the City. 1. Tree removal requests for any city project must follow the same procedures as any property owner. 2. After receiving approval to remove a tree as part of a capital improvement project, the city shall replace the tree as soon as feasible during the project at a ratio determined by the Public Works Director. HI. Notification of Tree Removal. 1. The city shall post a sign notifying the public of the date and description of a proposed tree removal. This sign shall be posted in a prominent location on the property on which the tree removal is requested, visible from a public street public right of way, for a period not less than five days before either staff consideration of a tree removal permit or a public hearing on a related development the approval of a Ministerial or Discretionary Development Permit. 2. The public works director may waive application and notification requirements for a tree removal and immediately permit removal when the director determines that a tree’s condition threatens public health, safety or welfare such that an application and notice are not feasible. The owner of the property on which such a removal is requested shall produce sufficient proof to the Director’s satisfaction that a notice and an application are not feasible. Removals authorized under this Section are not appealable. I. Approval Conditions. In approving an application for tree removal, the director, the tree committee, the architectural review commission or the city council may require planting of replacement trees and may require a bond ensuring that replacement trees shall be planted and maintained. Item 9 Item-9, pg. 62 J. Compensatory Tree Planting. Tree removals authorized under Section 12.24.090(E) or 12.24.090(F) shall be compensated by planting a minimum of one new tree for each tree authorized to be removed when planted on the same property (onsite) or two new trees for each tree authorized to be removed when planted on a different property or within the public right-of-way (offsite). In approving an application for tree removal, the authorized approving authority shall require compensatory plantings of a size consistent with City Engineering Standards as set forth in the table below: Container Size Trunk Diameter (inches) 15 gallon 0.75” to 1.5” 24 inch box 1.5” to 2.5” 36 inch box 2.5” to 3.5” 48 inch box 3.5” to 4.5” The authorized approving authority may require subsequent compensatory tree plantings in the event that the original replacement plantings fail to establish and/or may require a bond ensuring that replacement trees shall be planted and maintained. JK. Expiration of Appeals. Decisions on tree removal by the director, the tree committee and the architectural review commission authorized approving authority shall be subject to appeal according to the appeal provisions of this code, and no removal or related development permit shall be issued until the appeal period has lapsed. KL. City Street and Sidewalk Maintenance Program. 1. The city has a program whereby staff evaluates and repairs sidewalks and streets on a predetermined schedule. When the city determines a street tree must be removed to repair the sidewalk, the city will pay all costs to repair sidewalk, curb, and gutter, remove the tree and plant a new tree. 2. If a property owner wishes to remove a street tree and repair hardscape damage outside of regular City maintenance and replacement schedules they may do so at their own expense, if the removal is approved by the tree committee in compliance with Section 12.24.090(E) or 12.24.090(F). The property owner shall pay for the necessary hardscape repairs and be required to plant and maintain a new tree as a condition of their approved tree removal permit unless tree replacement is waived by the tree committee. (Ord. 1544 § 1 (part), 2010), either in the same location or in another more suitable location. Item 9 Item-9, pg. 63 Section 12.24.180 - Appeals A. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 1.20, aAny person aggrieved by an act or determination of the staff in the authorized approving authority exercising the authority herein granted shall have the right to appeal to the tree committee, whose decisions are appealable to the city council the decision of the authorized approving authority as set forth in this Section. B. Appeals received by the city clerk within ten calendar days from the date of determination or act shall cause the public works director to withhold tree removal permits and any permits for stop any construction or demolition activity affecting relying on the subject tree removal until the appeal is heard and a decision is reached. (Ord. 1544 § 1 (part), 2010) REMOVAL APPLICATION TYPE DECISION MAKER APPEAL BODY Imminent hazard to life or property Section 12.24.090 E(1)(a) City Arborist No Appeal Tree Health and Hazard Mitigation Section 12.24.090(E) City Arborist Tree Committee Minor Ministerial Development Permit (removal for residential or accessory construction on an R-1 or R-2 lot) Section 12.24.090(F)(1) City Arborist Community Development Director Ministerial Development Permits Section 12.24.090(F)(2) Community Development Director City Council Discretionary Permits (Director Action/Director Hearing/Minor & Moderate Development Review/Minor Use Permit/Minor Subdivision) Section 12.24.090(F)(3) Community Development Director or Hearing Officer Planning Commission Major Development Review/Tentative Tract Map/Conditional Use Permit Section 12.24.090(F)(4) Planning Commission City Council Item 9 Item-9, pg. 64 Current Tree Removal Process as Outlined in SLOMC 12.24.090 Item 9 Item-9, pg. 65 Tree Removal Need Imminent Hazard 12.24.090(E)(1)(a) City Arborist Makes Decision Application (non-construction) 12.24.090(E) City Arborist Makes Decision Tree Committee for Appeal Convenience (non-construction) 12.24.090(E)(3) Tree Committee makes Recommendation with Staff Input CDD Director Makes Decision City Council for Appeal Application (Construction) City Arborist Minor Ministerial (R1 & R2) 12.24.090(F)(1) City Arborist Approves or Denies CDD Director for Appeal Ministerial 12.24.090(F)(2) Tree Committee makes Recommendation with Staff Input CDD Director Makes Decision City Council for Appeal Director Action 12.24.090(F)(3) City Arborist makes Recommendation to CDD Director CDD Director Makes Decision Planning Commission for Appeal Major Development 12.24.090(F)(4) Tree Committee makes Recommendation with Staff Input Planning Commission Makes Decision City Council for Appeal Proposed Process for Tree Removals as Outlined in Section 12.24.090 Item 9 Item-9, pg. 66 ORDINANCE NO. _____ (2019 SERIES) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 12.24.030 AND REPLACING SECTIONS 12.24.090 AND 12.24.180 OF THE CITY’S MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO TREE REMOVAL WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo relies upon the advice of its advisory bodies; and WHEREAS, the Tree Committee, with the assistance of the City Arborist and City Staff, reviewed the existing Municipal Code for possible modifications that would enhance the urban forest, protect private property rights, and reduce overall City liability; and WHEREAS, after said review, the Tree Committee conducted a regular public hearing on February 25, 2019 for the purpose of reviewing recommended amendments to Section 12.24.030 and replacing sections 12.24.090 and 12.24.180 of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, on June 24, 2019 the Tree Committee conducted a regular public hearing for the purpose of finalizing recommended amendments to Section 12.24.030 and the replacement of Sections 12.24.090 and 12.24.180 of the Municipal Code to be recommended to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo; and WHEREAS, the City Council of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California on July 2, 2019, for the purpose of introducing an Ordinance based on the recommendations of the Tree Committee to amend Section 12.24.030 and replace Sections 12.24.090 and 12.24.180 of the City’s Municipal code relating to tree removal; and WHEREAS, after review of the information gathered by staff during public hearings, staff recommends the draft amendments to Section 12.24.030 and draft replacement of Sections 12.24.090 and 12.24.180 of the City’s Municipal Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Recitals. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein as the findings of the Council by this reference. SECTION 2. Section 12.24.030 of the City’s Municipal Code is hereby amended to add the following definitions of, “Public Traffic”, “Discretionary Development Permit”, and “Ministerial Development Permit”. 1. “Public Traffic” means all motorized vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, and personal mobility devices in and along the public right of way. Item 9 Item-9, pg. 67 2. “Discretionary Development Permit” means a permit issued for any project which requires the exercise of judgment or deliberation by a public official to approve or disapprove an activity, as distinguished from merely determining whether there has been compliance with applicable laws or regulations. 3. “Ministerial Development Permit” means a construction or development permit required to be issued by the City upon confirmation that the project application meets minimum statutory or code requirements and other adopted, uniform standards, the review of which requires little or no personal judgment by the reviewing public official as to the wisdom or manner of carrying out the project, such as the review and issuance of most building permits. For purposes of this Chapter, the discretionary act of issuance of a tree removal permit does not redefine an otherwise Ministerial Development Permit into a Discretionary Development Permit. SECTION 3. Section 12.24.090 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby repealed and replaced to read as shown in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. SECTION 4. Section 12.24.180 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby repealed and replaced to read as shown in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. SECTION 5. Environmental Review. The proposed ordinance is exempt from the environmental review requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations because the proposed changes are clarifications and enhancements of existing, longstanding regulations relating solely to procedural requirements for the review of tree removal requests and it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant effect on the environment. Further, the ordinance is exempt from CEQA on the separate and independent ground that it is an action of the City for the protection of the environment because, among other things, it will enhance the process for Tree Committee review of removal requests, it will enhance the scope and quality of the information utilized in tree removal determinations, and it will require compensatory replacement of any trees approved for removal. Thus, the proposed ordinance is categorically exempt from the requirements of CEQA under Section 15308 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. SECTION 6. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council members voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage, in The Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage. Item 9 Item-9, pg. 68 INTRODUCED on the XXXX, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the XXX, on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ____________________________________ Mayor Heidi Harmon ATTEST: ____________________________________ Teresa Purrington City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________________ J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________. ______________________________ Teresa Purrington City Clerk Item 9 Item-9, pg. 69 Exhibit A - Section 12.24.090 – Tree Removal A. Policy. The city values trees as an important part of the natural, urban and economic environment and efforts shall be made to protect, preserve, and create the conditions that will promote the preservation of trees. When reviewing requests for tree removal permits, the city shall discourage removing healthy trees that present no threat to people or property. B. Permits for Removal. Except as otherwise specified in this chapter, no person shall cut down, remove or destroy any tree, or cause the cutting down, removal or destruction of any tree, unless that person has obtained a tree removal permit issued by the approving authority. C. Permit Not Required. Removing a tree in R-1 and R-2 zones does not require a permit if all of the following conditions exist: 1. The tree is a designated native species and the trunk is less than ten inches in diameter as measured by Diameter Standard Height (DSH, four feet, six inches per International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) standards). (see Section 12.24.030, Definitions; native trees) or when the tree is nonnative and the trunk is less than twenty inches DSH; and 2. The tree is not located within a creek setback area (See Section 17.70.030); and 3. The tree is not a designated street tree, and is not located within ten feet of the back of the sidewalk; and 4. Planting or retention of the tree was not a condition of development; or 5. The tree is a palm and the trunk is less than twelve inches DSH. D. Application Requirements for a Tree Removal Permit 1. An application for a tree removal permit on a site where no Discretionary or Ministerial Development Permit is requested shall include: a. A site plan showing the location, species and size of any tree proposed for removal; and b. A photo log that clearly shows the damage a tree is causing or the condition for which removal is requested; and c. A diagram or site photograph showing each tree identified to be removed with each tree uniquely identified by number; and d. All information to support the reason for removal; and e. A replanting plan showing the size, location and species of trees identified to be planted to compensate for proposed removal in compliance with Section 12.24.090(J); and Item 9 Item-9, pg. 70 f. Any other information deemed necessary by the Director of Public Works or the Director of Community Development to evaluate the proposed removal in accordance with the criteria set forth in Section 12.24.090(E). 2. An application for tree removal on a site where a Discretionary or Ministerial Development Permit is requested shall include the following information, in addition to application materials identified in Section 12.24.090(D): a. An arborist report that identifies and discusses each tree within the development footprint (including, but not limited to, structural development, grading, staging areas, ground cover removal, changes in drainage patterns, and associated off-site improvements) including those trees proposed for removal and those trees that will remain. An arborist report may not be required for tree removal(s) proposed on a single-family residential site for which only a Ministerial Development permit for construction related to a single-family residence is requested; b. A site plan that includes accurate drip line delineation and cross sections of construction work impacting both trees proposed for removal and trees planned to remain; c. Any other information deemed necessary by the Director of Public Works or the Director of Community Development to evaluate the proposed removal in accordance with the criteria set forth in Section 12.24.090(G). d. The tree removal application materials shall be provided at the same time and in addition to the development permit application but may reference the development permit application to provide the information required by this Section. E. Criteria and Process for Non-Construction Related Tree Removal application determinations related to Tree Health or Hazard Mitigation or Property Owner Convenience, (refer to Section 12.24.090(G) for criteria for construction tree removal determinations). 1. The City Arborist may authorize a tree removal upon receipt of a removal application pursuant to Section 12.24.090(D) and issue a tree removal permit upon determination of any of the following circumstances: a. The tree is an imminent hazard to life or property, and removing it is the only feasible way to eliminate the hazard (see Section 12.24.090(I)(2) for Director approval of immediate hazard abatement without a formal application or noticing; removals pursuant to this Section(1)(a) and Section (I)(2) are not appealable) b. The tree is dead or dying or diseased or damaged beyond reclamation; c. The tree’s roots are causing severe damage to public or private property, and removing the tree is the only feasible way to eliminate the damage; Item 9 Item-9, pg. 71 d. The tree is affected by structural defects and/or deficiencies that will limit lifespan; e. The tree is densely clustered amongst other trees and the requested tree removal promotes good arboricultural practice; f. The tree is obstructing vision, access, or mobility of public traffic (see Section 12.24.030, Definitions; public traffic). Trees requested for removal due to sidewalk infrastructure damage shall have lower preservation priority when the tree species is known to have invasive root structures that increase the likelihood that damage will recur if the tree is not approved for removal and where trees requested for removal are adjacent to sidewalks with a high volume of pedestrian use and/or with large vertical or slope displacements; g. The requested tree removal is necessary to alleviate a demonstrated and ongoing maintenance burden for the property owner exceeding routine tree maintenance; 2. The City Arborist will either approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application for tree health or hazard mitigation based on findings regarding the criteria set forth in Section 12.24.090(E)(1). The City Arborist’s determination under this Section is appealable to the Tree Committee pursuant to Section 12.24.180. The Tree Committee’s decision also shall be based on findings regarding the criteria set forth in Section 12.24.090(E)(1). 3. Tree removal requests based on property owner convenience shall be subject to Tree Committee review in accordance with the process set forth in Section 12.24.090(F)(2), the relevant additional application requirements set forth in Section 12.24.090(D)(2), and the criteria set forth in Section 12.24.090(G). 4. All other tree removals not specified in this Section on any site for which a Ministerial Development Permit is sought shall be subject to Tree Committee or other discretionary review related to the Discretionary Development Permit requested and approval in accordance with the additional application requirements set forth in Section 12.24.090(D)(2), process set forth in Section 12.24.090(F), and criteria set forth in Section 12.24.090(G). F. Process for Tree Removals Related to Ministerial or Discretionary Property Development Permits (including construction for disabled access). 1. For Tree Removal requests related to Ministerial Development Permits for the construction of single family residences or accessory structures on R-1 or R-2 lots , or for improvements necessary to accommodate access for a disabled resident of the property (“Minor Ministerial Development Permits”), the City Arborist shall review the application, investigate the site, examine the tree or trees in question, review the compensatory planting plan, and either approve, conditionally approve (with additional compensatory planting requirements or tree protection measures), or deny the tree removal request(s), based on the criteria set forth in Section 12.24.090(G), subject to appeal as set forth in Section 12.24.180. Item 9 Item-9, pg. 72 2. For all tree removal requests related to Ministerial Development Permits, other than as specified in 12.24.090.(F)(1) above, the Tree Committee shall review and make a recommendation on the Tree Removal Application to the Community Development Director based on the criteria in 12.24.090(G) and 12.24.090.(J). The Director shall consider the recommendation of the Tree Committee, as well as the consistency of the tree removal application with other City development policies and standards applicable to the site, and shall either approve, conditionally approve or deny the tree removal request, subject to appeal as set forth in Section 12.24.180. 3. For any tree removal request related to any Discretionary Development Permit application subject to Director Action/Director Hearing/Minor & Moderate Development Review/Minor Use Permit/Minor Subdivision processes, City Arborist shall review the tree removal application and make a recommendation on the tree removal application to the authorized approving authority based on the criteria set forth in Section 12.24.090(G) and 12.24.090(J). The authorized approving authority shall consider the arborist’s recommendation in addition to the complete development application’s compliance with other applicable City development policies, codes and standards and shall either, approve, conditionally approve or deny the tree removal as a part of the final discretionary approval, subject to otherwise applicable appeal processes for the development entitlement. 4. For any tree removal request related to any Discretionary Development Permit application subject to Major Development Review/Tentative Tract Map/Conditional Use Permit processes, the Tree Committee shall review and make a recommendation on the tree removal application to the authorized approving authority based on the criteria set forth in Section 12.24.090(G) and 12.24.090.(J). The authorized approving authority shall consider the Tree Committee’s recommendation in addition to the complete development application’s compliance with other applicable City development policies, codes and standards and shall either, approve, conditionally approve or deny the tree removal as a part of the final discretionary approval, subject to otherwise applicable appeal processes for the development entitlement. 5. During property development or construction, any tree that is requested to be removed that was not identified and approved for removal by the authorized approving authority shall return to the authorized approving authority for approval prior to removal. 6. For a tree removal requests related to a Ministerial Development Permit, under Section 12.24.090(F)(1) or 12.24.090(F)(2) above, where the approving authority for the development permit is the Chief Building Official, the Ministerial Development Permit application shall not be deemed complete and the Chief Building Official shall not issue any construction permit unless any necessary Tree Removal permit has been approved and the time for appeal has expired. G. Criteria for Construction Related Tree Removal Recommendation. Recommendations and determinations of the City Arborist and the Tree Committee regarding any tree removal requests Item 9 Item-9, pg. 73 pursuant to Section 12.24.090(F) shall be based upon the criteria in this Section. Tree removal recommendations shall be based on the following criteria: 1. Size of Tree. The scale of the tree shall be considered, as well as the size of the tree’s canopy. Larger, more visually prominent trees may have a higher preservation priority than smaller, less visually prominent trees; 2. Location of Tree on Private Property. The location of the tree on private property shall be considered. Trees located in a private rear yard, which are not highly visible from the public right-of-way may have a lower preservation priority than trees with a high visual impact to the neighborhood; 3. Species of Tree. Native trees shall have a higher preservation priority than non-native trees; 4. Forestry Best Practice. The number of healthy trees that a given parcel of land will support shall be considered, and whether removal would enhance the health or survival of remaining trees. Applications that increase biodiversity of native trees and tree age distribution within a given area are preferred; 5. Public Right-of-Way Obstruction or Displacement. Street trees requested for removal due to obstruction of vision, access, mobility of public traffic or sidewalk infrastructure repair or replacement shall have a lower preservation priority when the tree species is known to have invasive root structure or other characteristics that increase the likelihood that damage is likely to reoccur if not authorized for removal. Tree adjacent to sidewalks with a high volume of pedestrian use with large vertical or slope displacements may have a lower preservation priority. 6. Compliance with Section 12.24.090(J) regarding compensatory plantings. The approving authority may consider an application proposal to provide compensatory plantings in excess of required minimums in evaluating this criterion. 7. Heritage Trees. A tree which has been designated a heritage tree is prohibited from removal unless the City Arborist authorizes a tree removal upon finding that a tree removal would be related to tree health or hazard mitigation as outlined in Sections 12.24.090(E)(1) Heritage trees have the highest preservation priority. H. Tree Removal by the City. 1. Tree removal requests for any city project must follow the same procedures as any property owner. 2. After receiving approval to remove a tree as part of a capital improvement project, the city shall replace the tree as soon as feasible during the project at a ratio determined by the Public Works Director. Item 9 Item-9, pg. 74 I. Notification of Tree Removal. 1. The city shall post a sign notifying the public of the date and description of a proposed tree removal. This sign shall be posted in a prominent location on the property on which the tree removal is requested, visible from a public right of way, for a period not less than five days before either staff consideration of a tree removal permit or the approval of a Ministerial or Discretionary Development Permit. 2. The public works director may waive application and notification requirements for a tree removal and immediately permit removal when the director determines that a tree’s condition threatens public health, safety or welfare such that an application and notice are not feasible. The owner of the property on which such a removal is requested shall produce sufficient proof to the Director’s satisfaction that a notice and an application are not feasible. Removals authorized under this Section are not appealable. J. Compensatory Tree Planting. Tree removals authorized under Section 12.24.090(E) or 12.24.090(F) shall be compensated by planting a minimum of one new tree for each tree authorized to be removed when planted on the same property (onsite) or two new trees for each tree authorized to be removed when planted on a different property or within the public right-of-way (offsite). In approving an application for tree removal, the authorized approving authority shall require compensatory plantings of a size consistent with City Engineering Standards as set forth in the table below: Container Size Trunk Diameter (inches) 15 gallon 0.75” to 1.5” 24 inch box 1.5” to 2.5” 36 inch box 2.5” to 3.5” 48 inch box 3.5” to 4.5” The authorized approving authority may require subsequent compensatory tree plantings in the event that the original replacement plantings fail to establish and/or may require a bond ensuring that replacement trees shall be planted and maintained. K. Expiration of Appeals. Decisions on tree removal by authorized approving authority shall be subject to appeal according to the appeal provisions of this code, and no removal or related development permit shall be issued until the appeal period has lapsed. L. City Street and Sidewalk Maintenance Program. 1. The city has a program whereby staff evaluates and repairs sidewalks and streets on a predetermined schedule. When the city determines a street tree must be removed to repair Item 9 Item-9, pg. 75 the sidewalk, the city will pay all costs to repair sidewalk, curb, and gutter, remove the tree and plant a new tree. 2. If a property owner wishes to remove a street tree and repair hardscape damage outside of regular City maintenance and replacement schedules they may do so at their own expense, if the removal is approved in compliance with Section 12.24.090(E) or 12.24.090(F). The property owner shall pay for the necessary hardscape repairs and be required to plant and maintain a new tree as a condition of their approved tree removal, either in the same location or in another more suitable location. Item 9 Item-9, pg. 76 Exhibit B - Section 12.24.180 - Appeals A. Any person aggrieved by an act or determination of the authorized approving authority exercising the authority herein granted shall have the right to appeal the decision of the authorized approving authority as set forth in this Section. B. Appeals received by the city clerk within ten calendar days from the date of determination or act shall cause the director to withhold tree removal permits and any permits for construction or demolition activity relying on the subject tree removal until the appeal is heard and a decision is reached. REMOVAL APPLICATION TYPE DECISION MAKER APPEAL BODY Imminent hazard to life or property Section 12.24.090 E(1)(a) City Arborist No Appeal Tree Health and Hazard Mitigation Section 12.24.090(E) City Arborist Tree Committee Minor Ministerial Development Permit (removal for residential or accessory construction on an R-1 or R-2 lot) Section 12.24.090(F)(1) City Arborist Community Development Director Ministerial Development Permits Section 12.24.090(F)(2) Community Development Director City Council Discretionary Permits (Director Action/Director Hearing/Minor & Moderate Development Review/Minor Use Permit/Minor Subdivision) Section 12.24.090(F)(3) Community Development Director or Hearing Officer Planning Commission Major Development Review/Tentative Tract Map/Conditional Use Permit Section 12.24.090(F)(4) Planning Commission City Council Item 9 Item-9, pg. 77 7/2/2019 Item 9 ‐ Staff Presentation 1 Tree Ordinance Review City Council Regular Meeting Daryl Grigsby, Director of Public Works Matt Horn, Deputy Director of Public Works July 2, 2019 2 Overview Recommendation Concept and Process Objectives Background Highlight Key Ordinance Changes Tree Removal Process Comparison – Existing vs Draft Q&A and Discussion 1 2 7/2/2019 Item 9 ‐ Staff Presentation 2 3 Recommendation 1.Review and provide direction on proposed amendments to Section 12.24.030 and replacement of Sections 12.24.090 and 12.24.180 of the City’s Municipal Code relating to Tree Removal as recommended by the Tree Committee. 2.Alternatively, if the Ordinance is acceptable to Council in currently proposed form, introduce the Ordinance for adoption. 4 Concept and Process Objectives Reinforce the importance and value of trees in the City. Align the Tree Regulations with current development review processes and purview and purpose of Committee (“…to advise City staff and the City Council on all matters related to trees in San Luis Obispo”). Provide clarity regarding the role of the Tree Committee in construction and development related removal and replacement requests Tree Committee is not trained or expected to be a development review body, but is relied upon to provide focused input on matters related to trees based on established criteria Provide valuable input on tree health, desirability, and preservation objectives to the development review authority that is otherwise charged with looking at bigger picture site context and conformity with broader City development standards. Enable Tree Committee input on tree removal requests at a relevant time in the development review process Set clear public expectations to maximize effective public participation Avoid situations, which have arisen in the past, where an application arrives on the tree committee agenda after some other permit or entitlement that relies on the tree removal has already been approved (e.g. architectural review), potentially creating a false public expectation of Tree Committee “override” authority on building permits or development entitlements. 3 4 7/2/2019 Item 9 ‐ Staff Presentation 3 1957 2018 5 6 7/2/2019 Item 9 ‐ Staff Presentation 4 1957 2018 7 8 7/2/2019 Item 9 ‐ Staff Presentation 5 1957 2018 9 10 7/2/2019 Item 9 ‐ Staff Presentation 6 11 Background Staff has presented the draft Municipal Code amendments and replacements to the Tree Committee on three separate occasions: December 11, 2017 February 25, 2019 June 24, 2019 After revisions, the Tree Committee has found the proposed changes to be acceptable and has recommended that the City Council approve them. 12 Highlights of Draft Ordinance 1.Application Requirements (Page 70) 2.Tree Removal Criteria (Page 71 & 73) 3.Process for Considering Tree Removals (Page 77) 4.Compensatory Planting (Page 75) 11 12 7/2/2019 Item 9 ‐ Staff Presentation 7 13 Existing Criteria – City Arborist The tree is an imminent hazard to life or property, and removing it is the only feasible way to eliminate the hazard; The tree is dead or dying or damaged beyond reclamation; The tree’s roots are causing severe damage to public or private property, and removing the tree is the only feasible way to eliminate the damage. 14 Existing Criteria – Tree Committee 1.The tree is causing undue hardship to the property owner. Normal routine maintenance does not constitute a hardship, i.e., cleaning of gutters, leaf raking, pruning or root intrusion into a failed sewer lateral, etc.; or 2.Removing the tree promotes good arboricultural practice; or 3.Removing the tree will not harm the character or environment of the surrounding neighborhood 13 14 7/2/2019 Item 9 ‐ Staff Presentation 8 Current Process 15 16 Proposed Criteria 12.24.090(E) a.The tree is an imminent hazard to life or property, and removing it is the only feasible way to eliminate the hazard b.The tree is dead or dying or diseased or damaged beyond reclamation c.The tree’s roots are causing severe damage to public or private property, and removing the tree is the only feasible way to eliminate the damage d.The tree is affected by structural defects and/or deficiencies that will limit lifespan. The tree is densely clustered amongst other trees and the requested tree removal promotes good arboricultural practice e.The tree is obstructing vision, access, or mobility or public traffic f.The requested tree removal is necessary to alleviate a demonstrated and ongoing maintenance burden for the property owner exceeding routine maintenance Non-Construction 15 16 7/2/2019 Item 9 ‐ Staff Presentation 9 17 Proposed Criteria 12.24.090(G) 1.Size of tree. The scale of a tree shall be considered, as well as the size of the tree’s canopy. 2.Location of Tree on Private Property. The location of the tree on private property shall be considered. 3.Species of Tree. Native trees shall have a higher preservation priority than non-native trees. 4.Forestry Best Practice. The number of healthy trees that a given parcel of land will support shall be considered. 5.Public Right-of-Way Sidewalk Displacement. The tree is obstructing vision, access, or mobility of public traffic. 6.Compliance with Compensatory Planting Requirements (outlined in Section 12.24.090(J) 7.Heritage Trees are prohibited from removal unless the City Arborist authorizes a tree removal related health or hazard. Construction Proposed Process 18 17 18 7/2/2019 Item 9 ‐ Staff Presentation 10 19 Additional Considerations “As a condition of authorizing tree removal(s), the approving authority may require the development and implementation of a site-specific tree protection plan that shall be submitted to the City Arborist for review and approval prior to issuance of a tree removal permit.” into Section 12.24.090(D)(3) 20 Recommendation 1.Review and provide direction on proposed amendments to Section 12.24.030 and replacement of Sections 12.24.090 and 12.24.180 of the City’s Municipal Code relating to Tree Removal as recommended by the Tree Committee. 2.Alternatively, if the Ordinance is acceptable to Council in currently proposed form, introduce the Ordinance for adoption. 19 20 7/2/2019 Item 9 ‐ Staff Presentation 11 Questions & Answers 21