New Search
MEMORANDUM <br /> DATE: September 21, 1993 <br /> TO: John Etter <br /> FROM: Jan Staszewski <br /> Subject: Impacts of New Tree Ordinance <br /> The full impact of the changes made to the Tree Preservation Ordinance (6.300 <br /> - 6.330) last July are not yet fully understood. From a staff ordinance <br /> administration viewpoint they seem generally favorable if more time consuming <br /> in some cases. We feel a clearer understanding will only be achieved after we <br /> have experienced a full year's (construction season) under the ordinance. <br /> Permit activity: <br /> Since last July we have accepted 4 permits for removals of 10 or less trees <br /> and 4 permits for more than 10 trees. The four applications to remove 10 or <br /> less trees have been granted, while the other four applications are still <br /> pending public comment and staff decision. <br /> Benefits: <br /> Most of the controversy and discussion involving removals have a development <br /> theme. The new code gives staff clarification which requires the person <br /> wishing to develop a property to attain approval for their proposed <br /> development activity prior to their requesting to remove trees to allow such <br /> development to occur. <br /> New code section 6.320 -2 is being interpreted to state that if a property has <br /> the potential to be at least minor partitioned then a tree permit can't be <br /> issued under criteria 6.320 -1 -d without an approved development plan or an <br /> active building permit in place. <br /> Smaller parcels are being treated in a similar manner. In the past staff <br /> accepted the verbal assurances of a property owner that development was <br /> immediately impending. Policy now is that formal approval for such <br /> development must be acquired first. <br /> Of course neither of the above situations impact those requests for tree <br /> removal for purposes other than development. We have a couple large removal <br /> requests under other allowable criteria which are currently being reviewed. <br /> The idea of removal of trees for the "forest health" is being reviewed. <br /> Ideally this would be allowing the removal of diseased and suppressed trees to <br /> allow the remaining trees to develop to their maximum potential. We will need <br /> to exercise great caution in this area as some may see this as a manner to <br /> circumvent the intent of the code to restrict predevelopment cutting. <br /> One of the major benefits seen is of a passive nature. People have been <br /> calling in asking questions about removing trees in preparation to developing <br /> a property. After hearing the amount of work they need to perform to comply <br /> with code regulations to allow predevelopment felling many have chosen to do <br /> their felling as an integral part of the development instead. This insures <br /> the felling in accord with the approved development and we feel achieves a <br /> major goal. <br /> Concerns: <br /> statusrp.mem <br />