Tree Code Update

On September 22, 2020, the City Council placed reviewing the tree code on Planning Commission's work Plan. The direction was to focus on regulations related to land under development.

Planning Commission spent a year reviewing the existing tree code, focusing largely on the land under development. However, as part of the review process, amendments to other portions of the code were suggested. This is a natural evolution when undertaking code amendments because by nature, the various code provisions in a chapter are integrated and intersect with each other. Thus, when one section of code is updated, it tends to necessitate a review of other code sections to maintain uniformity and consistency across the code.

Accordingly, while the recommended code amendments presented to Council predominately address the direction to consider amendments to standards relating to land under development, the amendments also include suggested updates to address inconsistencies, streamline procedures, and remove redundancies.

Background

Throughout 2021, Planning Commission completed a detailed analysis of the existing tree code and reviewed tree permits that had been issued since the adoption of the previous update in 2015.

The results indicated that: (1) there was a discrepancy in the current code between two sections (Tree Retention Requirements and Minimum Performance Standards for Land Under Development), (2) the code lacked guidance on where trees should be retained and/or replanted, and (3) the fees associated with the fee-in-lieu option were not creating a disincentive.

In order to address the discrepancies, inconsistencies, and lack of clarity around existing regulations, Planning Commission identified the following topics for consideration:

• the definition of a significant tree
• better legacy tree protection
• the specific tree species that the city requires/encourages
• long-term survival rates and enforcement
• the numerical tree replacement requirement
• the location of trees, both removal and replacements
• making sure the code is simple and flexible

Planning Commission Recommendations

After extensive consideration, the Planning Commission made the following recommendations:

The changes recommended by Planning Commission largely focused on addressing tree regulations for land under development. However, some of the recommended changes do impact land not under development. Specifically, changing the definition of a legacy tree and adding a definition for landmark trees does impact property owners of land not under development. Planning Commission determined, after extensive consideration, that because mature, larger trees are an important component of the City and something that draws people to the City, such trees should have an increased level of protection.

Trees with 36” DBH are already identified in the code as the bookend of a new grouping of trees. For the existing fee-in-lieu section, the contribution rate of replacing an existing significant tree is broken into three categories: significant trees to less than 20” DBH; 20” DBH to less than 36” DBH; and 36” DBH and greater. Additionally, the former city arborist recommended using 36” DBH. Accordingly, the Planning Commission’s recommendation was to lower the legacy tree threshold from 50” DBH to 36” DBH, in accordance with the city arborist suggestion and as way to enhance protections for a larger number of trees.

The focus of public comments has been regarding the amendments of the legacy tree definition. The primary concern is that the reduced tree size for legacy trees will create an undue burden on property owners seeking to remove a tree on land that is not underdevelopment. Planning Commission did consider the burden of mitigation when discussing this proposal as the current code requires 50% of the removed DBH from a Legacy tree as mitigation. A sliding scale relative to lot size was agree upon: less than 10,001 requires a 10% removed DBH mitigation; from 10,001 to 13,000 requires a 15% removed DBH mitigation; from 13,001 to 15,000 requires a 25% removed DBH mitigation; from 15,001 to 20,000 requires a 35% removed DBH mitigation; and greater than 20,000 requires a 50% removed DBH mitigation.

City Arborist Recommendations

The former City Arborist also reviewed the code and made several suggestions. Staff have included his comments and revisions in the code and responded to his comments as applicable.

City Attorney Recommendations

Part of the Council’s overall direction to the City Manager and staff has been to reduce complexity in the City’s codes and processes. To that end, the City Attorney’s office has also conducted a holistic analysis of the tree code and has suggested edits that will streamline and clarify processes and procedures. Specific recommendations are included in redline in the code and key recommendations are summarized below:

Public Hearings

On October 19, 2021, Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendments. After considering staff's recommendation, and the public testimony from David Yee and Sheree Wen, Planning Commission voted unanimously (6-0) to recommend approval of the recommendations and forward them on to City Council.

On November 8, 2021, the City Council held a public hearing on Planning Commission's recommendation. The purpose of the hearing was for Council to review and consider the proposed recommendations by Planning Commission, the City Arborist, and the City Attorney and to solicit input from the public on the draft code. At the conclusion of the public hearing, Council directed staff to return in December with more examples of how the draft tree code would be implemented.

Postponement

On December 3, 2021, the City Manager announced his resignation. To allow Council the opportunity to focus on creating a transition plan, the tree code discussion was postponed until 2022.

Timeline for Moving Forward