Chapt 21.56 Tree Protect (1998)MEMORANDUM
To~
From:
Date:
Gloria Sciara, Planner II
J msley, Deputy City Clerk
Jttly 22, 1998
Subject:
Establishment of Tree Protection Regulations
At the regular meeting of July 21, 1998, the City Council adopted Ordinance 1969
adding Chapter 21.56 to Title 21 of the Campbell Municipal Code to establish Tree
Protection Regulations. Please find certified copy of this Ordinance attached for your
records.
A Summary of this Ordinance has been forwarded to the Campbell Express for
publication on July 29, 1998, and the complete text has been forwarded to Book
Publishing Co. for codification.
ORDINANCE NO. 1969
BEING AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CAMPBELL ADDING CHAPTER 21.56 TO TITLE 21 OF THE CAMPBELL
MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH TREE PROTECTION REGULATIONS AS
FOUND IN THE ATTACHED EXHIBIT "A."
The City Council of the City Of Campbell does ordain as follows:
SECTION I: The City Council of the City of Campbell hereby finds:
The City of Campbell has a diversity of trees that contributes to the quality of life and
makes Campbell a desirable place for residents, visitors, business owners, customers and
employees; and
Trees provide shade, stabilize the soil, enhance views, improve privacy, counteract air
pollutants, maintain the climatic balance, decrease wind velocities, provide shelter and
food for birds and other wildlife, fragrance and color; and can enhance development; and
o
The City recognizes the importance of establishing, maintaining and increasing tree
coverage over time on private land to improve the scenic, visual, economic and
environmental benefits to the community; and
Heritage and Specimen trees are valuable resources to the community and maintaining an
appropriate diversity in tree species and age classes shall be promoted to provide a stable
and sustainable environmental; and
The urban community is particularly vulnerable to depletion of trees from the
development and redevelopment of the properties which necessitates the preservation of
its tree population to provide citizens with a vital link to nature; and
o
Mature trees should be retained whenever reasonably possible to enhance the development
or redevelopment of private property; and
°
The fees collected pursuant to Section 21.56.110 shall be used exclusively for the
purchase and planting of trees on public property to replace trees removed pursuant to a
tree removal permit.
The purpose of the fee charged pursuant to Section 21.56.110 is to provide for
replacement of trees removed from the City.
There is a reasonable relationship between the fees used and the type of"development" on
which the fee is imposed in that the "development" consists of removing trees and the fee
is' for replacement of trees.
City Council Ordinance 1969
Tree Protection Regulations
Page 2
10.
There is a reasonable relationship between the need for the "public facility" and the
removal of trees on which the fee is imposed, in that the removal of trees from private
property increases the need for trees in the City on public property.
11.
Tl~er~ is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public
facility attributed to the development on which the fee is imposed in that the number of
immature replacement trees required by the ordinance are necessary to provide similar
long-term shade, environmental and aesthetic benefit as the mature tree to be removed and
the fee represents the generally accepted value of those trees.
SECTION II. Chapter 21.56 is hereby added to Title 21 of the Campbell Municipal Code, to
read as set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of
call vote:
July
., 1998, by the following roll
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ATTEST:
Anne Bybee, City Clerk
Conant, Furtado, Dougherty, Watson
Dean
oJehn-~tte W-at'son, Mayor
Chapter 21.56
TREE PROTECTION REGULATIONS
Sections
21.56.010
21.56.020
21.56.030
21.56.O4O
21.56.050
21.56.060
21.56.070
21.56.080
21.56.090
21.56.100
21.56.110
21.56.120
21.56.130
21.56.140
21.56.150
21.56.160
21.56.170
21.56.180
Purpose
Definitions
Applicability
Actions Prohibited
Protected Trees
Exemptions
Tree Removal Permit/Application Requirements
Determination on Permit
Approval Authority and Permit Process
Replacement Trees
Site Limitations/In-Lieu Fee for Replacement
Delegation of Functions
Heritage Tree Designations
Appeals
Tree Technical Manual
Violations/Penalties
No Liability upon City
Severability
21.56.010 Purpose.
In enacting this ordinance, the City of Campbell recognizes the substantial aesthetic, environmental, and
economic importance of its tree population. The purpose of this ordinance is to establish policies,
regulations and standards to protect and manage trees on private property to ensure that development is
compatible with and enhances Campbell's small town quality and character.
21.56.020 Definitions.
The following words and phrases when used in this article shall have the meaning set forth herein, except
where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:
"Arborist" means a person having expertise in the care and maintenance of trees that is certified
by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) or comparable organization.
°
"Approval Authority" the person or body officially responsible for rendering decisions on
requests to remove trees protected by this Chapter.
o
"Developed Single Family Residential Property" means any legal lot of record with a minimum
net lot area (defined herein) of 6,000 square feet that is developed with a main dwelling unit and
zdned either "Single Family" (R-l), or "Planned Development."(PD) and cannot be further
subdivided into additional lots under its current zoning designation.
Page 2
o
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
"Development Application" means an application for land alteration or development, including
but not limited to, site and architectural review, variance, use permit, rezoning, planned
development permit and subdivisions of property.
"Dripline" means the outermost line of the tree's canopy projected straight down to the ground
sul-faee. In plan view, the dripline generally appears as an irregularly shaped circle.
"Emergency" means a sudden, or generally unexpected occurrence that decisively determines that
immediate action is warranted.
"Fruit Tree" means any tree that has the characteristic of bearing edible fruit, common to
commercial production varieties including but not limited to stone fruits e.g. prunes, peaches etc.,
citrus e.g. lemons, oranges, nut varieties e.g. almonds, English walnut (except for California
Black Walnut), Peppers (g. Schinus), and Olives (g. Oleaceae), etc. A "fruit tree" shall not mean
any tree that bears a fruit or nut produced primarily as seed, (e.g. oaks, pines etc.).
"Heritage Tree" means any tree so designated by the Historic Preservation Board based on the
finding that the tree has character, significant age and girth, interest or value as part of the
development of, and/or exemplification of the cultural, educational, economic, agricultural,
social, indigenous, or historical heritage of the City and identified on the Historic Resources
Inventory.
"Main Building" means a primary building permitted under the zoning district in which a
property is located to provide reasonable economic use of a property.
"Net Lot Area" means the total area within the lot lines of a lot, excluding any street right-of-way
or common areas owned collectively by a group of property owners in a planned development.
"Protected Tree" means any class of tree specified in Section 21.56.050.
"Pruning" means the standard practice of maintenance consisting of trimming or cutting away any
limbs or branches of a tree to control growth and enhance performance or function by developing
and preserving tree structure and health in accordance with pruning standards contained in the
Tree Technical Manual.
"R-I" means any Developed Single Family Residential Property.
"Remove" means the complete removal of a tree such as cutting to the ground or its extraction. It
also means taking action foreseeably leading to the death of a tree or permanent damage to its
health, including but not limited to cutting, girdling, poisoning, over-watering, unauthorized
relocation or transportation of a tree or trenching, excavating, or altering the grade or paving
within the dripline of a tree.
"Severe Trimming" means cutting back large diameter branches or the main trunk of a mature
tree to stubs known as topping or severe root pruning; which either destroys the existing
symmetrical appearance or natural shape of the tree and/or compromise the long term health, or
survival of a tree.
"Tree" means a live woody perennial plant characterized by having a main stem or trunk or a
multi-stemmed trunk system with a more or less definitely formed crown, and is usually over ten
Page 3
(10) feet high at maturity.
17.
"Tree Removal" means cutting of a tree to the ground or its extraction or severe trimming of a
tree (defined herein) that does not comply with pruning standards adopted in this ordinance. (See
this Section for "Pruning" definition).
18.
"Tree Technical Manual" means the regulations and specifications issued by the Community
Development Director to implement this Chapter.
19. "Unprotected Tree" means any class of tree not specified in Section 21.56.050.
21.56.030 Applicability.
This article shall apply to every owner of private property within the City, and to every person
responsible for undertaking the removal of a tree on private property, unless exempted herein.
21.56.040 Actions Prohibited.
It is unlawful to remove, as defined herein, any protected tree specified in Section 21.56.050,
Protected Trees, from private property without first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit.
21.56.050 Protected Trees.
Except as otherwise provided in Section 21.56.060, Exemptions, the following trees shall not be removed
from private property without first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit:
1. Heritage Trees in all zoning districts.
2. Any tree required to be planted or retained as a condition of approval of a development application or
a building permit in all zoning districts.
Any tree which measures 12 inches or greater in diameter or 38 inches or greater in circumference,
measured four feet above the adjacent grade in all zoning districts, except for developed single
family residential properties.
For multi-trunk trees, any tree which has at least one trunk 12 inches or greater in diameter or 38
inches or greater in circumference, measured four (4) feet above the adjacent grade, except for
developed single family residential properties.
For Developed Single Family Residential Properties, trees or multi-trunk trees with at least one
trunk measuring 12 inches or greater in diameter or 38 inches or greater in circumference of the
following species:
a. Quercus (oaks)
b. Sequoia (redwoods)
c. Cedrus (cedars)
d. Fraxinus (ash)
Page 4
21.56.060 Exemptions.
Exempt Trees and Conditions. The following tree types and conditions are exempt from this
Chapter and may be removed without approval of a Tree Removal Permit:
Emergencies. Trees that pose an immediate threat to persons or property during an emergency or
are ttetermined to constitute an emergency, upon order of the Community Development Director, or
any member of the police or fire services agency.
Public Nuisance. Any tree in such a condition to constitute a public nuisance, as defined in Section
6.10.020 of the Campbell Municipal Code when the declaration of a public nuisance has been
made by the Building Official, Community Development Director or the Fire Chief.
3. Public Utilities. Trees that undermine or impact the safe operation of public utilities that are
subject to the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California.
4. Fruit Trees. Fruit tree(s) as herein defined, in any zoning district.
5. Eucalyptus Trees. All trees of the genus Myrtaceae.
o
Developed Single Family Residential. Any tree located on Developed Single Family Residential
property except as specified in Section 21.56.050.
21.56.070 Tree Removal Permit/Application Requirements.
1. Application Information. Applications for a Tree Removal Permit shall be available from and filed
with the Community Development Department and shall contain the following:
a. A written explanation of why the tree(s) should be removed;
b. Photograph(s) of the tree(s);
c. Arborist report (including the appraised value of each tree);
d. Signature of the property owner and homeowners association (when applicable);
e. Replanting plan (See Section 21.56.100.2);
f. Other information deemed necessary by the Community Development Director to evaluate the
tree removal request;
g. Permit fee, if applicable.
Additional Application Requirement For All Properties Except Developed R- 1.
Applications for a Tree Removal permit on all properties except developed single family residential
properties shall include the following additional information:
a. A tree survey plan indicating the number, location(s), variety or species, and size(s) (measured 4
feet above grade) of tree(s) to be removed;
21.56.080 Determination on Permit.
1. General Criteria. The approval authority shall issue a Tree Removal Permit if any of the following
general criteria are met:
a. Diseased or Danger of Falling. The tree or trees are irreparably diseased or presents a danger of
falling that cannot be controlled or remedied through reasonable preservation and/or
Page 5
preventative procedures and practices such that the public health or safety requires its removal.
Potential Damage. The tree or trees can potentially cause substantial damage to existing or
proposed main buildings (e.g. dwellings or other main buildings) or interfere with utility services
and cannot be controlled or remedied through reasonable relocation or modification of the
structure or utility services.
Ec~onomic Enjoyment and Hardship. The retention of the tree(s) restricts the economic
enjoyment of the property or creates an unusual hardship for the property owner by severely
limiting the use of the property in a manner not typically experienced by owners of similarly
zoned and situated properties, and the applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the
appr,~val authority that there are no reasonable alternatives to preserve the tree(s). A minor
reduction of the potential number of residential units or building size due to the tree location
does not represent a severe limit of the economic enjoyment of the property.
2. Additional Recommendations. The approval authority may refer the application to another
department or commission for a report and recommendation.
Inspections and Permit Availability: City staff shall have the authority to conduct on-site inspections
of all trees proposed for removal. If a Tree Removal Permit is approved the permit shall be on-site at
all times prior to and during the removal of a tree and/or must be made available to any City official
at the site, upon request.
Action. Based on the criteria outlined in this Section, the approval authority shall either approve,
conditionally approve or deny the application. Conditions of approval may include any of the
following:
a. Revisions to development plans to accommodate existing trees, or
b. Replacement trees of a species and size planted at locations designated by the approval authority
in accordance with Section 21.56.100, Replacement Trees, or
c. Payment of an in-lieu fee pursuant to Section 21.56.110, or
d. A combination of replacement trees and in-lieu fees that in total provide for the number of
replacement trees required by this Chapter.
21.56.090 Approval Authority and Permit Process
1. Tree Removal Requests Filed Independent Of Development Applications.
ao
bo
Community Development Director Review. The Community Development Director is the
approval authority for tree removal requests, except for Heritage Trees, filed independent of a
development application. The Community Development Director shall render a decision within
10 business days from the date a tree removal application is filed and deemed complete.
Posting and Notice. The decision of the Community Development Director shall be mailed to
the applicant and to all owners of record within a 300 foot radius of the subject property on the
same day the decision is made. In addition, the site or tree shall be posted with a sign by the
Community Department for ten (10) calendar days indicating the decision of the Community
Development Director, and specifying the appeal period and the method of appeal.
Page 6
2. Tree Removal Requests Filed With A Development Application.
a. Approval Authority. The approval authority for tree removal requests filed in conjunction with a
development application shall be the same approval authority as established for the
accompanying development application.
b. Public Hearing. A Public Hearing is required subject to the provisions of Chapter 21.78 of the
Z~oning Ordinance.
c. Posting. The Community Development Department shall post the site or tree under
consideration with a sign indicating the proposed removal and the time and place of the hearing
ten (10) calendar days prior to the hearing date.
3. Heritage Tree Removal Requests. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Section, the following
provisions shall apply to requests for removal of Heritage Trees:
a. Requests Filed Independent of Development Applications. The Historic Preservation Board is
the approval authority for tree removal requests for Heritage Trees filed independent of a
development application.
b. Requests Filed in Conjunction with a Development Application. The approval authority for
Heritage Tree removal requests filed in conjunction with a development application shall be the
same approval authority as established for the accompanying development application. Prior to
the hearing before the approval authority, requests to remove Heritage Trees filed in conjunction
with a development application shall be referred to the Historic Preservation Board who shall
make a recommendation to the approval authority.
c. Public Hearing. A Public Hearing by the approval authority is required for all Heritage Tree
removal requests pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 21.78 of the Zoning Ordinance.
d. Posting. The Community Development Department shall post the site or tree under consideration
with a sign indicating the proposed removal and the time and place of the hearing ten (10)
calendar days prior to the hearing date.
Final Decision/Timing of Tree Removal. No tree for which a Tree Removal Permit is required shall
be removed until all conditions of the permit have been satisfied and the decision has become final.
In addition, tree or trees approved for removal in conjunction with a development application shall
not be removed prior to the issuance of building permit or unless all of the conditions of approval of
the development application are satisfied.
5. Concurrent Filing. All tree removal requests associated with a development application shall be filed
concurrently with the development application and shall be subject to the provisions of this Chapter.
21.56.100 Replacement Trees.
Number and Size of Replacement Trees. The minimum number and size of replacement trees shall
be based on the number, size and species of trees requested to be removed. The species of
replacement tree(s) shall continue the diversity of trees found in the community.
Page 7
The minimum guidelines for tree replacement are as follows:
Replacement Tree Requirements
Table 56.100.1
Trunk Size of Removed Tree Replacement Ratio Required
_4 (measured at 4 feet above grade) (per tree removed)
Diameter Circumference Number of rer>lacement Minimum Size
(in inches) (in inches) trees
12 to 24 38 to 75 1 24 inch box
Greater than 24 [~reater than 75 1 36 inch box
Heritage Trees 1 48 inch box
Replanting Plan. A replanting plan shall be made a requirement of the Tree Removal Permit, and is
subject to approval by the approval authority prior to issuance of the Tree Removal Permit unless an
in-lieu fee pursuant to Section 21.56.110 is approved by the approval authority. The replanting plan
shall be subject to the following:
a. The replanting plan shall include a site plan of the subject property with the location and species
of the proposed replacement trees.
b. All replacement trees required by the approved replanting plan shall be obtained and planted at
the expense of the applicant.
c. If the tree removal request was filed in conjunction with a development application, pursuant to
Section 21.56.090, all replacement trees shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy for the development.
d. If the tree removal request was not filed in conjunction with a development application all
replacement trees shall be installed within 30 days from the date the Tree Removal Permit is
issued.
e. City staff shall be permitted to enter the property to verify the installation of the replacement
trees.
3. Maintenance of Replacement Trees. Replacement trees shall be maintained in accordance with
Sectk~n 21.57.050, Landscaping Maintenance Requirements, of the Zoning Ordinance.
Maintenance Bond. The approval authority may require a faithful performance bond, maintenance
bond or other security deposit when tree replacement is required by this Chapter. The bond shall be
in an amount of money and for a period of time determined by the Community Development Director
to ensure acquisition and proper planting and maintenance of the replacement trees. The bond shall
be paid to the City prior to the issuance of the Tree Removal Permit.
21.56.110 Site Limitations/In-lieu Fee for Replacement.
Site Limitations. If the site layout cannot reasonably accommodate the number of trees required in
accordance with the replacement ratios and/or tree spacing consistent with standard forestry
practices, the approval authority shall either:
P~e8
a. Approve an increase in the size of the on-site replacement trees and reduce the number of trees
required. The quantity and quality of the replacement trees must be sufficient to produce a
reasonable tree canopy for the size of the lot; x>r
b. Require payment of an in-lieu fee in accordance with Subsection 2. of this Section for the
required number of trees or any portion thereof,
2. In-lieu Fee. Payment of a fee shall be made to the City for tree planting elsewhere in the community
should on-site location of the replacement trees not be possible, subject to the following:
a. The in-lieu fee will be based on the fair market value of the number of trees required by Section
21.56.100 for the same or equivalent species, delivered and installed, as determined by the Public
Works Director.
b. The fees will be used to purchase trees that will be planted within the public right-of-way or on
other public property as directed by the Public Works Department. Where feasible, trees will be
planted in the vicinity in which the tree was removed.
c. Payment of the in-lieu fee shall be made prior to issuance of the Tree Removal Permit.
21.56.120 Delegation of Functions.
The Community Development Director may delegate any or all of the administrative duties authorized by
this article to one or more staff members.
21.56.130 Heritage Tree Designations.
Applications. Applications for designation of a heritage tree on private or public property may be
initiated by any person subject to the property owners' written consent. The applicant requesting
Heritage Tree designation shall submit an application in accordance with instructions provided by
the Community Development Director and shall include the following:
a. Assessors Parcel Number of the site;
b. Description detailing the proposed Heritage Tree's special aesthetic, cultural or historic value
of community interest;
c. Photographs of the tree(s).
Historic Preservation Board Review. The Historic Preservation Board shall conduct a review of
the proposed heritage tree, based upon such information or documentation as it may require from
the applicant, a Commission, staff or from other available sources. A tree may be designated as a
heritage tree upon a finding that it is unique and important to the community due to any of the
following factors:
a. It is an outstanding specimen of a desirable species;
b. It is one of significant age and/or girth in Campbell;
c. It has cultural, educational, economic, agricultural, social,
indigenous, or historical heritage of the City
o
Historic Preservation Board Hearing. The Historic Preservation Board shall hold a public hearing
on any proposed designation within 30 days after the application is deemed complete and shall
render a decision to approve, deny or continue the hearing for more information.
Recordation of Heritage Tree Designation. If the Heritage Tree designation is approved, the City
shall record the designation with the County Recorder's Office and a copy shall be provided to
Page 9
the property owner and the Community Development Department. A listing of Designated
Heritage Trees and their locations shall be listed on the Historic Resources Inventory and
maintained by the Community Development Department.
Posting and Notice. Hearings for Heritage Tree designation shall be subject to Public Hearing
Notice Procedures specified in Chapter 21.78 of the Zoning Ordinance. In addition, the
Community Development Department shall post the site or tree under consideration ten (10)
calendar days prior to the hearing date with a sign setting forth the nature of the application and
the date, time and place of the heating.
21.56.140 Appeals.
1. Appeals. Any person aggrieved by a decision of the approval authority as specified in this chapter
may appeal a decision in accordance with Chapter 21.80 Appeals of this Title.
Decisions on Appeals. No decision made pursuant to this Chapter shall be final until all appeal
rights have expired. All applicable hearings shall be public hearings subject to Chapter 21.78 of this
Title.
Posting and Notice. In addition to the public hearing procedures specified in Chapter 21.78 of this
Title, the site or tree under consideration shall also be posted with a sign ten (10) calendar days prior
to the hearing date of the appeal. The sign shall state the nature of the appeal under consideration by
the appeal body, and the time and place of the hearing.
21.56.150 Tree Technical Manual.
The Community Development Department shall prepare a "Tree Technical Manual." The Tree
Technical Manual shall include information to assist implementation of this Chapter such as Tree
Removal Permit, Tree Disclosure Statement, Standards for Protection of Trees During Construction
and/or Demolition, Pruning Standards, Tree Protection Notice and Maintenance Standards.
21.56.160 Violations/Penalties.
The violation of any provision contained in this article is hereby declared to be a misdemeanor and
shall .be punishable as prescribed in Section 21.88.040, Penalties, of the Zoning Ordinance. In
addition thereto, any person unlawfully removing or destroying any tree without a permit shall be
subject to the following:
Tree Replacement Penalty. Replacement trees shall be planted at a minimum of two times (2x)
the replacement ratio described in Section 21.56.100 for trees unlawfully removed from
developed single family residential. Replacement trees shall be planted at a minimum of four
times (4x) the replacement ratio described in Section 21.56.100 for tree unlawfully removed
from all other properties. The exact replacement ratio shall provide, in the opinion of the
Community Development Director, an equivalent aesthetic quality which shall be based on the
size, height, location, appearance and other characteristics of the unlawfully removed tree.
Payment for Value of Unlawfully Removed Tree(s). Where replacement trees will not provide
equivalent aesthetic quality because of the size, age, or other characteristics of the unlawfully
removed tree, the Community Development Director shall estimate the value of the removed tree
using the latest edition of The Guide for Establishing Values of Trees and Other Plants,
prepared by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers, as a resource. Upon the
Page 10
determination of such value, the Community Development Director, may require a cash payment
to the City to be added to a street tree fund for the cost of purchasing trees for installation within
the public right-of-way or on other public property as directed by the Public Works Department.
Co
Combination of Cash Payment and Tree Replacement: If the site layout cannot reasonably
accommodate the required number of trees in accordance with the tree replacement penalty
ratios and/or tree spacing consistent with standard forestry practices, the Community
Development Director may approve a combination of a cash payment either in whole or in part
and a portion of the replacement trees in accordance with this Section. The cumulative value of
the cash payment and the replacement trees shall be equivalent to the monetary, aesthetic and
environmental value of the unlawfully removed tree.
2. Maintenance of Replacement Trees. Replacement trees shall be maintained in accordance with
Section 21.57.050, Landscaping Maintenance Requirements, of the Zoning Ordinance.
Maintenance Bond. The approval authority shall require a faithful performance bond, maintenance
bond or other security deposit for the replacement trees required by this Section. The bond shall be in
an amount of money and for a period of time determined by the Community Development Director to
ensure acquisition, proper planting and maintenance of the replacement trees.
21.56.170 No Liability Upon City.
Nothing in this Article shall be deemed to impose any liability upon the City or upon any of its officers
or employees, nor relieve the owner or occupant of any private property from the duty to keep in safe
condition any trees upon his/her property or upon a public right-of-way over his/her property.
21.56.180 Severability.
If any provision of this Chapter or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held to be
invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such validity shall not affect any other provision of this
Chapter which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the
provisions of this Chapter are declared to be severable.
Page 11
Table 21.56.090.1 -- TREE TYPE AND PERMIT PROCESS SUMMARY
TYPE OF TREE PROTECTED SIZE TREE PERMIT APPEAL
REMOVAL REQUEST TREE TYPES PROTECTEDt AUTHORITY PROCESS2
FOR REMOVAL
Tree removal requests on all Any tree except fruit
properties (ex, cept R- 13 ) not trees5 and trees of the
in conjunction with a genus Myrtaceae6
development application. 12 inch diameter Community Planning
or 38 inch Development Director Commission
circumference and City
Tree removal requests on R- Trees of the species: Council
13 not in conjunction with a Quercus (oaks)
development application. Cedrus (cedars)
Fraxinus (ash)
Sequoia (redwoods)
Tree removal requests on all Any Tree except fruit 12 inch diameter Community City Council
properties in conjunction with trees5 and trees of the or 38 inch Development Director
a development application genus Myrtaceae6 circumference
Planning Commission
or
City Council
Heritage Tree Removal Any Heritage Tree None Specified Historic Preservation City Council
requests in All Zoning Board
Districts (not in conjunction
with a development
application)4
Heritage Tree Removal Any Heritage Tree None Specified Planning Commission City Council
requests in All Zoning or
Districts (in conjunction with City Council
a development application)4
Trees Required as a Any Tree required to be None Required Community Planning
Condition of a Development retained or planted Development Director Commission or
Approval City Council
Trees within the City of See Section 11.08 Public Works Dept. or City Council
Campbell public right of way of the Municipal Code Parks & Rec.
Commission
Notes:
~ Minimum size and greater - measured 4 feet above grade adjacent to the trunk.
2 Appeals must be filed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 days from the decision on the permit.
~ Developed single family residential property zoned R-lot Planned Development.
4 Includes any development application that requires Planning Commission or City Council approval, except development applications not involving
addition of new single family units in R-1 or Planned Development Single Family developments (e.g. fence exception or use permit). Applications for
removal of Heritage Trees in conjunction with a development application must first be referred to the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) for a
recommendation.
~ Fruit trees, defined in Chapter 21.56 as any tree that has the characteristic of bearing edible fruit, common to commercial production varieties
including but not limited to stone fruits e.g. prunes, peaches etc., citrus e.g. lemons, oranges, nut varieties e.g. almonds, English walnut (except for
California Black Walnut), Peppers (Schinus), and Olives (Oleaceae), etc. A "fruit tree" shall not mean any tree that bears a fruit or nut produced
primarily as seed, (e.g. oaks, pines etc.).
6Any variety of eucalyptus tree.
ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR:
i~, Ordinance 1969 Amending Campbell Municipal Code to add Tree Protection
fl
Ordinance (Second Reading/Roll Call Vote)
Councilmember Dean stated that he would be voting No on this item because he
supported only the portion of the ordinance regulating heritage trees on single family
properties.
M/S: FurtadofDougherty - that the City Council approve Second Reading of
Ordinance 1969 amending Campbell Municipal Code to add Chapter 21.56 entitled
Tree Protection Regulations. Motion adopted by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers: Conant, Furtado, Dougherty, Watson
NOES: Councilmembers: Dean
o
Reprogrammed CDBG 1998-99 funds for Sacred Heart Community Services and
the City's Housing Rehabilitation Loan/Emergency Grant Program
(Resolution/Roll Call Vote)
Councilmember Dougherty stated that he meant to pull Item 9 from the Consent
Calendar rather than Item 8.
M/S: Dougherty/Furtado - that the City Council adopt Resolution 9411
reprogramming 1998-99 CDBG Funds for Sacred Heart Community Services and
City's Housing Rehabilitation Emergency Grant Program. Motion adopted by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers: Conant, Furtado, Dougherty, Dean, Watson
NOES: Councilmembers: None
Regarding Item 9, Councilmember Dougherty stated that the guidelines should include
authority to the Loan Committee to include income as well as other substantial assets as part of
the criteria used to review loan applications.
As a member of the Loan Committee, Vice Mayor Furtado stated that the committee does
consider those factors in reviewing and approving loan requests.
ORAL REQUESTS
There were no Oral Requests.
Minutes of 7/21/98 City Council Meeting 4
Council
Report
Item: 4.
Category: Consent Calendar
Date: July 21, 1998
Title: O~'dinance 1969 Adding Chapter 21.56 to the Campbell Municipal Code to
Establish Tree Protection Regulations (Second Reading/Roll Call Vote)
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council give second reading to Ordinance No. 1969.
DISCUSSION:
On July 7, 1998, the City Council gave first reading to Ordinance 1969, which establishes tree
protection regulations for the City. The approved ordinance is the version recommended by the
Tree Committee and includes the regulation of four tree types (Oaks, Cedars, Ash and
Redwoods) located on developed single-family properties. Additionally, the City Council
directed that the ordinance be amended as follows:
· The requirements for replacement trees (Table 56.100.1) shall be a ratio of one for one.
The Tree Replacement Penalty (Section 21.56.160) shall be a minimum of two times the
replacement ratio described in Section 21.56.100 for trees removed from developed single
family properties and four times the replacement ratio described in Section 21.56.100 for
trees removed from any other property.
· The Tree Ordinance will be reviewed after an 18-month trial period.
· During the trial period, no permit fees will be assessed for developed single-family
properties.
Reference to Eucalyptus Trees: The Tree Committee and Planning Commission versions of
the ordinance were identical except the Planning Commission recommended exempting all
trees located on developed single family property and all Eucalyptus trees, city wide. The
reference to exempting Eucalyptus trees was inadvertently included in the draft of the Tree
Committee's ordinance, which the City Council gave first reading to on July 7, 1998. It was
not the intent of the Tree Committee to exempt Eucalyptus trees.
If the City Council intended to exempt Eucalyptus trees from the ordinance, then the second
reading of Ordinance 1969 can proceed as it is written. If the Council intended to include
Eucalyptus trees as a regulated variety of tree on properties other than developed single family
sites, then.this item must be removed from the consent calendar and a motion made to re-
introduce the ordinance with the amended language. The Second reading of the Tree
Protection Ordinance reflecting the removal of Section 21.56.060 (5) would take place at the
City Council meeting of August 4, 1998. The effect of removing this exemption language
would be to include Eucalyptus trees as a regulated variety of trees.
City Council Report
TA 98-04 Tree Protection Ordinance
Page -2-
Prepared by:
Planner II
Reviewed by:
Steve P~aseck~
Community Development Director
Approved by:
Cit[y Mana~r
14.
City Clerk Bybee read.a statement verifying the Noticing of Hearing and stated that no
protests were received.
There being no one wishing to speak, Mayor Watson closed the public hearing.
M/S: Conant/Furtado - that the City Council adopt Resolution 9405 approving the
Engineers' Report, ordering the improvements, and confirming the diagram and
assessments for the City of Campbell Lighting and Landscaping District LLA-1 for
Fiscal Year 1998/99. Motion adopted by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers: Conant, Furtado, Watson
NOES: Councilmembers: Dougherty, Dean
Ordinance Amending Campbell Municipal Code to add a Tree Protection
Ordinance (Introduction of Ordinance/Roll Call Vote)
This is the time and place for a public hearing to consider an ordinance amending
Campbell Municipal Code to add a Tree Protection Ordinance.
Planner II Sciara - Staff Report dated July 7, 1998.
Mayor Watson declared the public hearing open and asked if anyone in the audience
wished to be heard.
Sharon Keeting Beauregard, 64 Llewellyn Avenue, Campbell, appeared before the City
Council and spoke in support of including regulations for developed single family
properties in the ordinance.
Lucy Leeburg, 81 S. 4~ Street, Campbell, appeared before the City Council and spoke
in support of the ordinance recommended by the Tree Committee which included
regulations for trees on developed single family properties.
Jean LaDuc, 1356 Munro Avenue, Campbell, appeared before the City Council and
spoke in support of the ordinance recommended by the Tree Committee which included
regulations for trees on developed single family properties.
Matt Beauregard, 64 Llewellyn Avenue, Campbell, appeared before the City Council
and spoke in support of including regulations for trees on developed single family
properties.
Wayne Prescott, 873 N. Central Avenue, Campbell, appeared before the City Council
and asked whether the proposed ordinance addresses the issue of nuisance trees that are
located on an adjacent property.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Mayor Watson closed the public hearing.
Minutes of 7/7/98 City Council Meeting
Following City Council discussion, it was the consensus of the City Council to approve
the ordinance as recommended by the Tree Committee which includes regulations for
trees on developed single family properties. The City Council also directed that the
ratio for replacement trees be changed to a one for one ratio, the penalty/violation
section be changed, and that the ordinance be reviewed after an 18-month trial period
during which no permit fee would be charged for single family properties.
Councilmember Conant thanked the Tree Committee for their time and effort in
developing the ordinance.
M/S: Conant/Furtado - that the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration
prepared for Text Amendment 98-03 and introduce Ordinance 1969 (Tree
Committee Recommendation) adding a Tree Protection Ordinance to the Campbell
Municipal Code with the following amendments for first reading:
1. The requirements for replacement trees (Table 56.100.1) shall be a ratio of one
for one.
2. Section 21.56.160, 1 (a) Tree Replacement Penalty, be changed to:
Replacement trees shall be planted a minimum of two times the replacement
ratio described in Section 21.56.100 for trees removed from developed single
family properties and four times the replacement ratio described in Section
21.56.100 for trees removed from any other property.
3. Ordinance will be reviewed after an 18-month trial period during which no
permit fees will be assessed for single-family properties.
Motion adopted by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers: Conant, Furtado, Dougherty, Watson
NOES: Councilmembers: Dean
The City Clerk read the title of Ordinance 1969.
M/S: Furtado/Dougherty - that further reading of Ordinance 1969 be waived.
Motion adopted by a 4-0-1 vote, Councilmember Dean voting No.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
There were no agendized items.
NEW BUSINESS
15. Discussion of Term Limits
City Attorney Seligmann - Staff Report dated July 7, 1998.
Minutes of 7/7/98 City Council Meeting 6
Council ITEM NO.:
ReportCATEGORY:
MEETING DATE:
14.
Public Heatings/Introduction of Ordinances
July 7, 1998
TITLE
Consideration of Draft Tree Protection Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommend~ that the City Council take the following action:
1. Adopt the Negative Declaration prepared for Text Amendment 98-03.
2. Introduce the attached Ordinance for first reading of the Tree Protection Ordinance.
BACKGROUND
August 1996: The City Council approved a five lot subdivision on Harriet Avenue.
· A large oak tree was identified for removal due to its health and concern for safety of
residents in the area.
· Members of the public raised concerns about the tree removal.
· The City Council directed staff to prepare a work program and schedule for adoption of a
tree protection ordinance.
October 1996: The City Council directed staff to work to prepare a draft ordinance working with a
tree committee consisting of one member from each of the following:
· Parks and Recreation Commission · Neighborhood Association
· Planning Commission · Arborist
· Historic Preservation Board · Citizen at large
· Chamber of Commerce
The Council provided direction to the Committee on the scope of the ordinance in the
following areas:
· Protected trees: Limit the impact on single family properties. The Committee could
consider protecting a limited number of native trees on single family properties.
· Applicability: Regulations should equally apply to private or public property.
· Procedures: Process for tree removal requests should be simple, fast and inexpensive.
Administrative review is preferred.
· Exemptions: Provide appropriate exemptions from the regulations in cases of immediate
hazards or trees with deteriorated health.
Spring and Summer of 1997: The Committee met five times and provided direction to staff for a
draft ordinance. The Tree Committee's version protected four species of trees on single family
residential property including oaks, redwoods, cedars and ash. The version selected by the
Committee was referred to the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Historic Preservation
Board. The Parks and Recreation Commission and Board were supportive of the ordinance.
City Council Report - July 7, 1998
TA 98-03 -- Draft Tree Protection Ordinance
Page 2
February 1998: The draft ordinance reflecting the recommendations of the Tree Committee was
forwarded to the City Council for review prior to proceeding with public hearings before the
Planning Commission. The Council directed staff to make the following revisions:
· Tree Size: Increase the protected tree size from 8 inches to 12 inches in diameter.
· Permit Process: Simplify the permit process for residential properties.
· Application Format: Eliminate the need to prepare a site plan and other technical
information requiring professional services for a tree removal permit for single family
residential properties.
· Trees on Public Property: Directed the Public Works Department to amend the Street
Tree and Parking Strip Ordinance, to require trees removed from parks and other public
property to be subject to the same review process for street trees. On May 5, 1998, the
City Council approved an amendment to the Municipal Code to implement this change.
April-May 1998: The ordinance was forwarded to the Planning Commission for public hearings and
recommendation. The Planning Commission was concerned about the applicability of the
regulations to developed single family residential. The Commission felt that tree removal is
generally been associated with development applications, and the removal of trees from developed
single family residential properties did not appear to be pervasive enough to warrant regulation. The
Commission also requested the process to obtain a tree removal permit be simplified.
May 1998: The Planning Commission took action to recommend approval of a revised tree
ordinance that exempts developed single family residential from the regulations except for Heritage
Trees, allows payment of an in-lieu fee for the purchase of replacement trees for off-site planting,
streamlines the process to designate Heritage Trees and eliminates the requirement for an arborist
report for Heritage Trees.
ANALYSIS
Ordinance Purpose: The Tree Committee and the Planning Commission have different perspectives
of the definition of the problem that the tree ordinance is attempting to address. The Tree
Committee's version recognizes that trees throughout the City are a valuable community asset and
should be retained whenever possible to protect the tree cover.
Planning Commission members agree that trees are a valuable community asset. However, the
commissioners felt that single family home owners are not routinely removing significant trees and
that application of the tree ordinance to developed single family property is not necessary at this
time. Commission members felt that if a tree on a developed single family property needs to be
removed because it is too messy or to accommodate a new landscape plan or a building addition,
then the property owner's judgment should prevail over the perceived public interest and
homeowr/ers ghould not be required to go through a city process to remove trees in their yards.
City Council Report - July 7, 1998
TA 98-03 -- Draft Tree Protection Ordinance
Page 3
The Planning Commission felt the ordinance should be directed at developers who may decide to
remove significant trees to accommodate more units or otherwise ease future development of their
property. The Commission felt that large existing trees can be used to enhance new development
and ensure it better integrates into the existing neighborhood. Therefore, the Planning
Commission's version focuses the ordinance on retaining significant trees that can then be
incorporated into future development plans. Their version excludes fully developed single family
properties where there is no additional development potential.
The Commission approved of the replacement ratios in the draft ordinance, but suggested that if the
Council decides to include developed single family residential properties, as recommended by the
Tree Committee, then a 15 gallon size tree would be a more appropriate replacement size.
Staff has provided both versions of the proposed Tree Protection Ordinance for the City Council's
review and consideration. The ordinances are identical except that the Committee version includes
the four tree types that would be protected on developed single family properties. These items are
"shaded" on the attached Committee version of the ordinance labeled Exhibit B.
FISCAL IMPACTS
The ordinance is expected to cost approximately one-quarter full time equivalent staff person if the
Planning Commission's version of the Ordinance is adopted. The Tree Committee's version of the
ordinance is anticipated to cost roughly one-half full time equivalent staff person to implement and
enforce. The time will be expended by planners, the new code enforcement officer, and the City
Attorney. Staff will attempt to absorb the additional activity within existing staffing levels and does
not anticipate the need to add staff, at this time. Staff will assess its experience with the ordinance
during the first half of the fiscal year and present actual staffing impacts to the City Council during
meetings on the fiscal year 1999/2000 budget.
ALTER3/ATIVES
1. Do not authorize staff to proceed with the final draft of the tree ordinance.
2. Authorize staff to prepare a revised draft incorporating changes recommended by the City Council
as deemed necessary prior to the adoption of the tree ordinance.
3. Give first reading to one of the administrative drafts.
Attachments:
1. Draft City Council Ordinance Adopting the Tree Ordinance
2. Planning Commission Administrative Draft - Tree Protection Ordinance (Exhibit A)
3. Tree Committee Administrative Draft - Tree Protection Ordinance (Exhibit B)
4. Summary of Draft Tree Protection Ordinances within Santa Clara County
5. Initial Study and Environmental Checklist.
6. Communication Letter- dated June 23, 1998.
7. Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 1998, April 28, 1998, and May 26, 1998.
City Council Report - July 7, 1998
TA 98-03 -- Draft Tree Protection Ordinance
Page 4
Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director
APPROVED BY: '~'~
Be~t~d I~. ~.~ City Manager
- Planning Commission Minutes of May 26, 1998 Page 2
AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS
There were no agenda modifications or postponements.
ORAL REQUESTS
There were no oral requests.
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairman Lowe read Agenda Item No. 1 into the record.
TA 98-03
City Initiated
Continued Public Hearing to consider the City-initiated
application for approval of a Text Amendment (TA 98-03) to
amend the Campbell Municipal Code to include a Tree
Protection Ordinance. A Negative Declaration has been
prepared for this project. Tentative City Council Meeting Date:
June 16, 1998.
Ms. Gloria Sciara, Planner II, presented the staff report as follows:
· This item was continued from the Planning Commission meeting of April 28, 1998.
The
Commission directed staff to modify the text to exempt single-family residential properties
from any restrictions for tree removal with the exception of heritage trees. Additionally, the
Commission wanted to require property owner consent prior to the designation of their tree as
heritage.
· Another change is the standardization of hearing notification to 300 feet.
· Eucalyptus trees will be exempt from the Tree Protection Ordinance.
· A provision for in-lieu fees instead of requiring a property owner to provide replacement
trees has been added and a simplified permit process outlined.
· A streamlined process for the designation of heritage trees no longer requires an arborist's
report.
· There would be three types of permitting processes. One is administrative. The second is
review in conjunction with a development applications. The third is for heritage tree
designation. The process includes completion of a permit application (one page), provision
of a replanting plan and the filing of fees.
· With the administrative process, the Community Development Director must make a
decision within 10 days. That decision is mailed to the applicant and to the 300 foot mailing
list. Additionally, the tree will be posted by the City with the decision and the requirements
for appeals.
· For development applications, the standard development process occurs. The tree removal
would be noticed with the development application but as a separate application. Appeals of
Planning Commission decisions would be considered by the City Council if filed within 10
days of their decision.
· The Historic Preservation Board has the final authority on heritage trees.
Chairman Lowe asked how heritage trees would be so designated.
- Planning Commission Minutes of May 26, 1998 Page 3
Ms. Gloria Sciara answered that the Historic Preserv'ation Board would determine heritage tree
designation with the owner's consent.
Chairman Lowe asked how detailed a replanting plan would need to be.
Ms. Gloria Sciara advised that the plan would be simplified showing the relationship of the tree
on the property.
Commissioner Jones asked about fees for removal of heritage trees.
Ms. Gloria Sciara:
· Advised that at the present time there is no fee unless the tree removal is connected to a
development application. That fee is not specified at this time.
· Stated that factors in developing value of a tree to determine the four times replacement ratio.
Components in establishing value include size at four and a half feet above grade; the species
(standard ratings of tree listed by region); the condition, structural integrity and health and
location which considers the site.
· The contributions of a tree include function and aesthetic factors.
Chairman Lowe asked if the "Kelly Blue Book" of Trees is available.
Ms. Gloria Sciara replied that this resource is available and if necessary an arborist would be
enlisted on a case by case basis.
Commissioner Gibbons thanked staff for the excellent information and for answering concerns.
Asked whether the posting of trees would be done by staff and in places visible to the public as
opposed to somewhere in a private yard.
Ms. Gloria Sciara advised that staff would post trees at eye level and visible from 100 feet away.
Commissioner Gibbons stated that the replacement table is useful and makes the Ordinance more
stringent. Stated that she would favor a fee for removal of heritage trees in all cases.
Ms. Gloria Sciara advised that there is no fee proposed for designation of heritage trees.
However, a fee would be imposed for the removal of all protected trees.
Commissioner Kearns:
· Sought clarification that 300
foot notices are needed for protected trees and not all tree
removals within the City.
Stated that requiring the matching of canopy of old removed trees seems unreasonable.
Asked whether the in-lieu fee is imposed if room is not available on the property to plant the
replacement trees required.
- Planning Commission Minutes of May 26, 1998 Page 4
Ms. Gloria Sciara replied that was correct. Advised that there are environmental benefits to
having mature trees. Replacement trees seek to offset the net loss in the community.
Commissioner Kearns stated that she would have a problem is R-1 properties are included in the
Ordinance. Wondered if the average homeowner will understand the proposed pruning
standards.
Ms. Gloria Sciara advised that only protected trees are impacted and R-1 properties are exempt.
A technical manual is in the works.
Commissioner Jones asked for the fees involved.
Ms. Gloria Sciara advised that no fee has been set. Said that other cities charge approximately
$50. The City Council will determine appropriate fees.
Commissioner Jones stated that he has a problem with charging a fee for the removal of heritage
trees as it might discourage people from having trees designated as heritage.
Ms. Gloria Sciara advised that in emergency situations, trees can be removed that cause safety
issues.
Commissioner Gibbons suggested leaving replacement ratios to the discretion of the Community
Development Director. Stated that she supported the replacement of trees with 15-gallon trees
and that she was flexible about whether or not fees should be charged for heritage trees.
Chairman Lowe asked where fees paid would be maintained. Not in the General Fund?
Ms. Gloria Sciara assured the Commission that funds are deposited into the Street Tree Fund
which is used to plant trees on public property, including street trees.
Commissioner Keams asked if there is sufficient space available to plant these trees.
Ms. Gloria Sciara answered that the City has not been able to keep pace with the demand for
replacement street trees. Trees have been removed due to disease or for causing problems with
sidewalks, etc. For the last four years, the City has not been able to replace these trees.
Chairman Lowe announced that the Public Hearing remained open for Agenda Item No. 1.
Ms. Lucy Leeburg, 81 S. Fourth Street, Campbell:
Advised that she is a former member of the Tree Committee.
· Expressed concern about exempting R-1 from the Tree Protection Ordinance.
· Stated that most City Ordinances infringe in some way on citizens' rights. To modify ones
house, permits must be obtained through the City.
Planning Commission Minutes of May 26, 1998
Page 5
· Advised that this is a chance for Campbell to develop a strong Ordinance rather than a weak
one.
· Stated that a watered-down Ordinance does not have an impact.
· Most mature trees are located in private residential backyards.
· Advised that it will take years to develop a heritage tree list.
· Asked the Commission to reconsider its opposition to including residential properties within
the Tree Protection Ordinance.
Commissioner Gibbons asked how heritage trees would be identified.
Chairman Lowe answered that the Historic Preservation Board would designate heritage trees.
Ms. Lucy Leeburg:
· Added that when driving around, one can seek heritage quality trees but they are usually in
private backyards.
· Advised that as watered down, this Ordinance will take years to come back for strengthening.
· Added that the importance of mature trees goes beyond the canopy they provide. Mature
trees also represent a grandeur.
· Cautioned that young children will never see a 300 year old tree if we keep cutting them
down.
Commissioner Gibbons stated that this process has been an educational one for her.
Chairman Lowe closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1.
City Attomey William Seligrnann advised that language has been left out on page 7, subsection
2-A, regarding the valuation of replacement trees.
Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy asked whether a pilot program could be considered. Said that
she feels it is important for single-family properties to be able to remove trees of one is lifting up
their foundation.
Chairman Lowe said that he would have no problem with a one year program.
Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy asked the City Attorney if this is a possibility.
City Attorney William Seligmann answered that he was not certain what the Commission had in
mind by pilot program.
Commissioner Jones asked if Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy would include R-1 properties
during the pilot period.
Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy answered that she would.
- Planning Commission Minutes of May 26, 1998 Page 6
Commissioner Jones:
· Stated that he would not consider seeking a permit himself were he to need to remove a
problem tree off of his property.
o Said that he will not support an Ordinance that infringes upon the rights of R-1 property
owners.
· Said that he finds this to be government overstepping its bounds.
· Said that if it is "my tree, I want to be able to do as I see fit."
Commissioner Kearns agreed stating that if neighbors have problems with tree removal they can
plant trees on their properties to mitigate.
Commissioner Francois stated that he agrees that the Ordinance would be intrusive on the
residential property owner.
Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy advised that Campbell has never had an Ordinance before and
has lots of trees.
Commissioner Lindstrom advised that Council may have a totally different point of view.
Commissioner Jones suggested that the City reduce the allowable building densities in their
zoning areas.
Commissioner Kearns suggested that if Council decides not to exempt R-1 she would support the
replacement of trees with 15-gallon as opposed to 24-inch box trees as a cost savings to the
homeowners.
Commissioner Gibbons advised that staff can add this suggestion to the staff report that will be
prepared for Council.
City Attorney William Seligrnann, prior to the motion, proposed clarifying language for Sections
21.56.110, Subsection 1-A and Subsection 2-A.
Ms. Sharon Fierro advised that the intent is to protect sig~nificant trees that cannot be replaced by
24-inch box trees such as the Roosevelt tree. Suggested allowing the value to be established by
the Public Works Director.
City Attorney William Seligrnann agreed that fair market value can be determined by the Public
Works Director.
Planning Commission Minutes of May 26, 1998 Page 7
Motion:
Upon motion of Commissioner Gibbons, seconded by Commissioner
Lindstrom, the Planning Commission recommended that Council adopt a
Negative Declaration and approve a Text Amendment (TA 98-03) to amend
the Campbell Municipal Code to include a Tree Protection Ordinance with
the changes recommended by the City Attorney, by the following roll call
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Francois, Gibbons, Jones, Kearns, Lindstrom, Lowe, Meyer-
Kennedy
None
None
None
Commissioner Lindstrom reminded the Commission that they have been diligent in the past
about protecting trees even without benefit of an Ordinance and will continue to do so.
Chairman Lowe read Agenda Item No. 2 into the record
2. M 98-02
Robinson, G.
Continued Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr.
Gary Robinson, on behalf of Carrows Restaurant, for a
Modification (M 98-02) to a previous Site and Architectural
Approval to allow changes to the exterior appearance of an
existing restaurant building on property located at 150 E.
Hamilton Avenue in a C-1-S (Neighborhood Commercial)
Zoning District. This project is Categorically Exempt.
Planning Commission decision final, unless appealed in writing
to the City Clerk within 10 days.
Ms. Sharon Fierro, Senior Planner, advised the Commission that staff is recommending
continuance to the Commission meeting of June 23.
Motion:
Upon motion of Commissioner Gibbons, seconded by Commissioner Jones,
the Planning Commission unanimously moved to continue consideration of
M 98-02 to its meeting of June 23, 1998. (7-0)
Chairman Lowe read Agenda Item No. 3 into the record.
ITEM NO. 1
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF
May 26, 1998
TA 98-03
City Initiated
Continued Public hearing to consider the City-initiated
application for approval of a Text Amendment (TA 98-03)
to amend the Campbell Municipal Code to include Chapter
21.56 Tree Protection Ordinance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission take the following action:
1. Recommend that the City Council GRANT a Negative Declaration; and
2. Recommend APPROVAL of the revised draft tree protection ordinance to the City
Council.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
This text amendment will provide for the protection of trees on private property. An initial study has
been conducted for this project for the Commission's consideration. It concludes that this project
will not have a significant effect on the environment, therefore, a Negative Declaration was prepared.
BACKGROUND
At the meeting of April 28, 1998, the Planning Commission reviewed a revised draft tree protection
ordinance reflecting Commission's recommendation to exempt developed single family residential
from regulations with the exception of heritage trees. Other changes recommended by the
Commission included requiring the property owner's consent for Heritage Tree designation, and
additional noticing for requests to remove heritage trees. The Commission's recommendations were
made following a review of the initial draft tree ordinance developed by the Council appointed Tree
Committee. The Commission also requested information about tree replacement policies for other
communities in Santa Clara County.
Several Campbell residents and members of the Tree Committee members spoke at the meeting.
The speakers expressed concern about exempting developed single family residential properties from
the tree protection regulations. The speakers felt that the tree population would benefit from
protection irrespective of its location.
To allow sufficient time to make changes to the ordinance reflecting the recommendations of the
Planning Commission, the hearing was continued to the meeting of May 26, 1998.
DISCUSSION
Revised Draft Tree Ordinance: The final administrative draft tree protection ordinance has been
revised and simplified reflecting the recommendations of the Planning Commission. The primary
changes in the current draft include the following:
Staff Report - Planning Commission Meeting of May 12, 1998
TA 98-03 - Tree Protection Ordinance
Page 2
· Notice of hearing for all tree removal requests is standardized at a radius of 300 feet from the
subject property.
· Protected tree includes all trees required to be retained or planted as part of a development
permit.
· Inclusion of Eucalyptus trees to the list of trees exempted from the regulations.
· Payment of an in-lieu fee for the purchase of trees for off-site instead of purchase and delivery of
replacement trees by the property owner.
· Simplification of the procedure to obtain a tree removal permit.
· Streamlined Heritage Tree designation process and elimination of requirement for arborist report.
Measuring Tree Diameter: Staff has verified ordinance information from other communities in
regards to measuring the diameter of protected trees. All of the ordinances surveyed in Santa Clara
County use standard feet and inches to determine diameter or circumference in-lieu of a DBH
(diameter at breast height) measurement used by certified arborists. In order to standardize
calculation of a tree diameter, and facilitate implementation of the ordinance, the standard
measurement for determining diameter and circumference above the adjacent grade of the trunk
using feet and inches will remain in the ordinance.
Tree Replacement Policies in Other Communities: A chart summarizing the tree ordinances for the
cities within Santa Clara County was provided in the previous Planning Commission report. Per the
Planning Commission request, staff has researched the tree replacement policies of these
communities. The summary chart (Attachment #1) has been modified to include the tree
replacement policies practiced in Santa Clara County.
City Council Hearing: The recommended draft tree protection ordinance by the Planning
Commission and the draft ordinance recommended by the Tree Committee will be forwarded to City
Council. The tentative City Council meeting date is June 2, 1998.
Attachments:
1. Modified Summary of Tree Ordinances-Santa Clara County
2. Planning Commission Recommended Draft Tree Protection Ordinance
3. Planning Commission Minutes of April 28, 1998
4. Planning Commission Staff Report of April 28, 1998
5. Initial Study dated April 14, 1998
Prepared bye; ~.~'zv:,~,~ '-ff/~-----~
=~-/Oloria Sciara, Planner II
Approved by:. ~/~~ ~
Shitfon Fierro, Senior Planner
Attachment #1
Summary of Tree Ordinances - Santa Clara County
CITY MINIMUM LOCATION VARIETY PROCESS TO AUTHORITY TREE REPLACEMET
TREE SIZE REMOVE POLICIES
l,os Gatos 11" diameter Developed R-1 All Trees Permit Planning Director R-1 -Minimum of
3 -15 gallon trees
4" diameter w/zoning Planning
permit, or vacant Commission All other properties
land, comm. or 24" to 48" box
industrial or specimen trees as determined
by City Forester
San Jose 18" diameter All properties All trees Permit Neighborhood Size of replacement depends on
(2' above grade) Preservation tree size removed-Number and
Director size Determined by City Forester
or donate funds for off-site
Public Hearing. Planning replacement.
Commission or
City Council
Palo Alto 111/2" diameter All properties Native Oak Arborist Report Community Size of replacement depends on
(41/2 above grade) Development tree size removed-must be equal
Director the tree removed.-Determination
by City Forester
Milpitas 18" diameter Developed R-1 None Permit Community R-1 -No replacement
12" diameter Developed C-1,2 specified Services Manager
(4' above grade) M-I, and vacant All trees All Others properties-
possible Size and number of replacement
Heritage Trees All lots trees must equal tree removed -
Determination by City Forester
1,os Altos 15" diameter All properties; Oaks, Permit Planning Director Replacement requires 1 or more
(4' above grade) except R-1 Sequoias, Noticing Req. trees -Depends on the size and
London species removed-Also based on
Heritage 'Frees Ail properties Plane Heritage Trees- Historic Heritage the value of the tree removed -
Bay Laurel Hearing Commission Value of tree determined by
Any tree specified w/zoning or Planning Director.
other permit
Saratoga 13" + diameter Private or public Any tree Permit Planning Director Replacement requires 1 or more
(2' above grade) property trees -Depends on the size and
10" + diameter Oaks species removed-Also based on
the value of the tree removed -
Value of tree determined by
Planning Director.
Santa 12" diameter Non urban Any tree Permit Planning Office No Replacement for R-1 and
Clara (4' above grade) service areas only Posting Notice Urban service areas
County Hillside etc.
Replacement required for
Hillside and Agricultural zones-
Sunnyvale 12" diameter All properties Any tree Permit Community Dev. R-l: 1- 15 gallon
4' above grade Posting of Director
Notice on tree All other properties: 24 inch
box replacement at 1:1 ratio
In-lieu fees-based on cost of
replacement trees-installed
Mountain 48" diameter All Properties Any tree Permit Community Dev. One or more replacement trees
View Director or based on the size and species of
12" diameter Oaks, cedars, or Hearing Approval Body if tree removed- determined by
redwoods or with Devel. Planning Director or Urban
Tree Groves application Forestry Board
by Reso. In-lieu fees and/or off-site
replacement required.
Cupertino Specimen or All properties; Specimen Tree Report Com. Dev. One or more of the same species
Heritage Heritage and poss. Director removed-
Oak Noticing Req. Based on the value of the tree
Ail properties Planning removed
10" diameter except permit Commission Determined by Planning
(3' above grade) R-1 w/zoning Director.
permit
Planning Commission Minutes of May 12, 1998 Page 2
ORAL REQUESTS
There were no oral requests.
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairman Lowe read Agenda Item No. 1 into the record.
TA 98-03
City Initiated
Continued Public Heating to consider the City-initiated
application for approval of a Text Amendment (TA 98-03) to
amend the Campbell Municipal Code to include a Tree
Protection Ordinance. A Negative Declaration has been
prepared for this project. Tentative City Council Meeting Date:
June 2, 1998.
Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, advised the Commission that staff is
seeking a continuance to the next meeting to allow more time to simplify and make the draft Tree
Protection Ordinance more user friendly.
Chairman Lowe advised that the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 had been left open at the
last meeting and inquired if there were any parties present wishing to address this item.
Motion:
Upon motion of Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy, seconded by Commissioner
Kearns, the Planning Commission unanimously moved to continue
consideration of the draft Tree Protection Ordinance to the Planning
Commission meeting of May 26, 1998. (6-0-1; Commissioner Lindstrom was
absent.)
Chairman Lowe read Agenda Item No. 2 into the record
UP 98-02
Knight, L
Public Hearing to consider the application of Ms. Lee Ann
Knight, on behalf of Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., for a
Conditional Use Permit (UP 98-02) to allow for an out-patient
medical clinic on property located at 220 E. Hacienda Avenue
in a C-M-S (Controlled Manufacturing) Zoning District. This
project is Categorically Exempt. Planning Commission
decision final, unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk
within 10 days.
Ms. Barbara Schoetz Ryan, Planner I, presented the staff report as follows:
· Advised that Kaiser Foundation Health Plan is seeking approval of a Conditional Use Permit
to establish an outpatient clinic at 220 E. Hacienda Avenue.
ITEM NO. 1
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF
May 12, 1998
TA 98-03
City Initiated
Continued Public Hearing to consider the City-initiated application for
approval of a Text Amendment (TA 98-03) to amend the Campbell
Municipal Code to include Chapter 21.56 Tree Protection Ordinance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission take the following action:
1. Continue consideration of the Draft Tree Protection Ordinance for two weeks to the Planning
Commission meeting of March 26, 1998.
BACKGROUND
At the meeting of April 28, 1998, the Planning Commission reviewed the revised Draft Tree
Protection Ordinance reflecting the Commission's recommendation to exempt developed single
family residential properties fi.om regulations with the exception of Heritage Trees. Other
changes recommended by the Commission included requiring the property owner's consent for
Heritage Tree designation and additional noticing for requests to remove Heritage Trees. The
Commission's recommendations were made following a review of the initial Draft Tree
Protection Ordinance developed by the Council-appointed Tree Committee. The Commission
also requested information about tree replacement policies for other communities in Santa Clara
County.
Staff is recommending a two week continuance to complete the changes requested by the
Planning Commission and to incorporate the comments of the City Attorney on the revised draft.
Prepared by: _~ Gloria Sciara, ~lanner II
Approved by:
Sh~aron ierro, Senior Planner
Planning Commission Minutes of April 28, 1998 Page 2
~ATIONS.
d conditions for Agenda Item No. 1.
for Agenda Item No. 2.
AGENDA MODI
There were no agenda
OR POSTPON
or postp~
ORAL REQUESTS
There were no oral
HEARING
Chairman Lowe read Agenda Item No. 1 into the record.
TA 98-03
City Initiated
Continued Public Hearing to consider the City-initiated
application for approval of a Text Amendment (TA 98-03) to
amend the Campbell Municipal Code to include a Tree
Protection Ordinance. A Negative Declaration has been
prepared for this project. Tentative City Council Meeting Date:
May 19, 1998.
Ms. Gloria Sciara, Planner II, presented the staff report as follows:
· This item was continued from the April 14th Planning Commission meeting.
· Commission concerns included the inclusion of developed single-family residential
properties within the requirements of the Tree Protection Ordinance, the replacement
requirements and the designation process for heritage trees.
· The Commission suggested excluding developed single-family properties from the
requirements of the Tree Protection Ordinance with the exception of heritage trees.
· The Commission wanted to ensure that before a tree is designated as being a heritage tree, the
property owner on whose property the tree is situated must be in agreement to having the
heritage tree designation imposed on that tree(s).
· Based upon the Commission's discussion on April 14th, staff revised the draft Tree Protection
Ordinance and the City Attorney made additional modifications and/or corrections.
· The revised Ordinance will allow homeowners to remove all types of trees except those trees
designated as heritage trees as long as the property owner gave its consent to that heritage
tree designation.
· The Commission wanted to see expanded noticing.
· The Commission has two options. First it can approved the revised draft with the elimination
of single-family properties. Second, it can approve the original draft as prepared by the Tree
Committee.
Commissioner Gibbons asked about replacement ratios and penalties within other local cities.
Planning Commission Minutes of April 28, 1998 Page 3
Ms. Gloria Sciara advised that most of the cities surveyed use the same processes as are being
proposed in this draft, including the four times ratio for replacement and the assessment of the
value of the heritage tree.
Chairman Lowe asked who establishes a value for the heritage trees.
Ms. Gloria Sciara answered that staff works with an arborist to establish the value.
Commissioner Gibbons said that the material is not complete and asked about other
communities.
Ms. Gloria Sciara replied that Los Gatos and San Jose require re~31acement but that she is not
certain about the specifics.
Commissioner Gibbons stated that there is the potential for a dollar value impact on residents and
developers. Questioned the requirement to provide trees to the City in the event that there is no
space on the subject property to replace trees removed. Wondered how citizens would know
what trees are acceptable. Asked if other cities require a provision for off-site planting.
Ms. Gloria Sciara answered that it is common to require on and off-site tree replacement.
Commissioner Gibbons:
· Asked what is a heritage tree and how is a tree so designated.
· Is the owner's permission required before a tree is designated as heritage.
· What is the benefit of heritage tree designation.
Ms. Gloria Sciara answered that the heritage tree designation recognizes history and the tree's
value to the community.
Commissioner Jones asked how many heritage trees there are in Campbell.
Ms. Gloria Sciara said that most of the trees that would qualify as heritage would be located in
the San Tomas area where there are a large number of oaks.
Commissioner Jones again sought assurance that homeowners must agree before a tree on their
private residential property is designated as heritage.
Ms. Gloria Sciara said that is correct.
Commissioner Keams asked what types of tree species would be considered for heritage
designation.
Planning Commission Minutes of April 28, 1998 Page 4
Ms. Gloria Sciara replied that any type of tree can be considered for designation as heritage since
the process is a voluntary one.
Chairman Lowe reminded the Commission that the cost of a replacement tree is approximately
$150.
Commissioner Gibbons:
· Stated that the permit process is vague and burdensome.
· Said that the 30 day deadline to replant could be too short and that perhaps limiting the
requirement to have the trees replanted prior to occupancy might be better.
· Suggested that removal of eucalyptus trees also be unrestricted as they are not native trees to
the area.
· Discussed a large cedar tree on her street that had a split trunk. Part of this tree was removed.
It is a large tree with an 18-inch diameter trunk.
· Wondered if the Historic Preservation Board would be able to nominate a tree for heritage
designation and still be able to vote on that designation.
City Attorney William Seligmann answered that they could do so.
Commissioner Gibbons stated that she is comfortable with this since the property owner's
permission is required prior to the attempt to designate a tree as heritage. Clarified that appeals
of Historic Preservation Board actions are heard by the Planning Commission while appeals of
Planning Commission actions are heard by Council.
Chairman Lowe opened the Public Heating for Agenda Item No. 1.
Mr. Matt Beauregard, 64 Llewellyn Avenue:
· Asked the Commission to consider the original draft as proposed by the Tree Committee.
· Suggested that a list be maintained of residents willing to take a tree.
· Suggested a study of the cost of appeals process and permit process.
· Suggested a sunset on the Ordinance to allow time for review but wants to see the Tree
Committee Ordinance used.
· Suggested a 500 foot notification list rather than a 200 foot.
· Advised that the trees removed in his neighborhood were not in conjunction with any type of
development.
· Said that this issue is important to the community at large.
· Trees have an historic value.
Chairman Lowe sought clarification on the noticing required for heritage tree designation.
Ms. Gloria Sciara advised that a 200-foot noticing list should cover adjacent property owners for
protected tree removal applications. Heritage trees would require a 500 foot list.
Planning Commission Minutes of April 28, 1998 Page 5
Ms. Sharon Keating-Beauregard, 64 Llewellyn Avenue:
· Asked whom would request removal of a tree from heritage designation status.
Ms. Gloria Sciara replied that such a request for removal from heritage status would be generated
by the property owner, the same process as was used to designate the tree as heritage.
Mr. Jahmai Ginden, 1500 San Tomas Aquino Road:
· Advised that he is present as both the Chair
of the Historic Preservation Board and a
Campbell resident.
· Said that the citizens of Campbell want tree protection.
· Stated that the city of Campbell is primarily a residential City.
· Without including developed single-family properties under the provisions of the Tree
Protection Ordinance, few trees will end up being protected as there are currently no trees
designated as heritage trees and there is limited non-residential property.
· Stated that heritage trees are not exempt fi.om removal and replacement is reasonable.
· Advised that other cities include residential properties in their tree ordinances.
· Without including R-1 Zoning, the proposed Tree Ordinance does not protect many trees.
Chairman Lowe asked whether there have been cases when a structure designated as historic was
removed fi.om that designation.
Mr. Jahmai Ginden answered that while it is possible, such a request is rare once a structure has
been added to the Historic Resources Inventory.
Ms. Jean LaDuc, 1356 Munro:
· Advised that she served on the Tree Committee.
· Suggested the use of"Certified" arborist rather than "Licensed" arborist.
· Advised that measurement of trees is done at the "diameter at breast height" and not two feet
above grade. Demonstrated the device used to measure trees.
· Said that tree protection is important to save the urban forest of Campbell.
· Asked the Planning Commission to approve the Tree Committee's version of the draft Tree
Protection Ordinance.
Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy asked if Ms. LaDuc wanted to see a pilot program.
Ms. Jean LaDuc answered that this is not a bad idea. We do not know what impact this
Ordinance will have on staff and residents.
Commissioner Gibbons sought clarification that Ms. LaDuc was measuring a tree's diameter
rather than its circumference.
Planning Commission Minutes of April 28, 1998 Page 6
Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that both diameter and circumference were used purposely in the
draft ordinance.
Ms. Jean LaDuc suggested that it is important to use professional's language in the Ordinance.
Ms. Lucy Leeburg, 81 S. Fourth Street:
· Advised that she too was on the Tree Committee.
· Suggested that all the work of the Tree Committee is being watered town dramatically with
the Planning Commission's revisions.
· Said that there is no list of heritage trees yet and it may take up to three years or more to
develop a list of heritage trees.
· Said that there are lots subject to subdivision. How will trees on these sites be protected if
they are divided.
Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that this concern could be handled in one of two ways including
adopting the original draft whereby the Tree Protection Ordinance is applicable to both
developed and undeveloped properties in all zoning areas or to use the revised draft but to
include undeveloped residential properties within the provisions of the Tree Protection
Ordinance.
Ms. Lucy Leeburg:
· Added that eight of the nine local jurisdictions include single-family residential properties in
their Tree Ordinances.
· Said that the City needs to "protect the trees we have."
· Since a property owner needs permission in order to build on his property, why not protect
natural beauty on that property.
Commissioner Kearns stated that the City has gone for years without a Tree Ordinance. Most
residents love and want to maintain their trees. One attraction of the city is its trees. Said that
she is supportive of the revised Tree Ordinance.
Commissioner Gibbons:
· Said that she has some technical comments but that she supports a Tree Ordinance. It is bad
to be the only local community without one.
· Advised that her reaction to the draft Tree Ordinance is that it is punitive to owners of
personal property. It is confusing, costs lots of money. It is negative to the individual. It
imposes a monetary impact on private property.
Chairman Lowe reminded that the Commission had carefully reviewed and handled a project site
on which a large oak was located. While he finds the draft Tree Ordinance to be a good start, it
seems punitive and restrictive to R-1 properties.
Planning Commission Minutes of April 28, 1998 Page 7
Commissioner Lindstrom asked if comments were appropriate on the revised draft.
Chairman Lowe advised that Commissioner Gibbons has advised that she has technical
comments.
Commissioner Lindstrom:
· Stated that he wants to give flexibility.
· Said that the City has done a good job.
· The Tree Ordinance restricts use of"my property."
· The Commission has had projects before with tree issues. An effort has been made to protect
trees.
· Expressed that the Ordinance restricts personal freedom.
Commissioner Gibbons stated that the Commission has been diligent. While the City needs a
Tree Ordinance, she is uncomfortable with the restrictions imposed on homeowners.
Commissioner Lindstrom asked if this Ordinance will go to Council.
Chairman Lowe replied that this Ordinance will go to Council.
Commissioner Gibbons sought clarification to page 8 dealing with replanting plan. Said that
either a 30 day deadline or prior to occupancy might be better.
Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that tree issues are not always connected to building occupancy.
Commissioner Gibbons had concerns about replanting off site and about requirements to provide
trees for planting in other locations in the City to the Service Center.
Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that it may be better to simply have the applicant pay the cost of
replacement rather than providing the actual trees.
Commissioner Gibbons suggested establishment of a list of volunteers who would be willing to
take replacement trees.
Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that there is no lack of space available in the public right-of-way for
the planting of these trees.
Commissioner Gibbons suggested that an attempt be made to replant the trees within the same
neighborhood in which the original tree was removed.
Mr. Steve Piasecki assured that efforts will be made to do so.
Planning Commission Minutes of April 28, 1998 Page 8
Commissioner Gibbons suggested making this a requirement within the Ordinance. Wanted to
be sure that whomever sought heritage designation for a tree be the one to pay for the arborist's
report. She also clarified that among those who can initiate heritage tree designation are the
Planning Commisison, staff, property owners or members of the public with the property
owner's permission.
Mr. Steve Piasecki clarified that anyone can nominate a tree for heritage designation.
Commissioner Gibbons reminded that no money has been budgeted to pay for arborists' reports.
Mr. Steve Piasecki agreed that the City does not have any money designated but that the process
should be kept open-ended.
Commissioner Gibbons wondered if orchards would be protected.
Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that there are few orchards left in Campbell. To attempt to regulate
these few orchards would single out those property owners.
Commissioner Gibbons suggested that eucalyptus trees do not require protection as they are not
native trees.
Mr. Steve Piasecki agreed that the Commission could choose to add eucalyptus trees to trees
exempt from review.
Chairman Lowe closed the Public Heating for Agenda Item No. 1.
City Attorney William Seligmann advised that all the changes discussed cannot be made this
evening.
Mr. Steve Piasecki suggested continuing the matter for two weeks.
Chairman Lowe agreed and stated that he wants to see a clean final version.
Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that the original version drafted by the Tree Committee as well as the
revised Planning Commission version will be forwarded to Council. This will give Council the
opportunity to see both versions and will ensure that the work of the Tree Committee is not
completely sidestepped.
Chairman Lowe reopened the Public Heating for Agenda Item No. 1.
Chairman Lindstrom clarified that Council will receive two versions of the Tree Protection
Ordinance.
Planning Commission Minutes of April 28, 1998 Page 9
Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that that was correct. Council can choose one or the other or a
combination of the two.
Motion:
Upon motion of Commissioner Gibbons, seconded by Commissioner Meyer-
Kennedy, the Planning Commission unanimously moved to continue
consideration of the draft Tree Protection Ordinance to the Planning
Commission meeting of May 12, 1998. (7-0)
Chairman Lowe read Agenda Item No. 2 into the record
2. S 98-01/UP 98-01
Gera, N.
Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Nick Gera, on
behalf of Stoddard's Brewhouse & Eatery, for a Site and
Architectural Approval (S 98-01) to allow the construction of a
two-story 33,690 square foot building in the Downtown area as
a restaurant/brewery and banquet hall and a Conditional Use
Permit (UP 98-01) to allow extended hours of operation and on-
sale general liquor service, on property located at 200 E.
Campbell Avenue in a C-3-S (Central Business District)
Zoning District. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for
this project. Tentative City Council Meeting Date: May 19,
1998, to consider approval of a parking adjustment.
Ms. Aki Irani, Planner I, presented the staff report as follows:
· Advised that the applicant is seeking approval of a Site Approval and a Conditional Use
Permit to develop a restaurant/banquet facility on the southwest comer of S. Second Street
and E. Campbell Avenue.
· There is currently a 7,700 square foot building on this site which was formerly occupied by
Wells Fargo Bank and which now houses Tiny Tots.
· The applicants are proposing to construct a 33,700 square foot, two-story building with 60
on-site parking spaces for which valet parking services will be provided.
· The second floor will be used as a banquet facility.
· The building style will be contemporary Mediterranean, a style similar to the Community
Center. The building will be stucco with a tile roof.
· The proposal is consistent with the General Plan and C-3 Zoning of the property with
Council approval of a parking adjustment.
· The Use Permit is to allow late hours of operation and a general on-sale liquor license.
· There will be an on-site microbrewery. The restaurant will include 255 seats and be a full-
service, sit down restaurant.
ITEM NO. 1
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF
April 28, 1998
TA 98-03
City Initiated
Continued Public hearing to consider the city initiated
application for approval of a text amendment to adopt
Chapter 21.56 Tree Protection Ordinance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission take the following action:
1. Recommend that the City Council GRANT a Negative Declaration.
2. Recommend APPROVAL, of the revised draft tree protection ordinance to the City
Council.
ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: This text amendment will provide for the protection of
trees on all private property. An initial study has been conducted for this project for the
Commission's consideration. It concludes this project will not have a significant effect on the
environment, therefore, a Negative Declaration was prepared.
BACKGROUND
At the meeting of April 14, 1998, the Planning Commission reviewed the draft tree protection
ordinance. The development of the tree protection ordinance was directed by the City Council in
October of 1996 due to public concern over the removal of a "Heritage" oak tree. A tree committee
was appointed by Council to assist staff in developing the ordinance. The ordinance provided to the
Commission for review and recommendation at the previous meeting reflected the direction from
Council and recommendations of the Tree Committee. The major components of the draft ordinance
consisted of the following:
· Applied to all private property.
· Required a permit to remove specific protected trees.
· Identified the minimum size of protected trees as 12 inches in diameter (38 inches in
circumference).
· Limited protected trees on single family residential property to four varieties.
· Required tree replacement for trees approved for removal or for trees removed without
permits.
· Provided a process for Heritage Tree designation.
The Planning Commission's review of the draft ordinance focused on various issues regarding the
scope and extent of the regulations. The Commission's primary concern was that the tree protection
regulations applied to developed single family residential property. The Commission believed that
the process to obtain a permit was burdensome and that the requirement to provide replacement trees
would result in substantial costs to a homeowner. In essence, the Commission felt that the
regulations should only apply to development applications and not to developed single family
Staff Report- Planning Commission Meeting of April 28, 1998
TA 98-03 - Tree Protection Ordinance
Page 2
residential properties. The Commission did express that protection should be afforded to Heritage
Trees on all properties, including developed single family residential.
Two homeowners spoke at the meeting regarding the need for a tree protection ordinance. The
homeowners expressed concern about the tree loss in the community. They indicated that 10 mature
trees have been removed in their neighborhood in the past year. They also expressed concern that
Campbell was the only city in the County that did not have tree protection regulations.
After considerable discussion, the Commission provided the following recommendations on the tree
protection ordinance:
· Exempt developed single family residential from the regulations with the exception of
Heritage Trees.
· Provide owner consent for Heritage Tree Designations in-lieu of notification only.
· Incorporate strong penalties for trees removed in anticipation of development.
· Clarify the definition of "adjacent property" in regards to notification for tree removal
permits.
· Provide a 500 foot radius mailing list for request to remove Heritage Trees.
The review of the ordinance was continued for two weeks to the meeting of April 28th to allow staff
time revise the ordinance and to return the revised draft to the Planning Commission for final
consideration. Additionally, the Commission also requested information on the tree protection
regulations for other communities.
DISCUSSION
The draft tree protection ordinance has been revised reflecting the recommendations of the Planning
Commission. The summary of the principal changes to the ordinance consists of the following:
· Allows homeowners to remove all trees of any size, and type from developed single family
residential property, without having to apply for a tree removal permit, except for Heritage
Trees.
· Requires the property owner consent for applications for Heritage Tree designation.
· Additional noticing for Heritage Tree removal requests.
New language reflecting the recommendations by the Commission incorporated into the
ordinance are indicated by italicized and bold typeface. References in the ordinance on subject
matter recommended for elimination is indicated by str4heout-s.
Staff Report- Planning Commission Meeting of April 28, 1998
TA 98-03 - Tree Protection Ordinance
Page 3
Tree Protection Regulations in Other Communities: A summary of tree ordinances for the cities
within Santa Clara County was compiled to ascertain the levels of protection and the processes
established for tree protection in neighboring communities. The review of existing tree ordinances
revealed that a wide variation in the level of protection exists among these cities. The summary chart
detailing the range of protection and the applicability of the regulations practiced in Santa Clara
County is provided in the attachments (Attachment #1). Based on the nine ordinances surveyed, the
following synopsis was derived:
· Inclusion of Single Family Residential in Regulations: 8 of 9 cities
· Number Of Cities That Protect All Trees on All Property: 6 of 9 cities
· Average Diameter Size Of Tree Protected On R-l: 12 inches
· Range Diameter Size Of Tree Protected For Ail Properties: 4 to 18 inches
· Process For Tree Permits For Single Family: Administrative Permit
· Process For Tree Permits For Non-Residential: Administrative Permit or
Public Hearing
· Permit Authority: Planning Director
City Council Hearing: Recommendations by the Planning Commission on the tree ordinance will be
forwarded to City Council. The tentative City Council meeting date is May 19, 1998.
Attachments: 1. Summary of Tree Ordinances-Santa Clara County
2. Revised Draft Tree Protection Ordinance
3. Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 1998
4. Planning Commission Staff Report and Initial Study dated April 14, 1998
Prepared by:
',-~loria Sciara, Planner II,,
Approved by: ,,~~
Shitron Fierro, Senior Planner
Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 1998 Page 5
Ms. haron
Fierro stated that some minor wording changes per the
have been implemented on pages 16 and 17. She added
antennas are installed in Campbell since there are no hills.
City Attorney's
that not a lot of
Chairman
asked why it is not possible to require painting of all equipment to s, it.
Ms. Sharon ~dvised that per Sprint's agreement with Lucent
prohibited from their equipment. If they are unable to paint,
screen using-other such as landscaping. She added that lan
has been added on page
they are
Mil be required to
a revocation process
Ms. Carrie Takeyasu asked
4.
language for
such as is included for Item No.
Ms. Sharon Fierro replied that
Providers can raise the height of the p~
only to antennas and support structures.
thus raise the height of their antennas.
Chairman Lowe closed the Public
Item No. 1.
Motion:
Upon
the Plan~ Commission ad~
a a Telecommunications
rel amendments (as modified
aption of a Negative Declaration, by
AYE S:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Francois, Gibbons, Jones,
None
Lindstrom, Meyer-Kennedy
None
seconded by Commissioner Kearns,
Resolution No. 3156 recommending
Chapter (Chapter 21.60) and
Planning Commission) and the
following roll call vote:
Lowe
Chairman Lowe advised that this matter will be considered by Council at its meeting of May 5,
1998.
Chairman Lowe read Agenda Item No. 2 into the record.
TA 98-03
City Initiated
Public Heating to consider the City-initiated application for
approval of a Text Amendment (TA 98-03) to amend the
Campbell Municipal Code to include a Tree Protection
Ordinance. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this
project. Tentative City Council Meeting Date: May 5, 1998.
Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 1998 Page 6
Ms. Gloria Sciara, Planner II, presented the staff report as follows:
· Advised the Commission that the Tree Protection Ordinance was drafted at the request of
Council following the development at Littleton Place whereby a 62-inch in diameter Oak tree
was removed to accommodate this construction. The tree was determined to be. severely
diseased by three arborists.
· Council appointed a Tree Committee, comprised of representatives from the Parks &
Recreation Board, Planning Commission, Historic Preservation Board, Council, the Chamber
of Commerce, an arborist and a citizen at large.
· On February 17th, the draft Tree Protection Ordinance was reviewed by Council. Council
instructed staff to increase the size of tree to be protected from 8-inches to 12-inches and to
develop a simpler process for residential property owners.
· The purpose of the Tree Protection Ordinance is to protect the City's tree population, to
establish protected tree classifications and to establish replacement ratios.
· Standards will be different for developed single-family properties as opposed to all other
zoning classifications.
· The Tree Protection Ordinance establishes policies, definitions, technical manual and
descriptions.
· The applicability is to all private property in the City of Campbell.
Chairman Lowe asked whether the City would be compelled to comply with this Tree Protection
Ordinance.
Ms. Gloria Sciara advised that the City operated under Municipal Code provisions for street trees
and public property.
Commissioner Gibbons asked what impact this Tree Protection Ordinance would have on single-
family residential properties.
Ms. Gloria Sciara replied that four types of trees would be protected within single-family
residential properties that requires approval of a permit.
Commissioner Gibbons clarified that these types of trees could not be removed.
Mr. Steve Piasecki asked for the types of trees to be protected.
Ms. Gloria Sciara:
· Answered that a tree removal permit process would have to be undergone. No protected tree
can be removed without a permit. Exceptions would be if an emergency exists where
eminent danger is possible; public nuisance trees which are diseased and/or overgrown; trees
interfering with public utilities and fruit trees which are not protected.
· Protected trees include Oaks, Sequoias, Ash, Cedar and Heritage Trees.
Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 1998 Page 7
· For developed single-family residential properties, non-protected trees can be removed
without a permit.
· For residential properties a one-page application has been developed whereby the property
owner provides a written description of what is being removed and why.
· For all other types of property, applicants will be required to provide a tree survey plan/site
plan.
· Property owners would be allowed to remove trees if they are diseased and/or in danger of
falling; if the tree causes potential damage to a structure or utilities, if the tree prevents or
impedes a property owner's economic enjoyment or reasonable use of their property for
things such as expansion or a granny unit or having caused damage of $1,000 or greater on
single family developed properties.
· Approval authority will involve an administrative procedure by the Community Development
Director when the request is not associated with a development permit or for single family
residential properties.
· Review of potential removal of heritage trees will require Historic Preservation Board
review.
· Review of tree removal for potential development sites will be handled by the same body as
approves development applications, generally the Planning Commission.
Chairman Lowe asked who is notified of the potential removal of tree(s).
Ms. Gloria Sciara replied that contiguous property owners and those across the street will be
notified. This represents approximately 70-foot noticing.
Commissioner Gibbons suggested a 200-foot notice for general tree removals and a 500-foot
notice for heritage tree removals.
Chairman Lowe asked how much a tree removal permit would cost to process.
Ms. Gloria Sciara replied that the cost was not finalized but would be somewhere in the range of
$50.
Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that Council is the body that determines the cost which is based upon
the amount of time it takes to process the permit.
Ms. Gloria Sciara advised:
· Following noticing, a 1 O-day response period is provided.
· Once approved, there is an appeals process available.
· Development applications and heritage trees will require the same noticing but with a 300-
foot radius mailing list.
· Site/tree posting would also be required.
· Appeals of these approvals must be made within 10 days and will be final in 30 days.
Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 1998 Page 8
· Administrative decisions may be appealed to the Planning Commission.
· Planning Commission decisions may be appealed to Council.
Commissioner Gibbons asked who defines heritage trees and who initiates the process to
designate a tree as a heritage tree.
Ms. Gloria Sciara explained that the technical manual has been developed which outlines
procedures. It includes a condensed Tree Protection Ordinance, permits, posting signage and
pruning and replacement tree standards. She advised that in just a moment the question about
who initiates designation of heritage trees would be answered.
Commissioner Gibbons suggested some discussion about the 12-inch in diameter tree size.
Asked what would occur if a residential owner wanted to clear their land for a garden.
Ms. Gloria Sciara:
· Provided the replacement ratios as follows:
1. For each 12-inch diameter tree removed, two 24-inch box trees would be required.
2. For each 24~inch diameter tree removed, three 24-inch box trees would be required.
3. For each greater than 24-inch diameter tree removed, four 36-inch box trees would be
required.
4. For each heritage tree removed, one 48-inch box tree would be required for every 12-
inches in diameter of the removed heritage tree.
· Added that a replanting plan is required at the time the tree removal permit is provided.
· If space is not available on the subject property, there is a provision to replace the trees off
site.
· Replacement of trees has environmental benefits.
Commissioner Gibbons questioned the reason and/or fairness in asking property owners to
purchase replacement trees and delivering them to the Corporation Yard.
Mr. Steve Piasecki reminded the Commission that they have the option of exempting residential
property owners from meeting some of these requirements. There is no interest in developing a
new fund which these owners can pay into in lieu of tree replacement on their property. There is
a provision for payment to the Street Tree Fund.
Chairman Lowe asked the cost for a 24-inch box tree.
Ms. Gloria Sciara provided a range from $150 to $300.
Commissioner Jones stated that he supports exempting single-family residential properties from
all restrictions as he feels that this Ordinance would intrude on personal property rights.
Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 1998 Page 9
Ms. Gloria Sciara:
· Explained how trees can be designated as a heritage tree. The request for such designation
can come from the property owner, Council, Civic Improvement Commission, Parks and
Recreation Commission or Historic Preservation Board.
· Stated that violations and penalties for improperly removing trees includes four times the
replacement ratio. If a heritage tree is illegal removed, the property owner can be assessed
for the appraised cost of the tree.
· Advised that both the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Historic Preservation Board
have reviewed and provide comments on the draft Tree Protection Ordinance.
· The Ordinance is tentative scheduled for review by Council on June 9th.
· A Negative Declaration has been prepared.
· This draft Tree Protection Ordinance will come back to the Commission on May 13th.
Chairman Lowe asked "can we do this?"
City Attorney Williaim Seligmann advised that the City could adopt such an Ordinance as long
as it does not prohibit the economic use of property.
Ms. Gloria Sciara advised that Campbell is the only City currently without an Ordinance
protecting its trees. Six of nine local communities protect all trees.
Chairman Lowe stated that he found the pruning standards to be rigid and strict.
Commissioner Keams:
· Said that the Ordinance is not "user friendly."
·
·
·
·
Feels that the penalties are too severe.
Said that only heritage trees should be protected on single-family properties.
Property rights are being taken.
Said that she feels that developers rather than homeowners should comply with this
Ordinance.
· As for replacement trees, opined that 15-gallon trees would establish themselves faster that
24-inch box or larger. Plus the price of box trees is exorbitant.
· Concerned about the requirement of off-site tree replacement if no space on subject property
is available. This is penalizing the property owner.
· Finds it unreasonable to expect property owners to deliver trees to the Service Yard within
30 days for use in off-site planting.
· Said that with such an Ordinance Campbell is becoming an unfriendly place to live.
· Had questions about requirements for photographs and arborists reports as well as a site
plan. Asked how extensive or professional a site plan would be required.
Ms. Gloria Sciara replied that these requirements are only for developments.
Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 1998 Page 10
Commissioner Keams pointed out a discrepancy on the Tree Disclosure Statement Form as it
pertains to tree size.
Ms. Gloria Sciara advised that this has been changed.
Commissioner Jones:
· Stated that he is totally against this Ordinance.
Asked how homeowners are supposed to know about this Ordinance.
· Felt that this Ordinance is crossing the line on individual rights and freedom. City
government needs to stay out of residential property rights.
· Suggested implementing lessor densities in developments and encouraging more parks in the
City.
Commissioner Gibbons agreed that there has been a lot of development over the past few years
with larger parcels being subdivided.
Chairman Lowe opened the Public Heating for Agenda Item No. 2.
Ms. Sharon Keating Beauregard, 64 Llewellyn Avenue:
· Advised that she is a property owner in Campbell.
· Acknowledged the work done to draft this Ordinance and expressed her support of this
Ordinance.
· Said that in the two years since she has moved to her Campbell home, at least 10 mature trees
have been removed in her immediate area including five on her street alone.
· Said that public policy allows cities to prevent the installation ofoil derricks in back yards.
· Said that she selected her Campbell home because of the City's small town feel.
· Said that this Ordinance is a great start. She would like to see it even strengthened.
· Campbell is the only City which does not currently protect its trees.
· Pointed out that the City's logo is "The Orchard City."
Mr. Matt Beauregard, 64 Llewellyn Avenue:
· Stated his support of the draft Tree Protection Ordinance.
Recounted a story about an adjacent property that has recently removed a couple of trees near
their back fence without having had to notify adjoining neighbors. "Suddenly, it was gone,"
he said.
· Expressed that trees have a value to more than just the people on whose property it is located.
· Mentioned a 35 to 40 foot pine which was recently cut back to just a 18 to 20 foot stump.
The trimmings were left in the street for more than two weeks.
· Stated that a Tree Ordinance protects trees.
· The cost of a permit is not unreasonable.
Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 1998 Page 11
Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that the impacts of this draft Tree Protection Ordinance on single
family residential property owners seems to be the biggest issue. Suggested that the Commission
propose what aspects it supports. Whether the Commission wants to remove residential property
owners from the Ordinance.
Commissioner Jones stated that he would like to see single-family residential properties removed
from the Tree Protection Ordinance.
Commissioner Keams stated her concurrence.
Commissioner Francois said that there appears to be some overkill in the Ordinance. Did agree
that there is some credibility for some types of tree protection.
Commissioner Gibbons:
· Said that the Ordinance needs to be user friendly.
· Expressed her appreciation for the comments of the two residents.
· Asked for more research materials to review including Ordinances from other local
communities.
· Said that she found this Ordinance too intense and would like to see staff draft a simpler
measure and apply it to non-residential zones particularly all developable parcels.
Mr. Steve Piasecki explained that staff used development as the threshhold.
Commissioner Jones asked about flag lots.
Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that parcels that can be divided into a flag lot are considered
developable.
Commissioner Gibbons encouraged strong penalties for any developer who removed trees within
six months of developing a site.
Chairman Lowe asked how the City was going to know if trees on developable lots were
improperly removed.
Mr. Steve Piasecki agreed that this would be hard to track if the objective is to ensure trees are
incorporated into a project. Reminded that the Ordinance came about because of concerns when
development triggered the removed of an old oak tree on a developable residential single family
parcel.
Commissioner Gibbons said that the 12-inch diameter is too small.
Commissioner Jones reminded that Campbell is the only City without a Tree Ordinance.
Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 1998 Page 12
Mr. Steve Piasecki suggested continuing this item for two weeks to allow staff to bring data from
other cities and allow staff to redraft some of the technical stuff.
Commissioner Gibbons stated that there is validity to some type of tree protection.
Commissioner Jones stated that there will certainly be debate on where to draw the line. Stated
that the City cannot continue to develop properties as densely as has been done recently.
Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that a General Plan Update is scheduled for this year. Study sessions
will be organized. This is the time to see if Council want to enact reductions in building density.
However, if densities drop too low, it will undermine the Housing Element.
Motion:
Upon motion of Commissioner Kearns, seconded by Commissioner Gibbons,
the Planning Commission voted to continued discussion of the draft Tree
Protection Ordinance to the next Planning Commission meeting of April 28,
1998, to allow staff the opportunity to modify the draft to reflect their
recommendations, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Francois, Gibbons, Jones, Kearns, Lowe
NOES: None
ABSENT: Lindstrom, Meyer-Kennedy
ABSTAIN: None
Chairman Lowe read Agenda Item No. 3 into the record.
3. CIP 1998-2005
Staff
Public Hearing to consider the City of Campbell's 1998-2005
Capital Improvement Plan. A Negative Declaration has been
prepared. Tentative City Council Meeting Date: May 5, 1998.
Mr. Tim J. Haley, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
· Advised that State Government Code requires the Planning Commission to review the City's
Capital Improvement Plan for consistency with the General Plan and to recommend an
environmental determination.
· Significant projects include:
· Deferred street improvements
· An addition to City Hall
· Parks
· Community Center Improvements
· Many of the projects are Categorically Exempt.
· Advised that A1 Bito with the City Manager's Office is available for questions.
ITEM NO. 2
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF
April 14, 1998
TA 98-03
City Initiated
Public hearing to consider the city initiated application for approval
of a text amendment to adopt Chapter 21.56 Tree Protection
Ordinance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission take the following action:
1. Recommend that the City Council GRANT a Negative Declaration.
2. Review the draft tree protection ordinance and provide recommendations to the City
Council.
ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: This text amendment will provide for the protection of trees
on all private property. An initial study has been conducted for this project for the Commission's
consideration. It concludes this project will not have a significant effect on the environment,
therefore, a Negative Declaration was prepared.
BACKGROUND
At the meeting of August 6, 1996, the City Council appointed a committee consisting of one member
from the Parks and Recreation Commission, Planning Commission, Historic Preservation Board, the
Chamber of Commerce, a neighborhood association, a volunteer arborist and a citizen at large to
assist staff in developing a tree ordinance. The Council gave direction on the extent of tree
protection which emphasized the following:
· Limit protected trees on single family residential properties to specimens and native
varieties.
· Provide procedures that are simple, and fast emphasizing administrative review.
On February 17, 1998, a draft tree protection ordinance reflecting the recommendations of the tree
committee members was presented to the City Council for review and comment. The Council
directed staff to revise the draft ordinance to reflect the following:
· Increase the size of protected tree from eight inches to 12 inches.
· Develop a tree removal permit process that is fast, and simple.
ANALYSIS
For the purposes of the tree ordinance, the species of trees protected are differentiated by zoning
districts which are grouped into two classifications: Single Family Residential (includes planned
developments with minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet) and; All other Zoning Districts.
Staff Report- Planning Commission Meeting of April 17, 1998
TA 98-03 - Tree Protection Ordinance
Page 2
The central components of the ordinance are summarized below:
Protected Trees/Varieties: Protected tree varieties 12 inches (38 inch circumference) or
greater include the following:
· Single Family Residential: Oaks, Cedars, Ash, and Redwoods.
· All Other Zoning Districts: All trees (excluding fruit trees).
Procedures: The procedures for a tree removal permit are as follows:
Administrative: Permits issued by the Community Development Director for all
zoning districts when the tree removal requests is not associated with a development
application. Notification indicating the proposed tree removal will be provided to
adjacent property owners, and the tree or property will be posted 10 days prior to
approval of the permit.
Public Hearing: Applies to tree removal requests associated with development
applications, and for the removal of Heritage Trees. Permits are filed concurrently
with a development application and are issued by the same heating body that
approves the development application. Requests for removal of Heritage Trees
independent of a development application are issued by the Historic Preservation
Board. Property owners within 300 feet of the subject property will be notified, and
the tree or property will be posted indicating the proposed removal.
Appeals: Any decision on a tree removal permit can be appealed by an interested
party in accordance with standard appeal procedures specified in the zoning
ordinance. This includes a 300 foot mailing list and posting of the tree or property
indicating the intended action.
Criteria for Tree Removal: The ordinance provides general criteria and criteria for single
family residential properties that must 'be considered by the approval authority to issue of a
tree removal permit.
Tree Replacement: Trees approved for removal are subject to replacement. The
replacement ratios are based on the trunk diameter of the tree. If the required number of
trees cannot be accommodated on-site, the ordinance provides for off-site replacement on
public property (e.g. street trees, parks).
Staff Report- Planning Commission Meeting of April 17, 1998
TA 98-03 - Tree Protection Ordinance
Page 3
Heritage Tree Designation: A procedure for designating Heritage Trees is included in the
ordinance. Heritage Tree designation is similar to the procedure adopted for Historic
Landmark Designation.
Tree Technical Manual: The Tree Technical Manual will serve as the working document for tree
removal permits. The development of the Tree Technical Manual was undertaken to provide
information on the tree regulations to the public in a simplified and complete program. The manual
will continue to be refined. To date, the following elements are included in the Tree Technical
Manual:
1. Tree removal permit forms
2. Protection measures of trees during construction
3. Replacement policies for trees removed
4. Notice of protected trees
5. Tree Disclosure Statement
6. Pruning Standards
Referral to Boards and Commissions: The draft tree ordinance was forwarded to the Parks and
Recreation Commission and the Historic Preservation Board for review and comment. The Parks
and Recreation Commission met on April 8, 1998, and a summary of their recommendations will be
presented to the Planning Commission at the meeting. A quorum of the Historic Preservation Board
was unavailable at the regular meeting of March 25, 1998, therefore a study session was scheduled
on April 10, 1998 at 3:30 p.m. Due to the timing of the study session, the recommendations of the
Historic Preservation Board will be provided to the Planning Commission at the meeting.
City Council Hearing: Recommendations to the tree ordinance by the Planning Commission will be
incorporated into the draft ordinance that will be forwarded to City Council. The final draft
ordinance is scheduled for the City Council meeting of May 5, 1998.
Attachments:
1. Initial Study
2. Draft Tree Protection Ordinance
3. Draft Tree Technical Manual
Prepared by: ~r//~~d~~
~~iar~r II
Appr°ved~e~,, ~-~i0~r p~nn~
CITY OF CAMPBEL~
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
INITIAL STUDY
This initial study shall document the evaluation required by CEQA. It will include findings as to whether or not the
proposed project would have a significant impact upon the environment.
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
The project is a new ordinance that specifies protected trees for all private property within the City of Campbell. Protected
tree varieties are based on the zoning of the property. For the purposes of the ordinance, zoning districts are grouped by
two classifications; Single Family Residential and All Other Zoning Districts. The ordinance also specifies requirements
and review criteria for tree removal requests based on the zoning classification. Criteria for evaluating tree removal
requests specified will be used to make a determination on each application. All tree removal requests approved will
require tree replacement and includes off-site replacement if the trees cannot be accommodated on-site.- Ratios for tree
replacement are based on the diameter of the tree, and reasonably off-set the impacts of removing existing mature trees. A
process for designating Heritage Trees has also been provided in the ordinance. The full draft of the Ordinance is
incorporated by reference herein.
A. Project Address
City of Campbell; The City of Campbell has a population of 38,267 in a total land area of six (6) square miles. It is
located in Santa Clara County on the southwestern edge of the City of San Jose and is a fully developed urban community
with a mix of residential, commercial, industrial and institutional and uses.
B. Application Number
TA 98-03
Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Campbell
Community Development Department
70 N. First Street
Campbell, CA 95008
Do
Contact Person
Gloria Sciara
(408) 866-2140
me
Project Sponsor's Name and Address
City of Campbell
Community Development Department
70 N. First Street
Campbell, CA 95008
F. General Plan Designation and Zoning
Varies; Refer to City of Campbell General Plan and Zoning Maps
G. Location of Project
City of Campbell
Checklist completed March 25, 1998
by Gloria Sciara, Planner II
II. RESPONSES TO ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
The following explanations are keyed to the letter of the item contained in the Environmental Checklist.
F. Public Services
The proposal will require public services including Cormmunity Development staff time to process tree removal
requests, and maintenance services of the Public Works Department when replacement trees are planted and maintained
on public property, but will not result in any changes to existing services. The ordinance as presently drafted is
expected to cost one-quarter to one-half full time equivalent staff person to implement and enforce. The additional
activity will be absorbed within existing staffing levels and will not require additional staff at this time.
P. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
1. As discussed above, this project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment,
including effects on animals or plants, or to eliminate historic or prehistoric sites.
2. As discussed above, both short and long-term environmental effects associated with this project will not have an
adverse impact on the environment.
3. When impacts associated with this project are considered alone or in combination with impacts of other projects,
they are not significant.
4. The above discussions do not identify any substantial adverse impacts to people as a result of this project.
V. DETERMINATION
X The proposed project COULD NOT have any significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION is hereby adopted.
Although the project as proposed could have had a significant effect on the environment, there will not be any
in this case because measures to mitigate those effects have been added to the project, and therefore, a
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted.
__ The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and therefore an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
For Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director Date
II. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Yes
Significant
WILL THE PROPOSED PROJECT Unless No Infor-
RESULT IN THE FOLLOWING No Not It Is Apparent Cum- mation
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: Impact Significant Mitigated Mitigation ulative Sources
A. LAND USE AND PLANNING:
1. Result in conflicts with existing General x o o o o 2,3,
Plan designation or zoning.
2. Result in conflicts with environmental plans or x o o o o 1,2
policies adopted by agencies with
jurisdiction over the project.
3. Affect agricultural resources or operations x o o O o 3
(e.g., impacts to soils or farm lands).
4. Disrupt or divide the physical x o o o o 2,3
arrangement of an established community.
B. POPULATION AND HOUSING:
1. Cummulatively exceed official regional or local x o o o o 2,3
population projections.
2. Induce substantial growth in an area either x o o o o 2,3
directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in
undeveloped areas or infrastructure expansion).
3. Displace existing housing, especially x o o o o 2,3
affordable housing.
C. GEOPHYSICAL:
1. Result in, or expose people to, fault rupture, x o o o o 2,3
2. Result in, or expose people to ground x o o o o 2,3
shaking or liquifaction.
3. Result in, or expose people to seismic x o o o o 2;3
seiche or tsunami.
4. Result in, or expose people to, landslides or x o o o o 2,3
or mudslides
5. Result in erosion, changes to topography, or x o o o o 2
unstable conditions from excavation or grading.
6. Result in, or expose people to subsidence x o o o o 3
of the land.
Page 1
II. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Yes
Significant Significant
WILL THE PROPOSED PROJECT Unless No Infor-
RESULT IN THE FOLLOWING No Not It Is Apparent Cum- mation
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: Impact Significant Mitigated Mitigation ulative Sources
7. Result in, or expose people to, expansive soils, x o o o o 3
8. Affect unique geologic or physical features, x o o o o 3
D. WATER:
1. Change absorption rates, drainage patterns, x o o o o 2,3
or the rate and amount of surface runoff.
2. Expose people or property to water related x o o o o 3
hazards such as flooding.
3. Discharge into surface waters or other alter- x o o o o 2,3
ation of surface water quality.
4. Change the amount of surface water in any x o o o o ,3
water body.
5. Change currents or the course or direction of x o o o o 2,3
water movements.
6. Change the quantity of ground water, either x o o o o 2,3
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts.
7. Alter direction or rate of flow of ground water, x o o o o 2,3
8. Adversely effect ground water quality, x o o o o 2,3
E. AIR QUALITY:
1. Violate any air quality standard or contribute x o o o o 1,2,3
to an existing or projected air quality violation.
2. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, x o o o o 2
3. Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, x o o o o .2
or cause any change in climate.
4. Create objectionable odors, x o o o o 2
F. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION:
1. Increase vehicle trips or traffic congestion, x o o o o 2,3
2. Create safety hazards from design features x o o o o 2,3
(i.e., sharp curves or dangerous intersections)
or from incompatible uses.
Page 2
II. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Yes
Significant Significant
WILL THE PROPOSED PROJECT Unless No Infor-
RESULT IN THE FOLLOWING No Not It Is Apparent Cum- mation
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: Impact Significant Mitigated Mitigation ulative Sources
3. Obstruct emergency access to nearby uses. x o o o o 2,3
4. Provide insufficient parking capacity, x o o o o 2,3
5. Create hazards for pedestrians/bicyclists, x o o o o 2
6. Conflict with adopted policies supporting x o o o o 2,3
alternative transportation.
7. Affect rail, waterborne, or air traffic impacts, x o o o o 2,3
G. BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS:
1. Disturb any endangered, threatened, or rare x o o o o 2,3
species or their habitats (e.g., plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds).
2. Affect or eliminate heritage trees, x o o o o 2,3
3. Affect locally designated natural communities x o o o o 2,3
(e.g., Shoreline).
4. Disturb wetland habitats (e.g., fresh and x o o o o 2,3
saltwater marshes, and riparian corridors).
5. Affect dispersal or migration corridors, x o o o o 2,3
H. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES:
1. Create conflicts with adopted energy x o o o o 1,2,3
conservation plans.
2. Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and x o o o o 1,2
inefficient manner.
I. HAZARDS:
1. Create a risk of accidental explosion or release x o o o o 2
of hazardous substances (e.g., oil, pesticides,
chemicals, or radiation).
2. Interfere with an emergency response or x o o , o o 2
evacuation plan.
3. Create any health hazard or potential x o o o o 2
health hazard.
Page 3
II. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Yes
Significant Significant
WILL THE PROPOSED PROJECT Unless No Infor-
RESULT IN THE FOLLOWING No Not It Is Apparent Cum- mation
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: Impact Significant Mitigated Mitigation ulative Sources
4. Expose people to existing sources of potential x o o o o 2,3
health hazards.
5. Increase fire hazards in areas with flammable x o o o o 2,3
brush, grass or trees.
J. NOISE:
1. Increase existing noise levels, x o o o o 2
2. Expose people to severe noise levels, x o o o o 2
K. PUBLIC SERVICES:
1. Create a need for new or altered fire protection, x o o o o 2
2. Create a need for new or altered police services, x o o o o 2
3. Create a need for new or altered school services, x o o o o 2
4. Require increased maintenance services, x o o o o 2,3
5. Create a need for new governmental services, o x o o o 2,4
L. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS:
1. Create a need for new or altered power or x o o o o 2,3
natural gas systems.
2. Create a need for new communication systems, x o o o o 2,3
3. Require new or altered water treatment or x o o o o 2,3
distribution facilities.
4. Create a need for new or altered sewer service, x o o o o 2,3
5. Require new or altered storm water drainage, x o o o o 2,3
6. Require new or altered solid waste disposal, x o o o o 2,3
M. AESTHETICS:
1. Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway, x o o o o 2,3
2. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect, x o o o o 2
3. Create light or glare, x o o o o 2
Page 4
II. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Yes
Significant Significant
WILL THE PROPOSED PROJECT Unless No Infor-
RESULT IN THE FOLLOWING No Not It Is Apparent Cum- marion
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: Impact Significant Mitigated Mitigation ulative Sources
N. CULTURAL RESOURCES:
I. Disturbance of paleontological resources, x o o o o 2,3
2. Disturbance of archaeological resources, x o o o o 2,3
3. Affect historical resources, x o o o o 2,3
4. Affect unique ethnic cultural values, x o o o o 2,3
5. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within x o o o o 2,3
the potential impact area.
O. RECREATION:
1. Increase in demand for parks or other x o o o o 2
recreational facilities.
2. Affect existing recreational opportunities, x o o o o 2
P. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE:
1. Does the project have the potential to degrade x o o o o
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self sustaining levels, threaten to elim-
inate a plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal, or eliminate
important examples of California history?
2. Does the project have the potential to achieve x o o o o
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals?
3. Does the project have impacts that are x o o o
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable?
4. Does the project have environmental effects x o o o o
that will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Footnotes: Sources consulted in project analysis
1. CEQA Guidelines -
2. Draft Tree Protection Ordinance dated 3/25/98
3. Campbell General Plan and Zoning Ordinance
Page 5
4 City Council Staff Report dated 2/17/98
M/S: Furtado/Conant - that the City Council approve the application for the
Downtown Campbell Business Association's Easter Parade and waive all fees except
the application fee and any equipment rental costs. Motion adopted by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers: Conant, Furtado, Dougherty, Dean, Watson
NOES: Councilmembers: None
18. Authorization and Direction to Proceed with Review of the Tree Ordinance
Planner II Sciara - Staff Report dated February 17, 1998.
Following discussion, M/S: Dougherty/Furtado - refer the tree ordinance to the
Planning Commission for public hearings with direction to include as a minimum
12" diameter trees, and an administrative process that could be codified into the
ordinance which is simple, quick, inexpensive and consistently applied, and direct
Public Works staff to review Chapter 11 of the Municipal Code to incorporate trees
that are located on public property and refer proposed amendments to the Parks
and Recreation Commission. Motion adopted unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS
There were no agendized items.
COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
19. City Councilmember Reports
--Councilmember Dean reported on the Santa Clara Valley Water District Flood Control
Advisory Committee and stated that he was elected Vice Chair of the Committee.
--Vice Mayor Furtado reported on a Housing Bond Authority Meeting and the
Emergency Preparedness Council.
--Councilmember Conant reported on the Vasona Corridor Joint Policy Advisory Board
and the Valley Transportation Policy Committee. Councilmember Conant also reported
that she was elected Chair of the County Library District JPA.
--Mayor Watson reported on the Cities Association Meeting and announced a meeting
regarding the shift of local property taxes scheduled for February 20~'.
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
There were no agendized items.
Minutes of 2/17/98 City Council Meeting 7
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT: Review of Tree Ordinance
Gloria Sciara, Planner II
cc. Bob Kass, Public Works Director
cc~, Marlene Pomeroy, Secretary
Ja~'Hemsley
De~Ity City Clerk
CITY OF CAMPBELL
DATE: February 19, 1998
At the regular meeting of February 17, 1998, the City Council reviewed the
draft Tree Ordinance and referred the Ordinance to the Planning Commission
to hold public hearings, with the following parameters:
"Include as a minimum 12" diameter trees; review and codify administrative
process that is simple, quick, inexpensive and consistently applied; Public
Works staff to review/amend existing CMC Chapter 11 to include trees that
are located on public property and refer proposed changes to the Parks and
Recreation Commission"
Oty
Council
Report
ITEM NO.: :to.
CATEGORY: Unfinished Business
MEE~G DATE: February 17, 1998
TITLE
Authorization and Direction to proceed with Review of the Tree Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council review the draft Tree Ordinance and provide comments and/or additional
direction and take the following action:
· Authorize the Planning Commission to hold public hearings on the proposed Tree Ordinance.
BACKGROUND
At the meeting of October 6, 1996, the City Council authorized the appointment of a committee
to prepare a tree ordinance. The committee consisted of one member from each of the following;
the Parks and Recreation Commission, Planning Commission, Historic Preservation Board, the
Chamber of Commerce, a neighborhood association, a volunteer arborist, and a citizen at large.
The Committee met five times throughout the Spring and Summer of 1997. While attendance
was not consistent at all of the meetings, the final recommendation reflects the consensus of a
majority of the committee members. Staff then prepared the draft ordinance to reflect the
Committee's recommendation. At this time, staff seeks to both update the City Council and
ensure the Council concurs with the committee's recommendation prior to proceeding with
public hearings before the Planning Commission.
The Council provided direction to the committee (see attached Council minutes from October 6,
1996) in terms of the scope the ordinance in the following areas:
1. Protected trees: Limit extent of protected trees on single family properties to large specimen
trees and native species only.
2. Applicability: Regulations should equally apply to private or public property.
3. Procedures: Process for tree removal requests should be simple, fast and inexpensive;
Administrative review is preferred.
4. Exemptions: Provide appropriate exemptions from the regulations in cases of immediate
hazards or trees with deteriorated health.
A discussion of the Tree Committee response to each of the Council's areas of direction is
detailed in the following section.
DISCUSSION
Protected Trees/Varieties: For the purposes of the draft tree ordinance, protected trees are
differentiated by zoning districts and grouped into two classifications:
City Council Report- February 17, 1998
Authorization and Direction to Proceed with Review of the Tree Ordinance
Page 2
1. Single Family Residential (includes planned developments with minimum lot size of
6,000 square feet)
2. All other zoning districts.
Several members of the Tree Committee voiced strong support for the protection of all trees
(excluding fruit trees) on all properties including single family residential properties. The
members rationale for this recommendation was that the majority of properties in Campbell were
single family residential, therefore, the potential removal of unprotected tree varieties could
significantly reduce the existing tree population. However, in accordance with Council's
direction, the Tree Committee is recommending the following:
· Single Family Residential: Protected varieties include Oaks, Cedars, Ash, and
Redwoods.
· All Other Zoning Districts: Protected varieties include all trees (excluding fruit trees).
Protected Trees/Size: The Committee reviewed several adopted tree ordinances from
communities within Santa Clara County to evaluate the size of tree to be recommended for
protection. Early discussions among the Committee members favored protecting trees with a
diameter of 12 inch or greater (38 inch circumference). After subsequent discussions, the
majority of the Committee felt that a broader scope of protection should be recommended. The
Tree Committee's recommendation for the size of protect trees is:
· Single Family Residential: Eight inches (8 inches/25 inch circumference) or greater.
· All Other Zoning Districts: Eight inches (8 inches/25 inch circumference) or greater.
A summary of the tree ordinances which lists the minimum protected tree size is included with
this report (see attached "Summary of Tree Ordinances-Santa Clara County"). Protected tree
sizes among the tree ordinances surveyed range in diameter from 10 inches to 18 inches.
Application to Public and Private Property: In the course of the Tree Committee meetings, staff
provided information to the Committee regarding existing provisions in the Municipal Code that
regulate trees on public property. Chapter 11 of the Municipal Code provides regulations for the
removal of trees within the public right-of-way and includes noticing, and posting requirements.
Additionally, the request for removal of trees within the public fight-of-way requires the review
and approval by the Parks and Recreation Commission. In light of the existing tree regulations
for public property, the Tree Committee focused on the applicability of the proposed tree
ordinance to private property that is consistent in process and procedure to the regulations for
public property.
Procedures: The Tree Committee is recommending two procedures to obtain tree removal permit:
City Council Report- February 17, 1998
Authorization and Direction to Proceed with Review of the Tree Ordinance
Page 3
Administrative Permits: Applies to developed single family residential properties, and
for all other zoning districts if not associated with a development application.
Administrative permits are issued by the Community Development Director.
Non-administrative: Applies to development applications, and for the removal of
Heritage Trees. Non-administrative permits are issued by the same hearing body that
approves the development application. Non-administrative tree removal requests would
be filed concurrently with a development application.
Appeals of any decision made by the designated approval authority indicates by reference the
appeal procedures specified in the zoning ordinance.
Exemptions: As directed by the Council, the draft tree ordinance lists various exemptions to the
proposed tree ordinance. A summary of the exemptions include the following:
· Cases of emergency, where there is a threat to persons or property.
· Any tree that constitutes a public nuisance.
Street trees and trees in the public right-of-way that will continue to be
governed under Section 11.08. of the Campbell Municipal Code (Street Trees
and Parking Strips).
· Public utilities taking necessary action to maintain safe operation of their
facilities.
Removal of fruit-bearing trees in all zoning districts, and the removal of
unprotected tree varieties located on a developed single-family residential
properties.
City Council's Action: Staff requests that the City Council review the draft tree ordinance and
provide staff with any comments and recommendations. Any changes requested by the City
Council would be incorporated in the draft ordinance prior to forwarding the draft ordinance to
the Planning Commission for public hearing. To assist the Council's review of the draft
ordinance, two charts are attached to this report:
· Summary of existing tree ordinances within Santa Clara County
· Summary of draft Tree Ordinance for Campbell
Referral to Boards and Commissions: The draft tree ordinance will be forwarded to the Parks and
Recreation Commission and the Historic Preservation Board for review and comment.
Comments from Parks and Recreation Commission and the Historic Preservation Board will be
forwarded to the Planning Commission.
City Council Report- February 17, 1998
Authorization and Direction to Proceed with Review of the Tree Ordinance
Page 4
Planning Commission Review: Incorporating any changes requested by the City Council, the
draft tree ordinance will be scheduled for public hearing before the Planning Commission in
March 1998. The Planning Commission will review the draft tree ordinance and make
recommendations to the City Council prior to a subsequent City Council hearings for adoption of
the final tree ordinance.
FISCAL IMPACTS
The ordinance as presently drafted is expected to cost one-quarter to one-half full time equivalent
staff person to implement and enforce. The time will be expended by planners, the new code
enforcement officer, and the city attorney.
Staff will attempt to absorb the additional activity within existing staffing levels and does not
anticipate adding staff at this time.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Do not authorize staff to proceed with the final draft of the tree ordinance.
2. Authorize staff to prepare a revised draft for review and incorporating changes recommended
by the City Council as deemed necessary prior to the adoption of the tree ordinance.
Attachments:
1. City Council Minutes dated October 7, 1996
2. Chart-Summary of Existing Tree Ordinances -- Santa Clara County
3. Chart-Summary of draft Tree Ordinance -- Campbell
4. Draft Tree Ordinance
REVIEWED BY: ~ ~ '
Steve Piasec i, Community Development Director
APPROVED BY: ~~-
Bernard ~rojny~ Manager
City Attorney Seligmann - Staff Report dated October 7, 1996.
Mayor Dougherty declared the public hearing open and asked if anyone in the audience
wished to be heard.
There being no one wishing to speak, Mayor Dougherty closed the public hearing.
M/S: Conant/Burr - to introduce Ordinance 1943 amel~ding the City's Conflict of
Interest Code to incorporate Title 2, Section 18730 of the California Code of
Regulations for first reading. Motion adopted by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers: Burr, Conant, Watson, Furtado, Dougherty
NOES: Councilmembers: None
Thc City Clerk read the title of ~ 1943.
M/S: Burr/Conant - that further reading of Ordinance 1943 be waived.
adopted unanimously.
UNFINIS~D BUSINESS
There were no agendized items.
NEw BUSINESS
20.
Motion
Authorization and Direction for the Preparation of a Tree Ordinance
Community Development Director Piasecki - Staff Repon dated October 7, 1996.
Councilmember Watson stated that trees located on private property in residential areas
should probably be excluded from the ordinance, and suggested that the ordinance
include a provision that would allow the Community Development Director or
appropriate staff to approve request 'for tree removal in emergency situations.
Councilmember Watson also stated that we need to be careful of trees that are located
on property that is to be developed.
Councilmember Burr concurred that the ordinance should exclude trees on residential
private property.
In response to Councilmember Furtado's question regarding street trees, Community
Development Director Piasecki stated that one of the options is to have an all-inclusive
tree ordinance so street trees could be included in the review.
Minutes of 1017196 City Council Meeting
Mayor Dougherty stated that the same requirements should apply to individual property
owners as well as the City and the ordinance should be an easy, simple and inexpensive
process for single family residential property owners. Mayor Dougherty also requested
that the appropriateness of a tree for a particular property should be looked at.
In summary, Community Development Director Phsecki stated that it appears Council
direction to the committee would be to incorporate provisions that would exempt most
trees in single family developments for the reasons stated by the City Council, with the
possible limited exception of large specimen oak trees or other native trees.
Mayor Dougherty also requested that the City Council receive progress repons as the
Committee develops its recommelldations.
M/S: Burr/Conant - that the City Council authorize the appointment of a committee
to assist staff with the preparation of a tree ordinance; include the comments of
Councilmembers in the scope of the ordinance; and endorse the work program
outlined in the staff report and schedule. Motion adopted unanimously.
21.
Authorize Staff to Initiate Revisions to Municipal Code Section 11.24 - Street
Improvements and Other Sections as Appropriate
City Engineer Quinney - Staff Report dated Ocwber 7, 1996.
M/S: Burr/Conant - that the City Council authorize staff to initiate revisions to
Campbell Municipal Code Section 11.24 Street Improvements and other sections as
appropriate to the installation of street improvements and the execution of secured
deferred street improvement agreements. Motion adopted unanimously.
COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
22. City Councilmember Reports
--Vice Mayor reported on the Air~sley House Murder Mystery Dinner and the Vasona
Policy Board. In addition, Vice Mayor Conant requested that a sympathy card be sent
to Susan Fuller, County Librarian, on the recent death of her mother.
-Councilmember Watson suggested that Mayor Dougherty consider the appointment of
a High School District Liaison Committee.
Councilmembers Watson and Furtado volunteered to serve on this stlbcommlttee.
-Councilmember Furtado reported on an upcoming meeting of the Emergency Services
Coordinating Council.
--Mayor Dougherty reported on the Italian America Festival which was held recently.
Minutes of 10/7/96 City Council Meeting
Council
Report
ITEM NO.:
CATEGORY:
MEETING DATE:
New Business
October 7, 1996
TITLE
Authorization and Direction for the Preparation of a Tree Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council take the following action:
1. Authorize the appointment of a committee to assist staffwith the preparation of a tree ordinance.
2. Provide direction to committee on the scope of the ordinance.
3. Endorse the work program outlined in the staffreport, and the attached schedule.
BACKGROUNI)
At the meeting of August 6, 1996, the City Council approved a final subdivision map for property
located at 1222 Harriet Avenue. A 62" diameter oak on the property was slated for removal, and
was the subject of concern at the meeting by the public and the Council, Although the tree appeared
healthy, multiple arborists reports concluded that the seriously diseased tree presented a danger to
the public from falling limbs, and that it's removal was imperative. In light of the concern expressed
regarding the removal of significant trees within the community, the City Council directed staffto
prepare a work program and time schedule for developing a tree ordinance.
DISCUSSION
Tree Ordinance Structure: The range of tree protection ordinances can vary significantly. The more
restrictive tree ordinances protect smaller size trees, regulate pruning, and are applicable to all zoning
districts including developed single family residential properties. The less restrictive ordinances limit
the protective status to only the most significant trees, and is based on a specific mink diameter, and
selected species. The similarities among tree ordinances include the intent (Lc. protection of
commnnity resources and property values, preservation of aesthetic and scenic qualities of the city),
and the applicability of the tree regulations to private and public property. Public property includes
fight-of-way, easements, parks, and other public facilities owned by the City. Attached is a chart
comparing tree protection ordinances from other local jurisdictions and a copy of the Los Altos Tree
Ordinance to serve as an example.
Exemption of Developed Single Residential Family Lots: The exemption of developed single family
residential lots tends to be a key difference in tree ordinances. The applicability of the regulations to
developed single family increases admini~rative costs including implementation and enforcement.
City Council Report - October 7, 1996
Authorization for Preparation of a Tree Ordinance
Pase 2
Work Program;. Staff'is recommending that the City Council direct the Tree Ordinance Committee to
consider the following:
· Intent and Purpose: aesthetic value, protection of property values and resources on public and/or
private properties and,
· Extent of tree protection desired: size, age, types of species,
· Applicability and Exemptions: single family residential exclusion, private v. public property
· Criteria for tree removal: restricts development, diseased, dying or dangerous tree, impedes
vehicular visibility
· Process for tree removal: permits, public noticing requirements,
· Review authority: Administrative and/or referral for public heating
· Appeal process
· Penalties: fines, and criminal citation, replacement policies
Tree Ordinance Committee: The adoption of a tree ordinance has the potential to effect numerous
segments of the commnnity. Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the appointment of a
Tree Ordinance Committee consisting of one member from each of the following:
· Parks and Recreation Commission;
· Planning Commission;
· Historic Preservation Board;
· Civic Improvement Commission
· Chamber of Commerce;
· A neighborhood or homeowners association;
· Arborist; and
· A citizen at large
In designating the members of the committee, the Council has options in appointing the members:
· Designate a member from the City Boards and Commissions or,
· Direct the Board or Commissions, and Chamber of Commerce to select a member, and
· Designate the member from the neighborhood or homeowners association, and the citizen at
large.
Staffhas identified an arborist that is willing to serve on the Committee as a volunteer.
FISCAL IMPACTS
Staff time to prepare the ordinance.
If adopted, stafftime will be necessary to administer and enforce the ordinance.
City Council Report - October 7, 1996
Authorization for Preparation of a Tree Ordinance
Page 3
ALTERNATIVES
1. Do not authorize the establi.qhment of a tree ordinance review committee or the preparation of the
ordinance.
2. Authorize the preparation of the ordinance and request additional background information prior to
providing dkection to staff
3. Provide specific direction on any of the issues descxibed in thia report.
Attachments:
1. Survey of Tree Ordinances
2. Work Program and Schedule
3. Los Altos Tree Ordinance
Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director
APPROVED BY:
Barbara Lee, Interim City Manager
SUMMARY OF TREE ORDINANCES SANTA CLARA COUNTY
CITY MINIMUM TREE LOCATION VARIETY PROCESS TO AUTHORITY
SIZE REMOVE
Los Gatos 35" circumference Developed R- 1 All Trees Permit Planning Director
4" diameter w/zoning permit, or
vacant land,
commercial,
industrial
San Jose 56" circumference All properties All trees Permit Neighborhood
Preservation
Director
Palo Alto 11V2" diameter All properties Native Oak Arborist Report Community
Development
Director
Milpitas 56" circumference Developed R- 1 None specified Permit Community
37" circumference Developed C-1,2 All trees possible Services Manager
(4' above grade) and M- 1
Undeveloped lots
All Heritage Trees All lots
Los Altos 48" circumference or All Lots; Oaks, Sequoias, Permit Planning Director
greater except R- 1 London Plane Noticing Req.
(4' above grade) Bay Laurel
Any tree specified w/zoning or other
permit
Cupertino Specimen or Heritage All Lots; Specimen Tree Report Community
Trees except R-1 Heritage and Oak poss. Development
10" diameter Noticing Req. Director- or
31" circumference Reviewing Body
3' above grade if protected with
zoning permit
City of Campbell- Tree Ordinance - Program Schedule
TASKS
~ with Tree Committee (TC)
Sessions I. II & III
Draft Ordinance
Refer draft Ordinance to Boards/Commissions.
Study Session with Council & TC -- draft
Ordinance
Revisions of draft Ordinance
City Council Meeting - 1st reading of
Ordinance
--~ Council Meeting - 2~a reading of
Ordinance
Effective date of Ordinance
ocr NOV
96 96
City Council authorized the following:
o
o
Appointment of Tree Committee to work with staff to
develop a Tree Ordinance.
Endorsed the work schedule and work program.
Provided direction on the scope and intent of the
ordinance
City of Campbell - Tree Ordinance - Program Schedule
TASKS OCT 96 NOV
96
Meetings with Tree Committee (TC)
Sessions I, II & III
Draft Ordinance
Refer draft Ordinance to
Boards/Commissions.
Study Session with Council & TC --
draft Ordinance
Revisions of draft Ordinance
City Council Meeting - 1 st reading of
Ordinance
City Council Meeting - 2na reading of
Ordinance
Effective date of Ordinance
COUNCIL DIRECTION SUMMARY
PROTECTED TREES:
· Limit extent of protection- only certain types, and
sizes
APPLICABILITY:
· Most trees located on single family properties should
be exempt from ordinance- except for large specimen
trees such as native oaks and native species.
· Regulations shall apply to private or public property.
PR 0 CED URES :
· Process should be simple, fast and inexpensive.
Administrative review
EXEMPTIONS:
· Emergency exemptions from regulations- Immediate
hazards
TREE ORDINANCE FINDINGS AND PURPOSE STATEMENT
FINDINGS
In adopting a Tree Ordinance, the City of Campbell recognizes the
substantial economic, environmental, and aesthetic contribution of
its diverse tree population. The development and redevelopment
within the community often necessitates the removal of trees which
contributes to their depletion. Therefore, the City finds that is
necessary to protect and manage its tree population on public and
private property for the best interest of the community in order to:
· Protect property values.
· Preserve specimen and heritage trees.
· Enhance the aesthetic and scenic beauty of the community.
· Assure the continuation of quality development in the
community.
· Benefit from known capacity of trees to reduce air pollutants and
provide climactic balance.
PURPOSE STATEMENT
The purpose of the Tree Ordinance is to:
1. Regulate the protection, installation, removal, and long term
management of significantly sized trees on private and public
property.
2. Establish a review and permit procedure to assure the correct
planting, maintenance protection and removal of significant trees.
3. Establish penalties for violations of the ordinance.
MAJOR OBJECTIVES OF TREE ORDINANCE
· Minimize restrictions on removal of non-specimen trees on
developed single family properties.
· Identify the size, type and location (zoning districts) where trees
are subject to protection.
· Establish process, criteria, and procedure for tree removal
process.
· Provide standards for maintenance of protected trees.
· Provide policies that encourage the retention of mature trees on
lots subject to development or redevelopment.
· Establish exemption categories (i.e. emergencies, utility service,
etc.)
· Identify specimen and heritage trees for inclusion on Resource
Inventory and procedures for heritage designation.
· Establish replacement policies for specimen and heritage tree
removal.
· Specify penalties for violations of the tree ordinance.
COUNCIL DIRECTION SUMMARY
PROTECTED TREES:
· Limit extent of protection- only certain types, and sizes
APPLICABILITY:
· Most trees located on single family properties should be exempt from ordinance- except for large
specimen trees such as native oaks and native species.
· Regulations shall apply to private or public property.
PROCEDURES:
· Process should be simple, fast and inexpensive--Administrative review
EXEMPTIONS:
· Emergency exemptions from regulations- Immediate hazards
PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT -- OCTOMBER 7, 1996, CITY COUNCIL MEETING
RE: ITEM NO. 20 AUTHORIZATION AND DIRECTION FOR THE
PREPARATION OF A TREE ORDINANCE
New Business
Mayor Dougherty: Authorization and direction for the preparation of a Tree
Ordinance.
Steve Piasecki: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. On August
6, 1996, the City Council reviewed a final tract map for a
subdivision that included removal of a large oak tree at 1228
Harriet Avenue. The final map prompted concern about the
tree and the fact that the City does not have a Tree Ordinance.
The City Council asked the staff to return with a work plan
and a schedule to prepare a Tree Ordinance. The staff report
suggests that the Council establish a Tree Committee to work
with the staff in development of the Ordinance. The
Committee would consist of representatives from the
Commissions, the public, an arborist and the Chamber of
Commerce. The staff has identified issues in the staff report
and we are suggesting that, if there are any areas of specific
direction that the Council would like to give to the Committee,
maybe you can identify that now.
In particular, developed single family is exempted from several
of the Tree Ordinances that we looked at within Santa Clara
County. The Council may want to direct that the Committee
evaluate options for exempting perhaps all but large specimen
trees in developed single family areas and that would provide
enough direction that they should seriously consider, if that is
your intent. Obviously, the word "developed" needs to be
defined in such an Ordinance but that has occurred in other
Ordinances.
Staff estimates that the Committee would meet through
December. The drat~ can be ready for review by the Boards in
March and the City Council in April. So we are
recommending that you endorse the work program and
schedule; authorize the appointment of a Committee; and
provide direction on the scope and intent of the Tree
Ordinance. Any questions?
10/7/96 Council Transcript re Tree Ordinance Committee Page 2
Mayor Dougherty: Any questions?
Councilmember Watson: No. Just some comments. I think that we should direct what
we feel the scope of the Ordinance is because I have some
concerns as to how far we want to go with the protection.
People have a lot of concerns about trees on their private
property in residential areas and I don't know what right we
have to tell someone they can or cannot cut down a tree in
their backyard. I recognize that there is a lot of differences
here and I looked at the Los Altos Ordinance that you
included. So, I don't know how everyone else feels but I have
that concern in private residences.
Also, if you have a tree, like we had one in the wind, in the
winds of last year or two years ago and it started to lean into
our neighbor's house. Well, you know, I considered that
rather an emergency. But, if that tree were on the list, I would
certainly like it to where it would have to go to the
Community Development Director or whomever so that you
are not waiting for a body while that tree might fall on your
neighbor's house. I do think that we have to take that into
consideration since I have experienced that recently.
Councilman Burr: I also would concur that I am not sure that we want to be
going into peoples' backyards when they want to cut down a
Fruitless Mulberry because it is tearing up their cement.
That's not right. I think that's stretching it a lot, a little far.
Councilwoman Watson: I think we need to be very careful of trees that are on
properties that are to be developed as we had in the case of
that one and that tree would have been looked at very
carefully. Not that I think the outcome would have been any
different but it would have been looked at and that might have
been something that the developer and the neighbors would
have been aware of.
10/7/96 Council Transcript re Tree Ordinance Committee Pa~e 3
Councilman Furtado: Another question. Would this proposed Tree Committee also
take a look at any of the current issues that we're having with
some trees like the Liquid Amber, which is sort of revisiting an
old issue, but would they review that?
Mr. Steve Piasecki: Are you referring to street trees now?
Councilman Furtado: Yes.
Mr. Steve Piasecki: They certainly could. I mean, one of the options for this Tree
Ordinance is to have it all inclusive. I think that I would
suggest that the Council just ask them to take a look at
whether it is an all inclusive Ordinance. We currently have an
Ordinance for street trees.
Councilman Furtado: Okay.
Mr. Steve Piasecki: Probably the provisions would not dramatically change even if
it was included in this Ordinance.
Mayor Dougherty: I would have a problem if the requirements for trees on private
property were substantially more onerous than the
requirements that we are requiring for ourselves as a city. So,
one of the things that I think we need to do is that whatever
process that we require private property owners to go through,
we also require the City to go through that same process.
Mr. Steve Piasecki: That's how we understood it as well.
10/7/96 Council Transcript re Tree Ordinance Committee Page 4
Mayor Dougherty: And, I guess, I also would like the Committee to be
considering, from my perspective, the appropriateness of a tree
per property.
What I'm bringing back to my mind is a property my brother
lived in a long time ago. There was an overbearing,
overpowering Pine tree behind the residence, behind the
garage of the residence behind his. So that these people never
really had any impact from the tree themselves but it
significantly impacted his backyard. When they went to
remove that tree, it took a really simple process. I mean, it
was a significant tree which generally we want to save but it
was very inappropriate for where it was located and so its
removal was appropriate. It was a healthy tree, there was
nothing wrong with it.
So I would like the Ordinance to address that issue and I guess
that the other thing is that if we're talking about single-family
residential properties, we're dealing with people who don't
necessarily have thousands of dollars to spend on the process
and they don't necessarily have hours and hours of time to
spend on these kinds of things. So the Ordinance has to be
easy, simple and inexpensive for people to go through. They
need to be able to get through a process and get some pretty
clear answers. They need to be able to basically walk up to a
counter and have a real good item what's going to happen and
how much it is going to cost without surprises down the road.
I think that they need to be able, they have a right, I think, to
some fairly quick response from the City as to whether they
can chop down the tree that they want to chop down.
So those are the things that I'd like to see the Ordinance
address or at least as a process. Maybe some of that is
administrative but you know the direction I am going in.
Mr. Steve Piasecki: IfI can read into what I am hearing from the Council, than the
direction for the Committee would be to incorporate
provisions that would exempt most trees in single family
developments for the very reasons all of you are stating with
the possible limited exception of large specimen oak trees or
other native trees of such significance.
10/7/96 Council Transcri ~t re Tree Ordinance Committee Page 5
Councilwoman Conant: Like the Catalpa on Catalpa?
Mr. Steve Piascki: Like the Catalpa on Catalpa. Anyway, that way, they would
have a little bit if discretion to look at native trees of a large
enough variety that maybe there is a bigger overall significance
but everything else. You are pretty much saying developed
single family, we really don't want them to be going through
this process. Okay. Is that what I am hearing?
Councilwoman Conant: And we've always looked at trees on new developments. I
mean, every time. Go back to Corinthian House, where we
saved the Redwood trees. We made Sarray save some trees
over on Hacienda, although he took a couple down.
Councilman Burr: What I am really seeing also is we really don't want to get into
a situation like San Jose has where a big pine has died. It is
brown and everything has fallen off of it. You go to get
permission to remove it and you have to go through a whole
process to remove the dead tree that takes you two months. It
becomes ridiculous.
Councilwoman Watson: That's one of the things where I thought the Community
Development Director ..... I mean, when a Monterey pine
dies, it dies. It just goes like that. I've had that happen to one
and now the other one has started and I know that within a
month that tree is going to be gone. So, I can't, I wouldn't
apply for it right now because I'm going to wait, but when it
goes, it's brown. You're right.
Councilman Burr: At my mother-in-law's house, just a month ago, they finally
got it out. It was absolutely ridiculous. The tree was
absolutely dead and had been dead for six months and they had
to fight the process and go through a lengthy process to cut
down a dead tree and they're cutting it down themselves,
they're paying for the removal. It was absolutely ridiculous.
10/7/96 Council Transcript re Tree Ordinance Committee Page 6
Councilwoman Conant: They could be like my neighbor, who went out apparently last
week and cut down their street trees.
Councilman Burr: Oh, brother!
Councilwoman Conant: I don't know, it was there once and it's not there now.
Mayor Dougherty: I guess the other thing I'd like to ask for is some progress
reports from the Committee as it goes through its discussions
so we can hear what they're saying because any individual
Council member can still make suggestions through staff to
bring up additional concerns to that Committee, based on
those discussions if I'm not mistaken. So we might have
additional things we'd like to comment on as the process
continues. Not necessarily minutes or details but just kind of
give us a broad reporting process. Is that okay?
Councilman Burr: Is that a motion?
Mayor Dougherty: we need a motion on this?
Councilman Burr: I move that we:
1. Authorize the appointment of a Committee to assist staff in
the preparation of a Tree Ordinance;
2. Provide direction to the Committee with the scope of the
Ordinance; and
3. Endorse the work program outline in the staff report and
the attached schedule.
Councilwoman Conant: Second.
Mayor Dougherty: Now, we have been correctly moved and seconded. All those
in favor? Opposed? Motion carries.
10/7/96 Council Transcript re Tree Ordinance Committee Page 7
Mr. Steve Piasecki: By the way, we will be looking for Council appointments for
the citizen at large, I believe, and the neighborhood or
homeowners association representative and we'll need you to
decide on a process for identifying those individuals.
Mayor Dougherty: Okay.