|
<br />.~
<br />
<br />'-
<br />
<br />II - Consent Calendar .
<br />Items upon which action was taken with one motion after discussion of individual items
<br />if requested. Previously discussed in committee on January 30, 1974 (Present; Mayor
<br />Anderson; Councilmen Williams, Hershner, McDonald, Beal, Campbell, Keller, Murray, and
<br />Wood) and February 6, 1974 (Present: Councilmen Williams (presiding), Hershner, Beal,
<br />Campbell, and Wood). Minutes of those meetings are shown below printed in italics.
<br />
<br />0688
<br />
<br />, . ~
<br />'1 ", ...... ," . r- ".' ~ ".." V .~'I..:: ~. " I ..,' , ,_ ,., . . ..;; " . ' . " . .~'. . . . /
<br />A.Ordinance re: Tree Cutt~ng- A recent clear cutt~ng operat~on ~n the Crest Dr~ve .
<br />area in the southern hills of the Ci ty prompted Council concern wi th r~gard to ,
<br />preservation of trees in that and other areas of the City. Memo from City At- 'l
<br />,torney was read transmi tting a second draft of a regulatory (permi t system) '1)
<br />Ordinance on tree cutting. The proposed ordinance, reflecting changes to in.... '.~
<br />'corporate concerns of the Council subcommittee on tree cutting, was also read. j
<br />i 1
<br />!Stan Long, assistant city attorney, emphas~zed.that th~ proposed o~dinanc~ would ~
<br />'not institute an absolute ban on tree cutt~ng ~n the C~ty, rather ~t prov~ded i
<br />for a system permitting trees to be cut under appropriate circumstances. Manager 1
<br />I explained that the proposed permi t system would require a review by a staff person'1
<br />of trees proposed to be cut. Costs of administration of the system was estimated
<br />at $40,000 annually.
<br />
<br />-,
<br />
<br />lCouncilman Williams asked whether the provisions included trees which had to be
<br />I cut to allow construction on which a building permi t was issued. He wondered
<br />about the resolution of conflicts - criteria on which decisions would be based -
<br />in issuing permits when perhaps scenic considerations were to be weighed against
<br />. those 'of home construction. He fel t vagueness of the proposed ordinance in the
<br />area of standards to be followed would make ~he regulations constitutionally
<br />- '-'-' ..... .....,"- -. -. -"---'--'---- _.
<br />
<br />'questionable. Mr. Long answered that the regulations would extend to trees on
<br />iproperty on which a building permit'had been issued. He added that decisions
<br />: to gr~nt or not to grant tree cutiting permits would be a question of judgment .
<br />and. no more questionable on a constitutional basis than any other judgmental i
<br />decisions. Councilman Murray noted that the subcommittee did discuss the regula-
<br />tions in relation to subdivisions and hoped there would be some followup in that
<br />, regard.
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />_ --1
<br />
<br />1 Councilman Hershner expressed concern also about criteria or standards on which
<br />issuance of permits would be based - whether there were published standards for
<br />USe in horticulture, silviculture, and landscape architecture. He felt another
<br />factor which should be considered and not covered by the proposed ordinance was
<br />that of the desires of the property owner. Councilman Wood explained that the
<br />subcommittee did discuss rights of property owners and other factors which the
<br />subco~ttee felt would be carried over into administration of the ordinance.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />Councilman Williams wondered whether any contact had been made with other cities
<br />operating under this type ordinance. Ed Smith, parks and recreation director,
<br />replied that similar ordinances were in effect in San Mateo and Monterey,
<br />California. Those cities indicated no problems other than minor technical re-
<br />v~s~ons. He explained the primary difference between horticultural and silvi-
<br />cultural considerations were those of shrub type and forest type growths re-
<br />spectively.
<br />I
<br />
<br />Councilman Hers~er wondered how exceptions in Section 3(c) would affect the
<br />value or utility of property - whether it would apply to only the property on .,
<br />Which trees were growing, adjacent property, entire City, etc. He felt clarifica- !
<br />tion was neefi.ed. Councilman Murray answered that the intent was that it be a
<br />, general property consideration and that would be the appropriate area for staff
<br />consideration in issuing permits. Councilman Keller explained that all types of
<br />Problems were, discussed in subcommittee, with the conclusion that supervision of
<br />tree cutting would tend to provide for replacement when undesirable trees were
<br />: taken out. He said property rights should have priority. Councilman Wood added
<br />that the system would give an opportunity for alternatives if the property owner
<br />were required to contact the parks department before removing an undesirable tree.
<br />I
<br />,
<br />
<br />--
<br />
<br />: Councilwoman Beal asked how the regulations would affect trimming of trees to
<br />; clear overhead wires. Mr. Long answered that the ordinance relates only to
<br />: falling or removing trees completely. It does not change any existing standard,
<br />i he said, nor reduce any public utility obligation to trim.
<br />
<br />: Councilman McDonald referred
<br />I a tree should be cut because
<br />, answered that Code provision
<br />, partment people to determine
<br />hazard.
<br />
<br />to Section 3(e) and asked who would determine whether!
<br />of Obstructing the view at intersections. Manager
<br />allows the City through the parks and traffic de-
<br />when there is an obstruction which is a traffic
<br />
<br />~:-. J i
<br />
<br />, '"
<br />
<br />42
<br />
<br />2/11/74 - 3
<br />
|