By Pavan Potti
DAVIS – During Wednesday evening’s Recreation and Park Commission meeting, Urban Forest Manager Rob Cain provided an update on the City of Davis Tree Ordinance development and shared changes and what the next steps may look like regarding community outreach.
The Tree Ordinance in Davis, adapted from Chapter 37 of the Municipal code, serves as the city’s acknowledgment of the importance of trees to the community. The Tree Ordinance is intended to protect the community forest so that the benefits from trees remain and extend towards the city in the long term.
Cain started off his presentation by explaining the development process of the Tree Ordinance that included reviewing existing city documents in cities such as Folsom, Citrus Heights, Sacramento and Placer County.
Cain claimed that many of the recent proposal revisions to the Tree Ordinance were rooted in the fact that getting information online was not user-friendly. To solve this, tree categories were reduced to three sections for clarity: landmark trees, city trees and private trees. Sections of the Ordinance were organized consistently making it easier to find important information from the municipal code, and separate sections for the permit/request application process were created.
Cain continued his presentation by describing some of the administrative provisions of the Tree Ordinance which included adding an applicability section that specifies how “any type of trees on a single-family or duplex parcel that has been preserved as a condition of approval or as part of or a project description of a planned development zone is subject to the regulations relating to trees of significance.”
An ‘expanded definitions’ section that adds three impact types for any tree (minor, moderate, and significant respectively), replaces the community services director position with the Tree Commission and Urban Forest Manager and moves all permit-related language from combined sections to separate sections.
For private trees, Cain claimed that these trees replaced previous trees of significance. Small and large tree lists were also removed. Additionally, any trees that die on developed property are required to be replaced within six months.
More importantly, the proposed revisions to the Tree Ordinance require that a permit/request be submitted with the planning application when protected trees are within 15 feet of a project site.
In terms of trees in parking lots, there are two new requirements for minimum rooting volume based on mature tree sites per parking lot shade guidelines. These include the requirement for a five-year tree maintenance plan and the requirement to replace dead parking lot trees within six months.
Urban foresters are also required to be notified of increased impacts to protected trees within seven days, in efforts to protect trees during construction periods. The criteria for protected trees can include but is not restricted to the tree being an outstanding specimen of desirable species, the tree is one of the largest or oldest trees in Davis or the tree is of historical importance to the city.
Tree mitigation was also a central segment of Cain’s presentation. He stated that mitigation is always required for significant impacts and removal and may be required for moderate impacts as well. A new table defining mitigation credit for various plant sizes has been added, along with an in-lieu fee of $189 per truck inch.
Violation of Chapter 37 of the Municipal Code as public nuisance comes with consequences. Public nuisances according to the code include trees growing in private property but are overhanging on streets and obstructing its use; planting that interferes with street development; vines or ivy that grow over any street trees, public hydrant, pole, or electrolier or having a plant that impedes sidewalks, bike paths or traffic lanes.
Some of the current progressive administrative enforcement options for any violations include written warnings, fines and stop work orders. Violators will be reported to license or certification organizations.
Cain also highlighted some of the next steps for the Tree Ordinance. He mentioned the implementations of public health complaints through in-person meetings, outreach events and/or virtual meetings. More specifically a public outreach at the Farmer’s Market on May 22, 2021, from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. There is also the plan to have the draft ordinance reviewed before being sent to city staff for a final review.
“A new table defining mitigation credit for various plant sizes has been added, along with an in-lieu fee of $189 per truck inch. ”
Wow, so a tree with a one foot diameter would cost a homeowner $2368, a two footer $4536 to remove. That is outrageous! I doubt even Charles Hurwitz got that per inch in the Headwaters Forest.
The problem here is that there is an agenda that assumes the City knows more about the best interests of the community than the property owners who may be dealing with a tree that has become a safety hazard or a nuisance. The notion that the individuals interest is secondary to the state’s come right out of Mussolini’s “Doctrine of Fascism.”
From the “Doctrine of Fascism”:
“Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State, …”
Substitute the City for the State and you get the oppressive nature of the tree ordinance.
I have a mixed sense on this. True, the mitigation cost is rather outrageous (but I also wonder if it would stand up if brought to court). Trees are a community resource and effect those around them as well as the property owner. Tangentially similar to how a property owner producing a loud noise effects those around them. I am thinking of two particular incidents 1) Slater’s Court cutting down several historic trees in a line in order to add a rental unit without permission – being fined by the city, and then hiring a lawyer to get out of paying the fine; 2) The house at Eureka & College Park that got the OK to take down a beautiful, old, historically-designated tree in their yard, using nothing more than a fear that a branch would fall and kill their children, despite arborists stating the tree was safe. I am all for individual and property owner rights, but there are some matters that extend to the community, and I believe trees should be one of those matters.
A) Time and Court costs to bring to suit… maybe someone just does what you said on another thread (Covid), and just “sucks it up”…
B) I cannot see why the City, and specifically the Tree Commission, should even try to assert ‘jurisdiction’ over a tree we planted, in our backyard, 27 years ago… if it is a hazard due to death/disease, possibly damaging our, or a neighbors property (where we could be held civilly liable for not ‘mitigating’ the hazard, and might having our HO claim rejected), are you implying, “too bad for you, the tree comes first?” If so, apply to be appointed to the Tree Commission… you’d fit in…
Other note… did the City have to set-aside a mitigation fee when it cut down the ‘widower’/motherless child maker @ Slide Hill Park?
What???
What??
Here’s a clue, Ron G:
Implied is this was Tree Commission driven, not by staff… we’ll have to see what the draft ordinance looks like, as what presented was an ‘oral update’ on progress…
My experience with the Tree Commission is that I sometimes have felt that professing “Druid”, as a religion, is a necessary pre-requisite to be appointed. A City (very large) greenbelt tree, the trunk (not just branches) was precariously leaning over the adjacent house — kitchen and dining rooms… it was identified in March 2020, confirmed with City Staff, as a clear, and possibly imminent hazard to private property, early April, taken to the Tree Commission, and it was September before the Commission finally approved the removal… City staff had it promptly removed thereafter… prior to the Tree Commission (formerly Street Tree Commission) taking the initiative for more “power” a couple of decades ago, the tree would have removed in a month or so after staff review…
In addition, it appears there is a movement to place the Commission as the “manager” of the Urban Forest Manager, instead of the former chain of command, ultimately under the aegis of the City Manager… perhaps the Planning Commission could do likewise and govern the Planning Division of (what I knew as) Planning and Community Development Department… then we could have two commissions, unelected, deciding public policy rather than burdening CM or CC with that type of discretion… perhaps we should have an ‘advise and consent’ vote of the people for anyone currently/future appointed by the CC.
Unclear what overlap there may or not be between this and the previous thread regarding concerns about the re-appointment of a Commissioner (or, maybe Commissar?)
So, Ron G, let’s wait to see the draft, but then follow our gut in commenting on the contents… once I see it, I’m likely to…
I have attended 2/3 of tree meeting for the last ten years. It has not been the Street Tree Committee for over 19 years. I can’t speak to the years before 2002.
But read the current (and draft) ordinance: The tree commission has NO policy role or oversight. You can also check out its Mission at the Tree Commission website. Urban Forest manager (and his bosses) drives everything and use to the tree commission to a sort appeal body on his remove/keep decision on street so it does not seem he has final word.
For last 3 years until current new cohort commissions literall the only thing the Comission did was approval tree removals was all the commission did. I read thru 8 years of commission meetng and abracted them. Glad to send a copy on request.
The Tree Commissioner havejoked it really the “Tree Removal Commission. The are pushing to give more oversight to tree program.
If you are unhappy with Urban Forestry department, it is Rob Cain, and more appropriately, his bosses who starve him of resources, you need to turn to.
….and it is often joked
It would be an unusual situation in which a homeowner would pay those fees for removal of a protected tree.
Those values are much higher than the replacement or removal cost of the tree. They are the value of the tree. Arborists have formulas for making those assessments based on the species, health, placement, and size of the tree. Those figures are not out of line at all.
Casually tossing around terms like fascist tends to shut down conversation. If you don’t have protections for trees, people will remove them due to minor perceived inconveniences. Our urban forest has value to the whole community, and removal decisions should be made with consideration of the many benefits that street trees provide.
“Our urban forest has value to the whole community, and removal decisions should be made with consideration of the many benefits that street trees provide.”
Our urban forest is much larger than the part where the city has planted trees on the private property of home owners. I see nothing wrong with homeowners wanting to remove a tree over minor or major inconveniences. They are the one’s living with it. The fees are onerous and have as much to do with providing a disincentive as they do with quantifying the added value of the tree. The metrics used for determining the value of a tree in Davis are the most expensive of anyplace I have lived.
I admit using the word fascist is counter productive even though the will of the government over the will of the individual is the essence of fascism.
The city has an easement in the front ten feet of your yard. That easement is for many purposes, one of which is the planting and maintenance of street trees to the benefit of the whole community. Removing a tree that has been installed and maintained at ongoing city expense is not something to be done on a whim. Fortunately the tree commission disagrees with your attitude and makes it a high bar to permit removals. I think these proposals are a step in the right direction of greater protection for the city’s trees. Most of the mitigation issues pertain to redevelopment situations. The high costs are intended to prevent people who act in bad faith and tear out trees that have value. We’ve had examples of that in Davis, and they should be met with significant costs to the perpetrators. An option should always be, and usually is, to plant more trees to replace those that were removed.
As more homes are developed without street trees because of the solar panel requirement, the existing trees become even more necessary to help mitigate urban heat and remove pollutants, among many other benefits.
True story, that… those are “City trees”… as distinguished from ‘trees within the city‘… and actually the HO pays (thru fee or purchase price) for tree and installation… City maintenance of “City trees” has fallen off over the last 15 years, reaching its nadir ~ 2012, but has been improving steadily since… at the low point, there was little ‘proactive’ maintenance, mostly by “complaint only”… at least in my neighborhood, the City’s contractors have been pretty good on ‘preventative maintenance’, as well as responding to “situations”… this is good!
“Fortunately the tree commission disagrees with your attitude and makes it a high bar to permit removals.”
Yes that is the point I am trying to call out. I think the bar is too high. The art of legislating is figuring out how to cast the net appropriately to catch the bad actors while leaving people alone whose intentions are good. Yet as you say above “If you don’t have protections for trees, people will remove them due to minor perceived inconveniences.” Of course one person’s perceived inconvenience might be another person’s real inconvenience.
So then is the objective to dissuade people who find a tree to be an inconvenience or to punish bad actors. It seems to me you are moving the goal posts. Or are you saying that a homeowner who is unhappy with a city tree is a bad actor?
I have a neighbor who has a city tree he loathes. He has lived in his home for over 50 years. If he would remove the tree the city would charge him around $7000. How would that be reasonable? I think there are many people throughout the city who are in a similar situation. You can side with the trees. I’ll side with the disgruntled homeowners. This is an opportunity for people to speak up and be heard.
Not meaning to argumentative, but curious (absolutely no need to respond, but for thought)… was the tree there when he acquired the property? Did he loathe it then? Our CITY street tree has been both a boon and a bane… it shields our west-facing windows in summer, and when it loses its leaves, it allow light and warmth in (a ‘London Plane’, commonly called a ‘Sycamore’)… the leaf drop and ‘dingle-ball’ drop can definitely be annoying… particularly with the end of ability to put leaf piles on the street, as needed…
I consider it both boon and bane. As long as the City maintains it so that our structure, foundation, driveway, sidewalk stays intact, we’re “good”. We can deal with the annoyances…
Your neighbor might want to think about annoyance vs. benefit, and if the annoyance/potential damage is real, he could pursue it as a ‘freebie’ for removal, with a replacement tree, that would be less ‘loathsome’, as long as he understands that many on the Tree Commission “worship trees”…
how is this a good thing? So houses will get hotter because they aren’t shaded, requiring more energy to cool them? What are mitigating plans? What are the tradeoffs? Has anyone thought this through?
Also, we seem to blurring the line between city trees and ‘trees’ here. Sort of like blurring legal immigration with all immigration. You can want it to be all one thing, you can pass laws for it to all be one thing, but there are real differences.
A more interesting question is what if someone wants to take out a city tree on their property in order to put in photovoltaic panels? Are they going to be charged a mitigation fee of $189 a trunk inch? Doing so may make the cost benefit analysis of installing solar panels uneconomic. Shouldn’t we defer to land owners to manage their own properties?
First is good question… second, I suspect not… have no cite, though… classic example of unintended consequences, methinks…
Gee… wish I had brought that up… guessing one of the times I did, the post got ‘moderated’ off… you are correct…different things… but not necessarily to the Tree Commission, which was formerly called, “Street Tree Commission”… big diff…
“…was the tree there when he acquired the property? Did he loathe it then?”
No, he was the original owner over 50 years ago. I don’t know when he began to be unhappy with it. Nor do I know if he would take the tree out if it wasn’t a city tree. I do know he wishes it wasn’t there.
I have a giant tree that has a five foot trunk. it is not a city tree and I would love to get rid of it. It is a mess and wasn’t well maintained throughout its life most of which was lived before I owned the property. I’d like to get rid of it but I can’t bring myself to take it out. I think most people will leave a tree alone even if they aren’t fond of it. Stipulating to that we should be more considerate of those who want to remove a tree from their private property when they decide it is reasonable to do so.
Fair answer to fair questions…
The City has not give property disclosure on the draft ordinance by writing a staff report comparing the current vs the new wording or in any but the high high level changes. The ordinance delcares anything less thant a 5″ dbh tree a “non-tree” thus not protected, this is 40%^ or more the city trees. ,
I wonder about just “reorganizing” it for “clarity” without outline the policy changes it makes or declines to make is performative manuever after 14 years of request for reform.
Watch the March Tree Commission meeting and see the struggle the tree commissioner members has i reviewing changes dealing due to lack of staff support.
The Davis Lorax
Why did we model this new tree ordinance after only cities in Sacramento foothills instead of exploring the best practices in the US? My guess: because the consult has worked there?
One of the “model cities” citrus heights does not even have an arborist on staff, and none have a tree commission.
We used tree mitigation (planting) fund to pay the consultant.