Pacifica City Council
June 27, 2022

Pacifica, CA
Tree Ordinance
Community Outreach & Benchmarking Study
2022
ATTACHMENT 1
Pacifica, CA
Tree Ordinance
Community Outreach & Benchmarking Study
2022
Prepared for:

City of Pacifica
Public Works Department
151 Milagra Drive
Pacifica, CA 94404
Prepared by:

Davey Resource Group, Inc.
6005 Capistrano Avenue
Atascadero, CA 93422
www.davey.com/drg
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ..........................................................................................................................................................1 Introduction........................................................................................................................................................................3 Methods of Review and Engagement.................................................................................................................3 Benchmark Communities ................................................................................................................................3 Stakeholder Engagement................................................................................................................................3 Community Engagement.................................................................................................................................4 Results ..........................................................................................................................................................................5 Chapter 12–Preservation of Heritage Trees ..............................................................................................................7 General Chapter Recommendations....................................................................................................................7 Additional Discussion and Justification.......................................................................................................7 Purpose ........................................................................................................................................................................8 Recommendations.............................................................................................................................................8 Definitions ...................................................................................................................................................................9 Recommendations...........................................................................................................................................10 Designation of Heritage Tree ..............................................................................................................................13 Recommendations...........................................................................................................................................14 Tree Protection.........................................................................................................................................................15 Recommendations...........................................................................................................................................17 Removal Policy.........................................................................................................................................................21 Recommendations...........................................................................................................................................23 Emergency Response.............................................................................................................................................25 Recommendations...........................................................................................................................................25 Building Permits.......................................................................................................................................................26 Recommendations...........................................................................................................................................26 Permits and Appeals...............................................................................................................................................28 Recommendations...........................................................................................................................................29 Fees and Penalties...................................................................................................................................................31 Recommendations...........................................................................................................................................31 Mitigation Measures...............................................................................................................................................34 Recommendations...........................................................................................................................................34 Chapter 14–Maintenance and Preservation of City Trees...................................................................................37 General Chapter Recommendations..................................................................................................................37 Scope and Intent.....................................................................................................................................................37 Recommendations...........................................................................................................................................38 City Tree Maintenance and Preservation .........................................................................................................38 Recommendations...........................................................................................................................................39 Definitions of Terminology...................................................................................................................................39 Recommendations...........................................................................................................................................40 City Tree Maintenance and Preservation Policies/Procedures...................................................................40 Recommendations...........................................................................................................................................41 Tree Planting.............................................................................................................................................................42 Recommendations...........................................................................................................................................42 Ordinance No. 636-C.S. and No. 673 C.S.................................................................................................................43 General Recommendations..................................................................................................................................45 Additional Discussion and Justification.....................................................................................................45 Other Stakeholder Concerns Not Related to Ordinance Revisions .................................................................47 Appendix A: Tree Protection Zones...........................................................................................................................49 Appendix B: Industry Standards .................................................................................................................................54 Appendix C: Community Engagement.....................................................................................................................55 Virtual Community Meeting.................................................................................................................................55 Rotary Club Meeting ..............................................................................................................................................59 Online Survey Results.............................................................................................................................................62 Tables
Table 1: Key Challenges/Opportunities and Recommendations for Chapter 12 ...........................................7 Table 2: Key Challenges/Opportunities and Recommendations for Section 4-12.01 ..................................8 Table 3: Other Key Challenges and Opportunities for Risk Management with Recommendations for Improvement......................................................................................................................................................................9 Table 4: Key Challenges/Opportunities and Recommendations for Section 4-12.02 ................................10 Table 5: Summary of Protected Tree/Heritage Tree Definitions for Inland Communities ........................11 Table 6: Summary of Protected Tree/Heritage Tree Definitions for Coastal Communities ......................11 Table 7: Key Challenges/Opportunities and Recommendations for Section 4-12.03 ................................14 Table 8: Key Challenges/Opportunities and Recommendations for Section 4-12.07 ................................17 Table 9: Other Key Challenges and Opportunities for City Oversight with Recommendations for Improvement....................................................................................................................................................................18 Table 10: Benchmark Communities that Require Tree Protection During Construction/Development19 Table 11: Key Challenges/Opportunities and Recommendations for Section 4-12.04 and 12.05..........23 Table 12: Other Key Challenges and Opportunities for Urban Forestry Programming with Recommendations for Improvement........................................................................................................................24 Table 13: Key Challenges/Opportunities and Recommendations for Section 4-12.06..............................25 Table 14: Key Challenges/Opportunities and Recommendations for Section 4-12.08..............................26 Table 15: Other Key Challenges and Opportunities for Ordinance Awareness with Recommendations for Improvement.............................................................................................................................................................27 Table 16: Key Challenges/Opportunities and Recommendations for Section 4-12.09..............................29 Table 17: Other Key Challenges and Opportunities for Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission with Recommendations for Improvement........................................................................................................................29 Table 18: Key Challenges/Opportunities and Recommendations for Section 4-12.10 and 12.11..........31 Table 19: Benchmark Communities Permit and Appeals Fees ..........................................................................32 Table 20: Summary of Benchmark Community Mitigation Measures and Penalties..................................33 Table 21: Key Challenges/Opportunities and Recommendations for Mitigation Measures ....................34 Table 22: Summary of Benchmark Communities Replacement Requirements and In Lieu Fees ............35 Table 23: Key Challenges/Opportunities and Recommendations for Chapter 14.......................................37 Table 24: Key Challenges/Opportunities and Recommendations for Section 4-14.01..............................38 Table 25: Key Challenges/Opportunities and Recommendations for Section 4-14.02..............................39 Table 26: Key Challenges/Opportunities and Recommendations for Definitions of Terminology.........40 Table 27: Key Challenges/Opportunities and Recommendations for Section 4-14.03..............................41 Table 28: Key Challenges/Opportunities and Recommendations for Tree Planting...................................42 Table 29: Key Challenges/Opportunities and Recommendations for Ordinance No. 636 C.S. and No. 673 C.S. ..............................................................................................................................................................................45 Table 30: Other Key Challenges and Opportunities for Urban Forestry Management with Recommendations for Improvement........................................................................................................................48 Table 31: Common Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) Areas.........................................................................................51 Table 32: Feel free to add any other comments you have regarding Pacifica’s Urban Forest.................69 Figures
Figure 1 Should the definition of “heritage tree” be more specifically defined?.........................................55 Figure 2: Should there be an additional definition for “protected tree”? ......................................................55 Figure 3: Should the City adopt the industry standard for measuring tree diameter at 54-inch above ground? .............................................................................................................................................................................55 Figure 4: Should an arborist report be required when a request for removal of a protected tree is based on health, pest/pathogen, and/or when a tree is a heritage tree? ..................................................................56 Figure 5: What revisions should be made (if any) to the notification process? ...........................................56 Figure 6: Should staff study ways to de-incentivized illegal tree removals?.................................................56 Figure 7: Should staff review establishment of a Tree Fund? ............................................................................57 Figure 8: Should Pacifica require a 2:1 replacement for the removal of an otherwise healthy heritage/protected/City tree? .....................................................................................................................................57 Figure 9: Should staff review establishing a process for maintenance of replacement trees? ................57 Figure 10: Should staff review establishing in-lieu fees for trees not replaced on site? ...........................58 Figure 11: What is your level of satisfaction with the current care of street trees? ....................................58 Figure 12: Should the definition of “heritage tree” be more specifically defined?......................................59 Figure 13: Should there be an additional definition for “protected tree”? ....................................................59 Figure 14: Should the City adopt the industry standard for measuring tree diameter at 54-inch above ground? .............................................................................................................................................................................59 Figure 15: Should staff study ways to de-incentivize illegal tree removals?.................................................60 Figure 16: Should staff review establishment of a Tree Fund?..........................................................................60 Figure 17: Should staff review establishing in-lieu fees for trees not replaced on-site?...........................60 Figure 18: Should Pacifica require a 2:1 replacement for the removal of an otherwise healthy heritage/protected/City tree? .....................................................................................................................................61 Figure 19: Should an arborist report be required when a request for removal of a protected tree is based on health, pest/pathogen, and/or when a tree is a heritage tree? .....................................................61 Figure 20: What revisions should be made (if any) to the notification process? .........................................61 Figure 21: What is your level of satisfaction with the current care of street trees? ....................................62 Figure 22: Prior to this survey, what was your awareness of Title 4, Chapter 12: Preservation of Heritage Trees of the Pacifica Municipal Code........................................................................................................................62 Figure 23: The preservation of heritage trees in Pacifica is important because (select all that apply):.63 Figure 24: What are your top 3 preferred improvements for the heritage tree removal permit process? (choose up to 3)..............................................................................................................................................................64 Figure 25: The removal of a heritage tree should require tree replacement (select one):........................65 Figure 26: What types of education and public outreach regarding this topic do you prefer? (check all that apply).........................................................................................................................................................................66 Figure 27: Describe your interest/involvement with Pacifica’s City trees? (check all that apply)............67 Figure 28: Are City trees adequately managed?....................................................................................................68 Figure 29: Indicate your level of satisfaction with the current care of street trees. ....................................68 1 Executive Summary
Executive Summary
Starting in 2020, the City of Pacifica began on a path to revamp the City’s existing Heritage Tree Ordinance. This included contracting with Davey Resource Group, Inc. (DRG), in 2021, to provide a robust community outreach and information gathering phase to help define desired changes that would meet both the community’s needs, as well as industry Best Management Practices (BMP) for tree preservation.

In Pacifica, California, large, mature trees on private and public property have been protected from removal for nearly 40 years under Municipal Code Chapter 12–Preservation of Heritage Trees of Pacifica. In 2006, the adoption of Chapter 14–Maintenance and Preservation of City Trees recognized the value of public trees to the community. Adopted in 1996, the “Logging Ordinance” (Ordinance No. 636 C.S. and No. 673 C.S.) defines logging operations and prohibits logging operations within the City.

Together, these regulations have protected many trees from unnecessary removal.

While Chapter 12 provides protective status for trees that meet the definition of “heritage”, City staff and members of the community are concerned that there are still many valuable trees in the community that are not being protected for future generations. The current definition of heritage tree is limited to trees or groves of trees that have reached a specific size (trunk diameter), which does not account for trees that are significant to the community for reasons other than size (e.g., native trees, visibly prominent, historically, or culturally significant, etc.). In addition, City trees that do not meet the definition of heritage tree have no legal protection from removal. Another challenge with current the ordinance is that the permitting process for legally removing a tree is difficult to navigate for community members and City staff. Current code requires that both Public Works and Planning are responsible for the review and processing of applications. The community desires improvements to the permitting process and greater transparency in the decision-making process for approval or denial of applications. The “logging ordinance” is not easily accessible through the City’s website. The lack of accessibility and visibility of this ordinance may be contributing to the loss of groves of trees that do not meet the definition of a heritage tree.

The first phase of updating Chapter 12 and 14 of Pacifica Municipal Code, included benchmarking the tree preservation ordinances in eight other communities and engagement with the community and stakeholder groups to clarify existing challenges and opportunities for improvement.

This robust community engagement process included development of a project website, meetings with commissions/committees/stakeholders, a participatory online public survey, update emails to stakeholders, pop-up events at the Pacifica Beach Farmers Market, Rotary Club meeting and a virtual public meeting. Results of this engagement process, as well as BMPs, help to inform the report’s key recommendations. Generally speaking, the Pacifica community is aware of the existing Heritage Tree Ordinance and in favor of more specifically defining the ordinance. They understand the value of trees in the community and the need for replacement of trees that are removed.

This report details the process that led up to the recommendations, identifies challenges and opportunities with the existing code and makes recommendations based on industry standards and input from City staff and the community.

Key recommendations for revision to Chapter 12–Preservation of Heritage Trees of Pacifica are:
• Revise the definition of “Heritage Tree” to specifically recognize native and other significant trees in the community.

Executive Summary 2
• Add a definition of “Protected Tree” to identify and protect trees of a specific size that are currently defined as heritage trees.
• Use the industry standard of diameter at breast height (DBH) to measure trunk diameter. • Require developers to protect trees defined as “heritage” or “protected” from construction activities, including trees on adjacent properties.
• Revise criteria for evaluating tree removal permit applications. • When a “protected” or “heritage” tree must be removed, require a minimum of two (2) replacement trees for every otherwise healthy tree that is removed. • Permit the use of in-lieu fees when trees cannot be replaced on site.

Key recommendations for revision to Chapter 14–Maintenance and Preservation of City Trees are:
• Protect all City trees, including trees not currently protected under Chapter 12.

Key recommendations for revision to Ordinance No. 636 C.S. and No. 673 C.S. (Logging Ordinance) are:
• Incorporate important protections for groves of trees into Chapter 12. • Repeal the Ordinance no. 636 C.S. and no. 673 C.S..

For nearly 40 years, large, mature trees on private and public property have been protected from removal under Chapter 12 of Pacifica Municipal Code.
3 Introduction
Introduction
Pacifica is a community that values its trees. People are drawn to the community, seeking quick access to outdoor recreation and green space. Community members are generally strong advocates for the preservation of existing trees, which is reflected in citizen advocacy groups, including Tree City Pacifica, Pacifica Climate Committee, and Pacific Beach Coalition.

Pacifica City Council adopted the first Heritage Tree Ordinance (Chapter 12) in 1984. There have been three occurrences of revisions to the ordinance since that time. In 1995, City Council passed an ordinance to address potential negative outcomes from logging operations within the city. The Council unanimously approved Ordinance No. 636-C.S., which defined logging operations and prohibited such operations from occurring within the City. Later, in 1999, Ordinance No. 673-C.S. was amended to include exemptions to the prohibition of logging operations, including for instances where operations are in conjunction with a City permit and necessary for maintaining safety of life or property on both private and City property. Both Ordinance No. 636 C.S. and Ordinance No. 673 C.S. are collectively referred to as the “Logging Ordinance”. Later in 2006, Chapter 14 Maintenance and Preservation of City Trees was adopted which provided requirements for the maintenance and preservation of City trees.

In 2020, the City contracted with Davey Resource Group, Inc. (DRG) to review and update Chapter 12:

Preservation of Heritage Trees and Chapter 14: Maintenance and Preservation of City Trees. During the review process DRG shared industry standards and suggested solutions for the challenges and opportunities that exist with the current ordinance.

Methods of Review and Engagement
Benchmark Communities
The process began with a review of the existing ordinance, benchmarking the tree ordinances of eight (8) comparison communities (coastal and inland), discussion with stakeholders on the challenges and opportunities with the existing ordinance, interviews with Parks and Public Works staff to document the current application and enforcement, and community engagement.

The eight benchmark communities are as follows: City of Pacific Grove, City of Morro Bay, City of Monterey, City of Half Moon Bay, City of Mountain View, City of Roseville, Town of Los Gatos, and City of Palo Alto. While these are the eight communities selected for comparison in this report, some recommendations are also supported by ordinances from other communities not listed for comparison.

Stakeholder Engagement
Stakeholders were engaged through a questionnaire and virtual interviews to discuss the challenges and opportunities for Chapters 12 and 14. The following departments and organizations provided feedback through a questionnaire and/or interviews:
● City Departments
◦ Department of Parks, Beaches, and Recreation
◦ Department of Public Works
◦ Planning Department
Introduction 4
◦ North County Fire Authority
● City Commissions
◦ Planning Commission
◦ Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission
◦ Emergency Preparedness and Safety Commission
◦ Beautification Advisory Committee
◦ Open Space and Parkland Advisory Committee
● Non-profits and advocacy groups
◦ Tree City Pacifica
◦ Pacific Beach Coalition
● Other agencies
◦ California Department of Forestry & Fire Protection
◦ Golden Gate National Recreation Area
◦ Pacific Gas & Electric
◦ Pacifica School District
◦ North Coast County Water District
◦ Homeowners Associations – Fairmont
◦ Residents through the webpage
Community Engagement
To gain insight into the opinions of the community, a robust community engagement process was implemented in order to engage with as many community members as possible to understand the values of the wider community and the concerns with the existing ordinance and the City’s urban forestry program. A complete summary of the results of community engagement is included in Appendix C: Community Engagement.

A project website1 was established on June 11th, 2021, which gave community members an opportunity to learn about the purpose of the project and stay up to date on project developments. Community members could subscribe to the website to receive email notifications on project updates.

A Joint Meeting was held with the Planning Commission, Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission, and the Beautification Advisory Committee on September 28th, 2021, where DRG presented the initial findings of the review of Chapter 12, Chapter 14, and the Logging Ordinance and solicited comments from commissioners through a series of questions about initial recommendations for the tree ordinance update. During the presentation, members of the community were also invited to provide comment on the tree ordinance update.

Through the project website, community members were encouraged to participate in an online survey that was open from November 11th, 2021 through February 15th, 2022. Subscribers were sent email 1 Publicinput.com/Pacifica_Tree_Ordinance_Update
5 Introduction
notifications on the opening and closure of the survey. The survey was promoted through the project website, the City website, Connect with Pacifica, and social media accounts. Two pop-up events were held on November 11th and 17th at Pacifica Beach Farmers Market, where DRG and City representatives encouraged community members to participate in the online survey.

A virtual public meeting was hosted through the project website on November 16th. During the presentation, participants were prompted to respond to a series of poll questions about the current Chapter 12 and the urban forestry program. A recording of the presentation and the poll questions used during the meeting were available for viewing and participation until February 15th, 2022.

Furthermore, an in-person presentation was provided at the Pacifica Rotary Club Meeting held on January 11th, where members participated in a series of live polling questions about Chapter 12 and the City’s urban forestry program.

Results
During the ordinance review and community engagement, DRG noted both challenges and opportunities that exist with the current Chapter 12, Chapter 14, the Logging Ordinance, and other City policies that affect the care and maintenance of heritage and City trees. Based on that review, DRG developed several recommendations for revisions to the ordinance and suggestions for changes to City policy. Through discussions with City staff and engagement with stakeholders and the community, this report represents the direction that the City would like to pursue to revise and update Municipal Code Chapter 12, Chapter 14, the Logging Ordinance, and City policy.

Throughout this report, challenges and opportunities with existing code and policy are summarized in tables. The tables include associated recommendations for revisions and additions to code and for modifications to City policy. Many challenges and opportunities can be addressed through singular recommendations, where others will require a multi-faceted approach, with several changes. Key challenges and opportunities and associated recommendations for Municipal Code revisions are summarized in green tables. Lavender-colored tables summarize recommendations that address key challenges and opportunities that are not related to updates or revisions to Municipal Code.

This report is structured to align relatively in the order that the sections of the Municipal Code occur, beginning with Chapter 12 and ending with the Logging Ordinance. Each section of Municipal Code includes a summary of the current ordinance, recommendations, discussion and justification, which sites stakeholder and community feedback and provides comparisons to benchmark communities where applicable.

Introduction 6
Challenges and opportunities that affect the care and maintenance of heritage and City trees were noted during the review process.
7 Chapter 12–Preservation of Heritage Trees
Chapter 12–Preservation of Heritage Trees
Because the benefits of trees transcend property lines, many communities have ordinances to protect trees on private property from damage and removal. Tree preservation ordinances generally are intended to preserve large trees on private property for the sake of conserving canopy cover. A heritage tree designation is usually applied to trees that require special recognition and protection. In many instances, having both a definition for “protected tree” and “heritage tree” can protect even more trees.

General Chapter Recommendations
Table 1: Key Challenges/Opportunities and Recommendations for Chapter 12 Key Challenges/Opportunities Recommendations
● A heritage tree is a term typically applied to trees
of more significance to the community than trees
that are just large.
● Change chapter title to “Tree Preservation” to
allow for distinction between protected trees
versus heritage trees.
● Redefine “heritage tree” to recognize significant
trees in the community that may not meet the
current definition of “heritage tree” (e.g., toyon
trees).
● Add definition of “protected tree” in place of
current definition of “heritage tree”.

Additional Discussion and Justification
The overall community benefits from trees on private property and the canopy that those trees provide.

Protecting large trees on private property is especially important for the preservation of canopy. There are some trees in Pacifica that are more significant than other trees, not just because of size. A concern that was frequently heard during engagement was that the current definition for heritage tree does not protect native species. For example, native toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia) are currently not protected by the heritage tree definition. With the addition of the definition of “protected tree”, the “heritage tree” definition can be revised to recognize native toyon trees or other native species, historically significant, or other trees in the community that are valued for reasons other than being large. These trees are valuable community assets and should receive special recognition through the designation of a “heritage tree”.

Chapter 12–Preservation of Heritage Trees 8
Purpose
Sec. 4-12.01. - Purpose.
(a) It is recognized that the preservation of heritage trees on public and private property is important for the following reasons:
(1) To continue to encourage and assure the continuance of quality development; (2) To protect and conserve the attractiveness, aesthetic and scenic beauty, and historic atmosphere of the City;
(3) To protect the environment and climatic balance of the City; (4) To aid in the reduction of air pollution by protecting the known capacity of trees to produce oxygen and ingest carbon dioxide;
(5) To help reduce potential damage from wind by decreasing wind velocity; (6) To provide shade;
(7) To act as a noise buffer; and
(8) To assist in the absorption of rainwater into the ground, thereby protecting against potential damages from soil erosion, mudslides and flooding, as well as reducing the cost of handling storm water by artificial means.
(b) In order to promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City, while recognizing individual rights to develop, maintain, and enjoy private property, it is necessary to enact regulations preserving and protecting trees on private or City-owned property within the City.

Section 4-12.01 provides a summary of the benefits of heritage trees and the reasons for which the community has chosen to extend protection to trees on both public and private property.

Recommendations
Table 2: Key Challenges/Opportunities and Recommendations for Section 4-12.01 Key Challenges/Opportunities Recommendations
● This section has some awkward language.
● It may fall short in communicating how
important trees are to the overall community and
the need to preserve and protect large trees for
future generations.
● Some residents are concerned about trees falling
on homes (whether founded or unfounded) or
improvements to views are desired and illegal
removals of trees sometimes occur.
● Revise existing language to describe trees’
environmental and socioeconomic contributions
more accurately to the community.
● Recognize the importance of the urban forest.
● Emphasize the importance of heritage trees to
the community.
● Introduce the terminology of “protected trees”
and “heritage trees”.
● Clarify policy on removing trees to enhance
views.
9 Chapter 12–Preservation of Heritage Trees
Table 3: Other Key Challenges and Opportunities for Risk Management with Recommendations for Improvement
Key Challenges/Opportunities Recommendations
● Some residents are concerned about trees falling
on homes (whether founded or unfounded) or
improvements to views are desired and illegal
removals of trees sometimes occur.
● Adopt a risk management policy and set a
threshold of acceptable risk for protected and
heritage trees to increase transparency and
reduce subjectivity.

Additional Discussion and Justification
Aside from the use of the term “heritage tree” to describe all protected trees, the purpose of Chapter 12, is generally consistent with other regional tree preservation ordinances in that trees on both public and private property are important to the community.

Some stakeholders suggested that the City does not always advocate for tree preservation. While most residents appreciate trees and value the natural landscape, some residents value views over trees and others have concerns that large trees may fall on their homes (whether founded or unfounded). As a result, sometimes trees are illegally removed. It is important for the City to adopt a risk management policy, including setting a threshold of acceptable risk, to increase transparency and avoid the appearance of subjectivity. Revisions should clarify the City’s position on whether trees can be removed to enhance views.

Definitions
Sec. 4-12.02. - Definitions.

For the purposes of this chapter, unless otherwise apparent from the context, certain words and phrases used in this chapter are defined as follows:
(a) "City" shall mean the City of Pacifica, acting by and through its authorized representatives. (b) "Director" shall mean the Director of the Department of Community Development and Services of the City, or his or her designee.
(c) "Heritage tree" shall mean and include:
(1) All trees within the City of Pacifica, exclusive of eucalyptus, which have a trunk with a circumference of fifty (50″) inches (approximately sixteen (16″) inches in diameter) or more, measured at twenty-four (24″) inches above the natural grade; or (2) A tree or grove of trees, including eucalyptus, designated by resolution of the Council to be of special historical, environmental, or aesthetic value. (d) "Owner" shall mean the owner of the real property on which the tree is situated as shown on the most recent County Assessor's tax roll.
(e) "Person" shall mean an individual, firm, association, tree removal service, corporation and its agents, officers, employees, or representatives.
(f) "Private property" shall mean and include all property not owned by the City or another public agency.

Chapter 12–Preservation of Heritage Trees 10
Section 4-12.02 defines “City”, “Director”, “Heritage tree”, “Owner”, “Person”, and “Private property”.

Recommendations
Table 4: Key Challenges/Opportunities and Recommendations for Section 4-12.02 Key Challenges/Opportunities Recommendations
● There is no longer a Department of Community
Development and Services of the City, therefore
there is no Director of this department.
● The designation of heritage tree is given to
nearly all trees and does not provide special
recognition of trees that are important to the
community, for more than just being large,
mature trees.
● Current methodology of measuring diameter is
not consistent with industry standards.
◦ Methodology for measuring multi-stemmed
trees is not defined.
● Disagreement among stakeholders on whether
the definition of heritage tree should include all
trees that are greater than 16-inches in diameter
or if some species should be excluded (e.g.,
Eucalyptus species).
● Community members expressed concerns that if
the method of measurement is changed, some
trees that are currently protected may no longer
be protected as the diameter of some trees may
be less than 16-inches if measured at 54-inches
above natural grade.
● Additional definitions will be required if
suggested changes are made in subsequent
sections.
● Redefine the “Director” to the Director of Public
Works or their designee.
● Add additional terms and definitions as
recommended in other sections.
● Add a new definition of “protected tree” in place
of the current definition of “heritage tree”
◦ Revise definition of “heritage tree” to reflect
the distinction between a heritage tree
versus a protected tree.
◦ Consider “heritage trees” as a subcategory of
“protected tree”.
● Measure trees according to ISA Best
Management Practices Tree Inventories. Second
Edition. 2013 by Jerry Bond.
◦ Use the average of the diameter for multistemmed trees. ● Reduce the minimum diameter in the new
definition for “protected tree” from 16-inches to
14-inches to ensure that no trees that are
currently protected by the “heritage tree”
definition will lose protective status.
● Exclude species that are classified as invasive
species as determined by the California Invasive
Plants Council from protection.

Additional Discussion and Justification
There is no longer a Department of Community Development and Services. Currently, this role is fulfilled by the Director of Planning; however, the Director of Public Works has a role during permit review.

In the eight benchmark communities, there are protected trees, which are typically large trees, whereas “heritage tree” or “landmark tree” are used to provide protections to specific trees in each of those communities. For a summary of each communities’ definition, see Tables 1 and 2.

During community engagement, community members were asked whether a new definition of “protected tree” should be added to the ordinance that would be defined by the current definition of “heritage tree”. Among participants, 77% indicated support for the addition of the definition of 11 Chapter 12–Preservation of Heritage Trees
“protected tree”. Similarly, 87% of participants indicated support for redefining the definition of “heritage tree” to be more specific about the trees that meet this designation.

Table 5: Summary of Protected Tree/Heritage Tree Definitions for Inland Communities Inland Summary of Ordinance
City of Palo Alto Upon nomination by any person and with the written consent of the property owner(s), the city council may designate a tree or trees as a heritage tree. A tree may be designated as a “heritage tree” upon a finding that a tree is an outstanding specimen of a desirable species, one of the largest or oldest trees in Palo Alto, distinctive in form, size, age, location, and/or historical significance.

Town of Los Gatos Heritage tree means a tree or grouping of trees specifically designated by action of the Town Council, upon the recommendation of the Historic Preservation Commission, that possess exceptional aesthetic, biological, cultural, or historic value and is expected to have a continuing contribution to the community.

City of Roseville “Protected Tree” any native oak tree greater than 6-inches diameter at breast height (DBH) measured as a total of a single trunk or multiple trunks.

City of Mountain
View
A “Heritage Tree” shall mean any tree with a trunk with a circumference greater than 48-inches circumference measured at 54-inches above natural grade; a multibranched tree with major branches below 54-inches above grade with a circumference greater than 48-inches measured below first major trunk; any Quercus (oak), Sequoia (redwood), or Cedrus (cedar) tree with a circumference of greater than 12-inches when measured 54-inches above grade; and a tree or grove of trees designated by resolution of the city council to be of historical value or of significant community benefit.

Table 6: Summary of Protected Tree/Heritage Tree Definitions for Coastal Communities Coastal Summary of Ordinance
City of Pacific
Grove
“Protected trees”, include: native trees (all gowen cypress [regardless of size), all coast live oak, Monterey cypress, shore pine, Torrey pine, and Monterey pine greater than 6-inches in diameter measured at 54-inches above native grade), all other private trees, regardless of species, greater than 12-inches in diameter measured at 54-inches above natural grade, all trees within 100 yards of designated Monarch sanctuaries, all trees on public property greater than 6-inches in diameter measured at 54-inches above native grade, all street trees regardless of size, and all trees that are otherwise protected and will be impacted as a result of development, both proposed for pruning or removal and where the development will impact the critical root zone of the tree that requires protection during construction, and all trees otherwise identified -during development or otherwise- for special protection by the property owner.

City of Morro Bay Any Morro Bay resident may nominate any tree within the right-of-way to be considered for landmark tree designation that meets the following criteria: any Chapter 12–Preservation of Heritage Trees 12
specimen tree or grove of significant size, beauty, cultural heritage or habitat value; specimen tree or grove of significant habitat value for migratory birds and butterflies; native trees or groves of historical significance to local indigenous cultures; specimen tree or grove of agricultural significance and history; and specimen tree or grove older than eighty to one hundred years; any trees playing very important functional role in city parks or for city planning and maintenance; specimen trees or groves of significant planted by early settlers of Morro Bay.

City of Monterey “Local landmark tree” are trees that should be protected and preserved because of their outstanding size, prominence, and/or health. Landmark trees must meet the following criteria:
● Oak trees
◦ Greater than 10-inches in diameter measured at a point 54-inches above natural grade
◦ Greater than 20-feet in height
◦ Prominently visible from public streets, parking areas, parks or open space, from a minimum distance of 100-feet
● Conifers
◦ Greater than 12-inches in diameter measured at a point 54-inches above natural grade
◦ Greater than 30-feet in height
◦ Prominently visible from public streets, parking areas, parks or open space, from a minimum distance of 100-feet
● Non-native ornamental
◦ Greater than 10-inches in diameter, measured at a point 54-inches above natural grade
◦ Greater than 15-feet in height
◦ Prominently visible from public streets, parking areas, parks or open space, from a minimum distance of 100-feet
● Any tree
◦ Possesses special beauty, or horticultural or historic interest ◦ Is of such substantial size or prominence that has
▪ Significant visibility from city streets, parks, and open space ▪ Significant contribution to the forested skyline of the city ◦ Rare or unusual species
◦ Outstanding representative of the species
City of Half Moon
Bay
A “Heritage Tree” means a tree located on public or private property (excluding eucalyptus) with a trunk greater than 12-inches measured at 48-inches above ground level; a tree or stand of trees so designated by resolution of the city council based on its finding of special historical, environmental or aesthetic value; and a tree located within the public right-of-way along the entire length of certain streets.

Although some stakeholder expressed concerns about protecting Pinus radiata (Monterey pine) and Myoporum parvifolium (Myoporum) due to susceptibility to pests, excluding species from protections because of a pest, sets a precedent for not protecting any tree because it may die due to a pest or disease. Individual trees can have variable responses to pests. Some pests are more devastating as a 13 Chapter 12–Preservation of Heritage Trees
result of prolonged drought, so trees in irrigated sites may be more resilient. Protecting trees from removal should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis by a certified arborist.

Eucalyptus species have a reputation of being perceived as a fire hazard. Eucalyptus is a genus of more than 700 species of trees and shrubs that are mostly native to Australia and have been introduced into California as ornamentals and for timber. Eucalyptus globulus (blue gum eucalyptus) and Eucalyptus camaldulensis (river red gum) are generally the species of greatest concern when it comes to fire, as these species produce highly flammable oils and produce high volumes of leaf litter. Additionally, both of these species are considered to be invasive species by the California Invasive Plants Council.

Therefore, species that are classified as invasive or are a well-documented fire hazard (i.e., Eucalyptus globulus and E. camaldulensis) should not be eligible for protection.

One challenge with the current definition of “heritage tree” is the method for measurement. The current definition defines the place of measurement on a tree to be 24-inches above natural grade and there is no methodology for measuring multi-stemmed trees, which is inconsistent with industry standards. For communities that have a minimum diameter for protected trees, most subscribe to the industry standard of measurement, using 54-inches above the natural grade or breast height.

Designation of Heritage Tree
Sec. 4-12.03. - Council designation of heritage trees.
(a) All trees within the City, exclusive of eucalyptus, which meet the size criteria set out in Section 4-

12.02 (c) (1) herein are hereby designated to be heritage trees. (b) In addition to heritage trees designated under Section 4-12.02 (c)(1) herein, where a tree has special historical, environmental or aesthetic value, the Council, by resolution, may designate an individual tree or a grove of trees as a heritage tree, regardless of its size. (c) The Director, City Council, landowner, or any other interested person may request that a tree or grove of trees be designated as a heritage tree regardless of its size. (d) The City Clerk shall notify the landowner in writing personally or by mail at least ten (10) days before the Council intends to designate an individual tree or trees on his or her land as a heritage tree under subsection (b) herein, unless the landowner has requested the designation.

Currently, in Pacifica, all trees (excluding eucalyptus species) which have a diameter of 16-inches measured at 24-inches above the natural grade or any tree or grove of trees (including eucalyptus) designated by resolution of the Council to be of special historical, environmental, or aesthetic value are defined as a “heritage tree”.

Chapter 12–Preservation of Heritage Trees 14
Recommendations
Table 7: Key Challenges/Opportunities and Recommendations for Section 4-12.03 Key Challenges/Opportunities Recommendations
● The current definition of “heritage tree” is
primarily based on size criteria.
● Heritage tree definition does not provide special
recognition to native species, including Quercus
agrifolia (coast live oak), Quercus lobata (valley
oak), Aesculus californica (California buckeye),
Pinus radiata (Monterey pine), Sequoia
sempervirens (redwood), or Heteromeles
arbutifolia (toyon).
● Benchmark communities have protected trees
and recognize trees of greater significance to the
community through the designation of heritage
trees.
● Heritage tree definition does not account for
trees that pose an unreasonable risk to public
health.
● If one of the following criteria are met and trees
are in a condition that can be maintained in the
landscape so as not to create an unreasonable
risk shall be designated as a “heritage tree”:
◦ Quercus agrifolia (coast live oak), Quercus
lobata (valley oak), Aesculus californica
(California buckeye), Pinus radiata (Monterey
pine), and Sequoia sempervirens (redwood)
greater than 12-inches DBH
◦ Heteromeles arbutifolia (toyon) greater than
4-inches DBH
◦ Trees of historic value
◦ Specimen tree of any species
◦ Is one of the largest or oldest trees in Pacifica
◦ Significant habitat value
◦ Visibly prominent in the community
● Define “specimen tree”.
● Adopt a risk management policy and set a
threshold of acceptable risk for protected and
heritage trees to increase transparency and
reduce subjectivity.

Additional Discussion and Justification
Large non-invasive trees on private property contribute to overall canopy cover and should be protected, through defining these trees as “protected trees”. Some trees are more important to the community than simply because of size alone and warrant special recognition and greater protection through the designation of “heritage tree”. Heritage trees should be those of native species, have historical value, a specimen tree of any species, older trees, contribute significantly to wildlife habitat, or be visibly prominent in the community and be in a condition that the tree can be maintained in the landscape so as not to create an unreasonable risk.
15 Chapter 12–Preservation of Heritage Trees
Tree Protection
Sec. 4-12.07. - Tree protection plans.
(a) Tree protection plan required. Any development proposal which requires a discretionary permit or other land use approval as set forth in Title 9 of this Code, and which includes a proposal to cut down, destroy, remove, move, or engage in construction within the dripline of a heritage tree, must be accompanied by a tree protection plan which shall insure the preservation of trees where possible and the protection of trees during construction so as to maximize chances for their survival. Such projects are excepted from obtaining a tree removal permit from the Director. The official or public body authorized to grant the development approval sought shall implement the purposes of this chapter by means of review and approval of the tree protection plan and may condition the plan to insure compliance with and to further the purposes of this chapter, including requirement of replacement plantings or an in lieu fee. Public notice of the proposal to remove trees shall be given in conjunction with and in the same manner as the notice requirements applicable to the permit or land use approval sought.
(b) Plan preparation. The plan shall be prepared by a qualified arborist, horticulturist, landscape architect or other qualified person.
(c) Plan content. The plan shall include all the information specified by Section 4-12.05 and the following additional information:
(1) Size, species, aesthetics, state of health, and dripline location of each tree that reaches to within twenty (20′) feet of any proposed development areas, including any areas where trenching or paving is proposed.
(2) Mitigating measures proposed to insure the survival of remaining trees through the construction process and thereafter.
(3) Size, species, and location of trees proposed to replace those proposed for removal. (d) Tree protection standards. Approval of the protection plan shall require compliance with the following standards:
(1) Identification. Trees proposed for removal shall be identified for field inspection by the Director, who shall post notice of the proposed removal as set forth in Section 4-12.09 (a) herein.
(2) Drip line protection. The applicant is responsible to use his or her best efforts to preserve all trees which are to remain on the project site. With respect to heritage trees, the following specific construction practices shall apply:
(i) Each heritage tree or group of trees to be preserved shall be protected by marking and fencing the entire dripline area prior to grading, paving, movement of heavy equipment, or other construction activity. Exceptions may be approved by the Director. (ii) The existing ground surface within the dripline of any heritage tree should not be cut, filled, compacted, or paved unless there is no other reasonable design alternative. (iii) All cuts or trenching within the dripline of a heritage tree and all root cuttings are to be made by hand. No backhoes or graders shall be used. Appropriate measures shall be taken to prevent soil upon exposed roots from drying out.

Chapter 12–Preservation of Heritage Trees 16
(3) Landscape plans. Landscape plans, when required, must show the proposed landscaping within the dripline of trees and the proposed replacement plantings on site. (4) Nonconformance. In case of nonconformance with the tree protection requirements, the Director may issue a Stop Work Order until all requirements have been met. (5) Tree damage or destruction. Should unauthorized work or nonconformance lead to the threat of tree damage or destruction, the Director may issue a Stop Work Order and require mitigation of the damage.
(6) Performance security. Performance security, whether by security bond, cash deposit, or other security acceptable to the City, may be required prior to issuance of a permit in order to assure protection of trees on the site. The amount of any said performance security shall be One Thousand Five Hundred and no/100ths ($1,500.00) Dollars per tree or the value of the affected tree or trees, whichever is greater. Tree value shall be determined by the Director based on an accepted appraisal method in the landscape appraisal field. The performance security shall be forfeited if, prior to final building permit inspection, the Director finds that the tree has suffered permanent damage. If no permanent damage has occurred, the performance security shall be returned upon final building permit inspection. Funds collected through the forfeiture of performance security shall be used to replace trees in the community.

Pacifica’s current ordinance requires tree protection plans for “[a]ny development proposal which requires a discretionary permit or other land use approval...which includes a proposal to cut down, destroy, remove, move, or engage in construction within the dripline of a heritage tree”. The section defines prohibited activities within the dripline of the tree and specifies who should prepare a tree protection plan and what needs to be included in it. Nonconformance with the tree protection plan and tree damage or destruction will result in Stop Work Order and requirements for mitigation. To assure protection of trees on a site, a performance security “may be required prior to the issuance of a permit”.
17 Chapter 12–Preservation of Heritage Trees
Recommendations
Table 8: Key Challenges/Opportunities and Recommendations for Section 4-12.07 Key Challenges/Opportunities DRG Recommendations
● “[Q]ualified arborist, horticulturist, landscape
architect or other qualified person” is vague.
● Trees on adjacent properties can have roots that
extend beyond property boundaries and may be
affected by construction activities if they do not
have a tree protection plan.
● Tree protection plans are not required for trees
that are not directly affected by construction but
are within the site.
● Tree protection plan requirements do not meet
industry standard as defined by ANSI A300 Part
5 Construction (Appendix B).
● “Drip line” is not defined.
● Drip line does not adequately protect the critical
root zone for most trees in the landscape.
● Oversight is not required during construction to
ensure compliance with tree protection
measures.
● Performance security is up to the discretion of
the Director and is not required.
● There are concerns that after a removal permit is
approved, in conjunction with a building permit,
there are no visible indicators at the site for trees
that will be removed, and which trees will be
retained.
● Designate ISA Certified Arborist and/or ASCA
Consulting arborist or Certified Urban Forester as
qualified persons.
● Standardize what needs to be included in tree
protection plans, such as the elements identified
in Appendix A: Tree Protection Zones.
● Require tree protection plans to comply with
industry standards, including ANSI A300 Part 5
Construction.
● Require developers to protect trees that are on
adjacent properties, where likely impacts will
occur, from construction activities.
● Define the tree protection zone (TPZ).
◦ Calculate the area of the TPZ by ([TPZ radius]
² x 𝜋).
◦ Base the radius of the TPZ on the following:
▪ A minimum of six feet for trees less
than 4-inches in diameter.
▪ The diameter of the tree multiplied
by 1.5 feet for trees less than 24-
inches in diameter.
▪ The diameter of the trunk
multiplied by 2 feet for trees larger
than 24-inches in diameter.
● Define what Stop Work Order includes (i.e.,
suspending and prohibiting further activity
pursuant to grading, demolition, and building
permits [construction, inspection, and issuance
of certificates of occupancy]) until a mitigation
plan has been filed and approved by the Director.
● Require a performance security as a condition of
approval of any permit to ensure compliance
with the tree protection plan.
◦ Set the value of the performance security
based on the value of the tree as assessed by
the Guide for Plant Appraisal (10th Edition or
newer).

Chapter 12–Preservation of Heritage Trees 18
● Require applicants to report within 24-hours to
the Director any damage or injury to trees.
● Implement an inspection schedule, where the
Director shall verify, in writing, that all preconstruction conditions have been met (tree fencing, erosion control, pruning, et.) and are in
place, and again post-construction to assess tree
health.
● Impose a penalty fee if trees or their roots are
damaged.

Table 9: Other Key Challenges and Opportunities for City Oversight with Recommendations for Improvement
Key Challenges/Opportunities DRG Recommendations
● Oversight is not required during construction to
ensure compliance with tree protection
measures.
● Currently there is no City Arborist on staff, where
in the past the City Arborist was responsible for
reviewing arborist reports submitted with
development applications and provided
recommendations for conditions of approval.
● Require applicants to report within 24-hours to
the Director any damage or injury to trees.
● Implement an inspection schedule, where the
Director shall verify, in writing, that all preconstruction conditions have been met (tree fencing, erosion control, pruning, et.) and are in
place, and again post-construction to assess tree
health.
● Impose a penalty fee if trees or their roots are
damaged.
● Employ a City Arborist or hire an independent
certified arborist to review development
applications, provide recommendations and
oversight for tree protection plans, and to
establish performance securities based on the
Guide for Plant Appraisal (10th Edition or newer).

Additional Discussion and Justification
Among the eight benchmark communities, almost all have some requirements in municipal code around protecting trees during construction. Similar to Pacifica, these ordinances define restricted activities from occurring within the protected zone, site plan information, and mitigation measures (Table 3).
19 Chapter 12–Preservation of Heritage Trees
Table 10: Benchmark Communities that Require Tree Protection During Construction/Development City/Town
Palo AltoLos GatosRosevilleMountain ViewPacific GroveMorro BayMontereyHalf Moon Bay Tree Protection Plan/Preservation Plan Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes The current ordinance defines the protected area to be within the dripline of a tree. There are no specifications for design or prohibited activities within the protected area. While the definition of “drip line” is generally understood, the existing ordinance does not define the terminology. Furthermore, using the drip line (recognized by the industry as dripline) to define the area of protection will often result in underestimation of the critical root zone for most landscape trees.

Approximately one third of a trees’ biomass is found in the root system. Protecting the entire tree, including the critical root system, is vital to tree health and vigor. Construction activities can have longterm effects on a tree's health. Trees larger than 24-inches are generally recognized as mature and are more sensitive to construction activities and have critical root systems that extend further out from the tree and thereby require a larger area of protection.

DRG recommends that all trees that will be preserved have a Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) established in order prevent injury to trees during construction. If measures are not taken, the cumulative impacts of construction, can result in decline and death of affected trees.

There are several methods for defining the TPZ but using the trunk diameter to define the TPZ is one of the easiest ways for defining this area. This method uses the diameter of the tree as a multiplier for defining the radius of the TPZ. The radius of the TPZ is then used to calculate the area around the tree ([TPZ radius] ² x 𝜋) that must be protected. This area can then be used to establish the boundaries of the TPZ. The radius of the TPZ for trees less than 4-inches in diameter must be at least 6 feet (including the trunk) to sufficiently protect the root system. For larger trees, the radius of the TPZ can be calculated by multiplying the DBH by 1.5 feet for trees less than 24-inches or the DBH multiplied by 2- feet for trees larger than 24-inches in diameter. A table of common trunk diameter’s and their associated TPZ are provided in Appendix A: Tree Protection Zones. Once the radius of the TPZ is determined, the area of protection can be calculated using the formula for area of a circle (r2 x 𝜋). This area is used to approximate the boundaries of the TPZ. The TPZ around a tree can be offset slightly or not necessarily round to accommodate individual site needs.

Chapter 12–Preservation of Heritage Trees 20
The following is provided as an example of the application of the above-mentioned variables and calculations:

TPZ Radius = Trunk diameter x 2-ft
25 x 2-ft = 50 ft radius
Area of TPZ = ([TPZ radius] ² x 𝜋)
(50)2x π = 7,854 ft2
Trees and tree root zones often cross property lines. Construction activities on one parcel can have negative effects on trees and tree roots on an adjacent parcel. The current ordinance does not provide clear direction for trees on adjacent properties, in proximity to construction activities. Some stakeholders indicated that they had observed that trees on adjacent properties were not protected during construction activities. It is important to identify all protected trees that may be impacted during construction and require developers to develop a tree protection plan for those trees that are adjacent to construction activities. Amending the ordinance to prevent damage to trees and tree roots on adjacent properties is important for protecting these trees and avoiding neighbor disputes.

City planners should suggest modifications to designs to avoid impacts to heritage trees wherever possible, but in instances where plans cannot be modified a tree protection plan should be required for all trees that are to be retained. A tree protection plan should clearly specify activities that are prohibited within a defined TPZ.

Standards and specifications for tree protection during construction are sometimes included in municipal code. DRG recommends that standards and specifications be provided in a separate, accessible, and comprehensive document that can be reviewed and updated as needed without the need for ordinance revision. For example, the City of Palo Alto ordinance Chapter 8.10 Tree Preservation and Management Regulations provides minimal detail on requirements for tree protection and cites their Tree Technical Manual for detailed specification. The manual provides extensive information on requirements for Tree Protection and Preservation Plans for specific construction activities, including grading, tunnelling and directional drilling, trenching, excavation, and equipment use.

To ensure compliance with a tree protection plan, the Director (or designee) should regularly monitor compliance and issue a Stop Work Order if the plan is not adhered to. Requiring performance securities can further ensure compliance. Like Pacifica ($1,500 per tree or the value of the affected tree or trees, whichever is greater), the City of Roseville has a performance security; however, the deposit is a 25-inch DBH
50 ft radius
7,854 ft2
Trunk of tree
21 Chapter 12–Preservation of Heritage Trees
minimum of $10,000 and is required “prior to any grading, delivery of materials, or movement of heavy equipment onto the site, or issuance of any permits”. Palo Alto’s Tree Technical Manual includes security deposits, which as a condition of approval, may be required by the Director, a value of between 25% and 100% of the value of the tree as determined by the most recent edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal published by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers.

Additionally, requiring posting of a tree protection plan along with other visual indicators (e.g., signs, fencing, etc.) for trees that will be preserved versus those which trees will be removed, can create further accountability and allow members of the community to access the information.

Note: In the Guide for Plant Appraisal (10th Edition), there are numerous methods provided for appraising the value of a tree, including: the Repair Method, the Reproduction Method, Functional Replacement Method, and Market Value. All the approaches are based on quantitative data (measurements, counts, rankings, ratings, etc.) and qualitative data (plant health, site conditions, and management history).

Regardless of the method, all appraised values must be “reasonable” and supported by documentation on how and why a value is determined.

Removal Policy
Sec. 4-12.04. - Permits required to remove or destroy trees.

No person shall cut down, destroy, remove, or move a heritage tree, or engage in new construction within the dripline of a heritage tree growing on private property or City-owned property, without a permit. As used in this section, "destroy" shall include substantial trimming which threatens the healthy growth and development of the tree.

Section 4-12.04 prohibits any person from cutting down, destroying (substantially trimming), removing, or moving a heritage tree or conducting construction activities within the dripline of a heritage tree growing on private or public property without a permit.

Sec. 4-12.05. - Applications for and granting of tree removal permits. (a) A person who desires to destroy, move, or remove one or more heritage trees on any private or Cityowned property shall apply in writing to the Director. Such application shall contain the number, species, size, and location of the tree or trees involved, a statement of the reason for the requested action, a list of the property owners adjacent and contiguous to the location of the proposed tree or trees involved, stamped and addressed envelopes to such property owners, and any other pertinent information. No person may trim, cut down, destroy, remove or move a heritage tree for which a permit application is pending.
(b) Within fourteen (14) days after the receipt of the application, the Director, or his or her appointed representative, shall inspect the premises and the tree or trees involved and shall issue a proposed decision determining which, if any, trees may be destroyed, moved, or removed and setting forth the conditions to be imposed. The Direct shall give notice of the application and proposed decision pursuant to Section 4-12.09 herein.
(c) The granting of such permit shall be based on the following criteria:
(1) The condition of the tree with respect to disease, general health, damage, public nuisance, danger of falling, proximity to existing or proposed structures, interference with utility services, Chapter 12–Preservation of Heritage Trees 22
and its ability to host a plant which is parasitic to another tree which is in danger of being infested by the parasite;
(2) Whether the requested action is necessary for the economically viable use of the property; (3) The topography of the land and effect of the requested action on it; (4) The number, species, size, and location of existing trees in the area and the effect of the requested action upon shade, noise buffers, protection from wind damage, air pollution, historic value, scenic beauty and upon the health, safety, historic value, and general welfare of the area and the City as a whole;
(5) The number of healthy trees the parcel is able to support; and (6) Good forestry practices.
(d) The Director may refer the application to another department, committee, or person for a report or recommendation. The Director may also require the applicant to furnish a written report from a qualified horticulturist, arborist or licensed landscape architect acceptable to the Director. (e) In order to mitigate the adverse effects of tree removal, a tree removal permit may be conditioned upon tree relocation on-site, planting of replacement trees, or payment of fees in lieu thereof if on-site replacement is not feasible. No applicant shall be required to expend more on the replacement trees than the appraised value of the trees for which a permit is required. The Director shall determine the replacement value of the trees. If a fee in lieu thereof is imposed, the Director shall determine the value of the number and size of trees necessary to offset the loss of the heritage tree. If on-site replacement is not feasible, the Director may condition the permit on payment of such a fee in order to mitigate the tree loss without replacement plantings off-site. The applicant may be required to submit an evaluation, appraisal or replacement plan prepared by a qualified horticulturist, arborist or licensed landscape architect. (f) In his or her proposed decision on an application for such permit, the Director may attach reasonable conditions to insure compliance with the content and purpose of this chapter. If a permit is to be denied or conditions attached, the Director shall provide the applicant with a written statement of the reasons for the denial or conditions.

The Director shall give priority to those applications based upon disease or imminent hazard to persons or property.

Section 4-12.05 outlines the process for tree removal permits and the appeals procedures. Any person who “... desires to destroy, move, or remove one or more heritage trees on any private or City-owned property shall apply in writing to the Director”. The application “...shall contain the number, species, size, and location of the tree or trees involved, a statement of the reason for the requested action, a list of the property owners adjacent and contiguous to the location of the proposed tree or trees involved, stamped and addressed envelopes to such property owners, and any other pertinent information.” Within 14 days of submitting the application, the Director “...shall inspect the premises and the tree or trees involved and shall issue a proposed decision…”. The Director shall evaluate the granting of the permit based on “disease, general health, damage, public nuisance, danger of falling, proximity to existing or proposed structures, interference with utility services, and its ability to host a plant which is parasitic to another tree which is in danger of being infested by the parasite whether the requested action is necessary for economic viable use of the property…”, the effect on the land based on the surrounding topography, “...existing trees in the area and the effect of the requested action on shade, noise buffers, protection from wind damage, air pollution, historic value, scenic beauty 23 Chapter 12–Preservation of Heritage Trees
and upon the health, safety, historic value, and general welfare of the area and the City as a whole...”, the number of trees a parcel can support, and “good forestry practices”.

Recommendations
Table 11: Key Challenges/Opportunities and Recommendations for Section 4-12.04 and 12.05 Key Challenges/Opportunities Recommendations
● The criteria for which the Director is supposed to
evaluate tree removal permits is vague.
● Tree removal permits are required for trees that
will not be removed but have driplines that fall
within the boundaries of new construction.
◦ Criteria for granting removal permits does
not account for this scenario.
● There is no standard or methodology for the
Director to evaluate whether the removal or
retention of a tree is appropriate.
● A permit is required if someone wants to
“destroy” a tree, but not required if someone
wishes to prune a tree.
◦ Topping is not prohibited.
● 4-12.04 and 4-12.05 are inconsistent in defining
when a permit is required.
● Heritage trees are being illegally removed and
irreparably pruned.
● 4-12.04 does not have prohibitions on poisoning
trees.
● Revise criteria for which the Director shall
evaluate tree removal permits for both protected
and heritage trees to remove vague terminology
such as “good forestry practices” and to clarify
concerns for pests and disease.
◦ Assign points to the review criteria, giving
more weight to trees designated as heritage
trees.
● Revise title of Sec. 4-12.04 to include trees within
construction zones but are not intended to be
removed.
◦ Develop a permit application that is specific
to trees in construction zones that will not be
removed.
● Require certified/consulting arborist report when
a permit is being requested to remove a tree
based on poor health, pest/pathogen, and/or
when the tree is a heritage tree.
● Continue to set fees for permits and appeals
through the annual Master Fee Schedule.
◦ Continue to allow multiple parties to
contribute to the cost of an appeal.
● Base replacement or in lieu fees on the
replacement value of the tree as assessed by the
Guide for Plant Appraisal (10th Edition or newer).
● Prohibit activities that are inconsistent with ANSI
A300.
● Require a permit for pruning of protected and
heritage trees.
◦ Define pruning.
● Add new construction to the list of prohibited
activities in 4-12.05 that would require a permit.

Chapter 12–Preservation of Heritage Trees 24
Table 12: Other Key Challenges and Opportunities for Urban Forestry Programming with Recommendations for Improvement
Key Challenges/Opportunities Recommendations
● There is no City Arborist to evaluate removal
permits.
● In lieu fees would need to be determined by
someone external from the City to appraise the
value of a tree appropriately and ethically.
● Require certified/consulting arborist report to
accompany removal permit applications when a
request is based on concerns for tree health,
pest/pathogen, and/or when the tree is a
heritage tree.
● Hire an independent contractor to provide
assessments for tree appraisal.

Additional Discussion and Justification
The criteria by which the Director is to evaluate the approval or denial of a removal permit is not clear.

Stakeholders suggest that appeals that have been heard by Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission frequently do not appear to be based on any standard assessment of the tree or trees involved. While the criterion for review includes important considerations for making an informed decision on whether a tree should be removed or retained, there is no standardized methodology for evaluating whether a removal is necessary. At the same time, some of the criteria are vague, such as “general health” and “general welfare”.

Section 4-12.04 and Section-12.05 are inconsistent in defining when a permit is required. In 4-12.04, “[n]o person shall… engage in new construction within the dripline of a heritage tree growing on private property or City-owned property, without a permit…”, but construction is not mentioned in 4-

12.05. While generally section 4-12.04 is applied to 4.12.05, this gap could result in future disputes where someone conducting construction within the dripline of a tree, may not apply for a tree removal permit, because it is not specifically called out in 4-12.05.

Anecdotal accounts suggest that heritage trees are frequently being improperly pruned, which inevitably results in the decline of such trees. Section 4-12.04 requires that no person shall “destroy” a tree without a permit. Where “destroy” is defined as any “...substantial trimming which threatens the healthy growth and development of the tree…”. Depending on a tree’s life stage and health, even minor pruning, if done improperly, can result in negative consequences. Furthermore, staff reports that requests for removals for trees that are obstructing views are common. Denial of a permit for such requests may result in improper pruning of the tree or trees (i.e., topping).

Some stakeholders suggested that, in some instances, there is no dispute that a tree should be removed due to concerns over safety, tree health, and inappropriate species and/or placement, yet someone who does not even reside in the immediate vicinity of the tree can appeal the tree removal permit.

A stakeholder expressed concern at the high cost of an appeal ($405), which may limit someone's ability to appeal tree removal permits. While the cost of an appeal may pose a challenge to appeal a tree removal permit alone, multiple parties may contribute to the cost of an appeal, which can reduce the perceived cost burden. The cost to appeal is based on the cost to cover a portion of staff time to process the appeal and therefore should continue to be set by City Council. 25 Chapter 12–Preservation of Heritage Trees
Emergency Response
Sec. 4-12.06. - Emergencies.
(a) In the event the condition of a tree requires immediate action for the safety of life or property, the tree may be removed upon the order of the Director or the Director of the Department of Public Safety or their authorized representatives.
(b) Employees of the City may take such action with regard to trees on City-owned property as may be necessary to maintain safety.
(c) Public utilities subject to the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission of the State may take such action as may be necessary to comply with the safety regulations of the Commission and as may be necessary to maintain a safe operation of their facilities.

Section 4-12.06 outlines the provisions for the City to take emergency action in regard to abate and maintain public safety. The section provides that the Director can order immediate action for removal of heritage trees or trees on City-owned property to maintain safety.

Recommendations
Table 13: Key Challenges/Opportunities and Recommendations for Section 4-12.06 Key Challenges/Opportunities Recommendations
● It is the policy that in some situations, pruning is
determined to be more appropriate than a
removal to address an immediate hazard. This
policy is not explicitly stated in ordinance, which
may lead some to interpret removal as the only
option.
● Not all employees of the City may be qualified to
determine the appropriate actions to address
immediate hazards. Some actions could result in
long-term negative health consequences for
trees, including future hazards or tree death.
● The section does not include emergencies such
as fire.
● Add pruning as an option that should be
considered as an alternative to tree removal to
mitigate immediate safety concerns.
● Define the Director as the authority for
determining actions to address immediate
hazards.
● Include considerations for emergencies, such as
fire.

Additional Discussion and Justification
Not all City employees may be qualified to determine the appropriate actions to address immediate hazards. Some persons may feel like there is an immediate hazard but are not qualified to make that determination. The Director should be able to determine if such emergency actions are reasonable to address a perceived emergency situation.

Chapter 12–Preservation of Heritage Trees 26
Building Permits
Sec. 4-12.08. - Building permits.

If an application for a building permit would require the cutting down, destruction, moving, or removal of a heritage tree or trees, or would involve new construction within the dripline of a heritage tree, the applicant shall be required to obtain a permit under this chapter for the removal or destruction of a heritage tree. As used in this section, "destruction" shall include substantial trimming which threatens the healthy growth and development of the tree.

Section 4-12.08 requires that a removal permit is required in addition to any building permits that require the cutting down, destruction, moving, or removal of heritage tree or trees, or any new construction that occurs within the dripline of a heritage tree.

Recommendations
Table 14: Key Challenges/Opportunities and Recommendations for Section 4-12.08 Key Challenges/Opportunities Recommendations
● The definition of “Destruction” is defined as
“substantial pruning”, which is vague.
● Different requirements than those required in 4-

12.04 and 4-12.05.
● No requirement to disclose whether a heritage
tree exists on the property which is the subject of
the application.
● Staff use aerial imagery to identify if heritage
trees may be present.
● No tree protection plan is required for heritage
trees.
● Clarify what activities are prohibited.
● Require a Tree Protection Plan to be submitted
with application for a permit. Require applicants
to disclose all protected or heritage tree(s) that
exist on the property subject to the application.
◦ Require the property owner or authorized
agent to provide:
▪ The location of all trees on the site and
any trees in the adjacent rights-of-way
and any trees on adjacent properties
that are within 30-feet of the site or
with canopies that overhang the
project site that could be damaged
from moving vehicles and equipment.
▪ Species
▪ Diameter at breast height (DBH)
▪ Condition
▪ Other information (i.e., photographs)
● Require a removal or pruning permit to
accompany any building permit where any of the
prohibited actions identified in Section 4-12.04
and 4-12.05 are to occur.
● Continue to review aerial imagery for heritage
trees.
27 Chapter 12–Preservation of Heritage Trees
Table 15: Other Key Challenges and Opportunities for Ordinance Awareness with Recommendations for Improvement
Key Challenges/Opportunities Recommendations
● Some members of the community may not be
aware of the ordinance to preserve heritage
trees. When architectural plans are drawn up,
some may assume that trees can be removed
only to learn that plans have to be reconsidered
when filing for a permit.
● Educate the community about the tree
preservation ordinance.

Additional Discussion and Justification
An online survey indicated that more than 80% of participants have some awareness of the ordinance to protect heritage trees. Staff and stakeholders suggested that there are some members of the community who may not be aware of these protections and only learn about these protections after they have drawn up architectural plans and intend to remove trees to accommodate these designs.

Currently, City staff review applications via aerial imagery to determine if there may be heritage trees affected. Some aerial imagery may not reflect the current state of a tree, depending on what year the image was taken, a smaller tree may have since grown to reach the status of a heritage tree. In addition, DBH is not something that can be accurately assessed from aerial imagery. By placing the responsibility on the applicant to determine whether heritage trees are located on a property, there would be an increased awareness of these trees. With less reliance on aerial photographs to identify protected trees, even more trees may be protected. Because applicants will have to account for all trees on the site and any trees in the adjacent rights-of-way, adjacent properties that are within 30-feet of the site, or with canopies that overhang the project site that could be damaged from moving vehicles and equipment fewer trees may be affected by construction activities.

Chapter 12–Preservation of Heritage Trees 28
Permits and Appeals
Sec. 4-12.09. - Notices of actions on permits and appeals. (a) The Director shall give public notice of the application and his or her proposed decision by:
(1) Posting a notice on the tree or on one of the trees so as to be visible from the street. If the notice is not visible when posted on the tree or trees, it may be posted in another visible location on the property;
(2) Delivering a notice in person or by first-class mail to a person who has made a written request to the Director; and
(3) Delivering a notice in person or by first-class mail to adjacent and abutting property owners to the tree or trees involved.
(b) Within seven (7) days, the proposed decision may be appealed to the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission by filing a written notice of appeal with the Director. No person may trim, cut down, destroy, remove or move a heritage tree for which a permit appeal is pending. (c) The Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission shall fix the time and place for the hearing of the appeal and shall cause a written notice of the hearing to be mailed to the appellant and the persons mentioned in subsection (a) of this section at least five (5) days before the hearing. The Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission may approve, disapprove or modify the decision of the Director, including any conditions he or she may have imposed. (d) The decision of the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission may be appealed to the Council by filing a notice of appeal with the City Clerk within seven (7) days of the date of the decision of the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission. Appeals shall be heard and determined according to the procedures set forth in Chapter 4 of Title 1 of this Code. The Council may approve, disapprove, or modify the decision of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission, including any condition it may have imposed.

Currently, the public notification process for heritage tree permits requires posting a notice on the tree or somewhere else visible near the tree, mailing notices to adjacent and abutting property owners, and allowing a minimum of seven (7) days for filing a written notice to appeal. The Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission will schedule an appeal hearing and provide notice at least five (5) days before the hearing. The decision of the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission can be appealed within seven (7) days of the initial appeals hearing to the City Council. 29 Chapter 12–Preservation of Heritage Trees
Recommendations
Table 16: Key Challenges/Opportunities and Recommendations for Section 4-12.09 Key Challenges/Opportunities Recommendations
● The period to appeal is seven (7) days, which is
inconsistent with other periods for appeals.
● Only property owners directly adjacent to
proposed removals are notified of proposed
removals.
● Lack of awareness of permit requirements.
● Extend appeals period to ten (10) days., which is
consistent with other appeals periods.
● Post proposed removals on the City website and
allow interested persons to sign up for email
notifications for pending removal permits.
◦ Include information on pending appeals and
hearings information.
● Standardize the criterion for evaluating tree
removal permit applications.
● Require appellants to provide necessary
documentation to justify the reason for the
appeal.
◦ Consider revising the rights of appellants.

Table 17: Other Key Challenges and Opportunities for Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission with Recommendations for Improvement
Key Challenges/Opportunities Recommendations
● Training and/or education of the powers of the
Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission, the
expectations for individual Commissioners, and
applicable laws that govern the Commission may
be insufficient.
● Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission do
not always receive photographs of trees that are
subject to appeals and/or the reason for the
appeal or the original permit application.
● Provide additional training and/or education on
the powers of the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation
Commission, the expectations for individual
Commissioners, and applicable laws that govern
the Commission.
● Standardize the materials provided to the
Commission for appeal hearings.

Additional Discussion and Justification
The notification process as outlined in Section 4-12.08 only requires that persons adjacent to the tree subject to removal to be notified and have an opportunity for appeal. While properties directly adjacent to heritage trees would be most impacted by a removal, as these properties receive the most direct benefits from the heritage tree, the preservation of individual trees is also critical to sustaining and expanding canopy cover and the benefits that are provided to the greater community. Because of the implications to overall canopy cover, a notification process that allows for greater community involvement and transparency, ensures that the decision to remove these trees is a collective decision.

To reach a greater portion of the community, several communities list tree removals, including Palo Chapter 12–Preservation of Heritage Trees 30
Alto and Mountain View, and their associated addresses on the City website. For example, the City of Sacramento lists permit requests which include pictures of trees, the address, the number of trees affected, and the reason for the removal on a Tree Removal Notification Page.

Per Section 4-12.03, the definition of heritage tree does not exclude any species. Some stakeholders expressed support for all species being eligible for heritage tree designation, while others had concerns about including eucalyptus species due to concerns about fire, invasiveness, or a species with a history of conflicting with hardscape. In benchmark communities, the Town of Los Gatos excludes fruit or nut trees less than 19-inches in diameter, any tree in conflict with the implementation and maintenance of Defensible Space, and the following species from tree removal permits:
● Black acacia (Acacia melanoxylon)
● Tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera)
● Tree of Heaven (Ailanthus altissima)
● Blue gum eucalyptus (E. globulus)
● Red gum eucalyptus (E. camdulensis)
● Other eucalyptus (specific areas only)
● Palm (except Phoenix canariensis)
● Privet (Ligustrum ludium)
Some stakeholders related concerns from community members that the current public notification process lacks transparency and does not provide an adequate opportunity for community-wide comment, as notifications are only mailed to adjacent and abutting property owners.

Another challenge is that the powers of the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission and the responsibilities and rules for commissioners may not be clear. Some stakeholders indicated a desire for an extended period prior to an appeal hearing to allow time for commissioners’ the ability to further investigate or visit any trees that are under appeal. This request suggests that commissioners may require additional training and/or education on the expectations for commissioners and applicable laws that require commissioners to make decisions based on information in the full public record.

Some stakeholders reported that photos of trees subject to appeals are not always provided for commissioners’ consideration or other support materials including the original permit application or reasons from the appellant.
31 Chapter 12–Preservation of Heritage Trees
Fees and Penalties
Sec. 4-12.10. - Permits: Fees.

The fees for the permits required by this chapter shall be those adopted by the Council in its Administrative Policy No. 2.

Currently, per Administrative Policy No. 2, the Heritage Tree Permit Fee is set at $226 per hour and the Heritage Tree Permit Appeal Fee is set at $405.

Sec. 4-12.11. - Violations: Penalties.

Any person violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor which shall be punishable by a fine of the replacement value of each tree, as determined by the Guide for Plant Appraisal (10th edition or newer) not more than One Thousand and no/100ths ($1,000.00) Dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail for a period not exceeding six (6) months, or both. Any person violating any provision of this chapter may also be subject to administrative civil penalties as provided in this Code.

Per the current ordinance, violators will be fined no more than $1,000, imprisonment (not exceeding six month), and civil penalties.

Recommendations
Table 18: Key Challenges/Opportunities and Recommendations for Section 4-12.10 and 12.11 Key Challenges/Opportunities Recommendations
● A penalty of $1,000 is not a significant deterrent,
for someone who is intent on removing a tree.
● Per state law, fines are limited to a maximum of
$1,000.
● A fine of $1,000 does not adequately
compensate for the loss in benefits provided by
mature trees.
● There is a perception that tree care providers are
willfully participating in illegal removals.
● Business licensure requirements do not consider
whether tree care providers have the necessary
qualifications to perform tree work in Pacifica to
assure tree health and public safety.
● Fees may not adequately cover staff time.
● Add a section to include civil enforcement
remedies and penalties for violation of the
chapter.
◦ Damages should be applied to a tree
mitigation fund and used towards planting,
maintenance, and preservation of the urban
forest.
◦ Continue to explore legally viable
alternatives to deterring illegal removals.
● Consider requiring a special business license for
tree contractors to operate within the City.
◦ Require acknowledgement of tree protection
and preservation regulations.
● Continue to set permit fees through Council
Resolution.
◦ Set permit fees based on the cost of staff
time to process, review, and manage
applications.
◦ Waive permit fees for instances where a tree
is unsuitable for preservation (i.e.,
Chapter 12–Preservation of Heritage Trees 32
Key Challenges/Opportunities Recommendations
dead/dying tree or where risk cannot be
mitigated) as determined by an arborist
report.

Additional Discussion and Justification
Compared to the benchmark communities, Pacifica’s fees fall in the middle (Table 4). Generally, fees should be set to consider overhead costs. For some communities, fees for removal permits are set higher in hopes that the fee will deter requests for removal for otherwise healthy trees. A sentiment that was shared by some stakeholders. Other communities see value in having a lower fee, to encourage participation in the application and review process. Regardless, fees should continue to be set annually by City Council Resolution and published within the Master Fee Schedule.

Several stakeholders expressed frustration towards the penalty for illegally removing heritage trees, which is a maximum of a $1,000. Stakeholder felt that in many instances, a penalty of $1,000 is not a significant deterrent and for a mature tree, a penalty of $1,000 does not cover the loss of benefits provided by a tree. The City is limited to a maximum of a $1,000 penalty for violations of Municipal Code, because Pacifica is a general law city. General law cities follow the general laws of the state.

Unlike charter cities, like Palo Alto, Roseville, and Monterey where there is greater local control over regulations, including penalties, which allow for those communities to set penalties for violations of code, like illegally removing trees, at much higher levels. Although the City is limited in its ability to assess higher penalties, the City may be able to pursue damages for the loss of protected trees in the community in ways besides penalties and fines.

Table 19: Benchmark Communities Permit and Appeals Fees City/Town
Palo AltoLos GatosRosevilleMountain ViewPacific GroveMorro BayMontereyHalf Moon Bay Permit Fee $397.00/tre
e
$250+$12
5/each
additional
tree (50%
refund if
denied)
$100 $526
$94
(application)+$
64+$29/additio
nal tree
$313 $134.5
0 $301 (up
to 5 trees)
or
$520
(more than
5 trees)
Appeals
Fee $280/each $90 Not Stated
$500-
$1,000
25% of base
permit fee or
$1,069
whichever is
greater
Not
Stated $191
$237+$3,3
76 (processin
g fee)
Among the eight benchmark communities, most have some form of penalty for noncompliance with the ordinance (i.e., illegal removal of trees). In Palo Alto, “where the violation has resulted in removal 33 Chapter 12–Preservation of Heritage Trees
of a tree, the civil penalty shall be in an amount not to exceed five thousand dollars per tree unlawfully removed, or the replacement value of each such tree, whichever amount is higher.” Whereas, Half Moon Bay has a tiered system, where the first heritage tree removed from private property without a permit is a fine of one-thousand dollars, the second heritage tree is a fine of two-thousand dollars, and any additional trees beyond the first two trees is a three thousand dollar fine. Comparatively, Palo Alto’s penalty structure allows for greater deterrence for illegally removing heritage trees but provides greater opportunity for offsetting the loss in benefits provided by a tree that was removed, by using those reparations to fund tree planting and maintenance of trees in the community. However, assessing the value of a tree requires the appraisal of a tree to be performed by a qualified arborist.

Table 20: Summary of Benchmark Community Mitigation Measures and Penalties City/Town
Palo AltoLos GatosRosevilleMountain ViewPacific GroveMorro BayMontereyHalf Moon Bay Mitigation Measures No Yes No Yes No No No No
Criminal Penalties Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes
Civil Penalties Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes
Stakeholders and staff confirmed that enforcement of the existing ordinance is a challenge. Anecdotal accounts cite that some violators have been asked to pay for the tree removal permit retroactively, after a tree has already been removed or damaged beyond repair. In the City of Mountain View, there is a section which permits post-removal permits, where “any person who removes a heritage tree without a permit issued...shall secure from the City a post-removal permit… [i]n granting a postremoval permit, the decision-maker may require the replanting of a tree, including a tree of heritage size, in the exact location where the illegal removal occurred.” The benefit of a post-removal or retroactive permit is that it can enforce the replanting of illegally removed trees. But these measures may not provide enough deterrence for individuals. In fact, there is opportunity for individuals to bypass the application process, avoid scrutiny of the requested removal, and chance getting caught all together.

There is a perception that tree care companies willfully violate Chapter 12 and participate in illegal removals. Some stakeholders believe that private tree care companies operating within Pacifica may not even hold business licenses. However, per Chapter 1, Article 1, section 3-1.103 of Pacifica’s Code of Ordinances, these businesses should already have licenses to operate within the community. Some communities have resolved this issue through a special licensure program. For example, the City of Boulder, CO added Chapter 28 - Tree Contractor License in 2011, “to protect the health, safety and welfare by licensing persons who cut, prune or remove trees in the City… provid[ing] when property owners hire a person engaging in the business of cutting, pruning, removing or applying pesticides to any trees, that person should have adequate qualifications to perform the work.” Additionally, the ordinance prohibits those without a license from conducting tree care activities for “commercial gain or profit without employing a person to supervise such work who is a licensee” and allows for anyone operating with a tree contractor license who does not abide by the chapter can have their license revoked. Cutting, pruning, removing, and applying pesticides to trees, if improperly done, can have Chapter 12–Preservation of Heritage Trees 34
life-long (or life ending) consequences for a tree. Additionally, removing trees improperly poses concerns for public safety. The benefit of requiring a tree contractor license, is that there is an opportunity to ensure that a company understands local tree ordinances and is qualified to perform tree work to industry standards. To create greater accountability on the part of tree care providers, a special business license for tree care companies should be explored.

Mitigation Measures
Because trees take a long time to reach maturity, ideally trees would be protected from removal and preserved wherever possible. Yet sometimes the removal of trees is warranted. In these instances, efforts should be made to mitigate the loss of the tree and the benefits lost as a result of the removal.

Currently, Pacifica may require mitigation measures, but does not explicitly require any mitigation measures that can be included as a condition of approval of removal permits. The Director per Section

4.12.05 may require trees to offset the loss of a heritage tree, but there is no formal process for evaluating the most appropriate mitigation measures.

Recommendations
Table 21: Key Challenges/Opportunities and Recommendations for Mitigation Measures Key Challenges/Opportunities Recommendations
● No mitigation measures are currently required.
● Mitigation measures are discretionary.
◦ Not all replacement trees that are required as
a condition of approval are inspected for
proper planting or to confirm that trees
survive.
● Mitigation measures do not always adequately
replace the loss of canopy from mature trees.
● In lieu fees can fund tree planting, maintenance,
or the purchase of property for the purpose of
preserving existing trees as an alternative to
replacing trees on-site.
● Change the use of “may” in PMC 4-12.05(e) to
“shall” to ensure mitigation measures are
applied.
● Use a ratio of for every one tree removed two
trees must be planted in its place.
◦ Allow in lieu fees in instances where there is
not sufficient space for replacement trees or
where property owners do want to replace
the tree.
▪ Base fee on value as determined by the
Guide for Plant Appraisal (10th Edition
or newer).
● Require that mitigation trees be preserved and
require additional replacement trees if a tree dies
or irreversibly declines.
● Create a tree fund and specify its appropriate
uses.

Additional Discussion and Justification
For some communities, replacement is the primary avenue for mitigating the loss of a tree. For large trees, a one-to-one replacement ratio does not adequately make up for the loss of the tree. Staff report that approximately 50% of heritage trees that are removed are replaced with at least one tree.

In the City of Palo Alto, the replacement standard is determined by the canopy of the tree that was removed. For example, a tree that was removed with a canopy of four to nine feet across, the 35 Chapter 12–Preservation of Heritage Trees
replacement trees must be the same species (unless determined otherwise by the director) with two 24-inch box trees or one 36-inch box tree. Alternatively, a tree that is removed with a 60-foot canopy spread must be replaced with a combination of both tree canopy and fees based on the value of the tree.

Other benchmark communities have alternative strategies for mitigation through replacement (Table 6). In the City of Mountain View, the replacement standards are not included in the ordinance and “shall be determined by the director upon recommendation of the City Arborist”. In the cities of Pacific Grove, Morro Bay, Monterey, and Half Moon Bay there is a requirement for a replacement of one to one. In the City of Monterey, “[a]pplications approved by the Community Development Department or by the Appeals Hearing Board upon appeal or referral from the City Forester, or as part of concurrent development application, shall be subject to conditions that require up to three replacement trees for each removal…”. In the City of Pacific Grove, “the City Arborist or designee shall inspect replacement trees during the first two years after planting to monitor survivability and growth… and [d]ead trees or trees in an irreversible decline shall be replaced… [a] new species and replacement planting location may be agreed to at that time.” In Morro Bay, if a person fails to plant a replacement tree or fails to comply with the requirements of the planning commission, the director of public services may perform such tasks as are required, and the cost thereof shall be assessed to such person.

Table 22: Summary of Benchmark Communities Replacement Requirements and In Lieu Fees City/Town
Palo AltoLos GatosRosevilleMountain ViewPacific GroveMorro BayMontereyHalf Moon Bay Tree Replacement Requirement Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Permits In Lieu Fees Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
In-lieu fees are permitted in seven out of eight of the benchmark communities in instances where a replacement tree cannot be planted on site. In-lieu fees are determined in these communities either by a value determined by Council Resolution, the director, or based on the value of the tree. These in lieu fees can be deposited into a dedicated account or “Tree Fund'' that is dedicated for the use of tree planting and maintenance and/or the acquisition of forested lands through direct purchase of conservation easements.

Because Pacifica’s ordinance does not explicitly require mitigation measures, presumably there is no replacement of trees that are being removed, either legally or illegally, which is resulting in losses in canopy and benefits. While, adopting a one-to-one replacement policy is easy to remember and apply, as previously noted, it generally does not remediate the loss in canopy from the removal of a large mature tree. Alternatively, the challenge with Mountain View’s policy is that the replacement measures are based on the judgment of the City Arborist, which introduces subjectivity into the determination of mitigation measures.

Stakeholders suggested plant-back deposits as an alternative to in lieu fees. Plant-back deposits are required at the time of application for removal permits. Applicants are refunded the deposited amount if a specified number of trees are planted to replace the removed tree. Stakeholders suggested that this measure would require less oversight than other measures. The advantage of plant-back deposits Chapter 12–Preservation of Heritage Trees 36
is that if a property owner replaces the tree that is proposed for removal, they have an opportunity to get their deposit back and if a property owner does not replace the tree, the City will have already collected funds to plant a tree elsewhere in the community. However, the plant-back deposit presents several challenges, including:
● Deposit may only fund the planting of one tree, where to sufficiently replace large mature trees would require the planting of multiple trees.
● Property owners may not select the best landscape stock available and/or not plant the replacement tree(s) properly, which can result in poor outcomes. ● Property owners could recover the deposit and thereafter allow the trees to die.

All reasons for which a plant-back deposit is not recommended.

Plant-back deposits are not recommended.
37 Chapter 14–Maintenance and Preservation of City Trees Chapter 14–Maintenance and Preservation
of City Trees
The community recognizes that City trees are a valued resource, a vital component of the urban infrastructure, and part of the City’s identity. Yet, currently, there are no protections for City trees that do not meet the definition of heritage tree. As a result, residents can remove trees without obtaining permission or seeking feedback from the greater community.

General Chapter Recommendations
Table 23: Key Challenges/Opportunities and Recommendations for Chapter 14 Key Challenges/Opportunities Recommendations
● City trees that do not meet the definition of
heritage tree are not protected, thereby there are
no consequences for persons if they were to
remove or irreparably prune City trees that do
not meet that definition.
● Change chapter title.
● Protect all City trees by prohibiting harm,
including, but not limited to: injuring the bark;
carving; attaching any signs or injurious material
to any street tree; allow deleterious substances
harmful to trees to come in contact with the
roots, leaves, barks, or any part of any tree; or
construct concreate, asphalt or brick paving, or
fill up the ground area so that air is shut off from
air, light, or water from its roots.
● Protect and maintain all City trees, by prohibiting
persons from removing or pruning all City trees
without first obtaining a permit.

Additional Discussion and Justification
While staff report that 80 to 90% of City trees meet the current definition, the City should also protect younger trees and provide the opportunity for those trees to reach maturity. As older, failing trees are removed and replaced, this will become more critical.

Scope and Intent
Sec. 4-14.01. - City tree maintenance and preservation—Scope and intent.

It is the intent and policy of the City of Pacifica to protect and maintain the unique and characteristic arboreal landscape of the City by employing and using healthy urban forest management practices with respect to the selection and maintenance of City trees. To accomplish this, the City may, as specified in this chapter, prepare, adopt and use written guidelines and policies for healthy urban forest management, and may amend such policies from time to time as necessary. With or without such guidelines, however, the City's urban forest management operations shall be consistent with the following:

Chapter 14–Maintenance and Preservation of City Trees 38 (a) Urban forest management should be conducted with the control or supervision of- or consultation with- persons who have professional credentials or other expertise to qualify as urban foresters or arborists;
(b) A plan for methodical, periodic inspection, care, and maintenance of City trees should be used.

Such processes should include a means of prioritizing inspection, monitoring and maintenance frequency based upon the recommendations of the Director of Public Works or his or her designee; (c) Staff should provide for the ability to review and respond to emergency tree maintenance requests related to the maintenance of City trees;
(d) Staff should seek to select, situate and maintain City trees in such a manner as to seek to minimize hazards, hardscape damage and maintenance costs, while protecting and encouraging healthy urban forestry;
(e) Practical field procedures and measuring guidelines should be used to determine whether any tree will be maintained by the City as a City tree.

The scope and intent of Chapter 14, provides a thorough explanation of the purpose of the chapter and provides the ability for the City to “...prepare, adopt and use written guidelines and policies for healthy urban forest management, and may amend such policies from time to time as necessary...”.

Recommendations
Table 24: Key Challenges/Opportunities and Recommendations for Section 4-14.01 Key Challenges/Opportunities Recommendations
● Professional credential does not include an ISA
certification.
● Sec. 4-14.01 subsection b and c, lack clarity and
do not specify that such action must happen.
● Require ISA certification as part of the
professional credential.
● Revise language to clarify requirements.

Additional Discussion and Justification
Section 4-14.01 subsection (a) does not provide any specific professional credentials that would qualify a person as an urban forester or arborist.

City Tree Maintenance and Preservation
Sec. 4-14.02. - City tree maintenance and preservation—Policy and procedures.

The preservation and maintenance of City trees shall be managed and conducted by the Department of Public Works. The Director of the Department of Public Works, or his/her designee (hereinafter, the "Director"), shall have the authority to adopt written policies and procedures for proper urban forest management consistent with the guidelines set forth in Section 4-14.01 of this chapter. Such written measures may be amended, appended, modified or revoked from time to time, in writing, by the Director or his/her designee, who shall, within five (5) working days of signing and adopting such measures, make such measures available to the public by depositing a copy of same with the office of the City Clerk. 39 Chapter 14–Maintenance and Preservation of City Trees Section 4-14.02 defines the policies and procedures as it pertains to “City trees”, including designating the Director of Public Works as having the authority over such trees.

Recommendations
Table 25: Key Challenges/Opportunities and Recommendations for Section 4-14.02 Key Challenges/Opportunities Recommendations
● Responsibilities of the City are not defined.
● Responsibilities of the Director are not defined.
● Responsibilities of adjacent property owners are
not defined.
● Rename the section.
● Define the City’s responsibilities for the care and
maintenance of City trees.
● Define the responsibilities of adjacent property
owners.
● Define the responsibilities of the Director.
● Add and define all prohibited actions, including
topping, poisoning, etc.
● Establish a risk tolerance level.
● Tree risk determinations and recommendations
for removal should be completed by a City
Arborist or an independent contractor that does
not benefit from the removal.
● Consider alternative mitigation measures to
removal where possible.

Additional Discussion and Justification
Compared to the benchmark communities, Pacifica lacks specific mention of the duties and responsibilities of the Director, including the planting, maintenance, and removal of City trees, with the exception of Half Moon Bay, where maintenance and repairs are the responsibility of the adjacent property owner. The City of Mountain View has a separate section, which designates the “owners of private property shall be responsible for watering street trees … in streets, parkways or other public places abutting such private property…”
Because the current ordinance does not define the responsibilities of the Director and the adjacent property owner, expectations and responsibilities are not clear to the public in terms of the care and maintenance of City trees. Additionally, some duties might be assumed to be the responsibility of the adjacent property owner, which can result in improper or excessive pruning of City trees, including “topping”. Topping is an especially harmful pruning practice, as it involves cutting back large-diameter branches or truncating the main stem, which can make a tree unsafe as well as more vulnerable to pests and pathogens. The growth response typical of a topped tree results in poor branch attachments that present a hazard to public safety.

Definitions of Terminology
Chapter 14 currently does not have any section with definitions for terminology used within the chapter, although “Director” and “City tree” are defined within some of the consecutive sections.

Chapter 14–Maintenance and Preservation of City Trees 40 Recommendations
Table 26: Key Challenges/Opportunities and Recommendations for Definitions of Terminology Key Challenges/Opportunities Recommendations
● No section with definitions for terminology used
within the chapter currently exists.
● Add a section with definitions.
◦ Define Director
◦ Define prohibited acts
◦ Define other terms as needed
Additional Discussion and Justification
The addition of a “Definitions” section would provide greater clarity and improve readability and understanding of the entirety of the chapter. All of the benchmark communities, excluding Monterey, have a definition section to accompany the chapters that relate to City trees. Providing the definition of “City Tree” early in the chapter would improve the readers’ understanding of what constitutes a City tree and how the ordinance is applied to such trees.

City Tree Maintenance and Preservation Policies/Procedures Sec. 4-14.03. - Absence of alternative written City tree maintenance and preservation policies and procedures.
(a) Unless and until such written procedures as set forth in Section 4-14.02 of this chapter are adopted in the manner described in this chapter, the Department of Public Works shall operate in a manner consistent with the goals set forth in Section 4-14.01 "City tree maintenance and preservation— Scope and intent," and shall use the following interim best field practices and procedures when administering the City tree maintenance and preservation program:
(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of the Code, and for purposes of this chapter only, "City trees" are those trees which:
(i) are located on City-owned property, or on property on which the City has an easement or other property interest;
(ii) are not located in areas otherwise prescribed by law, contract, conditions of approval, or similar requirement or obligation to be the responsibility of adjacent property owners, leaseholders, or other public agencies or their respective tenants; and (iii) meet at least one of the criteria set forth in subsections (a)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section.
(2) Absent new or amended procedures resulting from the adoption of tree maintenance and preservation policies and procedures as set forth in Section 4-14.02 of this chapter, the field method to be employed by the Director or his/her designees for determining whether a tree is a City tree for maintenance purposes will be as follows:
(i) Sidewalk: Four (4) feet. When a sidewalk abuts private property, and there is no delineated planting strip as described in this chapter, the field measurement shall be four (4) feet, starting from the edge of the sidewalk closest to the abutting property, measured in a straight perpendicular line towards the property or residence, up to the 41 Chapter 14–Maintenance and Preservation of City Trees center of the trunk of any existing tree. Any tree with a center which is located within the four (4) foot measurement shall be deemed a City tree for maintenance purposes; (ii) Planting strip or greenbelt: No measurement. Occasionally, trees are located in planting strips which run between the street and the sidewalk. When a planting strip or greenbelt area exists between a public street and a sidewalk abutting a private property or residence, no measurement shall be taken. Trees located in this planting strip are designated as City trees for maintenance purposes, and trees located between the strip and the abutting property or residence are not City trees; (iii) No sidewalk (curb only): Four (4) feet. When there is only a curb abutting private property, but no sidewalk, and no delineated planting strip, the field measurement shall be four (4) feet, starting from the edge of the curb closest to the abutting property, measured in a straight perpendicular line towards the property or residence, up to the center of the trunk of any existing tree. Any tree with a center which is located within the four (4) foot measurement shall be deemed a City tree for maintenance purposes; (iv) No sidewalk or curb: Four (4) feet from street. When there is no sidewalk, and no curb, and no delineated planting strip, the field measurement shall be four (4) feet, starting from the edge of the asphalt of the City Street (notwithstanding any additional subsequent asphalt, paving or hardscaping installed), measured in a straight perpendicular line towards the property or residence, up to the center of the trunk of any existing tree. Any tree with a center which is located within the four (4) foot measurement shall be deemed a City tree for maintenance purposes. (3) The designation of any tree as a City tree means only that the City will include such tree in its maintenance and evaluation schedule—it does not create any additional rights, responsibilities, liabilities or presumptions on the part of the City. Moreover, the inclusion of any City tree in the "maintenance and evaluation schedule," as described in this chapter, means simply that the Director or his designee shall decide when, if, and how such a tree will be maintained in such a manner as to be consistent with intent and scope of this chapter as set forth in Section 4-14.01 (a) through (e) of this chapter. This may include, as determined by the Director or his/her designee, such maintenance program decisions as: the health or viability of a City tree; the maintenance schedule—if any—for a designated tree; whether and how a tree should be pruned or trimmed, and when; whether and how a tree should be removed, replanted or relocated; or, any other matter related to the care, placement, pruning, removal, relocation of any City tree.

Section 4-14.03 is subtitled “Absence of alternative written City tree maintenance and preservation policies and procedures”, but primarily defines what constitutes a “City Tree” and if and how a “City Tree” will be maintained.

Recommendations
Table 27: Key Challenges/Opportunities and Recommendations for Section 4-14.03 Key Challenges/Opportunities Recommendations
● Section title does not reflect content. ● Change section title.

Chapter 14–Maintenance and Preservation of City Trees 42 Key Challenges/Opportunities Recommendations
● Trees may be in the rights-of-way, but the
current parameters that define a “City tree” do
not include many of these trees and therefore
the City does not maintain them, but the trees
are technically on public property.
● Section has a lot of information that is not
appropriate for an ordinance and should be
included in the Framework for Street Tree
Maintenance and Tree Removal.
● Explore alternative methodologies for defining
the City’s rights-of-way to easily identify, City
trees planted within the rights-of-way.
● Replace section with “Framework for Street Tree
Maintenance and Removal”.

Additional Discussion and Justification
Staff noted that the parameters set forth are used to determine if trees are City trees. While the rightsof-way is generally accepted to be 40 feet from the center of the roadway, in many instances this does not represent the as-built reality in the older parts of town. In these instances, staff rely on the rule of four feet from the edge of asphalt to identify City trees. The use of four feet in Section 4-14.03, 2 i, iii, and iv often does not account for trees that are beyond four feet but are still technically in the rightsof-way.

Tree Planting
Currently, there is no requirement for residents to request permission for planting trees in the public rights-of-way. Historically, there have been trees planted by both the City and residents that have resulted in trees being planted in the rights-of-way that are poorly suited for the local climate or the individual sites.

Recommendations
Table 28: Key Challenges/Opportunities and Recommendations for Tree Planting Key Challenges/Opportunities Recommendations
● With no requirement for residents to seek
permission for planting trees in the rights-ofway, there is potential for inappropriate species to be planted in poor locations.
● Require residents to submit a tree planting
application to obtain permission from the
Director for the planting of trees in the rights-ofway.

Additional Discussion and Justification
The practice of installing the optimal species for a particular planting site is known as the “Right Tree, Right Place”. This philosophy considers the mature stature of a particular species and the effects of tree growth on existing and planned utilities, existing landscape, and other infrastructure. Factors to consider include, planter size, soil characteristics, water needs, as well as the intended role and characteristics of the species. By considering the long-term consequences of planting a particular tree in a particular place, conflicts and premature removal of trees can be avoided.

To reinforce planting the right tree in the right place, the use of tree planting permits will provide an opportunity for residents to communicate a desire for trees and also give the City an opportunity to review such requests and provide direction for appropriate species and placement. 43 Ordinance No. 636-C.S. and No. 673 C.S.

Ordinance No. 636-C.S. and No. 673 C.S.

An Urgency Ordinance of the City of Pacifica Pursuant to Government Code Section 36937(b) Imposing Prohibition of Logging Operations within the City of Pacifica The City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby ordain as follows:

Section 1. The City Council has directed the City Manager to develop a comprehensive approach to regulating logging operations in the City of Pacifica. Logging operations are hereby defined as any removal, destruction or harvesting of twenty (20) or more trees within one (1) year from any parcel or contiguous parcels in the same ownership within the City of Pacifica. Tree is hereby defined as any tree six (6) inches across the diameter as measured twelve (12) inches from the ground.

Section 2. The City manager is currently studying tree harvesting and tree removal regulations in order to develop a comprehensive regulatory program to address logging operations in the City of Pacifica.

Section 3. Adoption of ordinances or resolutions regulating logging operations is necessary in order to preserve valuable resources which could be jeopardized by the indiscriminate removal or destruction of trees and tree communities in the city of Pacifica.

Section 4. Allowing logging operations to be conducted in the City of Pacifica prior to completion of this process would conflict with the purposes of these regulations. The city Council finds that there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety or welfare as there has been evidence submitted to the City which indicates that logging operations will be undertaken which if left unregulated could have the potential for creating the following negative consequences:
(a) Change in soil conditions, resulting in modified biological activity and erosion of soils; (b) Creation of increased susceptibility of flood hazards; (c) Increased risk of landslides;
(d) Increased cost of construction and maintenance of drainage system through increased flow and diversion of surface waters.

Section 5. There is hereby adopted a prohibition of logging operations as herein above defined within the City of Pacifica.

Section 6. This ordinance is hereby declared to be an urgency measure pursuant to Government Code Section 36937 (b) and shall take effect immediately after its adoption.

Section 7. This ordinance shall be published once in the Pacifica Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Pacifica within fifteen (15) days after its passage and shall become effective immediately upon its adoption.

Ordinance No. 636-C.S. and No. 673 C.S. 44
Ordinance No. 673-CS
An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Amending Ordinance No. 636-C.S.

The City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby ordain as follows:

Section 1. Ordinance No. 636-C.S. is hereby amended by adding Section 5(a) to read as follows:
(a) Said operations are in conjunction with a city permit(s) requiring Planning Commission and/or City Council approval, at which time said operations shall be evaluated and approved or denied at a duly noticed public hearing by the Commission and/or Council, concurrently with the other permit(s);
(b) Said operations are necessary immediately for the safety of life or property, as determined by the Director of Public Works or his/her designee;
(c) Said operations occur on City-owned property and are necessary immediately to maintain public health and safety;
Section 2. Within fifteen (15) days after adoption of this ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause a summary of this ordinance to be published in the Pacific Tribute, a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Pacifica, and shall post a certified copy of the full text of this ordinance in the office of the city clerk, together with the names of those who voted for or against it.

Section 3. This Ordinance shall be effective thirty (30) days following the date of its adoption.

Originally adopted in 1995, Ordinance No. 636-C.S. bans all logging operations as defined as “any removal, destruction or harvesting of twenty (20) or more trees within one (1) year from any parcel or contiguous parcels in the same ownership within the City of Pacifica”. The purpose of No. 636-C.S. is stated to be “necessary in order to preserve valuable resources which could be jeopardized by the indiscriminate removal or destruction of trees and tree communities”. Later in 1999, Ordinance No. 673-C.S. was adopted to amend Ordinance No. 636-C.S. to allow for “logging operations'' if “...operations are in conjunction with a City permit…[or]... are necessary immediately for the safety of life or property… [or]...operations occur on City-owned property and are necessary immediately to maintain public health and safety”. The purpose of the amendment of Ordinance No. 636-C.S. with the adoption of No. 673-C.S. is not stated.
45 Ordinance No. 636-C.S. and No. 673 C.S.

General Recommendations
Table 29: Key Challenges/Opportunities and Recommendations for Ordinance No. 636 C.S. and No. 673 C.S.

Key Challenges/Opportunities Recommendations
● Purpose of Ordinance No. 673-C.S. is not
explicitly stated.
● Ordinance No. 636-C.S. and No. 673-C.S. are
listed in municipal code but cannot actually be
read.
● Ordinances provide protections for very small,
groves of trees that are otherwise not protected
through Chapter 12.
● Repeal both Ordinance No. 636-C.S. and No.
673-C.S..
◦ Add important protections for very small,
groves of trees, which are currently protected
through the “logging ordinance” to Chapter

12. ● If ordinances are to remain, the ordinances
should be accessible like the rest of municipal
code.

Additional Discussion and Justification
Ordinance No. 636-C.S. and No. 673-C.S. are both listed in Table 2 of the appendix of municipal code, which per Section 1-1.07 is for ordinance “...relating to matters of a special or temporary nature...” and are not codified by are to remain in effect. Although both ordinances are listed in the table, there is no way to read the ordinances online like the rest of the Municipal Code.

Ordinance No. 636-C.S. and No. 673 C.S. 46
The “Logging Ordinance” defines logging operations as “any removal, destruction or harvesting of twenty or more trees within one year from any parcel or contiguous parcels in the same ownership within the City of Pacifica.
47 Other Stakeholder Concerns Not Related to Ordinance Revisions Other Stakeholder Concerns Not Related
to Ordinance Revisions
Some stakeholders had concerns about the Pacifica’s trees or urban forestry program but were not or cannot be addressed or are not recommended. The following summarizes these other concerns:

Tree City Pacifica recommends that the City adopt a canopy cover goal of 30%. In recognition of the benefits of trees and tree canopy, many communities are setting canopy cover goals. According to the United States Forest Service Urban Tree Canopy in California Tool, Pacifica has a canopy cover of 19.5% (2018). Canopy goals can be beneficial for recognizing the importance of preserving and enhancing tree canopy. Setting a canopy goal should be based on a comprehensive land cover analysis that considers both existing land cover (tree canopy, impervious surfaces, pervious surfaces, and open water) and available planting space, as well as community support for a specific level of canopy. While some communities have codified canopy goals, DRG recommends that this goal should be stated in an Urban Forest Master Plan or other long-term planning document2.

Overall, stakeholders were concerned about the lack of awareness of the ordinances. Suggestions to address this issue included having an FAQ on the Public Works webpage regarding the heritage trees and City trees.

The City does not currently have a Certified Arborist on staff. Without an arborist on staff, there may be a lack of oversight over contracted maintenance services. Because permit applications require review from the Director, having a Certified Arborist on staff would support more critical review of arborist reports submitted with applications. Alternatively, the City could have an on-call contract arborist to fulfill these duties. By contracting out this position, the City would benefit from the value of the expert opinion and have the flexibility that comes with not having to employee a full-time position.

Historically the hillsides adjacent to Pacifica were dominated mostly by grasslands with few trees. Over time, hillsides have transitioned to a dense forest of eucalyptus, cypress, pines, and acacia species.

Some of these species are known to be particularly flammable. With heightened awareness of wildfire, the wildland urban interface (WUI), the area where houses meet or intermingle with undeveloped wildland vegetation, is a focus for fuels management and the development of a fire safe community.

Recently, San Mateo County issued a temporary exemption to property owners in unincorporated areas of the county to not pay the tree-removal permit fee (property owners still must submit an application) for certain species of trees located within 100-feet of homes or 30-feet of an escape route on public or private property. Urgency ordinances may be adopted pursuant to Government Code section 36937 and take effect immediately, if it is an ordinance that is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, containing a declaration of the facts constituting the urgency, and is passed by a four-fifths vote of the City Council. This authority may be applied to not only address fire hazards, but also other threats, such as the introduction of a pest or disease. With this comes some flexibility for the City to respond quickly to safety concerns. 2 Among benchmark communities, Pacific Grove is the only community that states a canopy goal within the municipal code.

Other Stakeholder Concerns Not Related to Ordinance Revisions 48 Table 30: Other Key Challenges and Opportunities for Urban Forestry Management with Recommendations for Improvement
Key Challenges/Opportunities Recommendations
● Tree City Pacifica recommends a canopy cover
goal of 30%.
● Lack of awareness of the Chapter 12 and Chapter
14 of Municipal Code.
● The City does not have a Certified Arborist on
staff.
● Heightened wildfire risk in the WUI.
● Complete a comprehensive land cover analysis
to determine potential canopy cover.
● Solicit feedback from the community about
desired tree canopy cover levels.
● Establish a tree canopy cover goal outside of
Municipal Code.
● Promote awareness of Chapter 12 and 14 of
Municipal Code.
● Employ a Certified Arborist on staff.
◦ Alternatively, contract an on-call arborist to
fulfill the roles and responsibilities of a City
Arborist.
49 Appendix A: Tree Protection Zones
Appendix A: Tree Protection Zones
Appendix A: Tree Protection Zones 50
51 Appendix A: Tree Protection Zones
Table 31: Common Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) Areas
Trunk Diameter
(Measured at 4.5 feet, inches) Diameter*1.5 ft Diameter*2 ft Radius of TPZ (ft) Area of TPZ
(ft²)
0 to 4 inches - - 6 113
5 7.5 - 7.5 177
6 9.00 - 9 254
7 10.50 - 10.5 346
8 12.00 - 12 452
9 13.50 - 13.5 573
10 15.00 - 15 707
11 16.50 - 16.5 855
12 18.00 - 18 1,018
13 19.50 - 19.5 1,195
14 21.00 - 21 1,385
15 22.50 - 22.5 1,590
16 24.00 - 24 1,810
17 25.50 - 25.5 2,043
18 27.00 - 27 2,290
19 28.50 - 28.5 2,552
20 30.00 - 30 2,827
21 31.50 - 31.5 3,117
22 33.00 - 33 3,421
23 34.50 - 34.5 3,739
24 36.00 - 36 4,072
25 - 50 50 7,854
26 - 52 52 8,495
27 - 54 54 9,161
28 - 56 56 9,852
29 - 58 58 10,568
30 - 60 60 11,310
31 - 62 62 12,076
32 - 64 64 12,868
33 - 66 66 13,685
34 - 68 68 14,527
35 - 70 70 15,394
36 - 72 72 16,286
37 - 74 74 17,203
38 - 76 76 18,146
39 - 78 78 19,113
40 - 80 80 20,106
41 - 82 82 21,124
42 - 84 84 22,167
43 - 86 86 23,235
Appendix A: Tree Protection Zones 52
Trunk Diameter
(Measured at 4.5 feet, inches) Diameter*1.5 ft Diameter*2 ft Radius of TPZ (ft) Area of TPZ
(ft²)
44 - 88 88 24,328
45 - 90 90 25,447
46 - 92 92 26,590
47 - 94 94 27,759
48 - 96 96 28,953
49 - 98 98 30,172
50 - 100 100 31,416
51 - 102 102 32,685
52 - 104 104 33,979
53 - 106 106 35,299
54 - 108 108 36,644
55 - 110 110 38,013
56 - 112 112 39,408
57 - 114 114 40,828
58 - 116 116 42,273
59 - 118 118 43,744
60 - 120 120 45,239
61 - 122 122 46,759
62 - 124 124 48,305
63 - 126 126 49,876
64 - 128 128 51,472
65 - 130 130 53,093
66 - 132 132 54,739
67 - 134 134 56,410
68 - 136 136 58,107
69 - 138 138 59,828
70 - 140 140 61,575
71 - 142 142 63,347
72 - 144 144 65,144
73 - 146 146 66,966
74 - 148 148 68,813
75 - 150 150 70,686
76 - 152 152 72,583
77 - 154 154 74,506
78 - 156 156 76,454
79 - 158 158 78,427
80 - 160 160 80,425
81 - 162 162 82,448
82 - 164 164 84,496
83 - 166 166 86,570
84 - 168 168 88,668
85 - 170 170 90,792
53 Appendix A: Tree Protection Zones
Trunk Diameter
(Measured at 4.5 feet, inches) Diameter*1.5 ft Diameter*2 ft Radius of TPZ (ft) Area of TPZ
(ft²)
86 - 172 172 92,941
87 - 174 174 95,115
88 - 176 176 97,314
89 - 178 178 99,538
90 - 180 180 101,788
91 - 182 182 104,062
92 - 184 184 106,362
93 - 186 186 108,687
94 - 188 188 111,036
95 - 190 190 113,411
96 - 192 192 115,812
97 - 194 194 118,237
98 - 196 196 120,687
99 - 198 198 123,163
100 - 200 200 125,664
Appendix B: Industry Standards 54
Appendix B: Industry Standards
ANSI Z133 Safety Standard, 2017 reviews general safety, electrical hazards, use of vehicles and mobile equipment, portable power hand tools, hand tools and ladders, climbing, and work procedures.

ANSI A300 standards represent the industry consensus on performing tree care operations. The standards can be used to prepare tree care contract specifications.

ANSI A300 Pruning Standard - Part 1, 2017
ANSI A300 Construction Management Standard - Part 5, 2012 ANSI A300 Integrated Vegetation Management Standard - Part 7, 2012 ANSI A300 Root Management Standard - Part 8, 2013
ANSI A300 Tree Risk Assessment Standard a Tree Failure - Part 9, 2017 55 Appendix C: Community Engagement
Appendix C: Community Engagement
Virtual Community Meeting
Figure 1 Should the definition of “heritage tree” be more specifically defined? Figure 2: Should there be an additional definition for “protected tree”? Figure 3: Should the City adopt the industry standard for measuring tree diameter at 54-inch above ground?
Yes

87.0%
No
0%
Not sure

13.0%
Yes

77.0%
No

8.0%
Not sure

15.0%
Yes

69.0%
No

8.0%
Not sure

23.0%
Appendix C: Community Engagement 56
Figure 4: Should an arborist report be required when a request for removal of a protected tree is based on health, pest/pathogen, and/or when a tree is a heritage tree? Figure 5: What revisions should be made (if any) to the notification process? Figure 6: Should staff study ways to de-incentivized illegal tree removals? Website notification

45.6%
300-foot notification
radius

32.0% No revisions are needed

8.8%
Other

13.6%
Yes

88.0%
No

6.0%
Not sure

6.0%
Yes

76.0%
No

6.0%
Not sure

18.0%
57 Appendix C: Community Engagement
Figure 7: Should staff review establishment of a Tree Fund? Figure 8: Should Pacifica require a 2:1 replacement for the removal of an otherwise healthy heritage/protected/City tree?
Figure 9: Should staff review establishing a process for maintenance of replacement trees? Yes

88.0%
No

6.0%
Yes

88.0%
No

6.0%
Not sure

6.0%
Yes

73.7%
No

13.1%
Not sure

13.1%
Appendix C: Community Engagement 58
Figure 10: Should staff review establishing in-lieu fees for trees not replaced on site? Figure 11: What is your level of satisfaction with the current care of street trees? Completely satisfied
0%
Somewhat satisfied

11.9%
Unsure/Need
more
information

17.8%
Somewhat dissatisfied

58.4%
Completely dissatisfied

11.9%
Yes

88.0%
No

6.0%
Not sure

6.0%
59 Appendix C: Community Engagement
Rotary Club Meeting
Figure 12: Should the definition of “heritage tree” be more specifically defined? Figure 13: Should there be an additional definition for “protected tree”? Figure 14: Should the City adopt the industry standard for measuring tree diameter at 54-inch above ground?
Yes

87.5%
No

12.5%
Yes

81.3%
No

12.5%
Not Sure

6.3%
Not Sure

8.3%
Yes

91.7%
Appendix C: Community Engagement 60
Figure 15: Should staff study ways to de-incentivize illegal tree removals? Figure 16: Should staff review establishment of a Tree Fund? Figure 17: Should staff review establishing in-lieu fees for trees not replaced on-site? Yes

81.3%
No

18.8%
Not Sure
0%
Yes

53.3%
No

40.0%
Not Sure

6.7%
Yes

87.5% No

12.5%
Not Sure
0%
61 Appendix C: Community Engagement
Figure 18: Should Pacifica require a 2:1 replacement for the removal of an otherwise healthy heritage/protected/City tree?
Figure 19: Should an arborist report be required when a request for removal of a protected tree is based on health, pest/pathogen, and/or when a tree is a heritage tree? Figure 20: What revisions should be made (if any) to the notification process? Yes

60.0%
No

33.3%
Not Sure

6.7%
Yes

60.0%
No

26.7%
Not Sure

13.3%
Other

11.8%
No revisions are
needed

23.5%
300-foot radius

29.4%
Website notification

35.3%
Appendix C: Community Engagement 62
Figure 21: What is your level of satisfaction with the current care of street trees? Online Survey Results
Figure 22: Prior to this survey, what was your awareness of Title 4, Chapter 12: Preservation of Heritage Trees of the Pacifica Municipal Code
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Other (please specify)
I have implemented a tree protection plan for a heritage tree during construction
I have appealed a permit regarding a heritage tree
I did not know the City had an ordinance to protect heritage trees
I have applied for a permit to remove a heritage tree
I knew the City had an ordinance to protect heritage trees Number of Responses
Completely satisfied
<1%
Completely dissatisfied

6.3%
Somewhat
satisfied

18.8%
Somewhat
dissatisfied

18.8%
Neutral

56.3%
63 Appendix C: Community Engagement
Figure 23: The preservation of heritage trees in Pacifica is important because (select all that apply):

Other (please specify):
• Habitat for the creatures we share this special place with. • Hazards, such as storm and fire hazard must be considered. There should be a plan to remove most eucalyptus, for this reason.
• Heritage trees are important but neighbors who don't have "skin in the game" hold too much sway over the process
• Heritage trees need to include multi stem native trees; The socio-economic benefits are important, but the environmental/ecological benefits are even more important. The true character of Pacifica as a coastal town would be better represented by including as heritage trees the smaller, multi-stemmed native trees
• Heritage trees should apply to native trees, not invasive trees. Monterey pine and Monterey cypress are not native to Pacifica area and should not be considered as heritage trees. • I think there’s a balance between preserving and reality when it comes to power line safety • I would much prefer that you encourage planting of natives and remove invasive non-natives. • Preserve Heritage Trees unless they are High or Severe Risk trees. • Preserve our coastal redwood trees and other native plants and get rid of eucalyptus, Monterey cypress, Monterey pine, English ivy, German ivy, and other invasive non-native plants. • Reasons other than "an Important safety concern" should also be allowed for removal. e.g.

Roots interfering with underground utilities or structures. • Simple beauty of mature specimens
0 50 100 150
Not sure
I do not agree with the preservation of heritage trees
Other (please specify)
Resilience for the community and quality of life in the face of climate change
Heritage trees represent and preserve the character of Pacifica Socioeconomic benefits of tree canopy (improvements to human health, property values, retail, privacy, etc.

I agree with the preservation of heritage trees unless there is an important safety concern with allowing the trees to remain Environmental benefits of tree canopy (improvements to air quality, stormwater management, carbon reduction, energy… Number of Responses
Appendix C: Community Engagement 64
• The scope of reasons for removal need to go beyond safety concerns. Neighboring trees should not be allowed to encroach on private property.
• Trees create habitat diversity for all manner of living things.

Figure 24: What are your top 3 preferred improvements for the heritage tree removal permit process? (choose up to 3)
Other (please specify):
• According to the summary a heritage tree can be on either public or private property. When the City wants to remove such a tree, does it have to go through the permit process as well? What is the transparency level for the City when removing such a tree? • Don’t know enough
• Heritage trees that post a danger to people or buildings should be able to be removed without too much hassle.
• Increase fee; Require more than 1x replacement
• Lower threshold for definition of safety
• More detail on what “substantial pruning” means.
• Not to include eucalyptus, Monterey cypress, Monterey pine as heritage trees. • Our real heritage includes local natives some of which can be 200-300 years old.; Our true heritage should ibclude local natives, usually multi-stemmed, that provide wildlife habitat and 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Less time to file appeals
Works great!
Other (please specify)
More time to file appeals
Too many trees are classified as heritage trees
Require a permit to perform any pruning on a heritage tree More education on how to apply for a permit
More trees should be classified as heritage trees
Greater transparency in the notification process
Clarify criteria for approval or denial of permits
More education on when a permit is needed
Number of Responses
65 Appendix C: Community Engagement
can live 200-300 years. Classifying young , fast growing trees as heritage is a misnomer. ; Our true heritage must include local natives, usually multi-stemmed, that provide wildlife habitat and can live 200-300 years. Classifying young, fast growing trees as "heritage" is a misnomer.

Allowing these older, truly heritage trees to be destroyed without consideration for their ecological value is misguided.; Our true heritage should include local natives, usually multistemmed, that provide wildlife habitat and can live for 200-300 years. Classifying young, fast growing Monterrey pines and cypress as heritage is in accurate. • See recommendations from Tree City Pacifica
• There should be no charge for a permit if the tree is unhealthy or at risk of endangering life/property
• There should be provisions for removing dead trees, we purchased a house with a heritage tree that was dead for 10+ years and we found it annoying to add that cost when we are taking the cost of removing a tree
• Views should be considered a valid reason for tree removal • Waive permit fee for low income seniors
Figure 25: The removal of a heritage tree should require tree replacement (select one):

Yes, number of replacement
trees based on the loss of
canopy, diameter, or in-lieu
fees

36.0%
Not sure/Need more
information

17.0%
No, tree
replacement should
not be required

16.0%
Yes, on a 1:1 ratio
or in-lieu fees

14.0%
Yes, on a 2:1 ratio
or in-lieu fees

13.0% Other
(please
specify)

4.0%
Appendix C: Community Engagement 66
Figure 26: What types of education and public outreach regarding this topic do you prefer? (check all that apply)
Other (please specify):
• A public conversation about trees, and their varied benefits needs to be held. Limiting the definition to a 12" diameter (a very young pine) ignores the many benefits of multi-stem trees.

Arborists often measure the several stems and sum their diameters to allow true evaluation. • City of Pacific friday emails, and Fogfest and other events. • City website
• Explanation on city site
• Heritage tree maps/walks, events celebrating Pacifica’s urban forest, etc • Letters to each household, with directions to more informational resources • Newspaper
• Notices at local ventures, postings near gathering places, letters to households 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
City Website
Other (please specify)
Council study session/public meeting
Online Videos
Informational brochures
City social media accounts (Connect with Pacifica, Facebook, Nextdoor, etc.)
Number of Responses
67 Appendix C: Community Engagement
Figure 27: Describe your interest/involvement with Pacifica’s City trees? (check all that apply) Other (please specify):
• A city tree fell on our house, and another fell on our neighbor’s house the same morning. • Adopt a Pacifica Tree Canopy goal of 30%
• Concerned with lack of tree maintenance have witnessed four large tree limbs come down in public places. This has been in the last 3years. Many of the teees in the Sharp Park area are not maintained and are very large. ; Trees in East Sharp Park are not maintained. Large and heavy branches have come down in public spaces. Thankfully no one was hurt. It could have been indefensible tragedy.
• I am a member of Tree City Pacifica
• I have appealed and prevailed in the preservation of a heritage tree • I have pushed for more street trees with previous City Manager, who said they didn’t grow near the ocean. Wrong.
• I haven't been involved in any community tree events as I haven't heard of any. But I would come out to help remove Ivy or other tree events if offered. • I would like a street tree planted in front of my house • remove eucalyptus from city parks
• Trees in lands expected to be developed need the same or better protections since their removal will have a more drastic effect on wildlife and local ecology.; Trees in lands intended for development need more stringent restrictions since their destruction has a greater effect on local wildlife.
• trees on open space back up to our lot.of our lot ; trees on open space back up to our lot. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
I have planted a tree in the rights-of-way
I have a business that benefits from street trees
I have requested that my street tree be removed
I have requested that my street tree be trimmed
I have pruned the street tree in front of my house/business Other (please specify)
I have volunteered at a tree planting event, such as Arbor Day I have a street tree in front of my house
I have read an article about the Pacifica Heritage Tree Ordinance update in the City newsletter or the Pacifica Tribune
I appreciate City trees and the benefits they provide to the community
Number of Responses
Appendix C: Community Engagement 68
Figure 28: Are City trees adequately managed?
Figure 29: Indicate your level of satisfaction with the current care of street trees.

No

52.0%
Unsure/Need more
information

41.0%
Yes

6.0%
Somewhat
unsatisfied

40.0%
Somewhat satisfied

29.0%
Completely
unsatisfied

12.0%
Completely satisfied

5.0%
Unsure/Need
more
information

14.0%
69 Appendix C: Community Engagement
Table 32: Feel free to add any other comments you have regarding Pacifica’s Urban Forest Feel free to add any other comments you have regarding Pacifica's Urban Forest:

I live in Vallemar our Heritage Palm trees have not been maintained only butchered by PGE. I know they have to be cut because of power lines that should be moved or rerouted, but they have been not maintained by the city as large dead branches that can fall on anyone walking by. Vallemar is one of the great asset of Pacifica we are always forgotten for improvements.

We have a healthy, beautiful heritage tree, which is sometimes badly trimmed by PG&E. We have also paid lots of money to arborists over the years. I would like a summary of what to expect regarding this tree regarding our rights and responsibilities.I don’t want to attend a Zoom meeting.

Let's aim for a 30 percent tree canopy goal; let's make it easy to do the right thing and work with companies that prune or remove trees to ensure they follow the rules.

Pacifica lacks financial resources to maintain urban forest. Funding needs to be a priority. Fewer studies with those funds used for actual maintenance. Pacifica tends to study everything but has no money to implement anything. They don't maintain streets, sidewalks, trees etc. Our property taxes pay for salaries, pensions & studies but few city services.

In the revision, define Heritage Trees as all trees with a trunk 12 inch diameter at 54 inches above native grade. Establish a Tree Fund to support city tree maintenance. Specify that only high and extreme risk trees (as determined on an ISA Basic Tree Risk form) be approved for removal. Adopt a Tree Canopy Goal of 30%.

Thanks for the chance to take this survey and learn more about the heritage tree ordinance. Besides seeing this topic in Connect With Pacifica, it landed on my radar when we saw that Davey recently trimmed the giant, glorious cypress tree near our house, on Salada Ave, adjacent to the south side of the Civic Center campus.

To my eye the trimming seemed drastic and not exactly artfully done. I've been curious about what goes into the decision-making process in such a case. It seems too bad that the majestic spread and reach of the cypress was not maintained in the trimming process. If I had more information about the necessity of trimming it in this way it would help me feel better about it. So yeah, more transparency and education would be great.

Maybe especially to the residents/home-owners on the affected blocks? Many Vallemar trees are very old, uncared for, and dangerous. There are expired removal signs on a few and others are waiting for removal. We have had property damage, power loss, and the inability to drive down our street due to falling branches and limbs. We also have damage due to large roots. It’s just a matter of time before one of these old, large, trees comes down on a home.

Native trees are the only trees that should be protected as heritage trees. Eucalyptus, pine and other large trees that were planted in residential lots should not be protected due to fire risk, ascetics and fall hazard.

Would like more street trees
The city needs to work with PG&E to prevent them from destroying or horribly maiming heritage trees that are in the pathway of a single wire that could otherwise be re-routed. PG&E's tree crews are butchers and are destroying the aesthetics of the neighborhood.

Appendix C: Community Engagement 70
Feel free to add any other comments you have regarding Pacifica's Urban Forest:

Trees on one property that hang over another property need to be safely maintained.

I have no comment to add.
.; It's interesting that you've hired a company that makes its money cutting trees to advise you on this subject.

The city needs to address the large unmanaged eucalyptus forests in city parks and in our neighborhoods.

We may lose house insurance options as insurance companies review wildfire zones. The city could provide funding or rebates for anyone removing these dangerous, invasive trees.

Define heritage trees as all trees which have a trunk with a 12 inch diameter at 54 inches above native grade Protect low and moderate risk trees, and remove high and extreme risk trees (as determined by an ISA Basic Tree Risk Assessment form)
Require replacement trees be equal to the removed canopy within fifteen years (or require the payment of In Lieu fees equal to the value of the heritage tree)
Create a Tree Fund with fees and donations that will be used for the maintenance of city trees Request that tree service companies require a permit before removing a heritage tree (to protect homeowners from fines)
Maintain the logging ordinance that requires mitigation if 20 or more six-inch trees are removed in the process of development
Adopt a Pacifica Tree Canopy Goal of 30%
Allow residents/businesses to "adopt" trees to help maintain them Pacifica"s Urban Forest needs the attention of all Pacificans who benefit daily with every breath they take, It is past due time to step up for trees who are struggling to maintain in the face of climate change. I try to do my part as a TCP volunteer as I am ever grateful to trees as life sustaining friends! Thank you for the survey.

Pacifica needs a Tree Canopy Goal of 30%. Tree service companies should be required to have a permit before removing a heritage tree. Make the fines for removing a Heritage Tree without approval very large - it should be enough that well-off property owners aren’t tempted to just pay it as a “cost of doing business”.

Define heritage trees as all trees which have a trunk with a 12 inch diameter at 54 inches above native grade Protect low and moderate risk trees, and remove high and extreme risk trees (as determined by an ISA Basic Tree Risk Assessment form)
Require replacement trees be equal to the removed canopy within fifteen years (or require the payment of In Lieu fees equal to the value of the heritage tree)
City trees only get care when judged a safety hazard, and past City Managers were ignorant about their value, needs, and specific species appropriate for certain locations. Using a company, Davey’s, that makes most of its money from removing trees, as a consultant, is an unwise conflict of interest. we need to define heritage trees as all trees which have a trunk with a 12 inch diameter at 54 inches above native grade and adopt a Pacifica Tree Canopy Goal of 30%, In addition, create a Tree Fund with fees and donations that will be used for the maintenance of city trees 71 Appendix C: Community Engagement
Feel free to add any other comments you have regarding Pacifica's Urban Forest:

Thank you for keeping the Tree Ordinance strong. It is important to the beauty of Pacifica, and trees combat climate change. I suggest tree services require a permit before removing trees, which would protects homeowners from fines.

Thanks
Create a Tree Fund with fees and donations that will be used for the maintenance of city trees.

Request that tree service companies require a permit before removing a heritage tree (to protect homeowners from fines).

Protect low and moderate risk trees, and remove high and extreme risk trees (as determined by an ISA Basic Tree Risk Assessment form).

Health of trees should be a priority instead of insisting on the preservation of diseased trees despite their fire hazard. Also, PB&R is completely the wrong organization to control this ptocess. Using the term "Heritage" is biased and implies these trees are large and historical, whereas they can actually be fairly small.

Fire safety needs more consideration in heritage tree removal. PB&R is inappropriate to judge. Trees with fatal disease need immediate removal once documented. View should be considered.

The city planning requirements for new projects only require projects to show heritage trees on site plans.

This seems to be a major oversight as groups of multiple trees also require permits for removal. This should be compared to other cities, most of which require all trees to shown that meet certain dBH criteria.

The tree guidelines should also be reflected in the General Plan. The Safety Element says that trees should not be planted on slopes in excess of 50% and I have seen this regulation ignored twice by staff and the Planning Commission in the past year on the Vista Mar and Talbot Avenue projects.

A public hearing to assess the request to remove city trees which have been determined to be a hazard by an independent, licensed arborist should NOT be required. These tress should be included in the same process for heritage tree removal and not subject to City Council review.

Pacifica’s trees Are a valuable resource. They give Pacifica the ambience of Carmel or Pacific Grove. I love the. feeling of living in a natural environment, rather than the concrete jungle of the most cities. Pacifica’s heritage trees are Pacifica’s heritage.

Very concerned about the state of some of the East Sharp park trees. Particularly those on hills with houses directly below and also those in Pomo Park where two very large branches fell (one approximately 25-30’).

I would like to see the Urban Forest managed for health not just ignored unless a hazard or damage occurs.

None
Need better oversight of tree protection in building permit process.

Trim before storms, not during
Appendix C: Community Engagement 72
Feel free to add any other comments you have regarding Pacifica's Urban Forest:

City needs to cut eucalyptus trees especially during the winter when we have storms Jjjjjj
Thanks for doing this!
Public Works is very responsive to issues involving storm-related damaged trees in our neighborhood C
• Request that tree service companies require a permit before removing a heritage tree (to protect homeowners from fines)
• Maintain the logging ordinance that requires mitigation if 20 or more six-inch trees are removed in the process of development
• Adopt a Pacifica Tree Canopy goal of 30%
do not allow trees to be removed until building permit is issued for new construction I am concerned that optimism and wishing for something good is being prioritized over safety. We currently have a neighbor who would like to remonta tree in their own yard but can’t because their other neighbor doesn’t want them to. That seems wrong to me. Just because someone many years ago planted a big tree somewhere, that does not mean it was a wise choice and should be left indefinitely.

I would love to see the promotion and planting of more native trees - the trees climbing up the hills behind our residences concerns me and they will convert the hills to forest when they should be grass and shrub.

As we all know trees sequester CO2. So it is important for city to have as many healthy safely trimmed trees as possible. Heritage tree ordinances prevent unnecessary clearly of trees.

No comment
Trunk diameter should not be the single criteria for a tree to be identified as a Heritage tree. Our much older, native trees are slower growing and provide very important wildlife habitat serving insects, birds and mammals. ; Using only a twelve inch diameter trunk as the single criteria for a heritage trees is a mistake. This limited definition excludes any slower growing native trees with multiple trunks. Local natives provide the best habitat for insects, birds and mammals. Their multiple trunks must be considered as well as their age.; A twelve inch diameter pine can be only 25 years old, hardly "heritage" status.

City street trees should be treated as a special category. Trees on individual properties need different consideration. Trees in lands that are slated for development need other special considerations. One size does NOT fit all
Protect low and moderate risk trees, and remove high and extreme risk trees (as determined by an ISA Basic Tree Risk Assessment form)
More trees, more watering, more care.
73 Appendix C: Community Engagement
Feel free to add any other comments you have regarding Pacifica's Urban Forest:

Pacifica needs MORE trees, and stricter review of removal of any trees.; Pacifica needs more trees. Palmetto design should have included trees. Any beautiful downtown includes a canopy. The Linda Mar median should have trees as wel...

The City needs to increate in-lieu fees; often these become the cheapest way for a developer to meet the terms of an ordinance.

Define heritage trees as all trees which have a trunk with a 12 inch diameter at 54 inches above native grade I moved here for the trees. Please take care of them.
.; no comment
Shen trees are cut down, they should be replaced with new.

Trees that have been here a long time should be preserved and protected on a regular basis. Those trees that are sick, damaged, or dangerous should be removed, but the question is "who determines that". My experience with the city happened a few years back. The house was sold, 9 trees were cut down including heritage tree. When I called the city, I was told it was too late to do anything. In my opinion that was a totally horrible response. There is no sense in that. Was the city too lazy, inept or overwhelmed to seriously deal with that? A stronger tree ordinance needs to be in place to protect our trees in town.

Please stop allowing tree toping it just kills the tree slowly and makes it a hazard later in time.It add no beauty at all to the community. So sad when this is done. Just pay the extra money to remove the tree. Also, 1850 the eucalyptus where brought to California and are now a part of our heritage. Love or hate them they do have a strong history here in the Golden State and should also be protected. Eucalyptus have great value in our community such as: non deciduous and therefore sequester carbon all year round, live longer than 200 years, really, have relatively low fire risk along the coast, support a number of wildlife. Another consideration for the eucalyptus is as the climate changes our native trees are under great stress and therefore all trees that can sequester carbon are very valuable.The list really goes on so please do some unbiased research and include the eucalyptus. There is a single beautiful eucalyptus near the Sanchez Adobe and the diameter is huge. This tree would not be protected once again under the new heritage tree ordinance and it should. It seems as above the diameter has changed from the current diameter of 50 inch. I agree with the 16 inch.

Thank you; Sorry I misunderstood the measurements of a heritage tree. Just to clarify the current ordinance is a trunk with a circumference of fifty (50″) inches (approximately sixteen (16″) inches in diameter) or more, measured at twenty-four (24″) inches above the natural grade. It was my understanding that this was going to be be even bigger. I would disagree with making the dimensions bigger and think the city should consider making the dimensions smaller. Why not follow the states guidelines: the minimum diameter at stump height is the following for the following tree species:
(A) Coast redwood: 42 inches.
(B) Douglas-Fir Douglas-fir: 40 inches.
(C) Giant sequoia or sierra redwood: 50 inches.
(D) Hardwoods: 28 inches.
(E) Port Orford cedar: 28 inches.

Appendix C: Community Engagement 74
Feel free to add any other comments you have regarding Pacifica's Urban Forest:

Replace removed high risk, diseased, or dead trees. When the city does maintenance on City Trees, the city does not often replace them. Anything removed should be promptly replaced by a suitable tree. Otherwise we're just constantly removing trees and not re-populating and keeping Pacifica beautiful.

Define heritage trees as all trees which have a trunk with a 12 inch diameter at 54 inches above native grade Protect low and moderate risk trees, and remove high and extreme risk trees (as determined by an ISA Basic Tree Risk Assessment form)
Require replacement trees be equal to the removed canopy within fifteen years (or require the payment of In Lieu fees equal to the value of the heritage tree)
Create a Tree Fund with fees and donations that will be used for the maintenance of city trees Request that tree service companies require a permit before removing a heritage tree (to protect homeowners from fines)
Maintain the logging ordinance that requires mitigation if 20 or more six-inch trees are removed in the process of development
Adopt a Pacifica Tree Canopy goal of 30%
There was a pine tree in my neighborhood growing in the front yard off Manor within a block of the intersection of Manor and Oceana. The tree had grown tall enough that large branches had rested against the electrical lines for so long that the lines had now become encased by the tree branch. It takes many years for a tree branch to grow around something like a power line. Indicating that nobody was monitoring this tree for some time. In addition to the City, that includes the homeowner and PG&E. When the tree was finally pruned, the small sections of the branches that had enveloped the power line had to be left intact with the line still running through them. The reason I bring this up is because had that tree fallen over in a storm while the power lines still ran through those branches, who knows how many residents would have lost power, and for how long, and how much money that would have cost. Somehow this risk has to be factored into why tree management cannot be an afterthought.

The eucalyptus trees are non-native and dangerous. Especially with increasing fire danger eucalyptus groves need to be removed.

On a separate issue, I once witnessed an appeal at city council where the city tree person said a tree needed to come down on a homeowners property, and the homeowner agreed. A neighbor —who stated that she wouldn’t park her car under the tree during a storm due to danger of it falling— wanted the tree kept up because she loved it. And…city council voted the property owner couldn’t remove the tree. Please, if a tree is dangerous allow it to be removed.

Increase enforcement and penalties for violations; increase funding for tree maintenance; keep the logging ordinance to mitigate for large developments that remove lots of trees Keep up awareness
L
It great to have trees
Let me cut down some of my trees
75 Appendix C: Community Engagement
Feel free to add any other comments you have regarding Pacifica's Urban Forest:

Seems more trees are removed than is warranted - would love to see more redwoods I think it is good to plant more trees in Pacifica. At the same time, we need to be mindful to plant more native trees and to carefully select the locations for plantings so the trees can grow healthy without causing life safety issues, nor block homeowners views.

Keep up the good work….

Private property owners should be allowed to remove heritage trees on their property without restrictions OR THE CITY SHOULD INDEMNIFY THE OWNERS FOR ANY DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE TREE. It's unfair to force an owner to pay for events the City won't allow the owner to prevent.

Monterey Cypress was an unfortunate choice to plant near homes. They are shallow-rooted and dangerous.

We have quite a few around our home and I worry about them. Better maintenance is imperative.

The large forests of eucalyptus trees are a danger to the neighborhoods, especially Oddstad park. These trees show be removed and replaced with more appropriate species.; The eucalyptus groves are non-native, invasive and a fire risk. They should all be removed. My insurance company considers our neighborhood a wildfire risk because of this. My premiums will go up or I might lose coverage. Apparently, the state might create it's own insurance pool to cover cities like ours.; I am hoping that the City will provide a list of tree species that we should adopt. The eucalyptus should be banned. They poison the ground beneath them, so only more eucalyptus can grow, crowding out native species that wildlife depend on... Nothing eats eucalyptus but fire! And... they require large amounts of water, stealing water from the surrounding forest.

If the city and the homeowner agreed that a tree that is either on the homeowner's property or in front of the homeowner property (city tree) is prone to falling, then it should be removed without interference from a third party.

On the other hand, if a tree that is not on the homeowner's property, but may potentially be dangerous and may fall on the homeowner's property, it seems the city should be able to help convince the tree owner to trim and lower the tree height to offset future danger of falling onto the homeowner's property.

I think the various districts of Pacifica should not be considered by "one size fits all". There is a diverse range in the character of the different neighborhoods. (e.g. Sharp Park with its old and iconic cypress trees; Vallemar with with its palms; and several neighborhoods with relatively few trees); As a resident of Sharp Park, I am VERY away of our number of Heritage Trees, particularly the old Cypress that give such character to our neighborhood. There are problems however. MANY of the trees are not attractive because they have not been cared for and pruned well. Also many of the oldest trees (over 100 years) may damage street walks, driveways, and clog sewer lines with their roots. We need to develop a long-term plan for our cypress trees.

If cared for and pruned well, they can be beautiful. But how do we develop a public-private partnership and fund professional to prune our iconic trees on both public and private land, and along the highway. The replacement of old trees with young ones is also something that deserves thoughtful consideration.

On another topic, much the city's "urban forest" is actually land at the interface of wildland and houses.

Too many of Pacifica's homes lie VERY close to stands of eucalyptus that are at risk of fire. Who will thin these "forests" and clear out the undergrowth/debris so our neighborhoods are safer. Again, this is likely something that needs to be a public-private partnership. Funding will be a challenge.

Appendix C: Community Engagement 76
Feel free to add any other comments you have regarding Pacifica's Urban Forest:

No questions have been asked regarding heritage trees on private property, e.g. , have I paid for tree maintenance? How much does it cost? (About $1500 every couple years). The cypress trees need maintaining and is $$ available for owners who cannot afford the $$ for maintenance? Does PGE do maintenance when tombs reach power lines? Poorly. See tree resting on wires at 110 Hilton Lane. ; Any support for homeowners who must maintain heritage trees? Cypress are expensive to maintain. Not everyone can afford to have the maintenance done.

It would be nice if Pacifica had the funds to maintain the trees. They are such an asset. I realize voters did not support a larger tree budget so they are limited in what they can do. They do a good job with the budget they have but so much more needs to be done. More consideration should be given to relocating wires and PG&E, Comcast, AT&T should contribute something because they all profit from using Pacifica's resources and space,
The appeals process for challenging removal permits is rigged. The City notified me that it was going to remove a Heritage tree because of the proximity to MY house. I had to pay $388 to appeal the removal of this tree in my name. I am retired on fixed income and have lived next to this tree for 26 years. It is not a hazard and do not want it removed. Parks, Beaches and Rec agreed with me by unanimous decision to preserve the tree. The next day, a City council member who was not present at the appeals hearing appealed the PBR decision. This was before the minutes for the hearing or recording were available. When the appeal went before the City Council, another member asked why this decision was appealed and the Council member had no answer. The City Council decided not to rule on the Councilman's challenge and to instead let the PBR decision stand. This experience has left me completely distrustful of City politics. Long time retired residents are being exploited in this process. I could not afford that appeals fee that I was forced to pay and have suffered being targeted by the City of Pacifica.

It would be great if the city had fund to help homeowners remove large trees that are sick or pose a threat.

It is expensive and some older neighbors can't afford to hire anyone. “Substantial trimming” needs to be clearly defined. My neighbors tree canopy covers most of my yard and at times has reached my roofline. It blocks almost all sunlight and drops an immense amount of foliage. As a result, I am constantly cleaning up after their tree and it also kills my plants. Their “right” to a backyard heritage tree should not trump my rights to enjoy my own property.

Clean up areas. Seems no one is doing clean up leaving us in a fire zone because parks are not clean. One match is all it takes to burn on hiking trails and kill possible victims. Yikes so scary.

Love our urban forest and glad the city values it
More trees need to removed, especially the Monterey Pines which are not indigenous to Pacifica and this region. Furthermore, the Monterey Pines pose threats to the environment and public health when they become so large.
77 Appendix C: Community Engagement
Feel free to add any other comments you have regarding Pacifica's Urban Forest:

From living here for 30 years I have seen too many trees (some heritage quality) mostly privately owned over pruned or pruned poorly. I see this everywhere I travel which is all over the Peninsula for work. No trees were included in the Manor district renewal project- just bulb outs for plants which are being (somewhat) maintained by volunteers. No vertical landscape there- an obvious choice by planners, Could an appropriate species have not been chosen? The area still looks uninviting in part due to lack of trees. This city needs more trees and the resources to care for them. Carmel, Monterey, and Pacific Grove all know this and benefit from their robust urban forest! Whe shouldn’t Pacifica?
In the last 2 years we have had 3 individuals from Pacifica public works come to our house . All three of said individuals determined that the city tree in front out on the street is past due for maintenance only to have these public works reps disappear never yo be heard from again . We did get one call back from Paul who is currently in charge of city tree maintenance. All he could tell us that he is working on it . The last rep that came out said it would be done by July 2021 . This city tree is reeking havoc on not only our property but the properties around us . Why are we using our hard earned tax dollars to pay the tree crew to do nothing ? It is a eucalyptus tree not a heritage tree.

If you're home or property is in danger from a neighbor's tree one should not be required to pay for a permit and the city should inspect it promptly to determine validity and remove if necessary even when on private property
I object to the clearing of open space at Higgins road to build a development in a fire sensitive zone.

Please try to stop PG&E from harshly topping trees and/or badly pruning trees near power lines. Some heritage trees need to be pruned, but PG&E can spend a little more time on each tree and do it better.

Eucalyptus trees offset carbon emissions and provide value to our community. They should be protected along with heritage trees. Also, I would like to urge the City to stop the practice of topping and limbing trees.

Not at all happy with the PG&E handling of the trees in Vallemar. Am missing the massive eucalyptus trees but they are over 100 years old and need to be removed. They are damaged in their cores and are fire hazards.

We need them replaced with hearty natives that will spread a cover and be less of a fire hazard.

Appendix C: Community Engagement 78