HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.4 5A
i
I
Town Of Los Altos Hills June 1, 2006
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
RE: AMENDMENT TO THE SITE DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRING REMOVAL
OF EUCALYPTUS TREES AT TIME OF SITE DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
(SECTION 10-2.802)
FROM: Debbie Pedro, AICP, Senior Planner.�-f-
APPROVED BY: Carl Cahill,Planning Director/Acting City Manager C
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission:
Forward a recommendation that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the
proposed amendments to Section 10-2.802 (Landscaping Policies) requiring removal of
eucalyptus trees at the time of site development approval.
BACKGROUND
On April 6, 2006, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed ordinance and
directed staff to consult with an arborist to determine whether all eucalyptus species
should be subject to removal. According to the report prepared by arborist Barrie D.
Coate dated April 16, 2006, there are hundreds of eucalyptus species, some of which are
acceptable for ornamental plantings near homes or roadways. However, the following six
(6) eucalyptus species are prone to limb breakage or severe pest problems and should be
avoided:
1. Blue Gum (Eucalyptus globulus)
2. Pink Ironbark (Eucalyptus sideroxylon rosea)
3. River Red Gum(Eucalyptus camaldulensis)
4. Swamp Gum(Eucalyptus rudis)
5. Honey Gum (Eucalypts melliodora)
6. Manna Gum (Eucalyptus viminalis)
The proposed ordinance amendment has been revised to include the above mentioned
eucalyptus tree species. (Attachment 1)
CEOA REVIEW
In conformance with CEQA requirements, an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration has been prepared for the project. (Attachment 2) The Initial Study identified
a potential impact to biological resources. Specifically,removal of eucalyptus trees during
the bird breeding season may cause disturbances to active nests of raptors or special status
birds. Based on the analysis contained in the study, the impact will be reduced to a less
than significant level with the following mitigation measure:
�l
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
June 1,2006
Page 2 of 2
IV-d.Biological Resources
Removal of eucalyptus trees shall take place between the beginning of August and the
end of January to avoid disturbance of nesting birds protected under the Federal
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Department of Fish and Game Code
Section 3500 et seq unless a nesting bird survey is first conducted and there is a determination
that there are no active nests within the tree.
A Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was published in the Town
Crier on May 24, 2006. The notice was also submitted to the Santa Clara County Clerks
Office for a 20 day public review period which began on June 1 and will end on June 22,
2006.
ATTACHMENT
1. Proposed amendment to section 10-2.802 of the Site Development Ordinance
2. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3. "Acceptable Species of Eucalyptus for Ornamental Planting" prepared by Barrie D.
Coate dated April 17, 2006
4. April 6, 2006 Planning Commission staff report
5. April 6, 2006 Planning Commission meeting minutes
6. March 9, 2006 City Council staff report
� r
Attachment 1
TITLE 10. (Zoning and Site Development) CHAPTER 2. (Site Development)
Article 8. (Landscaping)
Sec. 10-2.801.Purpose.
The purposes of this article are to create the maximum compatibility of development with the
natural environment; to preserve the rural qualities of the Town, to insure that structures, as viewed
from off-site, blend harmoniously with the natural landscape and are unobtrusive; to maintain soil
stability, to abate noises; to protect wildlife habitats; to retain aesthetic quality; and to protect
properties against fire and other natural forces.
(§ 15, Ord. 299, eff. December 11, 1985)
Sec. 10-2.802.Landscaping policies
(a)Erosion.Landscaping shall be required to control erosion,retard soil creep, and reduce the
potential for landslides.
(b) Noise. Landscaping and berms may be required to shield Town residents from unnatural
noises, such as those from freeways, arterial streets,and nonresidential land uses.
(c) Visual effects. Landscaping shall be required to mitigate the visual effects of development
from off the site.
(d) Preferred plants. Landscaping should utilize fire retardant species. Native or naturalized
plants or other plant species that blend naturally with the landscape should generally be favored.
(e) Maintenance. Landscaping shall be maintained in healthy condition by property owners
and shall not intrude into easements, paths, or the lines-of-site required at intersections and along
roads.
(f) Tree preservation.Every feasible attempt should be made to preserve existing trees except
those trees identified in the Los Altos Hills Landscape Guidelines invasive plant list.
(g) All existing Blue Gum (E. globulus), Pink Ironbark (E. sideroxylon rosea), River
Red Gum (E. camaldulensis), Swamp Gum (E. rudis), Honey Gum (E. melliodora), and
Manna Gum (E. viminalis) eucalyptus trees shall be removed at the time of the construction
of a principle residence or at the time of the construction of any structure, combination of
structures, or additions to structures which individually or cumulatively equal or exceed nine
hundred (900) square feet of floor area.
(h) Views. In order to prevent blockage of scenic views and vistas, the height at maturity of
proposed plants and trees shall be considered in determining the appropriateness of landscaping plans.
(i) Amount required. The Town shall require only the minimum amount of landscaping
necessary to implement the above policies. The amount of landscaping required by the Town shall be
determined by the size of structure, the types of materials, and the colors proposed for structures.
Structures that blend with the natural landscape will normally require less landscaping for screening
purposes than will structures composed of non-natural materials and bright colors.
Where slopes are too steep to support continuous ground cover, niches and ledges may be required
for planting. Landscaping may be required for cuts and fills along public roads.
(§ 15, Ord. 299,eff. December 11, 1985)
ATTACHMENT
__TOWN.OF-LOS ALT-OS..HILLS_._
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT TITLE: Site Development Ordinance Amendment(Article 8 "Landscaping")
PREPARED BY: Debbie Pedro, AICP, Senior Planner
NAME AND ADDRESS OF PROJECT SPONSOR:
Town of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, California 94022
LOCATION OF PROJECT: 26379 Fremont Road,Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: An amendment to the Site Development Ordinance requiring
removal of Blue Gum (E. globulus), Pink Ironbark (E.
sideroxylon rosea), River Red Gum (E. camaldulensis), Swamp
Gum (E. rudis), Honey Gum (E. melliodora), and Manna Gum
(E. viminalis) eucalyptus trees at the time of Site Development
approval. (Section 10-2.802,Landscaping Policies)
FINDING: The Town of Los Altos Hills has completed a review of the
proposed project, and on the basis of the attached Initial Study,
has determined that the project, as mitigated, will reduce impacts
to a less than significant level.
MITIGATION MEASURES INCLUDED IN THE PROJECT TO AVOID
POTENTIALLY SIGNICIANT EFFECTS:
IV-d.Biological Resources
Removal of eucalyptus trees shall take place between the beginning of August and the end of
January to avoid disturbance of nesting birds protected under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty
Act (MBTA) and'California Department of Fish and Game Code Section 3500 et seq unless a
nesting bird survey is first conducted and there is a determination that there are no active nests within
the tree.
C4 )J1
Z206
Carl Cahill,Planning Director Date
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
Circulated on: June 1, 2006 Adopted on:
Town of Los Altos Hills
---- —--—--— ----26379 Fremont.Road -
Los Altos Hills,.CA 94022
INITIAL STUDY
In accordance with the policies regarding implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970, this document, combined with the attached supporting data, constitutes the initial study on the
subject project. This initial study provides the basis for the determination of whether the project may have
a significant effect on the environment. If it is determined that the project may have a significant effect on
the environment, an environmental impact report will be prepared which focuses on the areas of concern
identified by this initial study. If it is determined that the project would not have a significant effect on the
environment, it is eligible for a Negative Declaration.If it is determined that the proposed project could have a
significant effect on the environment, however, the significant effects of the project have been reduced to a
less-than-significant level because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project
applicant,then the project would be eligible for a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Project Title: Site Development Ordinance Amendment
(Article 8 "Landscaping")
Lead Agency Name and Address: Town of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, California 94022
Contact Person and Phone Number: Carl Cahill, Planning Director(650) 941-7222
Initial Study prepared by: Debbie Pedro, AICP, Senior Planner
Project Location: Town of Los Altos Hills
Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Town of Los Altos Hill
26379 Fremont Road,
Los Altos Hills CA 94022
General Plan Designation: The proposed ordinance amendment affects properties townwide.
Zoning: R-A(residential - agricultural)
Description of Project: An amendment to the Site Development Ordinance requiring
removal of Blue Gum (E. globulus), Pink Ironbark
(E. sideroxylon rosea),River Red Gum(E. camaldulensis),
Swamp Gum (E. rudis),Honey Gum(E. inelliodora), and
Manna Gum(E. viminalis) eucalyptus trees at the time of Site
Development approval. (Section 10-2.802,Landscaping Policies)
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The proposed ordinance amendment affects properties townwide.
Other public agencies whose approval is required: None
1
1 �
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked-below would be potentially affected by this project;-involving at leasfone impact-._- --
that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture Resources ❑ Air Quality
Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology/Soils
❑ Hazards&Hazardous ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Land Use/Planning
Materials
❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population/Housing
❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation/Traffic
❑ Utilities/Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance
This Initial study has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Information and
conclusions in the Initial Study are based upon staff research and the Town's General Plan and Municipal Code.
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,and a NEGATIVE ❑
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,there will not be a
significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added
to the project.A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s)on the environment,but at least one effect I)
has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,and 2)has been LJ
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets,if the effect is a
"potentially significant impact" or"potentially significant unless mitigated."An ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required,but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,there WILL NOT
be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects(a)have been analyzed adequately ❑
in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and(b)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that
earlier EIR,including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
VSignature: '' Date: J J
Carl Cahill,Planning Director
2
------— ----....-----—---- — —----—�--- —_Less-Than------ --
Potent<ally Significant Less Than ----- ---- -
I.AESTHETICS Significant with Significant No Impact
IMV Mitigation hwact
IngmpmWed
Would the project:
a)Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
b)Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not
limited to,trees,rock outcroppings,and historic buildings ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
within a state scenic highway?
c)Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality ❑ ❑ ❑
of the site and its surroundings?
d)Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would Ll L3 ❑
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
DISCUSSION:
Eucalyptus are fast growing, invasive, non-native trees with characteristics that make them potentially
hazardous when planted in populated areas. Certain eucalyptus species can grow to over 100' in height
and have the propensity to drop branches and limbs. The top heavy tree can be easily uprooted because
of the shallow root structure. In addition, the dead bark, fallen branches and leaf litter are flammable
and if left to accumulate, can be a potential fire azard. According to a report prepared by arborist
Barrie Coate dated April 16, 2006, the following eucalyptus tree species are not suitable to be planted
around homes and roadways:
1. Eucalyptus globulus-Blue Gum Eucalyptus
2. Eucalyptus sideroxylon rosea-Pink Ironbark
3. Eucalyptus camaldulensis-River Red Gum
4. Eucalyptus rudis-Swamp Gum
5. Eucalypts melliodora-Honey Gum
6. Eucalyptus viminalis-Manna Gum
The ordinance amendment will require property owners to identify and remove the above mentioned
eucalyptus tree species from their properties at the,time of Site Development approval. In cases where
removal of eucalyptus trees would result in the loss of landscape screening, replacement trees will be
required to mitigate the visual effects of the development from off-site pursuant to Section 10-2.802.c of
the Site Development ordinance.
Although there are many eucalyptus trees growing throughout the Town, mandatory removal at the time
of site developrnent would result in a very gradual removal of eucalyptus trees from the Town and
therefore not result in significant impacts to the environment.
FINDING: The project will have no impact on aesthetics.
ARTIGATION: No mitigation is necessary.
3
n=
Potentially
Significant Less Than
II.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES Significant with Significant No Impachnpactt
Mitigation hnmct
In ted
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects,lead agencies may refer to
the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model(1997)prepared by the California Dept.of
Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of
Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring ❑ ❑ ❑
Program of the California Resources Agency,to non-
agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a ❑ ❑ n(
.Williamson Act contract? LJ
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to
their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland, ❑ ❑ ❑
to non-agricultural use?
FINDING: The project will have no impact on agriculture resources.
MITIGATION: No mitigation is necessary.
Potentially Less Than
Significanan
t Significt Less Than
M.AIR QUALITY hwact with Si mg scant No Impact
Mitigation hnpact
In ted
Where available,the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control
district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.Would the project:
a)Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air ❑ ❑ ❑
quality plan?
b)Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to ❑ ❑ ❑
an existing or projected air quality violation?
c)Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air ❑ ❑ ❑
quality standard(including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d)Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ ❑
concentrations?
e)Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of ❑ ❑ ❑ n(
people? L�I
FINDING: The project will have no impact on air quality.
MITIGATION: No mitigation is necessary.
4
p
. CVIGLLLL V —len ThAn
Slgmficant LOSS Thad
IV.BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES si ' cantImpac with significant No Impact
Mitigation Fact
Would the project:
a)Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or through
habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans, ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service?
b)Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or ❑ ❑ ❑
regional plans,policies,regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and wildlife Service?
c)Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including,but not limited to,marsh,vernal pool,coastal,etc.) ❑ ❑ ❑
through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or
other means?
d)Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with ❑ ❑ I-7f L3established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or L�J
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e)Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
ordinance?
f)Conflict with the provisions of anadopted Habitat
Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan?
DISCUSSION:
California Fish and Game Code Section 3503 protects all breeding native bird species in California by
prohibiting the taking, possession, or needless destruction of nests and eggs of any bird. To help prevent
direct disturbances of potential active nests of raptors or special status birds in eucalyptus trees, it is
recommended that tree removal occur during the non-breeding season (August 1 through January 31).
For trees that must be removed during the breeding season (February 1 through July 31), a qualified
wildlife biologist shall conduct a nesting bird survey and recommend preventive actions that would help
eliminate potential adverse effects to nesting raptors or special status birds.
FINDING: The impact to biological resources will be less than significant with mitigation.
MITIGATION: Removal of eucalyptus trees shall take place between the beginning of August and the
end of January to avoid disturbance of nesting birds protected under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty
Act (MBTA) and California Department of Fish and Game Code Section 3500 et seq unless a nesting bird
survey is first conducted and there is a determination that there are no active nests within the tree.
5
i
- --- -....- -- - - --- - --- -—P-0tentiaHy.---LCSs-nan_-
Sign -Significantwith Signifiith —Less an
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES significant No Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incomartated
Would theproject:
a)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a ❑ ❑ ❑
historical resource as defined in'15064.5?
b)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an ❑
archaeological resource pursuant to'15064.5?
❑ L3 Q
c)Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological ❑ ❑ ❑
resource or site or unique geologic feature? L�
d)Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of formal ❑ ❑ ❑
cemeteries?
FINDING: The project will have no impact on cultural resources.
MITIGATION: No mitigation is necessary.
Potentially Less Than Less Than
Significant Significant with
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS fact Mitigation significant No Impact
Impac
Would the project:
a)Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects,including the risk of loss,injury,or death involving:
i)Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map ❑ ❑ ❑ n(
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other L�I
substantial evidence of a known fault?
ii)Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ❑
iii)Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ ❑ F
iv)Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑
b)Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ❑ ❑ ❑
c)Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that would
become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result in on or ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
off-site landslide,lateral spreading,subsidence,liquefaction or collapse?
d)Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the ❑ ❑ ❑
UBC(1994),creating substantial risks to life or property?
e)Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where ❑ ❑ ❑
sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
FINDING: The project will have no impact on geology and soils.
MITIGATION: No mitigation is necessary.
6
� T
Less-Than—._
VII.HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS r°�ntia significant Less Than
Significant with SiQwficant No Impact
fact Mitigation Impact
Incorporwed
Would the project:
a)Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through ❑ ❑ ❑ �(
the routine transport,use,or disposal of hazardous materials? u
b)Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
release of hazardous materials into the environment?
c)Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter ❑ ❑ ❑
mile of an existing or proposed school?
d)Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code ❑ Ll ❑ r7f
Section 65962.5 and,as a result,would it create a significant u
hazard to the public or the environment?
e)For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where
such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public ❑ L) 131-7f
airport or public use airport,would the project result in a safety LTJ
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
f)For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
working in the project area?
g)Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted ❑ LJ L] I'7f
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? LTJ
h)Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss;injury
or death involving wildland fires,including where wildlands ❑ L3 ❑ r7f
are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are LJ
intermixed with wildlands?
FINDING: The project will have no impact on hazards and hazardous materials.
MITIGATION: No mitigation is necessary.
7
1 y
—Potenriallv Sienifi= Less Than
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER UALITY significant with significant No Irnuact
Q Mitigation Impact
in
Would the project:
a)Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ❑ ❑ ❑ n(
requirements? LI
b)Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level ❑ ❑ ❑
(e.g.,the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to
a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses
for which permits have been anted)?
c)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream ❑ ❑ ❑
or river,in a manner which would result in substantial erosion LTJ
or siltation on-or off-site?
d)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, ❑ ❑ ❑
or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site?
e)Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems ❑ ❑ ❑
or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f)Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ❑
g)Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped
on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate ❑ ❑ ❑
Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
h)Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which ❑ ❑ ❑
would impede or redirect flood flows?
i)Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury
or death involving flooding,including flooding as a result of ❑ ❑ ❑
the failure of a levee or dam?
j)Inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow? ❑ Ll Ll
FINDING: The project will have no impact on hydrology and water quality.
MITIGATION: No mitigation is necessary.
8
Y �
--Less ngT1 _
Potentiaa-lly Significant Less Than— ---_----- ----.--
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING Significant with Significant No Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
hmorpmmted
Would the project:
a)Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑
b)Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy,or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including,but not limited to the general plan,specific plan, ❑ ❑ ❑
local coastal program,or zoning ordinance)adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
F
Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or LJ Ll La �(
natural community conservation plan? u
FINDING: The project will have no impact on land use and planning.
MITIGATION: No mitigation is necessary.
Poteotiallv Less Than
Significant Significant Less Than
X.MINERAL RESOURCES Impact with Significant No Impact
Miti a� tion Impact
Would the project:
a)Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
state?
b)Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general ❑ ❑ ❑
plan,specific plan or other land use plan?
FINDING: The project will have no impact on mineral resources.
MITIGATION: No mitigation is necessary.
9
3 t
Potentially Less Thanifi
Significant
Significant Less Than
XI.NOISE Impact with Significant No Impact
Mitigation Impact
incomorated
Would the project result in:
a)Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess
of standards established in the local general plan or noise ❑ ❑ ❑
ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies?
b)Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive Ll L3 Ll
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c)A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in Ll ❑ L3the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
d)A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels ❑ El ❑
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
e)For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where
such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public Ll Ll ❑
airport or public use airport,would the project expose people
residing or worldng in the project area to excessive noise levels?
f)For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the
project expose people residing or worldng in the project area to ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
excessive noise levels?
FINDING: The project will have no impact on noise level.
MITIGATION: No mitigation is necessary.
Potentially Less Than
Significant Significant Less Than
XII.POPULATION AND HOUSING Impact with Significant No hnpact
Mifigaddon Impact
in
Would the project:
a)Induce substantial population growth in an area,either
directly(for example,by proposing new homes and ❑ ❑ ❑
businesses)or indirectly(for example,through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
b)Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing ❑ ❑ ❑
elsewhere?
c)Displace substantial numbers of people,necessitating the ❑ ❑ L3construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
FINDING: The project will have no impact on population and housing.
MITIGATION: No mitigation is necessary.
10
Potentially Less Than
Significant Significant Less Than
XIII.PUBLIC SERVICES Impact with Significant No Impact
Mitigation Impact
a)Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities,need for new or physically altered governmental facilities,the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑
Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑
Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑
FINDING: The project will have no impact on public services.
MITIGATION: No mitigation is necessary.
Potentially Less Than
Significant Significant Less Than
XIV.RECREATION Impact with Significant No Impact
Mitigation Impact
lacomomtrd
a)Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks.or other recreational facilities such that ❑ ❑ ❑ f�f
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur LTJ
or be accelerated?
b)Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which ❑ ❑ ❑
might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
FINDING: The project will have no impact on recreation.
NUTIGATION: No mitigation is necessary.
11
q e
Potentially Less Than
Potential) Si cant Less Than
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Sinificant Impact with Significant No Impact
Mitigation Impact
Would the project:
a)Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to
the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system(i.e.,
result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle ❑ ❑ ❑
trips,the volume to capacity ratio on roads,or congestion at
intersections)?
.b)Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service
standard established by the county congestion management ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
agency for designated roads or highways?
c)Result in a change in air traffic patterns,including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
substantial safety risks?
d)Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature(e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
(e.g.,farm equipment)?
e)Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑
f)Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑
g)Conflict with adopted policies,plans,or programs supporting ❑ Ll ❑ n{
alternative transportation(e.g.,bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? IJ
FINDING: The project will have no impact on transportation and traffic.
MITIGATION: No mitigation is necessary.
12
Potentially Less Than
Significant with
Less Than
XVI.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Impact with Significant No Impact
Mitigation Impact
Rmmpmuted
Would the project:
a)Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable L3 LJ Llr7f
Regional Water Quality Control Board? Ll
b)Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing ❑ ❑ ❑ 1-7f
facilities,the construction of which could cause significant uJ
environmental effects?
c)Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the ❑ ❑ ❑ 1-7f
construction of which could cause significant environmental L�
effects?
d)Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources,or are new or❑ L) Ll
expanded entitlements needed?
e)Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has ❑ ❑ ❑ I-7f
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in LI
addition to the provider's existing commitments?
f)Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to ❑ ❑ ❑ of
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? LJ
g)Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations ❑ El Ll
to solid waste?
FINDING: The project will have no impact on utilities and service systems.
MITIGATION: No mitigation is necessary.
13
a
Potentially Less Than
significant sib ificant Less Than
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Impact with significant No Impact
Mitigation Impact
a)Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of
the environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or Ll L) L)animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b)Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable?("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are ❑ ❑ ❑ �(
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of U
past projects,the effects of other current projects,and the
effects of probable futureprojects)?
c)Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or ❑ ❑ ❑
indirectly?
Sources: Los Altos Hills General Plan
Los Altos Hills Municipal Code
Arborist reports prepared by Barrie D. Coate dated March 7 and April 16, 2006
14
- BARRI E D. COATE ATTACHMENT 3
and ASSOCIATES
Horticutural Consultants RECEIVED
23535 Summit Road
Los Gatos.CA 95033
.4081353-1052 A",R 99"2006 --
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
SUGGEST ACCEPTABLE SPECIES
OF
EUCALYPTUS FOR ORNAMENTAL PLANTING
IN
LOS ALTOS HILLS
Prepared at the request of:
Debbie Pedro
Planning Department
Town of Los Altos Hills
To„Nm Hall Offices
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Prepared by:
Barrie D. Coate
Consulting Arborist
April 17t”,2006
Job#03-06-051A
Acceptable species of Eucalyptus—Los Altos Hills
Overview
There are 700 species and 225 sub-species of Eucalyptus, all but one being native to the
mainland of Australia or its state of Tasmania.
As might be expected in this large a number of species of one genus,they vary from 6'
tall groundcovers,to 150' tall giants.
They appear naturally in environmental conditions varying from the desert-like
Kalgoorlie in Western Australia to mountainous areas which are snow covered for several
months each year.
They occur in areas which receive 7"of rainfall per year(and in some years none at all)
to stream side areas with consistently available running water.
In other words,there is a eucalyptus species to fit almost any condition or environment.
A fairly consistent common characteristic of the large to very large species such E.
globulus,the infamous Tasmanian Blue Gum, is a propensity to drop branches and limbs
and when they are"stub-cut"to produce vigorous,heavy water sprouts which are even
more prone to breaking out of the tree.
There are very few of these large species.which do no become hazardous as they mature
near homes or roadways.
On the other hand,most home sites do not need trees taller than 40", and there are several
relatively trouble-free species which meet that criterion.
The problem of access to a broad range of these useful species is the habit in the
wholesale nursery industry of growing only the few species known by landscape
architects and homeowners.
This list includes only those species which are relatively commonly grown which do not
commonly drop branches and limbs due to unusually high incidence of breakage and
which tolerate most soil conditions.
Eucalyptus gunnii—Cider Gum
Silver blue 3"leaves on an oval upright form to 30' tall, 15' wide.
Will even grow in turf if not over watered.
Eucalyptus microtheca—Cooibah Tree
Blue green, 6"long, narrow leaves create a thin cover over the round canopy.
Typically to 35' tall, 30' wide but can be larger. White trunks. Very wind
tolerant.
PREPARED BY BARRIE D.COATE,CONSULTING ARBORIST APRIL 17TH,2406
' Acceptable species of Eucalyptus—Los Altos Hills 2
Eucalyptus ficifolia—Starlet Gum
Dark, glossy green 6" foliage, forming a dense round headed tree to 30' (usually).
Brilliant red flowers (usually). Is damaged every 20 years± from frosts below
26`F. Slower growing than other species.
Eucalyptus nicholii—Nichol's Peppermint
5" long, narrow grey blue leaves fully cover the 40' canopy, 25' spread.
Moderate growth rate.
Eucalyptus polyanthemos—Silver Dollar Gum
Blue-green 3" leaves are round when young, oval at maturity. Typically they
become 40' tall, 25' spread. Usually very sturdy unless they are badly pruned.
It must be understood that stub cut pruning of even the sturdiest species will result in
production of water sprout growth from the cuts, which are and will remain highly
vulnerable to breaking off the tree.
No tree pruner should be allowed to remove parts which are larger than 2"diameter on
mature trees, or 1"diameter on young trees, nor should the main terminal leader be cut
off. All pruners should agree to carefully follow the Western Chapter ISA Pruning
Guidelines(enclosed.)
The following species are not commonly grown but some wholesale nurseries will agree
to custom grow them for you with a prepaid contract.
Eucalyptus saligna—Sydney Blue Gum
The only trustworthy large species. 60' tall, sometimes larger. Medium green 8"
leaves. Half as wide as tall. Fast upright form. Seldom drops branches. Very
wind tolerant.
Eucalyptus cordata—Heart Leaved Silver Gum
7" long ovate leaves are as hard as plastic. An excellent 30' screen(can become
40') for use on large properties. Remains branched to ground. Forms a dense
canopy of 15' wide. Tolerant of alkaline, poorly drained soils.
Eucalyptus spathulata—Narrow leaved Timber
Narrow, dark green 4"long leaves form a light cover on these narrow, upright
trees. Beautiful brown, gray,blue trunks. Excellent wind break. Usually to 25°-
30' tall, 15' spread, forming an excellent attractive„ full wind/sight screen. Can
very occasionally drop a limb.
PREPARED BY BARRIE D.COATE,CONSULTING ARBORIST APRIL 17TH,2006
Acceptable species of Eucalyptus—Los Altos Hills 3
S4imi-mlo—oi(Ldve-tolimb-bteakage or_sey-ere_pestproblems=
Eucalyptus sideroxylon rosea-Pink Ironbark
Commonly drops limbs.
Eucalyptus camaldulensis-River Red Gum
Eucalyptus rudis-Swamp Gum
Highly susceptible to Red Gum Lerp Psyllid
Eucalyptus melliodora-Honey Gum
Commonly splits at base.
Eucalyptus viminalis-Manna Gum
Becomes 100' tall.
Suggested wholesale sources:
Western Tree Nursery, Gilroy(408-842-6800)
Boething Treeland Nursery(650-851-4770-Rick Hanley)
Valley Crest Nursery(925-862-2485-Leslie Allari)
Custom Growing
Cornflower Farms, Elk Grove(916-683-1015)
I suggest the use of lightly rooted 5 gallon or 15 gallon specimens. The plant must not
have been in its current container for more than 9 months and the top must not have been
cut. A warranty against root girdling should be offered.
Prepared by Barrie D. Coate
ISA Certified Arborist#586
Registered ASCA Member#237
BDC/phlg.
PREPARED BY BARRIE D.COATE,CONSULTING ARBORIST APRIL 17TH;2006
BARRIE D. COATE
and ASSOCIATES
Horticutural Consultants
23535 Summit Road
Los Gatos.CA 95033
U873
ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS
1 . Any legal description provided to the appraiser/consultant is assumed to be correct.
No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in character nor is any opinion rendered as to
the quality of any title.
2. The appraiser/consultant can neither guarantee nor be responsible for accuracy of
information provided by others.
3. The appraiser/consultant shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason
of this appraisal unless subsequent written arrangements are made, including payment of an
additional fee for services.
4. Loss or removal of any part of this report invalidates the entire appraisal/evaluation.
5. Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any
purpose by any other than the person(s) to whom it is addressed without written consent of
this appraiser/consultant.
6. This report and the values expressed herein represent the opinion of the
appraiser/consultant, and the appraiser's/consultant's fee is in no way contingent upon the
reporting of a specified value nor upon any finding to be reported.
7. Sketches, diagrams, graphs, photos, etc., in this report, being intended as visual aids, are
not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering reports or surveys.
S. This report has been made in conformity with acceptable appraisal/evaluation/diagnostic
reporting techniques and procedures, as recommended by the International Society of
Arboriculture.
9. When applying any pesticide, fungicide, or herbicide, always follow label instructions.
10.No tree described in this report was climbed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot take
responsibility for any defects which could only have been discovered by climbing. A full root
collar inspection, consisting of excavating the soil around the tree to uncover the root collar
and major buttress roots, was not performed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot take
responsibility for any root defects which could only have been discovered by such an
inspection.
CONSULTING ARBORIST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, training, and experience to
examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to
reduce risk of living near trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations
of the arborist, or to seek additional advice.
Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree.
Trees are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often
hidden within trees and below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or
safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments,
like medicine, cannot be guaranteed.
Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near trees is to accept some
degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate all trees.
Bahl
Barrie D. Coate
ISA Certified Arborist
Horticultural Consultant
' ATTACHIMENT 4
Town Of Los Altos Hills April 6, 2006
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
RE: AMENDMENT TO THE SITE DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRING REMOVAL
OF BLUE GUM EUCALYPTUS.TREES (EUCALYPTUS GLOBULUS) AT T11VIE OF
SITE DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL(SECTION 10-2.802)
FROM: Debbie Pedro, AICP, Senior Planner-.-�,: Q.
APPROVED BY: Carl Cahill,Planning Director/Acting City Manager C,-C,
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission:
Review and discuss the proposed ordinance regarding mandatory removal of eucalyptus
trees at the time of site development approval.
BACKGROUND
At their meeting on March 9, 2006, the City Council directed staff to prepare an
ordinance requiring property owners to remove of all Tasmanian Blue Gum Eucalyptus
trees (Eucalyptus globulus) on their properties at the time of Site Development approval.
Prior to finalizing the draft ordinance, staff is requesting input from the Planning
Commission. Some of the issues that the Commission may wish to consider could
include the following:
Benefits from removing Blue Gum Concerns with regard to the required
Eucalyptus Trees at the time of Site removal of Blue Gum Eucalyptus trees
Development at the time of Site Development
• These trees have a tendency drop large • Removal of these trees could result in
limbs or uproot and fall over and are a the localized loss of existing landscape
potential safety hazard. screening.
• The dead bark, fallen branches and leaf • Removal of trees would incur
litter of Blue Gum Eucalyptus trees are additional development expenses for
flammable and if left to accumulate, property owner. (average cost for
can be a potential fire hazard. removal: $2,000+per mature tree)
• Removal of Blue Gum Eucalyptus trees
at the time of site development would
result in a very gradual removal of Blue
Gum Eucalyptus trees from the Town
and therefore not result in significant
impacts to the environment.
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
April 6,2006
Page 2 of 2
Blue Gum Eucalyptus trees are not native to California and are identified as an invasive
tree species in the Town Landscape Guidelines. This is due to the aggressive seed
propagation strategy of the tree as described in the attached report prepared by arborist
Barrie Coate. (Attachment 2) In 1985, Blue Gum Eucalyptus trees contributed fuel in the
Liddicoat Circle fire that destroyed nine homes within the Town. A falling Blue Gum
Eucalyptus tree resulted in one fatality in Los Altos Hills in 2006. According to the
attached Arborist's Report, "there is no "right place" for one of these trees within falling
distance of human habitation."
The purpose, in part, of the Town's existing Landscape Ordinance (Article 8) is to
"protect properties against fire and other natural forces". It is proposed that the Town's
existing Landscape Ordinance be .amended to require . the removal of Blue- Gum
Eucalyptus trees at the time of site development approval. Consistent with the threshold
established under.Section 10-2.301.b.5 (Permits Required) of the Site Development Code
for major additions, this requirement will apply to.construction of a principle residenceor
any structure, combination of structures, or additions to structures which equal or exceed
nine hundred (900) square feet of floor area.
ATTACHMENT
1. Proposed amendment to section 10-2.802 of the Site Development Ordinance-
2. Arborist Report prepared by Barrie D. Coate dated March 7, 2006
3. Town of Los Altos Hills Landscape Guidelines dated May 6, 1999
4. City Council staff report dated March 9, 200.6
Attachment 1
TITLE 10. ZONING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 2.SITE DEVELOPMENT
A CL -C G
Sec. 10-2.801.Purpose.
The purposes of this article are to create the maximum compatibility of development with
the natural environment; to preserve the rural qualities of the Town, to insure that structures, as
viewed from off-site, blend harmoniously with the natural landscape and are unobtrusive; to
maintain soil stability, to abate noises; to protect wildlife habitats; to retain aesthetic quality; and
to protect properties against fire and other natural forces.
(§ 15,Ord. 299,eff.December 11, 1985)
Sec. 10-2.802.Landscaping policies
(a) Erosion. Landscaping shall be required to control erosion, retard soil creep, and
reduce the potential for landslides.
(b) Noise. Landscaping and berms may be required to shield Town residents from
unnatural noises,such as those from freeways,arterial streets, and nonresidential land uses.
(c) Visual effects. Landscaping shall be required to mitigate the visual effects of
development from off the site.
(d) Preferred plants. Landscaping should utilize fire retardant species. Native or
naturalized plants or other plant species that blend naturally with the landscape should generally
be favored.
(e) Maintenance. Landscaping shall be maintained in healthy condition by property
owners and shall not intrude into easements, paths, or the lines-of-site required at intersections
and along roads.
(f) Tree preservation. Every feasible attempt should be made to preserve existing trees
except those trees identified in the Los Altos Hills Landscape Guidelines invasive plant list.
(g) All existing Blue Gum Eucalyptus trees (Eucalyptus globulus) shall be removed
at the time of the construction of a principle residence or at the time of the construction of
any structure, combination of structures, or additions to structures which individually or
cumulatively equal or exceed nine hundred(900) square feet of floor area.
(h) Views. In order to prevent blockage of scenic views and vistas, the height at maturity
of proposed plants and trees shall be considered in determining the appropriateness of
landscaping plans.
(i)Amount required. The Town shall require only the minimum amount of landscaping
necessary to implement the above policies. The amount of landscaping required by the Town
shall be determined by the size of structure, the types of materials, and the colors proposed for
structures. Structures that blend with the natural landscape will normally require less landscaping
for screening purposes than will structures composed of non-natural materials and bright colors.
Where slopes are too steep to support continuous ground cover, niches and ledges may be
required for planting.Landscaping may be required for cuts and fills along public roads.
(§ 15,Ord. 299,eff.December 11, 1985)
C� �o COATS
d Aq50C
HadcLdmi carnatants
X535 SumnaRoad
Los;C-atos,CA 95033
X3.9 052
RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING CONTROL
'OF
EUCALYPTUS TREES
IN
LOS ALTOS HILLS
Prepared at the request of:
Debbie Pedro
Town.of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Prepared by:
Barrie D. Coate
Consulting Arborist
March 7th,2006
Job#03-06-051
RECOMMENDATIONS RE:CONTROL OF EUCALYPTUS IN LOS ALTOS HILLS 2
T,argp�cime of Tasmanian—Blue Gym(Euc�a�y�l�ss gls�b�lus�maethr9ughQiit
the parts of California in which winter temperatures remain above 26°F.
This species occurs naturally,however, only in the southeastern portion of Tasmania and
in a few small areas on the southern coast of New South Wales on the mainland of
Australia in areas of 1,000 foot elevation or less,with an average rainfall of 35"annually.
In nature, it can reach 180 feet in height with a trunk diameter of 7 feet.
Unfortunately,the higher nitrogen and phosphorous levels of the soils in many parts of
the world where it has been planted,such as the Nilgire Hills of India,many parts of
Portugal and California,have resulted in trees of 250' tall and 40' wide canopies.
A specimen in the Alma Bridge Road area above Los Gatos reached a documented size
of 130' in height and 30"trunk diameter in 35 years.
This species has many characteristics which make it a nuisance or even dangerous when
it is near human habitation.
It re-seeds into almost any soil,and then grows so rapidly that it produces a dense canopy
over-topping the native trees, shading them out.
As Tasmanian Blue Gum specimens reach 2' or more in trunk diameter, they are
voracious feeders, commonly using all available water and nutrients resulting in the
common complaint that"nothing will grow under a Eucalyptus".
By the time specimens reach this size,the thousands of seed pods,each containing
hundreds of tiny black seeds produce so much viable seed that many seedlings appear
within a hundred feet of the parent tree. By this means, a grove of Tasmanian Blue Gums
can become the dominant species in a large area within a period of a few years,reaching
30-50' tall in 10 years.
This species, like many other very large Eucalyptus species such as E. camaldulensis, E.
viminalis, E. cladocalyz seem genetically predisposed to dropping 3-6"diameter, 15-20'
long branches on a regular basis and an occasional 6-12"diameter limb which can weigh
several hundred pounds.
The unfortunate practice of over thinning the interior of trees by uninformed arborists
when applied to large Eucalyptus species merely exacerbates the likelihood of limb drop
by forming more and heavier end weight growth.
The other unfortunate pruning procedure often used on large Eucalyptus is stub cutting in
which whole tops of trees are removed down to 12"and 24"stubs.
The trees response to this butchery is the production of water sprouts which often grow
10'per year,and are highly vulnerable to breaking off.
PREPARED BY BARME D.COATE,CONSULTING ARBORIST MARCH 7TH,2006
it
RECOMMENDATIONS RE:CONTROL OF EUCALYPTUS IN LOS ALTOS HILLS 3
In other words,there is no"right place"for one of these treeIs wi in alling_disstance of
human habitation.
All of that being said, all Eucalyptus species should not be considered equivalent to
Tasmanian Blue Gums. There are 700 species of Eucalyptus, some of them producing 4'
high groundcovers,and many maturing at 35-40' tall and serving as important increments
of the street tree and ornamental tree inventory.
All Eucalyptus species should not be vilified because Tasmanian Blue Gum is such a
poor neighbor.
It should also be pointed out that many of the non-Eucalyptus species we commonly use
in landscaping drop limbs,especially when not well cared for.
Redwood trees commonly drop 399 diameter,209 long branches,and mature American
Sweet gum trees often drop one or two major limbs each winter.
It deserves note that our venerated Coast Live Oak provides more tree failure reports for
the Tree Failure Report System managed by the University of California Cooperative
Extension Service than any other species,but that is possibly because of the large
numbers of specimens which we encounter.
In summary, Tasmanian Blue Guth, especially large specimens,or those which have been
badly pruned are not suitable candidates for retention in the average property and the
costs of remedial pruning are often so high that some owners cannot,or will not,have
pruning done which can reducenote9 danger.this is not remove the
—�
Prepared by Barrie D. Coate
ISA Certified Arborist
Registered ASCA Member
C.C. Mr.Atkins,26990 Orchard Hill,Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
BDC/phlg
PREPARED BY BARRIE D.COATE,CONSULTING ARBORIST MARCH 7TH,2006
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 05/04/2006
April 6, 2006
Page 7
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Motion by Commissioner Clow, seconded by
Commissioner Kerns and passed unanimously to forward a recommendation of approval that_the
City Council adopt a resolution approving the proposed amendments.
4. 4. OLD BUSINESS-none
5. NEW BUSINESS
5.1 AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT CODES
REQUIRING REMOVAL OF BLUE GUM EUCALYPTUS TREES (EUCALYPTUS
GLOBULUS) AT TIME OF SITE DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL (SECTION 10-
2.802); CEQA STATUS: NEGATIVE DECLARATION(staff-Debbie Pedro).
Senior Planner Debbie Pedro presented the staff report explaining that in January the City
Council directed staff to research ordinances in surrounding communities to find out what other
cities are doing about potentially hazardous trees in particular Blue Gum Eucalyptus. In March
the Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance for mandatory removal of Blue Gum
Eucalyptus at the time of site development approval. Staff is seeking comments from the
Planning Commission regarding the draft ordinance and when comments are received staff will
finalize the ordinance and present it at a public hearing.
Commissioner Collins presented samples of various Eucalyptus branches. The Commissioners
listed the problems with Eucalyptus trees; shredding bark, shallow roots, flammability, dropping
branches and entire trees falling. Commissioner Kerns wondered why only Blue Gum
Eucalyptus was being addressed and not all species.of Eucalyptus. Chairman Cottrell agreed.
Discussion ensued on the dangers of Eucalyptus and other large trees in Town. Commissioner
Carey generally supported the idea but commented on overreacting on this issue by having any
mature Eucalyptus tree cut down and the change from having no restrictions on Eucalyptus trees
to removing any Eucalyptus tree.
Commissioner Kerns brought up the invasive plant portion of the ordinance and stated that
people should be encouraged to remove invasive plant species.
Commissioner Collins disagreed that all Eucalyptus should be removed. She stated that many
people enjoy the trees in particular the Silver Dollar Eucalyptus. Commissioner Kerns felt that
Eucalyptus removal should be required and exceptions should be presented before the Planning
Commission for review on a new development.
Sandra Humphries, Environmental Design Committee, requested that the removal of Eucalyptus
trees not be done during bird nesting season. Raptor birds nest in the tallest trees including
Eucalyptus.
MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Kerns, seconded by
Commissioner Clow and approved by the following roll call vote that staff prepare a draft
ordinance that would require all Eucalyptus trees be removed with exceptions reviewed by staff
or Planning Commission.
Planning'Commission Minutes . Approved 05/04/2006
April 6, 2006
Page 8
AYES: Chairman Cottrell, Commissioners Cary, Kerns and Clow
NOES: Commissioner Collins
Commissioner Collins felt that not all Eucalyptus should be prohibited. Planning Director Cahill
suggested that an arborist be consulted to identify acceptable Eucalyptus species. Chairman.
Cottrell directed staff to contact an arborist for further study.
6. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
6.1 Planning Commission Representative for April 13I'-Cancelled-Commissioner
Kerns
. 6.2 Planning Commission Representative for April 27`h-Commissioner Collins
6.3 Planning Commission Representative for May 11''-Commissioner Clow
6.4 Planning Commission Representative for May 25h-ChairmanCottrell
7. APPROVAL OF MUI UTES
-7.1 Approval of March 16, 2006 minutes as amended.
8. REPORT FROM FAST TRACK MEETING-MARCH 21 AND APRIL 4, 2006
8.1 LANDS OF THAIK; 2275 Old Page Mill Road(79-05-ZP-SD-GD); A request for
a Site Development-Permit for a 4,997 square foot two-story new residence with a
1,380 square foot basement(maximum height 27' feet) (staff-Debbie Pedro)
8.2 LANDS OF PAPOULIAS, 26101 Maurer Lane (44-05-ZP-SD); A request for a
Site Development Permit for a 1,382 sq. ft. single-story addition to'the existing
residence (maximum height 17'10"), a new 420 square foot pool house, a new,
168 square foot gazebo, and replacement of a 640 square foot pool (staff-Debbie
Pedro).
9. REPORT FROM SITE DEVELOPMENT MEETING-MARCH 28 AND APRIL 4, 2006
9.1 LANDS OF NAIR, 24680 Prospect Avenue (39-06-ZP-SD); A Site Development
Hearing for a landscape screening and erosion control plan as required per project
conditions for the new 10,900 square foot residence (height-27 feet). The project
applicant is not proposing any new screening,plantings. The new residence was
approved July 12, 2000 (staff-Brian Froelich).
9.2 LANDS OF KILLIAN AND LEE, 27961 Central Drive (41-06-ZP-SD); A Site
Development Hearing for a landscape screening and erosion control plan (staff-
Debbie Pedro).
9.3 LANDS OF MALONEY, 27945 Black Mountain Road (251-05-ZP-SD); A Site
Development Hearing for a minor variance for setback encroachment of a
ATTACHMENT CQ
Town Of Los Altos Hills March 9, 2006
Staff Report to the City Council
RE: SURVEY OF LOCAL ORDINANCES FOR PROTECTING TREES AND
ABATING HAZARDOUS TREES
FROM: Debbie Pedro,AICP, Senior Planner ,7P.
APPROVED BY: Carl Cahill, Acting City Manager r,C.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:
Review the report and provide staff with further direction on actions to be taken.
BACKGROUND
On January 12, 2006, the City Council directed staff to 1) conduct a field survey and
identify potentially hazardous trees in the Town's major roadways and 2) research
ordinances in surrounding communities to find out what policies are currently in place to
control potentially hazardous trees. Per the direction of Council, the Public Works
Department has begun an inventory of hazardous street trees and will present the results
of the survey in a separate report. Planning staff has researched tree ordinances from
eleven(11) neighboring cities and towns and a chart summarizing the findings is included
for your review. (Attachment 1)
Survey of Tree Ordinances
Ordinances pertaining to tree management generally fall into two categories: Tree
Protection and Public Nuisance/Hazardous Trees.
1) Tree Protection-The eleven cities surveyed all have tree protection ordinances
currently in place except for the Town of Woodside which has a draft ordinance
available. While each city has varying standards of what constitute a protected or
heritage tree, they are designed to preserve heritage and specimen trees which are not
allowed to be removed without a permit.
A comparison of the tree ordinances shows that the most restrictive of the tree protection
ordinance is found in Saratoga where any tree having a trunk diameter of 10" or greater is
considered a. protected tree. On the other hand, Los Altos Hills has one of the more
liberal programs where only oak trees over 12" in trunk diameter-are designated as
protected trees. With that said, however, the Town does require the protection and
preservation of existing trees and landscaping during the site. development process by
Staff Mepot:, the City Council
March 9,2006
Page 2 of 4
requiring subdivision lot design and development plans to .accommodate existing trees
whenever possible. (Attachment 2)
2)Public Nuisance/Hazardous Trees-All cities have ordinances that regulate dangerous
or hazardous trees. Usually found under the "public nuisance" section of the code, trees
that qualify as a public nuisance are generally defined as "dead, decayed, interfere with
public street or public improvements, and constitute an immediate danger to members of
the public". In cases where a tree is determined to be a public nuisance, the property
owner would be responsible for abating the violation.
Los Altos Hills currently has an ordinance (Section 12-2.206) that defines trees with the
following characteristics as a public nuisance and their removal may be required via an
abatement process:
• Any dead, diseased,infested, or drying tree in any street or on any private property
so near to any street as to constitute a danger to street trees, or streets, or portions
thereof;
• Any tree or shrub on any private property or in any street of a type or species apt
to destroy, impair, or otherwise interfere with any street improvement, sidewalk,
curb, approved street tree, gutter, sewer, or other public improvement, including
utility mains or services;
• The existence of any tree which is infested or infected, or in danger of becoming
infested or infected,with objectionable insects, scale,fungus, or growth injurious
to trees;
• The existence of any branches or foliage which interfere with the visibility of, or
free use of, or access to any portion of any street improved for vehicular or
pedestrian travel;
While none of the other jurisdictions surveyed has an ordinance that requires the removal
of particular tree species, the Town of Portola Valley_does have landscaping guidelines
that discourage planting of nonnative trees, shrubs and ground covers. (Attachment 3) In
addition, section 8.10.040.H of the Atherton Municipal Code "strongly recommends"
certain tree species such as acacias, blue gum eucalyptus, and Monterey pine not be
planted. (Attachment 4)
Similarly, the Los Altos Hills Landscape Recommendations Guide (prepared by the
Environmental Design & Protection Committee and approved by the`City Council ori
May 6, 1999) provides a list of invasive plants including blue gum eucalyptus and others
which property owners are asked to avoid planting. and to remove where possible.
(Attachment 5) The following is an excerpt from the Town's Landscape
Recommendations Guide:
Staff Report to the City Council
March 9,2006
Page 3 of 4
Invasive Plants
These are plants which seed themselves into wild areas and which will eventually
crowd out native plants and reduce natural foods for our birds, insects, and other
animals. Please avoid planting these and try to remove existing plants where
possible.
Botanical Name Common Name
Ailanthus Tree of Heaven
Arundo donax Giant Reed
Cortaderia jubata Pampus Grass
Cotoneaster spp. Cotoneaster
Cytisus spp. French, Scotch, or Spanish Broom
--� Eucalyptus globulus Blue Gum Eucalyptus
Hedera canariensis Algerian Ivy
Pennisetum Fountain Grass
Pyracantha spp. Pyracantha
Rubus procerus Himalayan Blackberry
Tamarix Tamarisk
Vinca Major Periwinkle
ADDITIONAL STEPS
The Town of Los Altos Hills already has an ordinance in place to regulate hazardous trees
as well as a Landscape Recommendations Guide that encourages removal of certain
invasive plant species. If the Council desires to move forward with establishing a
program to manage nonnative invasive tree species such as blue gum eucalyptus, it could
choose to utilize one or more of the following recommended methods:
1. Public Education
- Strongly encourage the removal of blue gum eucalyptus trees on private
property on a voluntary basis and remind residents that blue gum eucalyptus can
be removed without a permit.
- Strongly encourage the regular pruning and maintenance of blue gum eucalyptus
trees on private property.
- Continue to make available the Town's Landscape Recommendations Guide for
residents by disseminating this information via the Town newsletter, mailings
and on the website.
2. Adopt an ordinance requiring property owners to remove of all blue gum eucalyptus
trees on their properties at the time of Site Development approval.
t _+
Staff Report to the City Council
March 9,2006
Page 4 of 4
3. Adopt an ordinance declaring all blue gum eucalyptus trees to be a public nuisance
and require the immediate removal of all such trees within the Town. An ad hoc
committee could be established to develop the specifics of such an ordinance.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Summary of Tree Ordinances
2. Summary of Los Altos Hills Tree Ordinance
3. Town of Portola Valley Landscape Guidelines (excerpt)
4. Section 8.10.040.H of the Atherton Municipal.Code
5. Town of Los Altos Hills Landscape Guidelines
i
i
Summary of Tree Ordinances in Neighboring Cities and Towns
City of Atherton Tree Protection Hazard Tree/Public Nuisance
8.10.020-Definition of a Heritage Tree 8.08.010-Dead or Dangerous Trees
No person shall remove a heritage tree unless a permit has first been It shall be the responsibility of owners,tenants and occupas of
issued.The City of Atherton defines a"Heritage tree"under Chapter property to discover the existence of dead or dangerous tre s located
10, Section 8.10.020, as either: on such property.Any owner,tenant or occupant of prope in the
1. A tree which has a trunk circumference of forty-eight inches or town on which property there is a tree which appears to be dead, is
more located in a tree preservation area(the area outside the liable to fall,is dangerous or is an obstruction to public trag1 shall
building area of the lot),when measured forty-eight inches above report in writing the existence of such hazard to the superinten ent of
the natural grade; or streets and shall,within ten days after observation thereof,at his own
2. A tree so designated by the city council,based on findings that expense,cut down and remove such tree.
the particular tree is unique and of importance to the public due
to its unusual age, appearance, location, or other factors.
j
City of Cupertino Tree Protection Hazard Tree/Public Nuisance
14.18 Heritage and.Specimen Trees 14.12.100,Nuisance-Liability.
The City of Cupertino"finds that the preservation of specimen and An authorized employee may inspect any tree adjacent to
heritage trees on private and public property, and the protection of all overhanging any public street in the City to determine whet I . the
trees during construction, is necessary for the best interests of the same or any portion thereof is in such a condition as to cot istitute a
City and of the citizens and the public thereof." The City"finds it is hazard or impediment to the progress or vision of anyone raveling
in the public interest to enact regulations controlling the care and on such public,street. Any tree or part thereof growing upon private
removal of specimen and heritage trees..."A"Heritage Tree".means property but overhanging or interfering with the use of an street_
"any tree or grove of trees which,because of factors,but not limited that in the opinion of the authorized employee endangers tie life,
to, its historic value,unique quality, girth,height or species, has been health, safety, or property of the public shall be declared a public
found by the Architectural and Site Approval Committee to have a nuisance. If the owner of such private property does not c erect or
special significance to the community." remove such nuisance within ten days after receipt of writi en notice
A"Specimen tree"means any of the following: thereof from the City Manager,the City Manager shall ca she the
nuisance to be corrected or removed and the cost shall be sessed to
Species Single Trunk Multi-Trunk such owner.
Diam./Circum. Diam./Circum.
I
Native Trees:
Oak trees; 10"/31" 20"/63"
California Buckeye 10"/31" 20"/63"
Big Leaf Maple 12"/38" 25"/79"
M
Non-Native Trees:
Deodar Cedar 12"/38" 25"/79"
Blue Atlas Cedar 12 44/38" 25"/79"
Town of Los Tree Protection Hazard Tree/Public Nuisance
Gatos
2114-Tree Protection Ordinance 26.10.055. Certain trees,etc.,declared a public nuisance.
The Tree Protection Ordinance 2114 of the Town Code is stated in Any trees,shrubs,plants or parts thereof growing in, or overhanging,
Chapter 29,Division 11 for the City of Los Gatos. "The trees a public street, or upon private property, interfering with tI te use of
protected by this division are: any,public street or public place in the Town, or trees whic h, in the
(1) All trees which have a 12"or greater diameter(37.5" opinion of the Director,endanger the life,health,,safety, comfort or
circumference)of any trunk,or in the case of multi-trunk trees a property of any persons using such public street, or in such public
total of 12"or greater diameter or more of the sum diameter place,because of the tree's or shrub's location, condition o its limbs,
07.5"circumference)of all trunks,where such trees are located roots or trunk, or because of its diseased condition, is here y
on developed residential property. declared to be a public nuisance_.
(2) All trees of the following species which have an 8"diameter(25"
circumference): 26.30.010.Notice to property owner to remove,trim,etc.
a. Blue oak(Quercus douglasii) When any tree, or part of a tree appears to be dead, decayed, injured,
b. Black oak(Quercus kelloggii) . insecurely rooted,or for any other reason likely to break apart or
c. California Buckeye(Aesculus califomica) fall, and the.tree is either located on a public street or any other
d. Pacific Madrone(Arbutus menziesii) public property, or overhangs or is likely to fall upon any public
(3) All trees which have a 4"or greater diameter(12.5" street or other public property,the Director shall notify the owner or
circumference)of any trunk,when removal relates to any review person in possession of the property to cut down,trim or remove the
for which zoning approval or subdivision approval is required. tree, as the extent of the apparent damage and hazard may require.
(4) Any tree that existed at the same time of a zoning approval or Where a tree or part-of a tree is in the condition described in this
subdivision approval'and was a specific subject of such approval section,and constitutes an immediate danger to members f the
or otherwise covered by subsection(2)of this section(e.g., public using a public street or any other public property,the Director
landscape or site plans)." may,taking only such steps as are reasonable under the
circumstances to notify the owner or occupant of the property, cut
29.10.0990-Removal Criteria for Protected Trees down,trim or remove the tree,as reasonably necessary to illeviate
The condition of the tree or trees with respect to disease, imminent the hazard.
danger of fallingor structural failure,proximity to existing or
proposed structures based on a report from a certified arborist,
structural damage to a building or a public nuisance.caused by a tree.
The danger of falling or failure shall be rated using the ISA Tree
Hazard Rating Form or an approved equivalent.
-2-
I
Public Nuisance...means any trees, shrubs,plants or parts
thereof...interfering with the use of any public street or public place
in the Town,or trees which, in the opinion of the director,endanger
the life,health,safety, comfort or property of any persons using such
public street, or in such public place,because of the tree's or shrub's
location, condition of its limbs, roots or trunk,or because of its
diseased condition, is hereby declared to be a public nuisance.
City of Los Altos Tree Protection Hazard Tree/Public Nuisance
11.08.040-Protected Trees 9.20.050 Public Nuisance
Trees within the City of Los Altos are protected under Chapter 11.08 The following are defined to be public nuisances for the p oses of
Tree Protection-Regulations.Protected trees are defined under this chapter:
Section 11.08.040 as any of the following: A.Any dead; diseased, infested or dying tree in any street or on any
A. Any tree designated by city council resolution; private property so near to any street tree as to constitute a danger to
B. Any tree designated by the historical commission as a street trees or streets or portions thereof;
heritage tree or any tree under official consideration by the B.Any tree or shrub on any private property or in any stye t of a
historical commission for heritage tree designation; type or species apt to destroy, impair or otherwise interfer (with any
C. Any tree located on property zoned other than Rl; street improvements,sidewalks, curbs,approved street tre s, gutters,
D. Any tree which was required by the city to be either saved or sewers or other public improvements, including utility ma ns or
planted in conjunction with a development review application services;
filed on or after April 23, 1993; C.Any tree limb, shrub or plant, except tree trunks having no limbs
E. Any tree located on undeveloped property or on developed lower than nine feet above street center,reaching a height more than
property where additional development or redevelopment is three feet above the street center adjacent to within the thi (30)
anticipated. (See Section 11.08.120). foot triangle of private property at the intersection of any t'reets
improved for vehicular traffic;
E.Existence of any tree within the city that is infested, inf-cted or in
danger of becoming infested or infected with objectionabl insects,
scale,fungus or growth injurious to trees;
I
City of Menlo Tree Protection Hazard Tree/Public Nuisance
Park
13.24-Heritage Trees 16.64.100 Dangerous Trees
Ordinance Number 928 of the City of Menlo Park defines a"Heritage Any owner or occupant of a building, lot or premises shall remove
Tree"under Section 13.24.020 of the Menlo Park Municipal Code as: any dead, diseased, infested or dying tree located on any pr vate
(1) A tree or group of trees of historical significance,special property so near to any street as to constitute a danger to s tteet trees,
character or community benefit,specifically designated by streets, or portions thereof or persons using said streets.
I
-3 -
resolution of the City Council;
(2) An oak tree(Quercus)which is native to California and has a
trunk with a circumference of 31.4 inches(diameter"of 10 inches)
or more,measured as 54 inches above natural grade.Trees with
more than one trunk shall be measured at the point where the
trunks divide,with the exception of trees that are under 12 feet in
height,which will be exempt from this section.
(3) All trees other than oaks which have a trunk with a circumference
of 47.1 inches(diameter of 15 inches)or more, measured at 54
inches above natural grade.Trees with more than one trunk shall
be measured at the point where the trunks divide,with the
exception of trees that are under 12 feet in height,which will be
exempt from this section.
City of Mountain Tree Protection Hazard.Tree/Public Nuisance
View
32.23-Protection of Urban Forest 32.16.Public Nuisances
The City of Mountain View defines"heritage tree"under Section The following are declared to be public nuisances:
32.23, c."Heritage tree"shall mean any one of the following: a.Any dead, diseased, infested or dying trees on public or rivate
1. A tree which has a trunk with a circumference of forty-eight(48) property so near to any street as-to constitute a danger to st reet trees
inches or more measured at fifty-four(54)inches above natural or streets or portions thereof.
grade; b.Any tree or shrub, or part thereof,which is unsafe and constitutes
2 A multi-branched tree which has major branches below fifty-four a hazard to the life,health or safety or property of the pub l c or
(54) inches above the natural grade with a circumference of forty- constitutes a center of infection for disease or insects whic may.
eight(48)inches measured just below the first'major trunk fork; endanger the health or life of other trees or shrubs.
3 Any quercus(oak),sequoia(redwood), or cedrus(cedar)tree . c.Any tree or shrub on any private or public property which is of a
with a circumference of twelve(12) inches or more when type or species apt to destroy, impair or otherwise interfer with any
measured at fifty-four(54)inches above natural grade; street improvements, sidewalks,curbs, approved street tre s or other
4 A tree or grove of trees designated by resolution of the city official street trees, gutters, sewers, other public improvements
council to.be of special historical value or of significant including utility mains,pipes or lines or their appurtenanc s.
community benefit. e.Existence of any tree on private or public property withthe city
limits that is infested, infected or in danger of becoming it fested or
infected with objectionable insects, scales,fungus or growth
injurious to trees.
-4-
City of Palo Alto Tree Protection Hazard Tree/Public Nuisance
8.10-Tree Preservation and Management Regulations 8.04.050-Public Nuisances
The City of Palo defines a"Protected tree"under the Tree (a) The following are,for the purposes hereof, defined to be
Preservation Ordinance, Chapter 8.10.020,Definitions 0)as: public nuisances:
,Meet; or
(1)Any tree of the species Quercus agrifolia(Coast live oak)or (1) Any dead, diseased, infested, or dying tree in any,
Quercus lobata(Valley oak)which is eleven and one-half inches in on any private property so near to any street tree as to cons titute a
diameter(thirty-six inches in circumference)or more when measured danger to street trees, or streets, or portions thereof.
four and one-half feet(fifty-four-inches)above natural grade; and (2) Any tree or shrub on any private property or in any street, of
(2)Any Redwood tree(species Sequoia sempervirens)that is a type or species apt to destroy, impair or otherwise inte e with
eighteen inches in diameter(fifty-seven inches in circumference)or any street improvements,sidewalks,curbs,approved str e frees,
more when measured four and one-half feet(fifty-four inches)above gutters,sewers,other public improvements, including utili mains
natural grade. or services.
(3)A heritage tree designated by the I city council hi'acc' ordance with (3) Any tree limb, shrub,hedge,or plant reaching a h fight more
the provisions of this chapter. than three feet above the curb grade adjacent thereto,exce i tree
(4)All trees growing within the street right-of-way(publicly owned), trunks having no limbs lower than nine feet above curb gr '
outside of private property. de,within
the thirty-five foot triangle of public or private property, e,'asured
(5)All trees,when associated with a development project,that are from the projected curb lines, at the intersections of any stre,et
specifically designated by the City to be saved and-protected on improved for vehicular traffic where either traffic signals, itop signs,
public or private property which is subject to a discretionary or yield signs are not installed, or at any intersections whic h are
development review; 'such as a variance, home improvement determined by the chief transportation official to containe I e limbs,
exception,architectural review, site and design, subdivision, etc.. shrubs,hedges,or plants that obscure and impair the vi passing
r rl
ee
h
_e t
r d
e,
ee1,
,mbs,
view ,
,f passing
h d
.motorists,.cyclists or pedestrians so as to create a safety h d.
is
i f
ested
(5) Existence of any tree within the city limits that is Bested,
infected or in danger of becoming infested or infected wit i
t I
objectionable insects,,scale,fungus or growth injurious to rpes.
Town of Portola Tree Protection
ValleyTh I e Town of Portola Valley defines a"significant tree"as:
1) A tree listed in the Historic Element of the General Plan
2) A tree native to the Portola Valley area which is listed below
having a trunk or multiple trunks with a total circumference or
diameter greater than the size indicated below,measured 54"
above means natural grade.
-5.
Species Diam./Circum.
Coast Live Oak(Quercus agrifolia) 11.5"/36"
Black Oak(Quercus kelloggii) 11.5"/36"
Valley Oak(Quercus lobata) 11.5"/36"
Blue Oak(Quercus douglasii) 7.6"/24"
Coast Redwood(Sequoia sempervirens) 17.2"/54"
Douglas Fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) 17.27/54"
California Bay Laurel(Umbellularia californica) 11.5"/36"
Big Leaf Maple(Acer macrophyllum) 7.6"/24"
Madrona(Arbutus menziesii) 7.6"/24"
City of Redwood Tree Protection Hazard Tree/Public Nuisance
City
35.0-Tree Preservation 14.72.Public Nuisances
The City of Redwood City defines"heritage tree"under Chapter 35, F. Overgrown vegetation,dead, decayed, diseased or othei wise. "
Section 35.1 as follows: hazardous trees,weeds and other vegetation likely to harbor rats or
A. Any woody plant characterized by having a single trunk of a vermin, or which constitute a fire hazard.
circumference of thirty eight inches(38")or more,measured at
any point between 6 inches(6")and thirty six inches(36")above
ground level; or
B. Any woody plant characterized by having a single trunk which
has been found by the Park and Recreation Commission to have
special significance to the community,which plant shall be
'designated a"heritage tree."
City of Saratoga Tree Protection Hazard Tree/Public Nuisance
15.50-Tree Regulations 7-45.030 Unlawful property nuisance; private prope
The City of Saratoga Municipal code 15-50.050 states that a (b)Landscaping/vegetation.
protected tree shall consist of any of the following: (1)Dead, decayed, diseased, displaced or hazardous trees,weeds or
(a)Any native tree having a DBH of six inches or greater other vegetation constituting unsightly appearance, a dang r to
(b)Any other tree having a DBH of ten inches or greater. public safety and welfare,a detriment to neighboring prop rty or
(c)Any street tree,as defined in Section 15-50:020(v),regardless of property values or from which a continuous offensive odor,
size. emanates.
(d)Any heritage tree, as defined in Subsection 15-50.020(1) (2)Overgrown vegetation likely to harbor rats,vermin and other
regardless of size. nuisances, growing into the public right-of-way, or obstructing the
-6-
I F
I
(e)Any tree required to be planted or retained as a condition of any necessary view of drivers on public streets or private driveways, and
approval granted under this Chapter or Chapter 14 of this Code. visible from the street,from neighboring properties, or froin areas of
(f)Any tree required to be planted as a replacement, as provided in general public/invitee access on the property.
Section 15-50.170 of this Article. (Amended by Ord.226 § 2 (part),
2003)
Section 15-50.020 defines DBH as:
(g)DBH means diameter at breast height.It is the diameter of a
single stem trunk tree measured at four and one-half feet above the
ground while standing on the high side of the tree.The diameter may
be calculated using the following formula: Diam.=Circum./3.142
Town of Tree Protection Hazard Tree/Public Nuisance
Woodside
Proposed Tree Protection Ordinance 10.60 Nuisance Defined
The Town of Woodside has a proposed tree protection ordinance that A nuisance is anything which is injurious or threatening t health or
requires a permit prior to removal of any"significant tree". In the safety, obstructs the customary free use or passage-of any Stream,
draft ordinance, a"significant tree"is defined as any tree measured 4' park, street,public easement,or highway, is specifically declared by
above natural grade greater than 11.5"diameter or 36" this code or state law to be a nuisance, or obstructs the free Ilpse of
circumference, or is native to the Woodside area as listed below: property in a manner that interferes with the comfortable c djoyment
of life or property.Examples of a nuisance include but are not
Species Diam./Circum. 4' above grade limited to:
Coast Live Oak(Quercus agrifolia) 9.5"/30" (D) Any accumulation of debris, garbage,refuse,weeds,I
Black Oak(Quercus kelloggii) 9.5"/30" overgrowth, livestock waste,or machine or equipment parts which
Valley Oak(Quercus lobata) 9.5"/30" constitute:
Blue Oak(Quercus douglasii) 7.6"/24" (1) Afire hazard;
Coast Redwood(Sequoia sempervirens) 9.5"/30" (2) A hazard to pedestrian or vehicular traffic;
Douglas Fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) 9.513/3019 (3) A harborage for rats,vermin, or insect infesta iron; or
California Bay Laurel(Umbellularia californica) 9.5"/30" (4) Any other hazard to public health or safety.
Big Leaf Maple(Acer macrophyllum) 7.6"/24"
Madrone(Arbutus menziesii) 7.615/2419
Western Sycamore(Platanus racemosa) 9.5"/30"
Alder(Alnus rhombifolia) 7.619/2411
Buckeye(Aesculus californica) 7.6"/24" ,
Madrone(Arbutus menziesii) 7.6"/24"
Fremont Cottonwood(Populus fremontii) 7.699/2419
Tan bark Oak(Lithocarpus densiflorus) 7.6"/24"
7-
Summary of Los Altos Hills Tree Ordinances
Town of Los ' Tree Protection Hazard Tree/Public Nuisance
Altos Hills
12-2.112-Heritage Oak 12-2.206.Public nuisances
The following are hereby declared to be public nuLq ances:
"Heritage Oak"shall mean any tree of the genus quercus, including,but not (a)Any dead, diseased, infested,or drying tree in ai,y street
limited to,Valley Oak(quercus lobata), California Live Oak(quercus agrifolia), or on any private property so near to any street as t
Black Oak(quercus kelloggii)and Blue Oak(quercus douglasii)that has a trunk constitute a danger to street trees, or streets, or portions
or multiple trunk thirty-six(36)inches in circumference(approximately twelve thereof;
(12".) inches in diameter)at a point four(4')feet above the root crown. (b)Any tree or shrub on any private property or in ny street
of a type or species apt to destroy, impair, or othe ise
12-2.302-Permit Required to Remove or Destroy a Heritage Oak interfere with any street improvement, sidewalk, curb,
approved street tree,gutter,sewer,or other public
No person shall remove,purposefully damage,or purposefully cause to die any improvement, including utility mains or services: of-
Heritage
.Heritage Oak on private-or public property within the Town of Los Altos Hills (e)The existence of any tree which is infested or in ected, or
without first having-obtained a removal permit from the Town.A removal in danger of becoming infested or infected,with
permit is not required when: objectionable insects, scale,fungus. or growth inj W ious to
(a)The Heritage Oak has been identified for removal on an approved tentative trees;
subdivision map or an approved site development permit; or. (f)The existence of any branches or foliage which nterfere
(b)The City Manager(or designee)has determined that the Heritage Oak with the visibility of, or free use of. or access to anportion
presents an immediate danger to persons or property.Persons believing a of anystreet improved for vehicular or pedestrian t-avel;
Heritage Oak presents an immediate danger should-call Town Hall during
normal business hours and 911 at all other times.
12-2.502-Removal of Trees During the Development Process
(a)The Zoning Administrator,the Site Development Committee,the
Subdivision Committee,the Planning Commission, and the City Council, in
reviewing development proposals or subdivisions, shall seek to preserve and
protect existing trees,especially Heritage Oaks and Heritage Trees,from
unnecessary removal or damage by placing conditions on development
approvals: Subdivision lot design and development plans shall accommodate
existing trees whenever possible.The reviewing authority may require the
developer to provide recommendations by an arborist as to the steps that should
be taken to protect and preserve existing trees.
n ..
r
M
1
ATTACHMENT
Excerpt from
Plant Materials
Al e -Use native plants, except on
NATIVE PLANT.AAM TERIALS
private viewed areas on the site.
(Refer to appendix'Native Plant List"for a complete selection '1Carefully select native plants for�
with descriptions.) areas along property boundaries or
-JI in corridors viewed from off-site.
Native Trees
I Indigenous plants require less
irrigation and maintenance.
Coast Live Oak
31
Black Oak Do not replace existing plant
materials with incompatible plant
Valley Oak
materials that would alter the
Coast Redwood character of the landscape.
Douglas Fir
California Bay Laurel • use plants that are appropriate for
"sub-environments" (such as open
Big Leaf Maple grasslands or oak forests) that exist
Madi-one within the Town.
Wild Cherry
California Buckeye
A
Native Shrubs
Manzanita
California Wild Lilac
Common Flannel Bush
Silk Tassel Bush
Christmas Berry
Coffeebeffy
Cil
jandsc=e desigp
L
Mar O1 06 11 : 45a TOWN OF P. V. 650-851 -4677 p. � ,
Strongly Discouraged
These plants are incompatible with Portola Valley indigenous plant materials and will crowd them
out.Do not plant them.
TREES
Acacis baileyana BAILEY ACACIA
Acacis decurrens GREEN WATTLE
Acacia melan lolr BLACKWOOD ACACIA
Ceders deodazn DEODAR CEDAR
Cedrtrs atlantica ATLAS CEDAR
Eucalyptus globrdes BLUE GUM(EUCALYPTUS)
Eucalvptzrs globtdes "compacta" DWARF BLUE GUM EUCALYPTUS.
Pinus radiata MONTEREY PINE
Populrts alba WHITE POPLAR
SHRUBS
Cortarderia 'ubaia PAMPAS GRASS *
Cortarderia selloana PAMPAS GRASS *
Cotoneaster lacteal RED CLUSTERBERRY
Cotoneaster salicifolia WILLOWLEAF COTONEASTER
Cvtistrs Canariensis CANARY ISLAND BROOM
Cytislrs racemosus EASTER BROOM
Cytisus scoparlus SCOTCH BROOM
Genista his anica SPANISH BROOM
Pyracantha ssp. FIRETHORNS
Spartium junceum SPANISH OR WEAVERS'BROOM
GROUND COVERS
Hedez-a canariensis ALGERIAN IVY
Hedera helix ENGLISH IVY
Vinca major PERINVINKLE
Vinca nibzor DWARF PERIWINKLE
Hvpericum calycinwn AARON'S BEARD.CREEPING ST.JOHN'S WORT
*These are perhaps the most threatening of all.Use every effort to halt the spread of these shrubs.
native 121an Tis
29
Mar *01 06 11 : 45a TOWN OF P. V. 650-851-4677 P. 6
a
Landscaping
Guidelines
Introduction and Purpose
Landscaping is an important element of all Iand development
within the Town of Portola Valley. The Town General. Plan and
ordinances contain general statements of policy for landscaping
within the Town. These policies emphasize preservation of the
natural environment as exemplified in the following General Plan
objective:
"To assure that all building sites and residences are developed
in a manner minimizing disturbance to natural terrain and
vegetation and Maximizing preservation of natural beauty and
open space."
The purpose of the "Landscaping Guidelines" is to supplement
statements in the General Plan and ordinances by providing more
specific guidance regarding landscaping of individual residential
sites, as well as other land development projects within the
Town.
Landscaping Plan Review Procedures
Town ordinances require review of all development plans for
new residences and for grading associated with new residences,
residential additions or other land development. The zoning and
site development regulations contain general landscape plan
provisions. The Architectural and Site Control Commission
(ASCC) has primary responsibility for review of landscape plans
for conformance with Town policies and regulations. The main
objective of the ASCC is to minimize off-site impacts of
development. THE FUNDAMENTAL APPROACH OF THE
ASCC IS TO ENCOURAGE ARCHITECTURAL SOLUTIONS
THAT BLEND WITH THE .NATURAL CONDITIONS OF
THE SITE AND AREA, AND AT THE SAME TIME
REQUIRE ONLY MINIMUM LANDSCAPING.
landscaping guidelines
30
Mar dl OG 11 : 45a TOWN OF P. V-
65O-851-4677 P. 7
Guidelines for Landscaping
1. Use native plants, particularly along property boundaries or in
corridors viewed from nearby properties. Select plants from the
Town's native plant list.
2. Use a landscape plan to address the particular needs of the property
such as controlling erosion, providing privacy, creating shade, and
softening or mitigating the appearance of structures.
3. Create a SIN4PLE rather than an elaborate landscape solution.
4. Make use of existing plant material, especially indigenous grasses,
chaparral and oaks. Do not replace with incompatible plant
materials.Refer to the Town's Native Plant List.
5. Plant in random groupings (cluster planting) rather than in linear
form.'Allow plants and shrubs to appear to flow across property
lines.Avoid a cultivated, formal appearance.
. 6. Whenever possible, leave large areas in grasses and other
indigenous plants.
7. Use appropriate plant material in each location such as Alders and
Redwoods in damp, shady locations and Oaks in dry,open areas.
8. Consider the future height of trees,and shrubs such that major
views on-and off-site will not become obstructed.
9. Avoid the introduction of non-indigenous trees that would.
dramatically.alter the character of the I andscape.
10.Planting in trail easements or conservation easements if prohibited.
11.Adjacent to street rights-of-way or trail easements avoid plantings
that would restrict sight distance, require unusual maintenance to
keep easements open, or interfere with already established
indigenous plantings.
Landscaping Guidelines adopted by the Town of Portola Valley
on April 22, 1986.
landscal2ing guidelines
31
Document Page 3.of 3
ATTACHMENT 4-
G. The decision of the planning commission on any application for a heritage tree removal permit may be appealed to
the city council in accordance with the procedures contained in Chapter 17.64 of this code.
it 9ftblik,
Acacia baileyana—Bailey Acacia
Acacia decurrens—Green Wattle
Acacia melanoxylon—Black Acacia
Ailanthus altissima—Tree of Heaven
Eucalyptus globulus—Blue Gum Eucalyptus
Pinus radiata—Monterey Pine
(Ord.533 §3,2002;Ord.522 §2,2001;Ord.484§ 1(A)—(C), 1994;Ord.462§ 1(C)—(n, 1991;Ord.444§4, 1989)
8.10.050 State tree care license.
Except for the property owner,no person shall perform any removal of any heritage tree for hire within the town of Atherton
without a valid state tree care license as required by the state of California.(Ord.484§ 1(E), 1994) :
8.10.060 Violation—Penalty.
A. Any person causing a heritage tree to be removed or damaged in violation of this chapter shall submit a fee as
determined by city council resolution to be deposited into a fund for the planting and maintenance of community trees, as a
civil penalty in addition to the penalties as outlined in Chapter 1.20.
B. As part of a civil action brought by the town, a court may assess against any person who commits, allows, or
maintains violation of any provision of this chapter a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed five thousand dollars per
violation. Where the violation has resulted in removal of a tree, the civil penalty shall be in an amount not to exceed five
thousand dollars per tree unlawfully removed,or the replacement value of each such tree,whichever amount is higher. Such
amount shall be payable to the town as described in subsection A of this section.Replacement value for the purposes of this
section shall be determined utilizing the most recent edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal. A civil action may be
commenced to abate, enjoin, or otherwise compel the cessation of violation of any provision in this chapter.In a civil action
brought pursuant to this chapter in which the town prevails, the court may award to the town all costs of investigation and
preparation for trial, the costs of trial, reasonable expenses including overhead and administrative' costs incurred in
prosecuting the action,and reasonable attorney fees.
C. Upon any guilty plea or judgment or conviction,in any criminal proceeding brought for the violation of this chapter,
the defendant is entitled by law to probation,then the court may require the payment to the town of the costs and expenses as
described above and the code provision incorporated by reference as one of the conditions of sucli probation. (Ord. 533 § 4,
2002:Ord.490§ 16, 1996:Ord.484§ 1(D)(part), 1994;Ord.444§5, 1989)
htti)://nt5.scbbs.com/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=291601&infobase=atherton.nfo&recor... 2/28/2006
C
z
.1 1 FriLLI
!rr ,`I i �sfilltCN
1.
14
r ME� IL 1
�
' = 'rt' ,I,� 3i f:•c::� ��;� •O c43
," ,t .,;���� `; ilk��•, � ,..,
� WWWJJJJ� 1r�,
-�1
r--� � � ,� c� � ,,.-�t ii •.} � 'Uli� �F :fir. 7, T� Q
�f 1
t'
U � SSpLL
1,4
COO Cf)
O •rl
IITP y
I f�t..��� .i,I• �'4•i '
,
I
�y
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
LANDSCAPE RECOMMENDATIONS
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
INTRODUCTION.- LANDSCAPING GOAL PG. 2
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS PG. 2 -4
LIVING 79TH CALIFORNIA OAKS PG. 5-:8
RIPARIAN HABITAT PG. 8- 9
PROBLEMS IN THE HILLS PG. 9- 13
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE PG. 13 - 14
HERITAGE TREES PG. 15
GARDENS DISPLAYING DROUGHT TOLERANT PG. 15
AND NATIVE PLANTINGS
HELPFUL REFERENCE BOOKS PG. 15 - 16
TABLE 1: NATIVE PLANTS PG. 17-19
TABLE 2: ' INVASIVE PLANTS, PG. 20
TABLE 3: POISONOUS PLANTS PG. 21
1
e - r
--------- Table #2: - --- - — -- ---- - ---- - - --
Invasive Plants
These are plants which seed themselves into wild areas and which
will eventually crowd out native plants and reduce natural foods for
our birds, insects, and other animals. Please avoid planting these and
try to remove existing plants where possible.
Botanical Name Common Name
Ailanthus. Tree of Heaven
_Arundo donax Giant Reed
Cortaderia jubata Pampus Grass
Cotoneaster spp. Cotoneaster
Cytisus spp. French, Scotch,or Spanish Broom
Eucalyptus globulus Blue Gum Eucalyptus
Hedera canariensis Algerian Ivy
Pennisetum Fountain Grass
Pyracantha spp. Pyracantha
Rubus procerus Himalayan Blackberry
Tamarix Tamarisk
Vinca major Periwinkle
*Also included are any non-native plants which have berries or
which spread by rhizomes.
It is especially important to keep the above plants from entering
waterways.
20
Table #3: _
Poisonous Plants
These plants must be kept out of animal enclosures and along
pathways.
Arr o w gr a s s Golden Corydalis* Privet Hedge*
Black Henbane Grimsel Purple Sasband
Black Locust Ground Ivy* Rabbit Bush or
Bladder Pod Groundsel . Brush
Bluebonnet* Horse Nettle Ragweed*
Blue-green Algae Horsetail* Rattlebox
Boxwood Indian Hemp Rayless Goldenrod*
Bracken Fern Ivy Bush* Raywort*
Broomcom Jasmine* Rough Pea
Burr Clover* Jeruselum.Cherry* Russian Knapweed
Buckeye* Jimson Weed St. Johnswort*
Castor Bean* Johnson Grass* Seasbane
Cheeseweed Johnswort Senecio
Cherry Laurel* Klamath Weed Sneezeweed
Choke Cherry* Knapweed Sorghum
Climbing Knotweed Sour Dock*
Bittersweet Lambkill Staggergrass
Cockleburr* Lantana* Star of Bethlehem*
Coffeebean* Larkspur* Star Thistle
Corn Cockle Laurel* Stink Grass
Cotalaris* Laurel Cherry Tansy
Coyote Tobacco* Lily of the Valley* Teaweed
Creeping Ivy* Locoweed Tipton Weed
Curly Dock* Mallow* Tree Tobacco*
Death Caminas Milkweed Vetch
Desert Tobacco Nightshade* Water Hemlock*
Ergot Oaks* Wold Cherries
Fanwood Oleanders* Yew*
Fiddleneck Old Man in Spring (*- Plants often
Fitweed Pennygrass used for
Flax* Pigweed* landscaping
Goatweed Plum Tree* around homes
Poison Hemlock* along driveways
and fence lines)
Published by Spur Magazine,June 1990.
21