Administrative
Report
N.2., File # 22-3751 Meeting Date: 3/15/2022
To: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
From: TED SEMAAN, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
TITLE
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING INPUT FROM THE RECREATION AND
PARKS COMMISSION, PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION, AND PLANNING COMMISSION ON THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A TREE ORDINANCE FOR THE REGULATION OF TREES ON PRIVATE
AND/OR PUBLIC PROPERTY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Per City Council direction, staff has solicited input from the Public Works Commission, Planning Commission, and Recreation and Parks Commission regarding four specific items that could be considered as part of a new tree ordinance. All three commissions are supportive of establishing a tree ordinance and have provided feedback per the Council's request. Staff recommends that the City Council review the commission input and provide direction to staff regarding the preparation of a City ordinance.
BACKGROUND
On August 17, 2021, the City Council discussed the possibility of creating the City's first tree ordinance. Concern has been expressed that the City's urban forest is being compromised by the removal of trees from both private property and the public right of way. The City Council concluded the discussion by directing staff to obtain input from the Public Works Commission, Planning Commission, and Recreation and Parks Commission regarding four specific items that could be considered as part of a new tree ordinance:
• Definition of protected/heritage trees due to certain species and age of trees, as well as other relevant criteria
• Prohibiting removal of parkway trees to provide driveway access to private property as part of construction projects
• Prohibiting removal of protected/heritage trees located in front, rear and side yard setbacks on private property
• Types of trees that are recommended and discouraged from being planted on public and private property
A copy of the administrative report and other materials presented at the August 17, 2021 meeting are
N.2., File # 22-3751 Meeting Date: 3/15/2022
attached. Also included is a suggested tree ordinance drafted by Redondo Beach residents Laura MacMoran and Mara Lang, which largely mirrors the one used by the City of Encinitas, California.
Per the Council's direction, staff solicited input from the three commissions at their meetings on the following dates:
• Recreation and Parks Commission - November 11, 2021
• Public Works Commission - December 1, 2021
• Planning Commission - January 20, 2022
The minutes from each meeting are attached. A summary of the input provided by the Commissions is as follows:
Definition of Protected/Heritage Trees Due to Certain Species and Age of Trees, as well as Other Relevant Criteria
Recreation & Parks Commission
The Commission unanimously passed a motion (Commissioners Almeida and Varvarigos absent) supporting establishment of a heritage tree designation.
Public Works Commission
The Commission unanimously passed a motion (Commissioners Arata and Funabashi absent) supporting establishing a definition and procedure for heritage trees and a public process for removal of heritage trees.
Planning Commission
The Commission passed a motion (Commissioner Behrendt against) supporting creation of a tree ordinance that includes a protected/heritage tree designation.
Prohibiting Removal of Parkway Trees to Provide Driveway Access to Private Property as Part of Construction Projects
Recreation & Parks Commission
The Commission passed a motion (Commissioner McCauley against, Commissioners Almeida and Varvarigos absent) to protect parkway trees from driveway expansions.
Public Works Commission
The Commission unanimously passed a motion (Commissioners Arata and Funabashi absent) to maintain the current procedures used by the Public Works Department for evaluating driveway access-related tree removal requests, and to formally document the procedures in a tree ordinance.
Planning Commission
The Commission passed a motion (Commissioner Behrendt against) supporting creation of a tree ordinance that includes prohibiting removal of trees to provide driveway access as part of new construction projects.
Prohibiting Removal of Protected/Heritage Trees Located in Front, Rear and Side Yard
N.2., File # 22-3751 Meeting Date: 3/15/2022
Setbacks on Private Property
Recreation & Parks Commission
The Commission passed a motion (Commissioner McCauley against, Commissioners Almeida and Varvarigos absent) recommending that the City establish regulations regarding removal of trees on private property in certain situations.
Public Works Commission
The Commission unanimously passed a motion (Commissioners Arata and Funabashi absent) supporting the tree ordinance addressing certain trees on private property.
Planning Commission
The Commission passed a motion (Commissioners Behrendt, Hinsley and Lamb against) recommending that the City Council pursue a tree ordinance that prohibits removal of heritage trees on private property.
Types of Trees that are Recommended and Discouraged from Being Planted on Public and Private Property
Recreation & Parks Commission
The Commission passed a motion (Commissioners Almeida and Varvarigos absent) for the City to adopt a tree species list.
Public Works Commission
The Commission unanimously passed a motion (Commissioners Arata and Funabashi absent) supporting review and expansion of the acceptable tree species list.
Planning Commission
The Commission passed a motion (Commissioner Behrendt against) supporting creation of a tree ordinance that includes lists of tree species that are recommended and discouraged from being planted on public and private property.
Staff recommends that the City Council consider the input provided by the three commissions and provide staff with direction regarding the drafting and establishment of a tree ordinance.
COORDINATION
The Public Worts Department coordinated this item with the Community Development and Community Services Departments.
FISCAL IMPACT
There are no fiscal impacts associated with the preparation of this item.
APPROVED BY:
Mike Witzansky, City Manager
N.2., File # 22-3751 Meeting Date: 3/15/2022
ATTACHMENTS
Minutes extract from 11/11/21 Recreation and Parks Commission meeting Minutes extract from 12/1/21 Public Works Commission meeting Minutes extract from 1/20/22 Planning Commission meeting :
Materials from 8/17/21 Council meeting
South Bay Parkland Conservancy also wants to dovale a bench for Bill Beft, who recently passedeway. She was thinking they should cleose one beautiful rustic design for future dopations of benchese she wanted to askarle Commission for their opinion on that.
Chair Korman Sooper thanked Batara and CommissionerLang said that she woule follow up with City sten on this idea.
I. ITEMS CONTINUER FROM PREVIOUS AGENDAS
J. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION PRIORTO ACTION
J.2. DISCUSSION OF ELEMENTSTO BE INCLUDED IN A TREE ORDINANCE Kelly Orta introduced Rob Osborne of the City's Public Works Department who gave a presentation on this issue. He said that he was there at the City Council's direction, to get the Commission's input on a Tree Ordinance they are developing. He said that a few months ago, the City Council started receiving complaints expressing concern that trees, primarily located in the parkway strips in front of properties, were being cut down. A tree ordinance was suggested to govern this issue and to protect trees from being removed. Two City residents, one of whom is Commissioner Lang, developed a proposed tree ordinance. In August it was brought to City Council. After discussion of the issue, the City Council directed that it be brought before three Commissions: the Recreation and Parks Commission, the Planning Commission, and the Public Works Commission, for specific input on four different areas that could be included in a tree ordinance. The four areas are as follows:
Proposal to establish Protected Tree Classification based on unique species, age, or historical significance. The City's current practice is to protect all trees, not just those with these specific characteristics. These factors are already included in the process and are taken Into consideration in making decisions to protect trees in the City. • Proposal to prohibit removal of trees in parkways (related to development projects). The current practice aims to avoid tree removal if at all possible, and it requires an appeal to the Planning Commission to obtain permission. Requests are approved on a case-by- case basis. Staff recommends maintaining the current practice in order to keep flexibility
• Proposal to prohibit removal of trees on private property. This is not something the City has ever regulated. They have only focused on trees on public property. Staff does not recommend restricting what people can do with trees on their own property. It could be very controversial if the City began to infringe on property rights. • Proposal to establish two lists, one for approved and one for prohibited trees. We currently have a list of recommended trees (it was included in the agenda packet). It includes eighteen different species of trees that do very well in the beach climate. Other trees are considered on a case-by-case basis, if residents want to plant them. The staff recommendation is to maintain the current list, and not to establish a list of prohibited trees, but to evaluate residents' requests on a case-by-case basis.
Rob Osborne asked for the Commissioners' input on the four areas he had spoken of, for City Council's consideration of the tree ordinance issue, and concluded his presentation.
Chair Korman-Sooper asked if the Commissioners had any questions or comments.
MINUTES - RECREATION AND PARKS COMMISSION 2
Wednesday, November 10, 2021
Commissioner Lang said that she had a presentation for the Commission and would like to speak after the discussion of Rob Osborne's presentation.
Commissioner McCauley asked If the City has an arborist on staff, and whether he agrees with these recommendations.
Rob Osborne replied in the affirmative and said his title is Parks and Urban Forest Manager and that he agrees with the recommendations of the Public Works Department.
Public Works Director Ted Semaan said that he is also available to answer any questions the Commissioners may have regarding this item tonight.
Commissioner Rowe asked roughly how many inquiries the City receives in a year about a tree being taken down-is it once a week or once a month?
Rob Osborne said in Public Works, they get very few-once every couple of months on average for the last few years.
Commissioner Rowe asked if they had heard from Mike Garcia on this issue, and Public Works Director Ted Semaan said they had not heard from him on this issue, but they would be happy to have his input.
Commissioner Escontrias asked whether they were looking for the Commissioners to voice their opinion and come up with a consensus on the items enumerated in the presentation.
Rob Osborne replied that the Council has specifically asked for the Commission's input on the four items that he went through.
Commissioner Escontrias asked whether there have been any studies conducted by the State or the County concerning this type of ordinance.
Public Works Director Semaan said this type of ordinance varies from city to city, and he is not aware of anything coming from the State or County on this.
Commissioner Escontrias asked whether the current ordinance has any provision for removing a tree causing damage, for instance to a sidewalk.
Rob Osborne said the arborist would look at several factors, including the age of the tree, as well as whether its roots are causing damage to a sidewalk.
Ted Semaan said they do take into consideration safety issues, such as a limb or a tree that may be in jeopardy of falling, as well as possible trip and fall hazards from damage caused by the root structure. A multitude of factors contribute to the decision, and Alberto Alejandre is a certified arborist and is using his expertise and years of experience to make these judgments.
Chair Korman-Sooper suggested that they hear Commissioner Lang's presentation before taking further questions.
Commissioner Lang gave a presentation on the tree ordinance proposal she had co-authored with Laura MacMoran, sharing her screen to present the slides that had been previously submitted to the Commissioners for their review. She said that in her discussions with the MINUTES - RECREATION AND PARKS COMMISSION 3
Wednesday. November 10, 2021
Public Works Department when she raised concerns about trees being removed, she was told that their removal had been approved by the Planning Department without the City arborist being consulted before removing them. She said tree removal without replacement happens often. The Public Works Department wants to plant a tree in the place of every one that is removed, but unfortunately that is not always done. She proposes having a clear ordinance to help protect trees. She said there are 2,282 empty parkway spaces in Redondo Beach where trees could be planted. Expanding our canopy is going to be one of the primary ways that we can protect ourselves from increased temperatures. In 2020-21, she said, the City planted 102 new trees, but 43 trees were removed that year. She feels that the City needs a clear process for Planning, Bullding and Safety, and Public Works to work together toward a shared goal of preserving mature trees. In regard to the proposed species list, she suggested that some trees provide a more beautiful aesthetic and provide a canopy of shade for the street on which they are planted. Consistency in canopy size creates an aesthetic of cohesiveness and feels intentional and thoughtful. Some cities are designated as Tree Cities USA and in order to achieve this, a city needs to have a tree canopy committee of residents or experts in the field who come together to discuss tree issues in the area.
Commissioner Lang concluded her presentation and Laura MacMoran began her presentation.
She introduced herself by saying that she is a City Planner and she works for the City of Lomita.
She said that in the South Bay, there are only two cities that do not have a tree ordinance, and the two cities are Hawthorne and Redondo Beach. Trees are mentioned in our code but there are no binding official requirements for property owners, and there is nothing to establish a community ethos. She commented on what was said in Rob Osborne's presentation in regard to avoiding infringing on the rights of property owners. She said that in Planning they set limits on what people can build, how big they can build, what is the land use, any many other factors.
Preserving trees would be similar. From the perspective of Recreation and Parks, our parkways are important to citizens' recreation and their health. On the issue of driveway construction, unless you have something in the code that is binding, you will always have pushback and never have the enforcement mechanism. There is a new state law called SB 9, a housing law that allows subdivision. Unless we want to have lots of driveway aprons and no parkways, we need to be able to restrict the size of the driveway and limit the removal of trees. In regard to the species list, Redondo has eighteen trees on its list; and Lomita has over thirty-five on its list We need to have enough diversity to ward off tree diseases. She then shared her screen and showed examples of streets in District 5, where there are numerous opportunities to add trees to the parkway to provide shade and beautify the streets.
Chair Korman-Sooper thanked Laura MacMoran and Commissioner Lang for their presentations and all the hard work in drafting the proposed ordinance. She asked for questions from the Commissioners.
Commissioner McCauley thanked them for their presentations, and said we all agree that trees are great, and continuing to add trees in the City is a great idea to pursue. He thinks the canopy is an important factor that should be included in the conversation. He said the parkway is the area to start adding trees, especially with the deficit of trees they have identified throughout the City. He said he is not in favor of opening up a can of worms in regard to the private property rights. He asked whether the City's policy right now would be to preserve and to add trees at any opportunity, and also asked about the policy on installation of artificial turf to conserve Public Works Director Semaan replied that the parkways are completely under the City's control, and, although we do not have a tree ordinance, the City Council has directed us to plant
MINUTES - RECREATION AND PARKS COMMISSION
Wednesday. November 10, 2021
at least 100 trees per year. He said that artificial turf is allowed on the parkways, but they have a concer, because if there are newly planted trees, they do need irrigation. The property owner needs to water the newly planted tree to allow it to establish and to flourish. There are regulations about how close the artificial turf can be to the tree trunk, because it causes artificial heating to the tree roots that becomes problematic. We want the soil to be able to breathe around the tree. We want the water to be able to penetrate into the soil, but also to be able to evaporate out of the soil.
In regard to the number (2,282) of empty parkway spaces in the City, Commissioner McCauley inquired as to the source, and asked if there is a census of trees.
Ted Semaan replied that yes, a census of trees happens on a regular basis. West Coast Arborists has a four-year contract with the City. They do the tree trimming and keep track of the maturity and health of each tree in their system, which the City can access. However, we do not have a tabulation of parkways without trees, and cannot substantiate the figure of 2,282 missing trees, referred to in the presentation.
In response to a question from Commissioner Lang, Ted Semaan said it is not in the WCA contract to come out to water the trees they have planted. The City provides watering at the beginning
Commissioner Lang commented that with new construction in North Redondo, they are required to plant a new tree in the front yard, in order to receive a certificate of occupancy.
Chair Korman-Sooper said that to her, it seems like there isn't a lot of controversy with items 1.
And 4, defining a heritage tree, and establishing a species list. She said she feels like an ordinance is definitely needed. She disagreed with making determinations on a case-by-case basis, and expressed her agreement with Laura MacMoran on establishing an ordinance that is binding and concrete. She said she is not in favor of adding another arborist position to the City staff or creating an additional commission because of the cost burden to the City.
Commissioner Lang said they put the arborist position into the ordinance just in case Alberto leaves, so that the City would be required by ordinance to have someone in that role.
In regard to item 3, Chair Korman-Sooper asked if it would cause a property owner to have to wait for a hearing in a case where a tree was causing structural or plumbing damage. She also said that supporting item 2 Is actually very strategic and commented on how much North Redondo needs green space as opposed to additional paved areas. We need some rules for construction projects.
Laura MacMoran replied to Chair Korman-Sooper's question about item 3, saying that there could be something written in the ordinance to allow for an expedited administrative process when it comes to safety matters similar to the situation she described.
In response to a question from Chair Korman-Sooper, Commissioner Lang described how the adoption of a tree ordinance has been such a positive experience for the other cities she has researched, and how good it has been for their communities.
Motion by Commissioner McCauley, seconded by Chair Korman-Sooper, that the Parks and Recreation Commission strongly encourage the City to maximize the tree canopy along the parkways as much as possible throughout the city.
MINUTES - RECREATION AND PARKS COMMISSION 5
Wednesday. November 10, 2021
Commissioner Escontrias asked if it was possible to find out what the consensus of the Commission is, before doing a motion for Council. He said that the first question for each commissioner is, "Should there be an ordinance?"
Commissioner Rowe said that the City Council has asked for their opinion on whether there should be guidelines in place for trees. He said he thinks the answer is yes. And they want to make sure that we don't think they are overstepping their bounds. He said he thinks they can all agree that an ordinance is a good thing. Other cities have one, and as long as it's written properly, we should be okay with it.
Commissioner Escontrias said that if they, in principle, agree that there should be an ordinance, that is probably the first step. And we could ask that it come back to the Commission after it has been worked out more specifically with input from the public.
Chair Korman-Sooper said that Council has been really specific about the items they want to have input on, and that the Commission should give them their input on each of the four items.
Commissioner Escontrias said that, if they have concerns beyond those four items, it is important that they voice them.
Chair Korman-Sooper said she doesn't think anybody is trying to prohibit additional input, but she just wants to make sure that as a Commission, they're addressing what they've asked for.
Public works Director Ted Semaan suggested that they respond to each item, letting the Council know if they support it or not, and stating any parameters they would like to add, specifying as a heritage tree trees of a certain diameter, or some other criteria like that, for example.
Chair Korman-Sooper said she doesn't have enough expertise on trees to come up with her own specifications about what should be considered a heritage tree. She said that seems a little bit beyond her capabilities.
Commissioner Lang said that the Commission could express their support in a more general way for each of the items separately, without being bound to define the specifics of each one Kelly Orta reminded the Commission that there was a motion already on the table, and Commissioner Escontrias asked if someone could repeat the motion.
Rob Osborne repeated the motion made earlier by Commissioner McCauley, and seconded by Chair Korman-Sooper, for the Commission to strongly encourage the City to pursue maximizing tree canopies along parkways, as much as possible. Motion carried unanimously, with Commissioners Almeida and Varvarigos absent.
Motion by Commissioner Lang, seconded by Commissioner Escontrias, for the City to create criteria for heritage trees. Motion carried unanimously, with Commissioners Almeida and Varvarigos absent.
Motion by Commissioner Lang, seconded by Chair Korman-Sooper, for the City to create regulations to protect parkway trees from driveway expansions. Commissioner McCauley voted "No." all the other Commissioners voted in favor of the motion, with Commissioners Almeida and Varvarigos absent.
MINUTES - RECREATION AND PARKS COMMISSION 6
Wednesday, November 10, 2021
Motion by Commissioner Lang, seconded by Commissioner McCauley, for the City to establish regulations regarding the removal of trees on private property in certain situations.
Commissioner McCauley voted "No," all the other Commissioners voted in favor of the motion, with Commissioners Almeida and Varvarigos absent.
Motion by Commissioner Lang, seconded by Chair Korman-Sooper for the City to adopt a tree species list. Motion carried unanimously, with Commissioners Almeida and Varvarigos absent.
In response to a question from Chair Korman-Sooper, Kelly Orta replied that all of the input from the Commission, including their votes on the motions, would be part of the package for City Council when they consider this item.
Commissioner McCauley added his comment that he would like the City to focus on expanding the tree canopy in North Redondo as a priority
Commissioner Rowe said that there were twenty-five trees on Rockefeller and the Greenway, and there are now seven, because of the gophers.
Commissioner Escontrias asked about the requirement of adding 100 trees a year, which Ted Semaan had mentioned earlier. He asked when that was enacted and how the City is doing Rob Osborne replied that it was implemented in the last three to four years, and in the most recent fiscal year we planted 107 trees. He expects we will meet that goal this year, as well.
J.1. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Ally Orta said this is the annual process of selecting a Chair and Vice-Chair for the Commission, and new this year, according to ordinance, is the requirement for the Commission to also choose someoneto act as Secretary.
Chair Korman-Sooper inquired, "What does the Secretary do?" Kelly Ort replied that it is more of a ceremonialiposition, as staff will continue to draft the staff reports and the agendas and minutes.
Chair Korman-Sooper asked the Commissioners for their nominations for Secretary.
Commissioner Lang nominated herself as Secretary, and Commissioner Rowe seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimgasly, with Commissioners Almerda and Varvarigos absent.
Commissioner Rowe nominated Jacob Varvarigos as Vice Chair, and Commissioner McCauley seconded the motion. Mation carried unanimously, with Commissioners Almeida and Varvarigos absent.
Chair Korman-Sogger nominated Christopher MeCauley for the position of Chair.
Commissioner Rowe seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously, with Commissioners Almeida and Varvarigos absent.
MINUTES - RECREATION AND PARKS COMMISSION 7
Wednesday, November 10, 2021
Minutes for Public Works Commission
December 1, 2021
Commissioner Arata and Commissioner Funabashi was absent at this time F.2. EXCLUDED CONSENI CALENDAR ITEMS
G. MEETING MINUTES
Chair Simpson requested a correction to be made onelle minutes, Chaj Simpson nominated Commissioner Funabashi for Chair.
Motion by Vice Chair Minne, seconded by Commissioner Class to approve the Minutes as correçied.
Ages: 5
Nos: 0
Commissioner Arata and Commissioner Funabashi was absent at this time H. PUBLIC PARTLOTPATION ON NON-AGENDA T'PEMS
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON NON-AGEN BA ITEMS
None
I. ITEMS CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS AGENDAS
Rob Osborne began a Power Point presentation on City's First Tree Ordinance.
Background: Concern regard trees being removed off property, specifically park way strips, may be done without permit and City knowledge. April 20, 2021, Council asked to bring the issue forward. August 17, 2021, ordinance was brought to Council with draft ordinance that was put together by residents. Commission review on November 10, 2021.
Element 1: Establish protected tree that have specific criteria, unique species or historical significance or age. Current practice is to protect all city trees and removal of trees occurs only for unavoidable conditions. Trees are reviewed thoroughly for tree removal request.
Element 2: Construction related situations such home reconstruction, parkway tree may be in the way. Appcal of tree removals would have to be approved by Council. When plans come in, trees removal for a construction of a driveway would be the last resort. Staff recommendation is to maintain current practices and keep flexibility and work with residents.
Element 3: City has not done before, protection trees on private proporty. There is no current practice. This element can be controversial, City residents want control of their property.
Element 4: Establish approval and create list of prohibited species. Current practices include an existing recommended tree list, trees that do well. Staff recommendation is to maintain current list.
Rob Osborne completed presentation.
Rob Osborne asked Commission to give Mara Lang and Laura MacMoran as much time as they need to complete their presentation.
2 Minutes for Public Works Commission
Special Meeting
December 1, 2021
Mara Lang began a Power Point presentation. Mara Lang began with her background. Resident from district 1 of South Redondo for 13 years. Spoke to Council about establishing a tree ordinance and help get Redondo Beach to be considered a "Tree City USA". Policies and procedures are still in development.
Introduction: Using trees to help control climate change. Help prepare extreme heat wave. Mara Lang has conducted research from other cities with tree ordinances.
Current Conditions: Improving parkways to help prevent waste. Filling empty spaces can reduce tripping hazards and crime currently over 2,000 empty planting spaces. Cities that pass tree ordinance terms hired consulting firms to cover all criteria. Tree removal without replacement.
Dala received from Public Works staff.
Proposed ordinance overview: Plant 100 trees. May take 4 years to replace emply space.
Heritage trees hold significant value and are irreplaceable. Prohibiting removal of parkway trees to provide driveway access. Not against construction of driveways but if there are alternative options such as moving driveway to the other side then it should be considered. Position of authorization to remove trees is unclear. Prohibiting removal of heritage tree from front, rear, and side yard private properties. Streets with narrow parkways or no parkways may miss out on a tree if the ordinance is passed. If parkway space is available there should be a free planted. Mara Lang expressed how polite and professional Alberto Alejandre is.
Mara paused the presentation to answer questions.
Commissioner Garcia pointed his question to Rob Osborne about the outline of the tree ordinance, historic trees and consideration safety of the surrounding of the tree. Commissioner Garcia was confused what staff is requesting from the Commission. Ted Semaan replied to Commissioner Garcia, Rob Osborne explained the 4 elements Council wanted staff to share with Commissions for input, Mara Lang and Laura MacMoran explains the details of the tree ordinance.
Commission agreed to hold any questions from Mara Lang's presentation until after Laura MacMoran completes her presentation.
Laura MacMoran began her presentation.
City needs binding regulations and enforcement in order to fulfill certain policies. Laura completed her own data analyst, District 5 has special attributes such as: high number of properties on 50-foot-wide lots and high number of subdivisions without parkways, low number of streets with 60-foot rights-of-way and parkways, and some opportunity sites/under-planted public non-park property. There is an existing code that requires a tree or planting of a tree in the front yard if there is property has no parkway. New single-family homes owners have the option to mitigate their storm water run off to have a tree planted. These home owners in LA County may be able to choose 2 trees. Laura focused on Robinson street because of its unusual right-of- way design, southerly parkway is narrower than northerly parkway. Even though the southern side is narrower, trees can still be planted. It is important to have diversity in trees in case of discase. All subdivision codes for a new lot, requires a tree. Estimated 20% of homes are missing a parkway tree, this effecting the goal of 100 trees a year. Most South Bay cities have formal policies in their municipals code regarding trees only Hawthorne and Redondo Beach do not.
Going casc-by-case hasis is not enough, a regulation should be established. It is possible to control the parkway areas.
Laura MacMoran ended her presentation and open the floor for questions. 3 Minutes for Public Works Commission
Special Meeting
December 1, 2021
Chair Simpson shared that the presentation was interesting and thorough, he also wanted to ask for Laura and Mara how they respond to the 4 elements, staff reports and what the Council is asking, does not reflect what is said in the presentation. Mara replied, items in her presentation specifically referenced what Council asked, Mara added that she may have covered more than what was asked. Laura did cover information regarding the tree ordinance but it was important to discuss because it explains what they are trying to accomplish and help support the goal.
Commissioner Bajaj asked a question on element 3, if the proposal would refer to all trees on the property. Mara replied, protect all trees on private property but the location is not specified.
Laura added that this element has to do with construction and heritage trees, if construction were to happen on private property then certain regulations would have to be followed.
Genc Kim shared the comments from the public participation.
Michael Chang asked the Commission to support the tree ordinance. City if Redondo Beach necds to build a healthy and sustainable community. With removal of different trees, it is important to have a tree ordinance to protect the trees. Trees will help make a better environment for future generations. Opposing the ordinance can cause a multitude of harm to the City.
Deirdre Brand stated the fact that Redondo Beach has no tree ordinance is stunning. This is result of development-centric leadership making building easy and nature disposable. Adopting a strong tree ordinance is essential. Hire qualified arborists. Suggest Commission to develop a tree ordinance that is smart, proactive, and punitive. A fine of $2,000 will not be enough for developers that are building $2,000,000 properties. The recommendation is to the City that the ordinance needs to meet the times we are in.
Holly Osborne stated, please support the tree ordinance. The urban canopy provides shade, 15 degrees temperature difference, Increasing temperatures have effect on death rates and California is responding late 1o this crisis of heat waves. Preserving the tree canopy is part of resolving this issue in Redondo Beach. Please pass the tree ordinance.
Jim Light stated, support the establishment of the tree ordinance. It is understood that there are some issues with the ordinances submitted. There is a significant amount of tree without replacement. Cannot remember any trees being replaced on the Catalina median or new trees planted on parkways or medians with exception of the Riviera Village. The City very few native species, it is time to update pallet, remove exotic trees and add native tree that require less water.
There is a loss of tree canopy in the City. It is time to adopt a specific ordinance.
Susan Couig stated, she supports the tree ordinance. Trees provide shade, help the ecosystem, increase oxygen and reduce carbon dioxide. My street is missing at least 10 trees in the parkway, it is noticeable. She also agrees it increases property valuc. As a Public Safety Commissioner.
She discusses safety and crime but is happy to endorse the tree ordinance. She believes there is a correlation. Thank you.
That concludes the ecomments.
Chair Simpson open the floor for discussion.
4 Minutes for Public Works Commission
Special Meeting
December 1, 2021
Commissioner Glass began the discussion, he supports trees, disappointed in North Redondo.
North Redondo is a post WWII area with narrow streets with minimal room for trees.
Recommends to City to plant tree in private property next to the side walk. It would be difficult to plant trees in the middle of the side walk because those in wheel chairs cannot move through.
There are less than 5 trees on his street. Developments in North Redondo do not have much front space, planting a tree in the front would give them no space. Back yards at these developments may only be about 8 feet deep and when the tree matures then the roots will disturb the property.
Concern for the construction that will occur on Manhattan Beach Blyd and what kind of trees will be planted there.
Commissioner Garcia began his comments, he appreciates MacMoran and Lang for their enthusiasm. He believes everyone in the Commission supports trees. Historic trees should protect unless it becomes a danger 1o society, there should be no restrictions to safety. Construction on private property has to do with Community Development more than Public Works. Northern California has a different tree list than Southern California because of climate. We need support from Public Works for tree maintenance. These are practical things that City Attorneys office may agree with. Ted Semaan replied to Commissioner Garcia's comment, Council wanted input from multiple commissions. There will be a meeting with the Planning Commission in January.
Vice Chair Minne began his comment, thank MacMoran and Lang for the presentation. He supports trees, important for climate change and water resources. Vice Chair Minne ask about the inventory of trees in the City, do we know where all the trees are and when they were last planted. Ted Semaan replied to Vice Chair Minne's questions, Public Works uses a software called Harbor Access that updates regularly whenever a tree is maintained and puts valuc on each tree, the bigger the tree is the more valuable it is. Chair Simpson asked if this database was strictly for trees only on public property. Ted Semaan replied with yes and directed the attention to Alberto Alejandre asking if the database focuses on City parks. Alberto Alejandre confirmed that it does include City Parks. Vice Chair Minne thanked Staff for answering his questions.
Heritage trees should have case-by-case basis and it seems like it already happening. If a historic tree is removed then multiple trees should take its place not just one. Vice Chair brought another question of where should these replacement trees go, property owner should be responsible for paying for the replacement, should be an ordinance if not done so. Ted Semaan commented, mature trees have a great value to them if a home owner choose to pay for the replacement of that tree then the funds go into the Tree Replacement Fund. Chair Simpson asked who pays for the removable of a parkway tree? Ted Semaan replied, the it is the property owner's responsibility to pay for the value of the tree. Vice Chair's recommendation to complete an evaluation of the tree value. Median should have large trees instead of dwarf trees. Recommends that the Public Works be part of the discuss in a tree removal process in private property.
Appreciates Lang's comment on diversifying the tree list.
Chair Simpson asked if a tree is to be removed from the park way, there has to be permission by the City, 'Ted Semaan confirm that statement is true. How often do homeowners chop down trees and what are the consequences, Ted Semaan replied that it does happen and there is no proof who had done it. Few times residents will call the police department if they witness someone cutting down a tree. Chair Simpson wanted clarification if staff presentation contains polices and procedures that have not been included in a municipal code and are there existing municipal 5 Minutes for Public Works Commission
Special Meeting
December 1, 2021
codes regarding trees? Ted Semaan replied, there is no codes relating to sale properties, construction on a property does require a tree to be planted is in the code.
Chair Simpson allowed Lang to share a comment. Lang acknowledged Commissioner Garcia's concern of safety, establishing protection of historic trees would not interfere with any salety precautions Alberto Alejandre needs to take. It is not to take power away. Lang explained that discussion of a tree removal process is not public facing. The knowledge of tree removal process does go to commission then that gives structure, Tree canopy committee will process differently than a commission.
MacMoran stated that herself and Lang have a slide to present that explains what the Recrcation and Parks Commission voted on.
Lang shared the slide. MacMoran read aloud the 4 motions Recreation and Parks made.
Commissioner Glass comment on the planting trees and how it has not been stated Commissioner Garcia agreed with Commissioner Glass. Commissioner Bajaj comment focused on the second item on the slide, formalizing a policy to protect parkway trees from driveway expansions. MacMoran responded to Commissioner Bajaj's comment, there needs to be parameters in how far a driveway can go and refining the policy. Commissioner Bajaj suggest lo have City Attorney review item 3 on the slide. Ted Semaan reassure that City Attorney will review the motions when it is taken to Council. Commissioner Garcia commented that it is up to the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission of the replacement of trees, he did not make any comment regarding switching sizing.
Motion by Commissioner Minne, by seconded Commissioner Bajaj to have Public Works Commission supports determining a definition and procedure for heritage trees and public process for any removal of a hcritage tree. Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote.
Commissioner Arata and Commissioner Funabashi absent.
Motion by Chair Simpson, seconded by Commissioner Garcia to have Commission recognize process in place already limits removal of trees from driveways is adequate and adopt stall recommendation to make no change.
Commissioner Minne needed clarification from staff of what the recommendation was. Rob Osborne replied that the staff recommendation was to maintain the current practice.
Commissioner Bajaj commented that there is no policy or guideline, create a policy is the intent, support staff in formalizing the policy.
Commissioner Glass disagrees with Chair Simpson and agrees with Commissioner Bajaj.
Commissioner Glass suggest Chair Simpson to amend the motion and change the verbiage.
Ayes: 2
Nos: 3
Motion failed.
6 Minutes for Public Works Commission
Special Meeting
December 1, 2021
Motion by Commissioner Garcia, seconded by Vice Chair Minne to have the process stay the same but it is written down and incorporated in the overall tree ordinance. Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote. Commissioner Arata and Commissioner Funabashi absent.
Commissioner Garcia attempted to make a motion: This be under the jurisdiction of the Community Development Department and not Public Works issue, private property trees and plants should come under Planning and Community Development Chair Simpson attempted reword the motion, Public Works Commission supports the municipal code covering trees on private property.
Commissioner Glass commented on why doesn't the City have regulation of removal of trecs on private property.
Motion by Chair Simpson, seconded by Vice Chair Minne to have Commission supports the municipal tree code to allow the City to cover removal some trees that are on private property.
Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote. Commissioner Arata and Commissioner Funabashi absent.
Motion by Vice Chair Minne, seconded by Commissioner Garcia to support, review, advise, and expand an acceptable tree species list.
Ted Semaan requested clarification in the motion if it focusing on private property or the right of way. Vice Chair Minne will keep the motion the same, his intent was not to restrict planting of trees on private property. Commissioner Garcia commented, there should be a separate species list for private property and right of way. Chair Simpson believe there should not be a formalize list and to follow staff recommendation. Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote.
Commissioner Arata and Commissioner Funabashi absent.
K. EMBER ITEMS AND REFERRALS TO STAFF
ommissioner Glass: Is there a consideration of number of parking spaces that maybe lost due to the width of the driveway, if soft should. Ted Semaan responded that widarof the driveway is taken into consideration, there is maximum number of 20 feet and thergate limitations. Gene Kim responded that stafildoes note and review. Is there way to remind property owners to plant trees when requiredo do so? Ted Semaan replied, requesting for the addresses of those properties and staff will investigate.
Commissioner Garcia: The police department has been picking up and behavior on the Esplanade has been better.
mmissioner Bajaj: Berly and 190", pavement markings and LED lights should turn on, Gene Kim responded they should be turned on seon. Request to have the western route looked at.
Vice Chair Minne: None
Chair Simpson: Andrews Park is looking good. Traffic lights on Green and Rindge are problematic, suggest to investigate on making left turns protective. Ted Semaan responded that it a CAP project and it is being worked on.
side yard selsacks.
Community Development Director Forbes confirmed residents could apply for variances and spoke about residents having a path forward and knowingewhat is expected of them.
Discussion followed regarding the definitions of buildings and structures, including patios as structures, complaints about air conditioning, chits and prohibiting noisy, vibrating mechanical equipment on side setbacks.
Motion by Commissioner Hinsley, seconded by Chair Gaddis, to open the Public Hearing.
Motion Carried unanimously, by roll caff vote.
There were no public comments on this item.
Motion by Commissioner Hinsley, seconded by Commissioner Lamb, to close the Public Hearing. Motion cared unanimously, by roll call vote
Discussion glowed regarding allowing plumbing equipment and mini splits on side or gear setbacks for retrofits, but not for new comstruction, patios, option preferences, proposed edits to the resolution and selection of Option 1.
Community Development Direstor Forbes reviewed changes to the resolution and noted e Commission's preferenge for Option 1.
Motion by Commissioner Hinsley, seconded by Commissioner Lamb, to adopt a resolution by title only subjeet to the findings contained therein and as amended: A RESOLUTION OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY, OF REDONDO BEACH, CALIFORNIA
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT ORDINANCES AMENDING TITLE JO, CHAPTER 2, ZONING AND LAND USE AND TITLE 10, CHAPTER 5 COASTAL
LAND USE PLAN IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO SETBACKS OF
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES AND BUILDING AND OTHER PROJECTIONS IN ALL ZONES. The motion carried by roll call vote, with Commissioner Behrendt, opposed.
ITEMS CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS AGENDAS - None
L. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION PRIOR TO ACTION
L.1. DISCUSSION OF ELEMENTS TO BE INCLUDED IN A TREE ORDINANCE CONTACT: ROB OSBORNE, SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST, PUBLIC WORKS
Chair Gaddis introduced Mara Lang and Laura MacMoran.
Public Works Director Ted Samaan introduced the item and deferred to staff for a
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
January 20, 2022
Page No. 4
presentation.
Public Works Sr. Management Analyst Rob Osborne narrated a PowerPoint presentation of elements to be included in a Tree Ordinance.
Ms. Lang and Ms. MacMoran narrated a PowerPoint presentation of a Tree Ordinance proposal.
Discussion followed regarding the importance, value of and benefits of trees in fighting climate change, replacing instead of removing trees, the possibility of forming a forest or environmental commission/committee, heritage tree designations in private property setbacks, protecting trees during construction, requiring each homeowner to plant a tree in their parkway upon sale of the home, the need to educate the public, City Council's request to staff to develop an ordinance for consideration, the importance of protecting trees, concerns regarding regulating trees on private property, defining heritage trees, prohibiting the removal of parkway trees for driveway access, the list of approved City trees, staff recommendations, the State's landscaping ordinance, existing City policies relative to trees, the complaint-based system for Code Enforcement specific to private properties, maintenance requirements and costs for the various species and the importance of having diversity in the types of trees.
Discussion continued regarding fees and penalties, considering trees as the City's assets, requiring planting trees in new developments, whether the Coastal Commission has jurisdiction over trees in the Coastal Zone, the need to consider drought-tolerant trees/landscaping, the need for a tree canopy and shade, adding pollinators and native trees to the list of approved trees, not having more than a given percentage of any one species, avoiding invasive species such as palm trees and date palms, the City's due process in handling nuisance trees, including consideration of trees on private properties in the ordinance, keeping trees from being removed, unnecessarily, the possibility of implementing a permit process for removing trees and the possibility of lowering the threshold for triggering a requirement for improvements in the public right-of-way.
Chair Gaddis invited public comments.
Amir Dori thanked the Planning Commission for its consideration and spoke about existing guidelines for tree removals, specific requirements and inspections.
Julie Tran, on behalf of the South Bay Association of Realtors, expressed concerns about the proposed ordinance, noting it violates private property rights; believed the Commission and City Council should avoid any restrictions upon point of sale in any property sale; suggested implementing an incentive program to encourage property owners to plant trees; pointed out that Torrance and Lomita are current Tree Cities, USA and do not have restrictlons placed upon private property owners; listed criteria for becoming a Tree City, USA and urged the Planning Commission to uphold staff's recommendations and maintain the current practice and not implement restrictions regarding the management of trees on private property.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
January 20, 2022
Page No. 5
Mark Lomeli, representing the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles, urged the Planning Commission to reject all provisions in the proposed ordinance related to private property and referenced a letter submitted by the association.
Ali Madani spoke about the existing process for removing/planting trees and noted there are restrictions already in place.
Planning Technician Herrera read and eComments received for this item from:
Mark Nelson opposed regulation of trees on private property unless they are at the time of initial development.
Chair Gaddis thanked Ms. Lang and Ms. MacMoran for their work in bringing this item, forward.
Motion by Commissioner Lamb, seconded by Chair Gaddis, to recommend that City Council pursue a Tree Ordinance including the Elements 1, 2 and 4 as listed in the Administrative Report and with additional discussion of Element 3.
Substitute Motion by Commissioner Behrendt, to accept staff recommendations relative to Elements 1-4 as listed in the Administrative Report. The substitute motion died for lack of a second.
The original motion carried, by roll call vote, with Commissioner Behrendt, opposed.
Discussion followed regarding legal issues relative to private property rights.
Motion by Commissioner Hinsley, seconded by Commissioner Lamb, to recommend that City Council pursue a Tree Ordinance including prohibiting removal of existing heritage trees in front yard setbacks of private property and that further discussion is needed relative to Element 3 in the Administrative Report.
Commissioner Boswell offered an amendment to prohibit removal of existing heritage trees on private property.
Commissioner Hinsley did not accept the amendment noting he would limit the prohibition only to the front setback.
Commissioner Godek spoke about maintaining a high bar for heritage trees, regardless of where the tree is located on the property.
Substitute Motion by Commissioner Boswell, seconded by Commissioner Hazeltine, to recommend that City Council pursue a Tree Ordinance including prohibiting removal of existing heritage trees on private property (Element 3, as presented). The Substitute Motion carried, by roll call vote, with Commissioners Behrendt, Hinsley and Lamb, opposed.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
January 20, 2022
Page No. 6
ON RETONIO TA Administrative
BATED APRIL S Report
N.6., File # 21-2866 Meeting Date: 8/17/2021
To: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
From: TED SEMAAN, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
TITLE
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING CONSIDERATION TO ESTABLISH A TREE
ORDINANCE FOR PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY AND PRIVATE PROPERTY TREES
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Per the City Council's referral, included is a draft tree ordinance proposed by residents Laura MacMoran and Mara Lang, a summary of the existing procedures administered by staff, and staff's recommendations for elements to be considered for inclusion in a tree ordinance. Staff requests the Council to provide direction regarding policies to be considered in the draft ordinance, which will be brought back for adoption.
BACKGROUND
At the April 20, 2021 meeting, the City Council approved a referral by Councilmember Nehrenheim to agendize in August the review of a potential tree ordinance for the City. Previously, on March 12, 2019, the Council received and filed a report on current policies and procedures for trimming, planting and removing trees on City property. On February 18, 2020, the Council reviewed a report describing the policies and procedures used by the City of Manhattan Beach to protect trees on both public and private property. The Council received and filed the report and directed staff to provide information regarding the steps and costs associated with pursuing a Tree City USA designation. This information was provided to the Council on March 17, 2020, in a Midyear Budget Response Report.
The City's urban forest contains approximately 11,600 trees, located in parks, parkways, medians, City facility exteriors and other green spaces. The current policies and procedures applied by staff for the care of trees on public property are as follows:
Tree Maintenance/Trimming
• The City is divided into four grids with one grid serviced each year. A majority of trees are trimmed every four years.
• Chinese elms on Grant Avenue and palm trees in heavlly traveled corridors, such as Knob Hill Avenue, Beryl Street, Ripley Avenue, Catalina Avenue and Artesia Boulevard, are serviced every two years.
Requests for out-of-grid tree pruning are considered on a case-by-case basis, with
N.6., File # 21-2866 Meeting Date: 8/17/2021
consideration given to safety concerns and availability of funding.
Tree trimming is contracted out, with the vendor selected through a competitive bidding process.
Tree Removals (Non Development-Related Requests)
Requests for tree removals not related to a construction project are evaluated by the City's Parks and Urban Forestry Manager on a case-by-case basis and are approved only if certain specific conditions are found to exist. Justification for a tree removal not related to development is limited to the following:
Tree Health - When a request for removal is received, the tree is assessed by the Urban Forestry Manager. In the assessment, the tree is considered for potential treatment, which is then scheduled for treatment application and the tree is monitored over a period of time for improvement. If the tree is found to be in such poor health due to age or disease that its presence on public property is no longer appropriate, the request for removal is approved. Requests for removal are not approved if staff believes a tree's health can improve over time.
Damage to Infrastructure - Trees can grow to a point where the canopy, trunk and/or root system causes damage to underground utility lines, sidewalks, driveways, roadways or private property. If the damage is found to be minor and/or can be mitigated, the request is denied. If a tree is found be causing significant damage that cannot be remedied by pruning or root removal, the request for removal is approved. • Safety Hazards - If a tree is found to present a potential safety hazard that cannot be mitigated, the request for removal is approved. Examples of safety hazards include weakened/falling limbs and the possibility of a tree toppling over during storm conditions due to an insufficient root structure.
• Criteria that do not justify removals include view obstruction, nuisance of droppings, tree age and maintenance demands.
If a non development-related tree removal is approved, the City schedules removal of the tree.
Notices are posted on the tree for 15 calendar days prior to the scheduled removal date, stating the reason for the removal and giving interested parties an opportunity to comment and ask questions.
Tree Removal (Development-Related Requests)
Requests for tree removals that are related to development of adjacent private property are evaluated by the Urban Forestry Manager on a case-hy-case basis. Such requests are only approved if staff concludes the tree presents a significant impediment and there are no other reasonable alternatives available. Requests are not approved for visual/appearance-related reasons.
N. 6., File # 21-2866 Meeting Date: 8/17/2021
When a request for removal of a healthy tree is approved, the developer or property owner is required to pay a fee equal to the estimated value of the tree, based on industry standards related to size and species. Data regarding tree valuations is updated by the City's trimming contractor in the Arbor Access database system as trees are trimmed and assessed each year. Funds are held in the City's Tree Enhancement Account and are used exclusively to plant new trees in the public right of way at suitable locations throughout the City.
Tree Planting
The City maintains a Tree Enhancement Account specifically for the purpose of adding new trees to the urban forest. The Public Works Department identifies appropriate locations and installs trees as funding allows. If a property owner requests a new tree the City will provide the tree and installation if the location is determined to be suitable. The City attempts to plant at least 100 new trees per year. During the 2020/2021 fiscal year a total of 102 new trees were planted.
Development projects are conditioned as part of their entitlement to plant trees at a nominal spacing of 40 to 60 feet, depending on the nature of the project, it's design, and barring conflicts with utilities, infrastructure, driveways or other conflicts.
Redondo Beach residents Laura MacMoran and Mara Lang have drafted a proposed tree ordinance for the City to consider. The ordinance largely mirrors the one used by the City of Encinitas, California. A copy is attached. While Encinitas performs a majority of maintenance services for parkway trees, it also allows property owners/residents to obtain permits to trim, plant and remove parkway trees themselves. Much of the ordinance governs what property owners/residents are permitted and not permitted to do as it relates to parkway trees.
While the proposed ordinance is comprehensive, its application is different for Redondo Beach.
Redondo Beach residents are not allowed to maintain, trim or remove parkway trees. Such work is only authorized to properly licensed tree trimming contractors and are only implemented under the oversight of the Urban Forestry Manager. Residents that request to have a parkway tree trimmed out of its Grid sequence, may do so by paying to have the City's tree trimming contractor, WCA, implement the work. As such, staff doesn't believe the draft ordinance provided is applicable in the same manner for Redondo Beach.
The elements of the proposed ordinance that staff feels should be considered as part of a Redondo Beach tree ordinance, along with the current practices and staff recommendations are as follows:
Element - Staff Person Designated to Oversee Tree Program MacMoran/Lang Proposal - The ordinance proposes creating a City Arborist position.
Current Practice - The City's Urban Forestry Manager is a certified arborist and the manager of the Public Works Department Parks Division. The Urban Forestry Manager oversees all issues related to trees on public property, such as, but not limited to median islands, parkways and parks. The staff member in this position is required to be a certified arborist.
N.6., File # 21-2866 Meeting Date: 8/17/2021
Staff recommendation - Maintain current practice.
Element - Create New Commission to Review Tree-Related Issues MacMoran/Lang Proposal - The ordinance proposes creating an Urban Forestry Commission to review tree issues that rise above the administrative level. The Commission would be comprised of seven members, with each City Council District being represented.
Current Practice -Tree-related decisions are currently made by the Public Works Department, primarily by the Urban Forestry Manager. Issues involving significant controversy are addressed by the Public Works Director and/or City Manager and may be brought to the City Council for review.
Staff Recommendation - While a new commission could be created specifically to review tree issues, the City already has a number of commissions in place, including. the Public Works Commission.
Per Section 2-9.403 of the Municipal Code, The Commission shall advise the Mayor and City Council in all matters relating to public works, ....... and in such other matters as may also be directed by the City Council. The Public Works Commission may fulfill that need since they have been tasked by Council to advise on matters relating to Public Works. When tree-related matters rise above the administrative level, the Council may wish to have them brought to the Public Works Commission for review and recommendation to Council.
Element - Protection of Designated Trees on Public Property MacMoran/Lang Proposal - The ordinance proposes establishing a "Heritage Tree" designation.
Trees receiving this designation would have a unique age, size, species or significance due to an association with a site or event. Removal of Heritage Trees would require approval by the Planning Commission.
Current Practice - Staff strives to protect all trees on public property, without regard for age, species or significance
Staff Recommendation - Staff doesn't see a need to establish a unique designation for certain trees.
Again, staff strives to protect all trees on public property. Historical relevance, public safety, path of travel and maturity are considered in decision-making.
Element - Protection of Designated Trees on Private Property MacMoran/Lang Proposal - The proposed "Heritage Tree" designation would also apply to certain trees on private property. Removal of Heritage Trees would require approval by the Planning Commission. Removal of trees without the heritage designation would require approval by the City Arborist.
Current Practice - The Municipal Code does not regulate trees on private property. There is only a reference to incorporating mature trees into landscape plans, when feasible, when a property is being redeveloped or having significant remodeling. For the most part trees on private property are not regulated by the City.
N.6., File # 21-2866 Meeting Date: 8/17/2021
Staff Recommendation - If this is the direction provided by City Council, establishing a protected designation for trees on private property should be referred to the Community Development Department for land use regulations and eventually to the Planning Commission for review. Applying new regulations to private property would impact property rights.
Element - Protection of Trees During Construction
MacMoran/Lang Proposal - The ordinance proposes requiring fenced tree protection zones when construction activities are to take place within the dripline of an existing tree.
Current Practice - The Public Works Department utilizes the attached Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) guidelines to protect parkway trees during construction.
Staff Recommendation - Staff proposes requiring builders to notify the Public Works Department when construction is to take place within the dripline of a public right of way tree. The Urban Forestry Manager would then inspect the site and determine what appropriate measures are needed to protect the tree.
Element - Adding/Restoring Trees During Construction or Upon Sale of a Property MacMoran/Lang Proposal - The ordinance proposes requiring trees to be planted in the public right of way, if deemed appropriate, when a property is sold or if a building permit is issued.
Current Practice - While there is no written policy in place, the Public Works Engineering Services Division provides conditions on entitlements and building permits to plant new parkway trees where appropriate.
Staff Recommendation - Staff agrees that in the event of new construction the builder should be required to plant trees in the parkway if deemed appropriate. It is not suggested to impose this requirement upon the sale of a property, as it may pose an unfair burden on the buyer.
Conclusion
Staff recommends that the City Council review existing procedures, discuss the policy elements suggested by the MacMoran/Lang draft ordinance and direct staff as to what procedures, if any, shall be incorporated into current practice/policy or into a City ordinance. Should the Council request an ordinance, staff will then work with the City Attorney's Office to develop an ordinance to be brought back for introduction and adoption. As an alternative, the procedures selected by the Council for trees on public property could be incorporated into a policy document rather than an ordinance.
Tree ordinances are essential in cities such as Encinitas and Manhattan Beach, where property owners are permitted to trim and remove trees in the public right of way themselves. In Redondo Beach the City performs these functions exclusively, following the direction of the City Council. A policy document would be simpler to amend in the future should the Council change its position on tree-related procedures.
COORDINATION
N.6., File # 21-2866 Meeting Date: 8/17/2021
The Public Works Department coordinated this item. The City Attorney's office will prepare the tree ordinance as to form.
FISCAL IMPACT
If the Council decides to create a new commission to review tree-related issues, there would be added costs for staff time. A majority of staff time for commission meetings would be provided by staff members who are exempt from overtime pay and no extra direct staff costs would be incurred.
However, video recording meetings and preparing minutes would require roughly eight hours of paid overtime per meeting, which would cost roughly $350 each time a separate commission meets.
APPROVED BY:
Joe Hoefgen, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
MacMoran/Lang Ordinance
• Tree Protection Zone Guidelines
City of Redondo Beach
Tree ordinance proposal
contacts/ authors:
Laura MacMoran, [email protected]
Mara Lang, [email protected]
Title 13
Urban Forest and Right-of-Way Planting Areas Husbandry
Chapter 1 General
Provisions
13-0.01 Purpose. A City's urban forest is an integral part of its character as well as its Infrastructure. Properly planned, managed, and maintained, the urban forest provides significant ecological, health, and economic benefits.
The purpose of this chapter is to promote and protect the public health, safety, and general welfare by providing for the regulation of the planting, management, maintenance, preservation, and, where necessary, removal of public trees and heritage trees.
Collectively, parkways, medians, traffic circles, and similar planting areas in the right-of-way contain a substantial amount of publicly- owned planting area and are the common locations for urban trees. By establishing standards for right-of-way planting areas, it will ensure the availability of space for street trees.
This chapter is intended to supplement the City's Policies and Administrative Procedures as outlined in the City's Urban Forestry Management Program.
13-1.02 Authority. The City Manager, or designee, shall have the authorty and jurisdiction to regulate the management, maintenance, planting, care, and removal of certain trees within the public right-of-way or on public property to ensure safety, protect the environment, or to preserve or enhance the aesthetics of such public sites.
13-1.03 Definitions. "Administrative Manual" means the Manual of Procedures as revised by the City Arborist that provides technical guldance to City staff and others regarding the planting, removal, maintenance, care, and protection of trees in the City of Redondo Beach.
1 of 12 4/6/21
"Approved Tree Species Master List" means a listing of trees as approved by the City Council that are deemed appropriate for planting on a Citywide basis, or in limited areas as determined by the City Arborist. This listing shall consider, as appropriate, ultimate tree canopy and root growth; compatibility with nearby buildings, sidewalks, and streets; shade canopy provided; and fire resistance. It shall also include a listing of invasive or otherwise undesirable trees that the City has determined shall not be planted within the City of Redondo Beach by public or private parties as part of a development plan. The approved tree species master list shall be maintained by the City Arborist and included as part of the Administrative Manual and shall be made available to the public.
"Certified arborlst" is a professional arborist who has been certified by the International Society of Arboriculture.
"City" shall mean the City of Redondo Beach.
"City Arborist" means that person appointed by the City Manager who shall serve as the City's resource and shall advise the City Manager and all departments on urban forestry matters.
"City tree" means a tree within the City's public rights-of-way, parks, or other public places and is maintained by the City.
"Diameter at standard height (DSH)" means the diameter of a tree measured at 54 inches above finish grade.
"Dripline area" means the area from the trunk of a tree to the outermost edge of the tree canopy.
"Emergency removal" means that a tree must be immediately removed due to an imminent threat to persons or property due to disease, lack of structural integrity or stability. Ihe tree may be removed as provided in the City's Administrative Manual. 20f12 4/6/21
"Excessive pruning" means removing more branches, stems, and roots than necessary to accomplish the desired objective. Typically no more than 25% of a tree's total number of major branches or canopy volume should be removed in a single year. Pruning In excess of 25% can injure a tree and is prohibited unless approved by the City Arborist. "Hazard" or "hazardous" means a tree, or part of a tree, that has been assessed for risk and found to be very likely to fail and cause severe consequences by causing injury, damage, or disruption.
"Heritage tree" means a tree of community significance located in the City on public or private property designated by the City in accordance with the following criteria: that is one of the oldest and largest of its species; is of unique form or species; has historic significance due to an association with an historic building, site, street, person or event; or is a defining landmark or significant outstanding feature of a neighborhood. The designation of a heritage tree on private property requires the written consent of the private property owner in a form deemed sufficient by the City Attorney.
"Injury" means any damage to a tree resulting from any activity, including, but not limited to, excessive pruning, cutting, topping, trenching, excavating, altering the grade, paving or compaction within the tree protection zone, including deliberate damage such as "Maintain" or "maintenance" means pruning, spraying, fertilizing, watering, treating for disease or injury or other similar acts which promote the growth, health, beauty, and the life of trees. "Park" means and includes any park owned, operated and/or maintained by the City of Redondo Beach.
"Parkway" means the strip of ground in the City right-of-way between the sidewalk and street, and may also refer to a landscaped area between the street-most edge of a private property and the start of the City street pavement.
3 of 12 4/6/21
"Pruning" means the selective removal of plant parts to meet specific goals and objectives.
"Public nuisance" means an Individual tree or shrub on public or private property that in the opinion of the City Arborist is likely to destroy, impair or otherwise interfere with any street improvements, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, sewers, or other public improvements, Including above and below ground utilitles or constitutes an unacceptable risk to the public or nearby public or private property, "Public places" means and includes all grounds, other than streets or parks, owned by, leased to, or otherwise under the control of the City of Redondo Beach.
"Risk" is the combination of the likelihood of an event and the severity of the potential consequences.
"Shrub" means and includes any woody perennial plant commonly achieving a height of less than 10 feet in height at maturity and usually having multiple stems.
"Street tree" means and includes any woody perennial plant typically having a single trunk commonly achieving 10 feet in height or greater at maturity and capable of being pruned to develop a branch-free trunk at least nine feet in height and that is located within City rights- of-way.
"Topping" means the reduction of tree size using internodal cuts without regard to tree health or structural integrity. Topping is not an acceptable pruning practice.
"Tree plan" means a plan adopted by the City Council for a City street, park or other public area which establishes the species, spacing and maintenance of trees to be planted along a particular street or in a geographic area, as designated by that plan.
4 of 12 4/6/21
"Tree protection and preservation plan" means a plan that outlines measures to protect and preserve trees on a project. This plan shall include requirements for preconstruction; treatments during demolition and/or construction; establishment of a tree protection zone; tree monitoring and inspection schedule.
"Tree protection zone" means the dripline area around a tree within the tree canopy or as determined by the City Arborist where no soil disturbance or other activity is permitted unless otherwise approved by the City Arborist.
"Urban forest" means the trees and shrubs that comprise the tree canopy in the City's rights-of-way, streets, parks, and under the circumstances specified in this ordinance, private property. "Urban Forest Management Program" means the ordinances; policies and procedures as approved by the City that provide direction and goals regarding the planting, maintenance, care, and protection of trees.
13-1.04 City Arborist. The City Manager shall designate a City Arborist, who shall serve as the City's expert and shall advise the City Manager and all departments on urban forestry matters. In addition to the authority granted in this ordinance, the City Arborist shall have the authority to bring disagreements or conflicts related to the City's tree responsibilities to the City Manager, who shall direct the issue to the relevant City Commission, Committee, and/or the City Council for resolution as he or she deems appropriate. The City Arborist shall have the authority to formulate and publish a master tree list and tree plan subject to City Council approval. The City Manager may fill the City Arborist position through assignment to existing staff, new recruitment, or contract, consistent with approved budget and personnel guidelines. The City Arborist shall also serve as staff liaison to the Urban Forest Commission. The City Arborist shall serve at the pleasure of the Cit Manager or designee exclusively
13-1.05 Violations and Violations of this chapter shall be punishable as provided by Chapter Penalties. XX of the Redondo Beach Municipal Code. Each day of violation constitutes a separate offense. Nothing in this section shall limit the City's ability to seek restitution for damage to City trees or shrubs or heritage trees in accordance with valuation methodologies as outlined in the City's Urban Forest Administrative Manual and additional penalties as established by law in the State of California. 5 of 12 4/6/21
13-1.06 Nuisance Any tree or shrub on a City parkway not planted with an approved City Abatement. of Redondo Beach encroachment permit, nor conforming to the Approved Tree Species Master List and/or Landscaping Ordinance (a he time of the planting) may be considered to be a nuisance, and ma be required to be pruned or removed at the expense of the individual or entity that caused said planting.
13-1.07 Severability. If any one portion or section of this title shall be determined to be invalid, the remaining portions or sections shall remain in full force and effect,
Chapter 2
Urban Forest Husbandry
13-2.01 Species, All trees to be planted in City rights-of-way, parks, or other public Cultivars, and Varleties. spaces shall conform to approved tree palettes identified in adopted List shall be reviewed and approved by the City Council. Minor revisions may be made by the City Arborist following review by the 13-2.02 Maintenance All City trees shall be maintained in accordance with the City's Urban and Preservation. Forest Management Program, which will be reviewed periodically by the UFC. The City shall consider the long-term sustainability of the tree canopy in various areas of the City and proactively maintain and/or remove trees in a manner that promotes the long term sustainability and enhancement of the City's urban forest. The City will use best practices to protect existing trees from the impacts of development 13-2.03 Pruning and Pruning of City trees and heritage trees must conform to the pruning Maintenance of City practices specified in the Administrative Manual. Pruning of heritage Trees and Herltage trees other than minor maintenance pruning must be approved by the Trees. City Arborist.
Any spraying or application of pesticides will be in accordance with the City's Integrated Pest Management Program.
Tree topping of any City tree or heritage tree shall be prohibited, unless authorized by the City Manager in writing after consultation with the City Arborist.
6 of 12 4/6/21
All woody and leaf materials resulting from the pruning operation must be properly recycled.
13-2.03 Removal of City Unless authorized by the City Arborist, no person shall remove any City Trees or Heritage Trees. i tree or heritage tree. In addition to the requirements in this section, removals of a heritage tree require a public hearing before the Planning Commission, If a complete heritage tree applícation has been received by the Planning Commission but not yet acted upon, no removal shall take place until the application for heritage tree status has been considered by the Commission. Except in cases of emergency as determined by the City Manager or designee, a public notification shall be required prior to the planned removal of any City tree or heritage tree with a diameter greater than six inches measured at 54 inches above finish grade (DSH). Such notification shall at a minimum consist of placing two signs no less than 12 inches wide by 18 inches high and visible from at least two directions in the immediate vicinity of each City tree or heritage tree to be removed no less than 14 calendar days prior to the scheduled removal, The notification shall Include the reason for the proposed removal and shall include a link to further information on a City website, including how to appeal the proposed action: Unless preserved as required by Section 13-2.4, any City tree or heritage tree removed shall have its stump removed to a depth at least 16 inches below the adjacent ground level, or as determined by the City Arborist, If appropriate as determined by the City Arborist, a minimum of one replacement tree of a type, size, and location shall be planted.
13-2.4 Preservation of Individuals, groups, City appointees or elected officials requesting to Stumps for Artistic preserve a stump or trunk for artistic purposes must make a request to Purposes. the City Arborist. The City Arborist will evaluate the stump or trunk for suitability to ensure that it is structurally sound, free of rot, disease or insect infestation and will not adversely impact City or private infrastructure, persons or property. If the City Arborist finds that a stump or trunk is a suitable candidate, the City Arborist will forward the application to the City Public Art Commission. If an application has been recelved by the City Arborist, the decision on removal or other disposition shall be delayed pending a decision of the Public Art Commission to either reject the application or forward it to the City Council.for final determination.
7 of 12 4/6/21
13-2.5 Protection of Every effort should be made to protect trees during construction. If Trees. construction activity or the movement of equipment is to take place within the dripline area of any City tree or heritage tree, a fenced tree protection zone shall be established by the City Arborist, except that the fenced area shall not include private property. No person shall store any equipment, store any solid or liquid waste materials, or any other liquids which may be injurious to a tree, nor excavate any ditches, tunnels, trenches or drive within the tree protection zone.
Should a construction project on private property involve digging, excavating or trenching within the tree protection zone, a Tree Protection and Preservation Plan must be prepared by the property owner and approved by the City Arborist.
Nothing in this chapter prevents a private property owner from the ability to develop hls or her property.
13-2.6 Restoration of
Trees.
A. Prior to the sale, transfer of title or transfer of 25% or more share of a parcel, the owner(s) shall
i. Submit an adjacent public tree certificate of
compliance to the City Arborist or City
Manager's designee within three days of an
executed real estate contract.
ii. Complete an application to replace a parkway
tree should the contiguous parkway not contain
a street tree.
lii. If the contiguous parkway, or right-of-way is not
suitable for a street tree as determined by the
City's Arborist, apply for an in-lieu of parkway
tree fee. The in lieu of fee shall be paid no more
than once every XX years.
8 of 12 4/6/21
B. Agreement by applicant for building permit to plant trees in the public right-of-way. In every application for permit to construct a new building or an addition to an existing addressed building that is greater than XXX square feet, the applicant shall agree to plant trees, or pay the City for the planting of trees, in the public parkway to complete the City's tree planting pattern.
The location of trees, species, and size shall be shown in the submitted plans or drawings and shall conform to City
specifications, codes, ordinances, and rules and regulations. 13-2.7 Approval Unless performed pursuant to a City maintenance plan, or as part of an Requlred. approved development, any work performed in the City's rights-of- way, parks, or other public areas shall require the written approval of the City Arborist before committing any of the following acts:
A. Removing, cutting, pruning, breaking, Injuring, defacing, or in any other way Interfering with any tree, or any part thereof, either above or below the ground.
B. Planting any tree or shrub not identified on the Approved Tree Species Master Tree or Council-adopted tree plan (if applicable).
C. Spraying (or otherwise applying) any chemical on any tree or shrub.
D. Securing any rope, wire, sign, or other device on or about such tree or shrub.
E. Removing or injuring any guard or device intended to assist in the growth and health of a tree or shrub.
F. Closing or obstructing the base or branch of a tree or shrub that may limit the abllity of the tree or shrub to grow or absorb water or nutrients.
9 of 12 Rev.
4/15/21
G. Nothing in this chapter shall preclude a property owner from maintaining the parkway in front of his or her property as may be required by law.
H. Any tree, shrub, or part thereof in the City that interferes with the use of any public street, park, or public place, or is unsafe and constitutes a risk to the life, health, safety, or property of the public, or i constitutes a center of infection for disease or insects that may endanger the health and life of other trees or shrubs shall be declared a public nuisance by the City Arborist and the owner thereof shall be required to correct or remove it. The property shall be pusted with a minimum of two signs no less than 12 inches wide by 18 inches high and visible from at least two directions in the immediate vicinity of the nuisance, giving notice of the required abatement, and the owner shall be notified in writing via certified mail by the City Arborist or designee of the existence of such public nuisance and be given 30 days for its correction or removal. If not corrected or removed within the time allowed, the City Arborist shall cause sald nuisance to be corrected or removed at once and initiate action necessary to defray all cost Chapter 3 ROW
Husbandry
13-3.01 The parkway's length shall be a maximum of 50% of the adjacent lot's frontage, or no less than the adjacent lot's frontage minus 19 feet, whichever is more.
: 13-3.02 The owner or person in control of property contiguous to the parkway shall be responsible for watering and fertilizing parkway trees and for routine care of the parkway plantings. Routine care of the parkway shall include periodic watering, weeding and mowing, as well as replacement of vegetation that dies. The owner of property contiguous to the parkway shall replace any parkway trees required to be installed pursuant to Sec. 13-2.6 in the event of the death of any trees resulting from the failure to water or fertilize as required herein. An application to replace the tree shall be submitted within 180 days of the death of the tree.
10 of 12 4/6/21
13-3.03 Alterations to the size of medians, parkways, traffic islands and other space contalning planting areas shall be approved by the Urban Forestry Commission. Exception driveway aprons are not subject to review
Title 2
Chapter 9 Article 9
Urban Forestry Commission
2-9.901 Created. There is hereby created an Urban Forest Commission. 2-9.902 Appointment (a) The Commission shall consist of seven (7) members. Unless and terms of member otherwise authorized by the City Council, one member shall be appointed from each Council district and two (2) members shall be appointed at large.
(b) The original term of one member shall expire on September 30, xxxx; the original term of two (2) members shall expire on September 30, xxxx; the original term of two (2) members shall expire on September 30, xxxx; and the original term of two (2) members shail expire on September 30, xxxx.
2-9.903 Powers and The Commission shall advise the Mayor and City Council in all matters duties. relating to urban forestry, capital improvement programs pertaining to urban forests, shall review and provide comments on City plans and policies related to urban forestry, including updates to the various aspects of the City's Urban Forest Management Program and Administrative Manual, and, shall among other things:
11 of 12 4/6/21
(a) Review and provide comments on tree plans prior to
consideration by the City Council.
(b) Review and provide comments on the Approved Tree Species Master List prior to consideration by the City Council. (c) Review and provlde comments to the City Arborist on proposed City tree removals except in the case of emergency removals. (d) Advise City staff regarding programs of public outreach and education in order to promote public understanding of the City's urban forest, including programs to celebrate and promote Arbor Day.
(e) Review and consider heritage tree applications In consultation with the City Arborist, and shall make recommendations to the Planning Commission. F. Revlew and provide comments to the City Arborist on proposed changes to the City's Urban Forest Management Program
(f) Inventory existing trees on public property.
(g) Study and advise on best practices.
(h) Identify and support grant applications by the City. (i) as directed by the City Councll and in such other matters as may also be directed by the City Council.
Title 10
Chapter 2
Article SParking Regulations
Sec. 10-2.1704(b)(4)(e) Driveway approaches created from parkways shall comply with Section 13-2.01
12 of 12 4/6/21
TREE PROTECTION ZONE/TPZ
Each tree to be retained shall have a designated TPZ identifying the area sufficiently large enough to protect the tree and roots from damage. The tree protection zone to be determined by City Urban Forestry Manager or designee. The protecting fencing shall serve as the TPZ TPZ with chain link 6 feet high, fences to be mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts driven in to the ground to a depth of at least 2 feet at no more than 10 ft spacing.
The following activities are prohibited within the TPZ
• Storage or parking vehicles, building materials, refuse, excavated spoils or dumping of poisonous materials on or around tree and roots, poisonous materials include, but not limited to paint, petroleum products, concrete or stucco mix, dirty water or any other material which may be deleterious to tree health.
• Cutting of tree roots, by trenching, foundation, digging, placement of curbs and other miscellaneous excavation without prior approval of the Urban Forestry Manager or designee.
• Soil disturbance or grade change.
• Contractor shall notify City Urban Forestry Manager or designee 24 hours in advance of any activity taking place inside the TPZ. • No mechanical digging. Severing roots greater than 2-inch requires City approval.
BLUE FOLDER ITEM
Blue folder items are additional back up materlal to administrative reports and/or public comments received after the printing and distribution of the agenda packet for receive and file.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AUGUST 17, 2021
N.6. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING
CONSIDERATION TO ESTABLISH A TREE ORDINANCE
FOR PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY AND PRIVATE PROPERTY
TREES
PowerPoint presentation
Additional correspondence received
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE
ACTION REGARDING
CONSIDERATION TO ESTABLISH
A TREE ORDINANCE FOR PUBLIC
RIGHT OF WAY AND PRIVATE
PROPERTY TREES
August 17, 2021
Background
- March 12, 2019 Council Reviewed Current Tree
Care Procedures
- February 18, 2020 Council Reviewed Manhattan
Beach Tree Ordinance
- March 17, 2020 Budget Response Report on
Tree City USA Program
- April 20, 2021 Council Referred Tree Ordinance
to Staff
Tree Trimming
Tree Trimming
- Performed by Outside Vendor
- City Divided into Four Grids
- Most Trees Trimmed Every Four Years
- Heavily Traveled Corridors - Trimmed Every Two Years
- Out of Grid Requests Evaluated Case by Case
Tree Removal
- Urban Forest Protected Whenever Possible
- Removal Requests Evaluated by Staff Arborist
- Removals Approved only if Conditions Exist
Dead/Dying Trees
Removal Criteria -
Non Development-Related
- Tree Health Issues
- Damage to Infrastructure
- Safety Hazards
- Removals Not Approved for View Preservation,
Maintenance Issues or Tree Age
Tree Health
Removal Requests - Development-Related
- Typically Related to Driveway Obstruction
- Must be Significant Impediment
- No Other Reasonable Alternatives
- If Approved, Developer/Owner Pays Fee Equal to
Value of Tree
Tree Planting
- Funded by Tree Enhancement
Account
- Staff Identifies Appropriate
Locations
- Goal: Plant 100 Trees Per Year
(102 planted during FY 20/21)
- Tree Planting Required for
Development Projects
10 Draft Template Ordinance
- Encinitas Template/Resident Suggested Ordinance
- More Applicable for Cities that Allow Residents to
Trim/Remove/Plant Trees on Public Property
- Redondo Beach - Only City (and City Contractors)
Maintains Street Trees
Ordinance Element - Designated Staff Person
- Encinitas Template: Create City Arborist Position
- Current Practice: Urban Forestry Manager (Certified
Arborist) Handles Tree Issues
- Recommendation: Maintain Current Practice
Ordinance Element - Commission Review
- Encinitas Template: Create Urban Forestry Commission
- Current Practice: Decisions Made by Urban Forestry
Manager/Public Works Director.
Referred to Council if Necessary
- Recommendation: Refer to Public Works Commission
and/or City Council if Necessary
13 Ordinance Element - Protected Tree
Designation: Public Property
- Encinitas Template: Create Heritage Tree Designation
- Current Practice: All Trees Protected
- Recommendation: Maintain Current Practice
14 Ordinance Element - Protected Tree
Designation: Private Property
- Encinitas Template: Create Heritage Tree Designation
- Current Practice: Not Addressed in Municipal Code
- Recommendation: Refer to Community Development
Department/Planning Commission
Ordinance Element- Protection of Trees
During Construction
- Encinitas Template: Require Fenced Tree Protection
Zones
- Current Practice: Tree Protection Zone Guidelines
- Recommendation: Require Builders to Notify Public
Works When Working in Tree Area
Ordinance Element - Adding Trees During
Construction/Property Sale
- Encinitas Template: Require Tree(s) Planted with
Building Permit or Sale of Property
- Current Practice: No Written Policy. Public Works
Requires Plantings where Appropriate
- Recommendation: Require for Construction/Not for Sale 17 Conclusion/Recommendation
- Review Existing Procedures
- Discuss Encinitas Template
Ordinance Elements
- Provide Direction on Policies &
Procedures to be Included in
Ordinance or Policy Document
APARTMENT ASSOCIATION OF GREATER LOS ANGELES
AAGLA
"Great Apartments Start Here!"
Janet M. Gagnon, Esq.
Senior Manager, Government Affairs
janet@)aagla.org
213.384.4131
August 16, 2021
Via Electronic Mall
Hon. Mayor Bill Brand
and the Members of the City Council
415 Diamond Street
Redondo Beach, California 90277
RE: Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Consideration to Establish a Tree Ordinance for Public Right of Way and Private Property (Agenda Item N6)
Dear Hon, Mayor Brand and the Members of the Redondo Beach City Council:
At the August 17th City Council meeting, the City Council will consider a proposal for the drafting of a new tree ordinance that would substantially damage private property rights for all property owners within the City of Redondo Beach. The Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles (AAGLA or Association) urges the City Council to reject all provisions within the ordinance related to private property and private property owners, including all of Scotion 13-2.6(A) and relevant language in Section 13-2.03.
AAGLA represents more than 10,000 rental housing providers throughout Los Angeles, San Bemardino and Ventura counties, including Redondo Beach. Many of our members are small business "mom and pop" owners that rely on their property to provide retirement income. Some are retired fire fighters, police officers and teachers. They provide some of the most affordable rental housing in Redondo Beach.
While we understand the City's desire to maintain trees that it has planted for the benefit of all residents, it is unfair to require private property owners to incur the costs of providing additional trees at time of sale or pay an in-lieu fee and to restrict their ability to properly and timely address trees located on their own property. To do so creates a new burden on private citizens for the public good at a time when residents are already extremely financially burdened.
The COVID-19 pandemic has caused severe financial strain being experienced by the City's residents, business owners and rental housing providers. For the last 16 months, many multifamily rental property owners have experienced dire financial circumstances, having collected littlc, if any, rental revenuc and consequently depleting retirement and other savings or financing critical item with credit cards in order to maintain essential building operations with many now facing possible foreclosure and bankruptcy.
APARTMENT ASSOCIATION OF GREATER LOS ANGELES
AAGLA
"Great Apartments Start Here!"
Section 13-2.6 (A) states: "Prior to the sale, transfer of title or transfer of 25% or more share of a parcel, the owners) shall (i) Submit an adjacent public tree certificate of compliance 1o the Cily Arborist or City Manager's designee within three days of an executed real estate contract. (ii) Complete an application to replace a parkway tree should the contiguous parkway not contain a street tree. (ii) If the contiguous parkway, or right-of-way is not suitable for a street tree as determined by the City's Arborist, apply for an in-lieu of parkway tree fee. The in-lieu of fee shall be paid no more than once every XX years." This section adds sevcral substantial new burdens onto property owners. First, it requires "publie ice certificate of compliance", where to get such a certificate and how much it costs is not stated in the proposed ordinance, However, it is clear is that it would significantly interfere with a real estate transaction by creating a now burcaucratic requirement at time of sale. Second, it would require a property owner to undertake the City's responsibility to purchase and install a new tree in the City's right-of-way (see definition of "parkway" under Section 13-1.03). Third, it would establish an "in-lieu" fee. Once again, the ordinance does not state the specific amount of the fee. Requiring either the installation of a tree or paying an "in-lieu" fee is an unreasonable financial burden on the property owner for a public good.
According to the Staff report regarding the adding/restoring trees upon sale of a properly, "It is not suggested to impose this requirement upon the sale of a property, as it may pose an unfair burden on the buyer." We agree with staff and urge the City Council to adopt their recommendation and remove Section 13-2.6(A) in its entirety.
Further, under Section 13-2.03, it states: "Unless authorized by the City Arborist, no person shall romove any City tree or heritage tree. In addition to the requirments in this section, removals of a heritage tree require a public hearing before the Planning Commission..." As to the protection of designated trees on private property, the Staff report states, "Applying new regulations to private property would impact property rights." We would emphasis that it will severely hamper a future owner's ability to properly address unforoscon problems with the tree. For example, a tree may have ample room at the time of the designation being located near a house. However, over time a large tree can quickly outgrow those parameters and cause substantial foundational, structural and plumbing damage to homes/buildings. By requiring a public hearing, it will unnecessarily delay properly addressing the problem with the tree and potentially cause additional harm and increase the cost of repairs for the private property.
Lastly, Section 13-1.05 states, "Violations of this chapter shall be punishable as provided by Chapter XX of the Redondo Beach Municipal Code. Each day of the violation constitutes a separate offense..." This provision would mean that & property owner in dealing with their nwn tree on their nwn properly could be subject to significant fines on a daily basis. This seems extremely punitive and would be a substantial disincentive for any property owner to consent to having any tree on their property designated as a Heritage tree.
In conclusion, it is unfair and inappropriate to shift the cost of trees in the City's right-of-way as a public good onto private property owners and to create a new bureaucracy at the point of sale for rcal estate within the City of Redondo Beach especially now as all residents are struggling to financial recover trom the
APARTMENT ASSOCIATION OF GREATER LOS ANGELES
AAGLA
"Great Apartments Start Here!"
impacts of COVID-19. Also, the proposed provisions would impose unnecessary and potentially costly delays on private property owners by requiring that they go before the planning commission prior to being able to properly address their own trees in their own yards. Therefore, we urge the City Council to remove all provisions within the ordinance related to private property and private property owners, including all of Section 13-2.6(A) and relevant language in Section 13-2.03.
Thank you for your time and consideration of these matters. If you have any questions, please call me at (213) 384-4131 ext. 307 or contact me via electronic mail at [email protected] Sincerely,
Janet M. gegnan
Janet M. Gagnon, Esq.
CC: Daniel Yukelson, Executive Director, Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles
PROPOSED TREE ORDINANCE
IMPETUOUS AND HIGHLIGHTS
PRESENTATION
August 17,2021
Laura MacMorran
SAMPLE SURVEY OF
PARKWAY TREES
District # of Lots # of Lots with % of Lots % of Lots
Counted Trees with Trees w/o Trees
188 147 78% 22%
167 103 62%
38%
140 107 77% 23%
75 31 41%
59%
MEDIAN 69.5% 30.5%
ESTIMATED # OF LOTS WITHOUT
PARKWAY TREES
1992 Land Use Element
Single-family Lots 9,236
Multifamily Lots
Commercial Lots
Institutional Lots
Conservative Est. % w/o a 20%
parkway tree
# of Opportunities to plant 1,847
parkway trees
# OF REDONDO BEACH SOLD
SINGLE FAMILY HOMES
SOLD IN 2020
260
FOR
260 x 20 (conservative estimate of
SH who parkway trees =52 new trees
102 Trees the City planted in 2020
.-
Subdivision Requirements: 10-1.707(A) Street trees
TRACT
& the rationale for extending the parkway tree requirement when a property is sold. ----Original Message-....
From: Barbara Epstein
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2021 11:56 AM
To: CityClerk <[email protected]>; Bill Brand <Bill Brand @redonde.or>; Todd Lowenstein < odd [email protected]>; Nils Nehrenheim <Nils.Nehrenheim @redendo.org>; Zein Obagi <Zein [email protected]>; Christlan Horvath <Christian [email protected]>; [email protected]
Cc: Cameron Harding <[email protected]>; Mike Witzansky «Mike [email protected]>; Michael Klein <[email protected]> Subject: Agenda Items #N-2 SWA Agreement. #N-6. Tree Ordinance [City Logo] ATTN: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Dear Council Members,
In case I can't access Zoom or eComments for tonight's meeting, 1 Just want to say thanks for all you do to make Redondo more resident-centered, capable, and more healthy, beautiful, and enlightened.
The SWA Company has some very innovative design Ideas to help us move forward with a beautiful make-over for our waterfront. I have checked their website and like their approach.
Great cities have great waterfronts and parks.
The people of Redondo are grateful to the city for finally considering the Tree Ordinance.
Great citles have great trees!
Lots to look forward to, and this is just the beginning| Barbara Epstein
SBPC
RBCG
Sent from my iPad
BLUE FOLDER ITEM
Blue folder items are additional back up material to administrative reports and/or public comments received after the printing and distribution of the agenda packet for receive and file.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
March 15, 2022
N.2. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING
INPUT FROM THE RECREATION AND PARKS
COMMISSION, PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION, AND
PLANNING COMMISSION ON THE DEVELOPMENT
OF A TREE ORDINANCE FOR THE REGULATION OF
TREES ON PRIVATE AND/OR PUBLIC PROPERTY
PowerPoint presentation
Letter from South Bay Association of Realtors
ail. South Back
AAGLA Association of REALTORS'
1320316 10 100
Monday, March 14, 2022
Hon. Mayor Bill Brand, and the Members of the City Council 415 Diamond Street
Redondo Beach, California 90277
RE: Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Input from the Recreation And Parks Commission, Public Works Commission, and Planning Commission on the Development Of A Tree Ordinance for the Regulation of Trees On Private and/or Public Property (Agenda Item N2) Dear Hon. Mayor Brand and the Members of the Redondo Beach City Council:
At the March 15' City Council meeting, the City Council will discuss possible development of a new tree ordinance which includes elements that would substantially harm private property rights for all property owners in the City of Redondo Beach. The Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles (AAGLA) and the South Bay Association of REALTORS® (SBAOR) urges the City Council to reject any proposal that would expand the City's current requirements as it relates to private property and the obligations of property owners.
While we understand the City's desire to maintain trees that it has planted for the benefit of all residents, it is far too onerous to require private property owners to incur the costs of planting additional trees at the time of sale or create a blanket restriction on their ability to address tree related issues located on their own property in an efficient manner.
The City's residents, business owners, and rental housing providers have already been experiencing severe financial strain during the past two years caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. This proposal would only serve to further exacerbate these challenging financial circumstances by placing an additional, unnecessary financial burden on property owners. Moreover, this proposal is unwarranted given City staff's testimony about its current practice to regulate tree removal and hesitancy to encroach on private property rights, as well as the lack of evidence that the removal of trees is a widespread issue "Prohibiting removal of parkway trees to provide driveway access to private property as part of construction projects" is unnecessary and removes City staff flexibility and existing current practice. The draft ordinance prohibits removal of parkway trees for driveway access, with appeals requiring a review by the Planning Commission. During the January 20, 2022, Planning Commission meeting, Redondo Beach Public Works Director Ted Semaan outlined the current practice followed when the city receives a request for tree removal for driveway access, and he indicated that the City attempts to avoid removal, if possible, with review on a case-by-case basis, and approval only granted if no alternatives are otherwise available. The City Council must continue to entrust case review to its staff and not issue a blanket prohibition of parkway tree removal.
Perhaps the most overreaching item in this proposal, which deservedly received the most public pushback and spirited discussion by City Commissioners, is "prohibiting removal of protected/heritage
HAN I HITE
Lil. South Bay
AAGLA Association of REALTORS"
trees located in front, rear and side yard setbacks on private property,". We agree with city staff that aside from being challenging to enforce, this would severely hamper a future owner's ability to properly address unforeseen problems with a tree. Property owners need to retain their ability to prevent substantial foundational, structural, and plumbing damage to their homes/buildings if the situation warrants it. By requiring a public hearing, it will unnecessarily delay addressing significant problems with the tree and potentially cause additional harm and increased cost of repairs to the property.
We urge the City Council to reject advancement of any proposed Tree Ordinance that would impose additional requirements on private property and/or that would result in unnecessary and potentially costly delays on private property owners by requiring they go before the Planning Commission prior to being able to properly address their own trees in their own yards.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this important matter.
Sincerely,
South Bay Association of REALTORS®
Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION
REGARDING INPUT FROM THE
RECREATION AND PARKS COMMISSION,
PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION, AND
PLANNING COMMISSION ON THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A TREE ORDINANCE
FOR THE REGULATION OF TREES ON
PRIVATE AND/OR PUBLIC PROPERTY
March 15, 2022
Background
• Concern Expressed about Trees being Removed
• Ordinance Suggested to Protect Trees
• August 17, 2021 Council Reviewed Resident-Proposed
Ordinance & Requested Commission
Input on Four Ordinance Elements
Ordinance Elements
Establishing a Protected/Heritage Tree Designation
Prohibiting Removal of Parkway Trees for Driveway Access Prohibiting Removal of Heritage Trees on Private Property Establishing Lists of Recommended and Discouraged Species Commission Review
• November 10, 2021 Recreation & Parks Commission
• December 1, 2021 Public Works Commission
• January 20, 2022 Planning Commission
Commission Input
Element 1 - Establish Heritage Tree Designation
• Recreation & Parks: Supports Establishing Protected Tree Designation
• Public Works: Supports Establishing Protected Tree
Designation and a Public Process for
Reviewing Removal Requests
• Planning: Supports Creating Ordinance that
Includes Protected Tree Designation
Commission Input
Element 2 - Prohibit Removals for Driveway Access
• Recreation & Parks: Supports Protecting Parkway Trees from Driveway Expansions
• Public Works: Supports Maintaining Current Public
Works Review Practices and Documenting
in Ordinance
• Planning: Supports Prohibiting Tree Removals for
New Construction
Commission Input
Element 3 - Protecting Trees on Private Property
• Recreation & Parks: Surpain re Removals on Private Properting • Public Works: Supports Establishing an Ordinance
that Addresses Certain Trees on Private
Property
• Planning: Recommended Pursuing an Ordinance
that Prohibits Removal of Heritage Trees on
Private Property
Commission Input
Element 4 - Recommended/Prohibited Species
• Recreation & Parks: Supports Adopting a Tree Species List • Public Works: Supports Review and Expansion of
Existing Acceptable Species List
• Planning: Supports Creating Recommended
and Discouraged Tree Lists for Public
and Private Property
Recommendation
• Discuss Input from Three
Commissions and Provide
Direction to Staff
From: Zein Obagi
To: Vickie Kroneberger
Cc: Melissa Villa: Mike Witzansky: Michael Webb
Subject: Re: N2 Ordinance doc - Motion
Date: Tuesday, March 15, 2022 9:36:12 PM
Attachments: Image001.png
Qutlook-liafpi5u.png
Tree Ordinance:
• GOAL: Redondo Tree Ordinance - goal and policy to replace the removal of any tree on a one-to-one basis in the City; and regulate the unfettered removal of trees in an effort to preserve and grow a desirable tree canopy in Redondo Beach • No front yard removal 20-25 ft without a 1:1 replacement with a 24" tree from our favored species list in the same front yard setback;
• Dead or sick tree, disfavored or nuisance causing species in first 25 feet, ok to remove and replace with 1:1 replacement in the same setback;
• If removed in permitted place, rear yard, sideyard.; fee paid to the city tree fund, adequate to replace the tree;
• Violation of this section shall result int he payment of the cost of replanting 5 new 24" box trees, trees plus $15,000; enforce under ARO with lien power; • Average 24" box trees for replacements;
• Pull best aspects from Manhattan Beach, Encinitas and Beverly Hills tree ordinances, while permitting city to be objectively flexible so we do not prevent redevelopment of old, dilapidated structures and properties due to trees. • Replacements: small fee paid to city to cover cost of replacement • Objective standards for the City staff and experts to have reasonable flexibility to uphold the goals of the City.
• Heritage tree definition, favored species list; disfavored species list - prohibited • If property sells, required to put a 24" box tree in the parkway if a tree is missing and placement is feasible
• Free canopy committee to help develop the Tree Ordinance • No criminal enforcement
Education when we finalize this is key.
Zein E. Obagi, Jr.
Council Member, District 4
City of Redondo Beach | City Council
415 Diamond Street | Redondo Beach. CA 90277
310.318.0693 | 310.379.9268 fax
[email protected]| www.redondo.org