CLEARLAKE – After several revisions, a final tree ordinance meant to protect native trees has passed the Clearlake Planning Commission and is headed to the Clearlake City Council.
The commission voted at its March 18 meeting to accept the ordinance, which says that its regulations are meant “to protect certain native trees to enhance the attractiveness and livability of the city.”
City Administrator Dale Neiman said the ordinance will go to the Clearlake City Council for approval on April 10.
A tree protection ordinance was inspired by the city's Vision Task Force, said Neiman. “After the Vision Task Force was adopted the Planning Commission recommended a number of things to do. This was one of them.”
In December a draft ordinance went before the council, as Lake County News has reported.
All told, the draft went to the commission four or five times, said Neiman. “We came out with a much better product.”
Planning Commissioner Al Bernal said the ordinance is meant to protect native oaks and those designated by the City Council as “heritage trees” – trees with special meaning or historical significance.
Native oak trees the ordinance protects include the blue oak, valley oak, interior live oak, California black oak, canyon live oak and Oregon white oaks.
Removing those trees would require a permit, the ordinance states.
When an applicant seeks a tree removal permit, the city would retain an arborist at the applicant's expense to determine if the tree was sick or diseased, or if it should be removed for other reasons. Such permits would be valid for one year.
Unhealthy or dying trees are exempted, said Bernal, as is tree removal necessitated by a tree's closeness to utilities, such as power lines. In those cases the ordinance also doesn't require replacement trees be planted.
There also are no penalties for removing trees in the footprint of a house or garage, or in a driveway, said Bernal.
Bernal said the commission looked first at how the ordinance would impact basic lots. “We want a lot of those lots developed so didn't want to put up road blocks,” he said.
The city is looking at ways to offer developers flexibility when it comes to placement of buildings and parking in order to maintain trees, Bernal added.
The ordinance also sets up rules for what can be done around a tree's “root protection zone,” including preventing cement from being poured up around a tree's roots, trenching, permanent or temporary structures, soil compaction or burning.
For each protected tree removed, two replacement trees of the same species must be planted for the first 6 inches of diameter at breast height, or the diameter of a tree at four and one-half feet (54 inches) above the ground on the high side of the trunk.
For each additional inch of diameter at breast height, another replacement tree must be planted. Replacement trees must be a minimum five-gallon sapling and must remain for five years.
The ordinance also makes off-site replacement options, either on another site owned by the same property owner or on public lands as determined by the city.
“We tried to balance the rights of the property owner – and not be so onerous on property owners – with trying to preserve as many oak trees as we could,” Bernal explained.
The ordinance calls for a fine of $1,000 for the removal of a tree in violation of the regulations.
As for heritage trees – older, larger trees – that's a special designation that the property owner or the City Council can bestow, said Neiman. They would then receive full protection.
Concerns for a tree protection ordinance have arisen in recent years because of a number of major tree removals, specifically with the removal of acres of oaks in the Borax Lake area. More recently, an apartment project along Olympic Drive in Clearlake removed numerous oaks trees, as did the developers of a new Walgreens site near Wal-Mart.
“If we'd had the ordinance there would have been ways to preserve some of the trees,” said Bernal.
Moving forward, tree protections will be regulated during the building permit process, Neiman said. Tree protection already is an issue currently on subdivision and use permits. He added that he doesn't see it adding much difficulty for staff in enforcement.
Neiman said similar tree ordinances are fairly common. “Some communities value the trees more than other communities.”
Chuck March, executive director of the Lake County Farm Bureau, said he didn't have any comment on the issue because it applied within city boundaries.
Tree ordinances becoming more common
Richard Harris, a Berkeley-based University of California Cooperative Extension forestry specialist, has worked as a technical advisor on tree protection ordinances in Placer County and the city of Redding.
With 48 out of California's 58 counties being home to oak woodlands, Harris said there are a number of jurisdictions with tree ordinances on the books.
He said the ordinances tend to attempt to balance urbanization with the desire to maintain an area's desirability – which includes mature trees that not only add shade and beauty to a place but contribute to an area's ecosystem.
Harris said ordinances should seek to protect oak woodlands, not just trees, although he said striking that balance can be challenging.
A 2004 bill by state Sen. Sheila Kuehl amended the California Environmental Quality Act to require counties to consider impacts on oak woodlands. However, Harris pointed out that the Kuehl bill doesn't apply to cities.
So, unless cities have a tree removal process, there is nothing to stop the removal of trees, Harris said.
He said it's common for developers to clear land of oaks before going into a permitting process. “Then they don't have to deal with the oak woodland issues because the oak woodland is gone.”
Without tree ordinances in place, developers aren't doing anything wrong on a legal basis, although it might be considered morally and ethically wrong, said Harris.
Tree clearing also isn't restricted on agricultural lands, said Harris. He pointed to the Highway 20 corridor between Clearlake Oaks and Williams, where a landowner was running a large firewood operation, with piles of wood visible from the highway.
Whole areas of oak woodland along the area's hillsides were simply cut down, said Harris. “That was done without any kind of permit.”
Harris said the ordinances aren't usually meant to restrict homeowners, who tend to care a lot about the trees. Rather, they're aimed at those who don't take the natural landscape into account. “You have to worry about the people who don't care about the trees.”
Bernal said he believes the ordinance will be welcome. “My sense is this is a good piece of work that needed to be done.”
The tree ordinance is one of the first things to be accomplished from the Vision Task Force report, said Neiman. Other proposals include a volunteer cleanup program, weed abatement and focused code enforcement activities.
“When those are done we'll come with more,” he said.
E-mail Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..
{mos_sb_discuss:2}
How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
