Paradise Tree Ordinance at Town Council on Tuesday Feb. 12. The council meeting starts at 6:00 pm.
The tree ordinance report, Agenda item 7b, is posted online:
http://www.townofparadise.com/town_govt/council_agendas/tc_ag_021208/7b_tree_ord.pdf
The Paradise Town Council will be considering tree ordinance changes on Tuesday evening.
I want the tree ordinance changes to be an improvement for Paradise. To achieve balance, we need to look at our tree ordinance, at our landscaping requirements in the building code, and at our treated wastewater (septic) requirements. I want the town staff to work with the community and look at how to increase the connectivity of these departments so that we can achieve an optimal balance of buildings and trees for the town of Paradise.
The Council will very carefully consider the tree ordinance change proposal on Tuesday evening knowing that septic and landscaping requirements are important factors. The Council will consider public comments.
The trees are part of our lives in Paradise. The community appreciates them.
Consider the tree ordinance changes being proposed. They are posted at the Town of Paradise website. The full text of the agenda item is posted at http://www.townofparadise.com/town_govt/council_agendas/tc_ag_021208/7b_tree_ord.pdf
I appreciate the Yahi group's concern for the environment and involvement in decisions that affect all of us.
Robin Huffman
Paradise Town Councilwoman
Candidate for Butte County Supervisor, 5th District
rafh@pacbell.net
Phone: 877-0672
www.robinhuffman.com
1 comment:
Dear Robin,
Thank you for recommending a new committee be formed that would include members of the Tree Permit Review committee, the Planning Commission, Town staff, developers, and members of the public knowlegeable about trees.
The other council members' decision (absent Mayor Alan White) to adopt Scott Lotter's motion to send it to the Planning Commission, thus again bypassing the Tree Permit Review Committee, seems likely to backfire upon them, considering TPRC chair Denice Britton's masterful alert to the press.
I agree with your statement that the big picture, including landscaping and on-site development requirements needs to be looked at.
Thanks probably in large part to Laura Urseny, in the February 9th ER, and Jennifer Barker, in the February 12th Paradise Post, twelve ridge residents spoke to the Paradise Town Council urging tree preservation.
I think for shy and sleepy Paradise that's a very good turn-out, probably as many citizens as spoke in fear for their lives about the killer pitbulls still roaming free along Roe road.
Is the majority of the PC development oriented, as PC and TPRC member Craig Woodhouse suggested in his lone admonition not to tread on private property rights for fear of lawsuit?
It was probably planned that he was the last public speaker, as he brought up the constitution, how cumbersome and costly the current process is for tree removal, yet how the proposed changes to the Tree Preservation Ordinance would supposedly still have "all their teeth". He even trotted out the oft-repeated claim that photos show that Paradise today has more trees than it did in the 1940s, as though the short-sightedness of a previous generation in cutting down most of the largest trees on the ridge is something to emulate.
I am hopeful that even more environmentalists in Paradise, and all members of the Tree Permit Review Committee, will come to the Planning Commission meeting with well-researched suggestions to improve the Tree Preservation Ordinance.
I think there are something like 200 Sierra Club members up here. I'm sure there must be plenty of legal precedent for protecting a community's urban forest despite some individual property owners' claim that they should be able to do whatever they want on their own property. Perhaps new zoning requirements should be explored.
Please do bring my suggestions forward, especially my proposal to give more protection to very large trees even on residential zoned properties. I apologize for not sharing my analysis with you prior to the Council meeting, but I only finished researching and writing them just beforehand.
Stephen Sayre
Recapping some highlights of public concern for our community's trees:
Long time ridge tree hugger, Jean Crist (with email address of the same appellation), told of Town Manager Chuck Rough being a member of the first tree committee back in 1998, so "How could town leaders take the approach to streamline development?" "Developers have the ears of town planners," she explained.
Jeri Bennedict, like Crist a long time member of Protect Our Watershed, said she has seen what development can do to a town. She told the Council that she was asked to speak on this matter now that another tree hugger (and long time Yahi Group Sierra Club outings leader) Jerry Novotny is no longer alive.
"The beauty God has provided on this ridge should be protected in every way," Jeri said, and reminded us that in the early 90's Paradise had the title of Tree City USA, an achievement we should strive for again.
Dawn Garcia, a biologist, said she moved here because of the trees, a sentiment oft repeated by following speakers. She asked why the Council established the Tree Permit Review Committee in the first place if it wasn't to to allow for smart growth. She spoke against the proposed changes that would "remove public oversight." She reminded the Council that the Committee is chaired by a professional arborist. She said she was alarmed about the strike out of suggested replanting trees, since the native trees are best adapted to our town.
April Grossberger, another Planning Commissioner also on the TPRC, said the Committee recognized some serious reforms were needed and hoped to amend their roles rather than see the Committee go away. "Let us have a chance to fix it," she pleaded, "It's an all volunteer Committee." She explained that the Planning Commission is already very busy, so it makes no sense also give them responsibility for deciding tree felling permits. "Consider this with your heart and conscience," she requested.
Jamie Holloman, a 15-year resident who also came to Paradise for the trees, said we need a balance between the pressure to develop the town and the need to preserve its natural beauty.
Thia Max said half the reason she came here was for the trees (the other half being Lake Oroville), which is why she plants so many. "I think we are a community of tree huggers," she said, "though we do have neighbors who hate leaves." Regarding the proposed change that would give PG&E tree trimming crews the right to remove trees without even a yearly permit, Thia related an instance when they left only stumps on her property, without permission; though she admitted it was her fault for planting fast-growing locust trees under the power lines. She urged the Council to warn others against doing that.
Ona Reardon said she has a forest down the hill which she maintains. She was bothered by the proposal to reduce the penalty for illegal tree cutting to an infraction and also questioned why Town maintenance crews should not be required to get a felling permit, "could do whatever they like," if a permit is required of residents.
In my comments (see below for full text), I strongly disagreed with giving PG&E tree crews the right to fell trees even on private property, since they have usually been making our trees weaker and more susceptible to breakage because of improper pruning. The current ordinance is supposed to require them to follow best management practices. "You should enforce section .043, not eliminate it," I warned.
Though I do think native trees are best for the ecology, I did not object to the proposed change to eliminate the the 2-for-1 replacement requirement (with its list of mostly native tree suggestions) for trees felled, since I don't think the replacement provision was practical to enforce.
After Craig Woodhouse's long testimony for the developers property rights, Michael McLaughlin (Save Our Gateway organizer) urged the Ordinance be referred back to the Tree Committee and the Planning Commission, reminding the Council that the large leach field at the new hospital on the Skyway is also a large, treeless parking lot.
Herb Hollander was in favor of throwing the ordinance out. "Keep the trees."
Paul Fisher asked the Council to reconsider voting on this now. " I don't think the Tree Committee should be scrapped to make the process easier for developers," he said.
Bob Housen said the issue tonight dates way back. "Look at what was done in the past," he admonished, "A lot of work was put into it."
Recapping Council discussion, there seemed to be consensus among the Council for the proposal for tree removers to pay into a Tree Replacement Fund as long as that would only be an option and they could still replant on their own property if they want to and there is room.
Woody Culleton said, though it is an election year, he has problems with requiring 2-for1 replanting, related how his yard didn't have room for that when he had to fall two trees, said he sees some sense in removing trees as a fire hazard, and reminded us that, "To put in a leach field, you have to cut down trees." Moments later he vowed to go talk to "property rights owners and developers."
Scott Lotter agreed that sometimes there is no place to put extra trees, but planting them somewhere else doesn't improve the neighborhood that lost some trees. He said his primary concern is doing away with the Tree Committee, as there is a need to educate the public better about tree preservation. Then he explained that the changes to .090 B, listing all the reasons why trees may be removed, are not new allowances for tree removal, since "We could always take trees out for those reasons."
Council member and Board of Supervisor's candidate Robin Huffman said she saw so many problems with this that a large look is needed. "Tree ordinance revisions have always come from a committee, " she said.
Acting chair Frankie Rutledge said she didn't run for Council to strip this town and turn it into a city. She estimated that probably 85% of the town is zoned residential, "but people are not going to be stripping their land of trees." In closing remarks she clarified that the proposed changes do not give the Planning Commission any more authority over tree decisions than they've already had.
As is typical with this conservative Council, Robin's vote was the only dissent in next sending the matter to the Planning Commission.
More detail about this meeting can be read in an article by Paradise Council reporter Ryan Olson, on page 4A of today's (February 13th) Enterprise-Record.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Full comments by Yahi Group member Stephen Sayre to Paradise Town Council on 2-12-08 about changes to the Tree Preservation Ordinance, agenda Item 7b
Honorable council members,
You may recall that I addressed you the last time changes to the Tree Preservation Ordinance were proposed. Denice Britton and I were successful in persuading you to require additional information on Tree Felling Permit Applications, including the size of the trees proposed for felling. Our hope was that the town would begin keeping track of how many of its largest trees are being lost to development and make other changes to the Ordinance to try to limit that loss. As you might expect, I am dismayed at some of the Ordinance changes now proposed.
I don’t know much about the work of the Tree Permit Review Committee that is proposed for elimination. I asked if I could be notified of their meetings, but was told the town does not provide that service; and the few times I’ve read in the newspapers about their upcoming meetings I’ve been unable to attend. From what I have seen of projects that had Review Committee input, more trees were allowed to be cut down than were required to be saved.
I have not been keeping track of all the tree felling happening in Paradise, as it’s too depressing to me. In my own neighborhood, however, I recently saw a large, healthy black oak being cut down but saw no Tree Felling Permit posted anywhere. I asked the tree crew about that and was told they were just pruning the tree; but the next day that tree and all evidence of it were gone.
Because that neighbor had previously had a huge, healthy pine removed just because he didn’t like cleaning up pine needles, I called the town to ask if any tree felling permits had been issued in our neighborhood. No one ever called me back. When I later went to the town desk and asked, I was told no permits had been issued, but that after a tree has been cut down there is nothing the town can do about it since there is no longer any evidence that tree had been a healthy, qualifying tree requiring a permit to be felled.
I suspect there is quite a bit of tree felling that occurs in Paradise without a permit. Reducing the penalty from a misdemeanor to an infraction is not likely to help the town get its $41 per tree, or whatever it is.
Regarding changes to section .090 A, activities exempt from the provisions of the Ordinance and not requiring a tree felling permit, I suggest that, along with the felling of any dead tree or any fruit or nut tree, the felling of Ailanthus altissima be added, since those trees are not indigenous to the area, inhibit the growth of indigenous plants, grow quickly, are highly invasive, and stink.
I strongly disagree with the proposal to exempt the felling of any tree by a public utility for the purpose of repairing , maintaining, or installing service lines. That would give them too much incentive to cut down way too many trees, even on private property, to try to prevent branches or entire trees from falling on exposed lines during storm events.
If the company that prunes trees for PG&E had been following the existing ordinance, section .043, that requires them to abide by American National Standards Institute standards in the trimming, maintenance, and felling of trees, then many of the trees in this town would be much healthier and have a structure much more able to withstand strong wind and heavy snow events.
The ANSI A300 guidelines represent the best management practices in the industry for pruning and other tree care operations. Instead of pruning for tree vigor, however, it’s been my observation that those PG&E-contracted tree crews typically head branches back such that those branches often die the rest of the way back to the branch collar, thus making them more susceptible to breakage. I don’t trust them. You should enforce section .043, not eliminate it.
The proposal to eliminate the replanting requirement and substitute a Tree Replacement Fee doesn’t bother me much, since I don’t think the replacement provision was practical to enforce, especially since property owners who cut down their trees probably don’t want to have to replant new trees in their yard. It would be nice to see the town propose a tree-planting program, however, if the town wants to have an urban forest in the future. I do think native trees are best for the ecology.
I like the proposal to better protect trees not being removed from damage by heavy equipment; but I don’t like the proposed changes to section .090 B6 that would make it easier to build houses without consideration for existing trees. I would like to see at least the very largest trees, those over 30" in diameter, for example, given special protection by requiring builders and new septic system installers to site structures, pavement, and leach lines, etc. so as to preserve as many large trees as possible.
Ponderosa pines can live more than 700 years and grow to 6 feet in diameter; and Douglas fir can live more than 1000 years and grow to 14 feet in diameter! Just imagine!
I don’t think some of you really care if our town has large trees, though; and I think you would prefer not to hear objections about tree removals. One of the previous changes you decided to make in the Ordinance was to allow only immediate adjacent neighboring property owners to appeal felling permits. Now (with changes to section .150) the proposal is to allow appeals only by property owners sharing a common property line with the real property to which the tree felling permit applies; and (with changes to sections .065 & .070) to eliminate the requirement for posting of the permit, at a point providing primary access to the site, 3-days prior to commencement of tree felling. Also, (with the elimination of section .045) you would eliminate the posting at Town Hall. That means that the only prior public notice that will be given is by mail to property owners within 300 feet of the subject property and only if five or more qualifying trees are proposed for felling.
It seems obvious to me, as Tree Permit Review Committee chair Denice Britton has reportedly stated, that "the purpose of these revisions is to eliminate the possibility for any real oversight or control by the public of the wholesale removal of the Town’s natural forest."
I urge you to prove that we are being overly cynical by rejecting most of the proposed changes, holding further public hearings, and endeavoring to come up with a Tree Preservation Ordinance worthy of that name.
Thank you. Do you have any questions?
Post a Comment