Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1989 0705 CC REG ITEM 04Ar A ITEM 4• A a 201, Q,— John E. Etter 2536 North Marilyn Street Simi Valley, California 93065 526-4232 ,io• e- (8,8) 947 - SS 60 w wY- May 9, 1989 Mr. Clint Harper 4044 Oak Glen Court Moorpark, California 93021 Dear Mr. Harper: I attended the Simi Valley City Council meeting on May 1, 1989 to request that the council support me in my efforts to obtain an ordinance for protection of oak trees and other vegetation. This county -wide ordin- ance would include the cities' spheres of influence and areas of interest. My request was unanimously approved by the council. Joe Hinsburg of the city planning department is in the process of drafting a memo to the county outlining what the City of Simi Valley would like. I am asking Moorpark and other Ventura County communities for their support. I am including with this letter a copy of my proposal, and other memos and letters that will update what progress has been made so far. I look forward to hearing from you. Since ly, John E. Etter Council of , .z 198, 9r TREE PERMIT GUIDELINES I. PURPOSE p v y- q The purpos of these Guidelines is to aid in the application and administration of the County's Tree Permit requirements of the Scenic Resource/ Protection Overlay Zone (Ventura County Ordinance Code Sec. —ST4'S=� et seq.,). Toward this end, these Guidelines explain the processing steps involved in obtaining a tree permit, the information necessary to make application for a tree permit, standard conditions for tree permits and enforcement. II. PERMIT PROCESSING PROCEDURES Any person desiring to remove an oak, cottonwood, alder, big leaf maple, California bay or California sycamore tree on a parcel of land within the Scenic Resource Protection Overlay Zone must first obtain a Tree Permit from the Ventura County Planning Division. The following are the steps involved in obtaining a Tree Permit: A. Pre -Application Conference A pre -application conference is the first step in securing' a County Tree Permit. This pre -application conference is a meeting between a County staff planner and the applicant. The purpose of this meeting is to familiarize the applicant with the County's permit process, to identify the information and materials necessary to file an application for a Tree Permit, and to discuss applicable County policies and ordinances relative to the project. A pre -application conference may be arranged by calling the County Planning Division and asking to speak with the Tree Permit planner. B. Formal Application Once the applicant has completed all application, forms and prepared all information identified during the pre -application conference, the. applicant may formally submit the project application and pay the required deposit fees pursuant to Board Resolution No. 222. C. Application Review On receipt of an application for a Tree Permit, the Planning Division shall review the application for accuracy and completeness and may, when necessary, make an inspection of the project site. In situations involving the removal of dead or hazardous trees, the necessity for a field inspection may be precluded if the applicant submits three clearly descriptive photos of each affected tree. Photos should be labeled to show the direction from which the photo was taken. The procedure may result in a permit being issued by the staff planner (Director's designee) at the time theapplicationis^filed. 1 Y In those situations requiring expert review, the Planning Division will refer a copy of the application to the County's landscape consultant. Those situations requiring consultant review include, but are not limited to projects involving significant numbers of protected trees; projects involving development activities in the immediate vicinity of protected trees and/or projects where physical protective measures may be required for the continued health of remaining trees. Any on -site inspections by the Planning Division or the landscape consultant shall determine the health of all the trees in the vicinity of the project site and such other factors as may be necessary to complete the review. Upon completion of application review and on -site inspections, the planner or landscape consultant shall submit a irritten report outlining his/her findings and recommendations. Normally, this will be within three days of receipt of the application materials from the County. D. Application Determination Based on the required application information, the Planning Director (or designee) shall approve or deny the application. In approving a Tree Permit, the Director may impose certain conditions to ensure that proper preservation techniques are employed. General policies and sample conditions are discussed in Section IV of these Guidelines. The applicant shall be notified by mail of the Director's decision. The decision of the Director shall become final and effective ten (10) calendar days after the date of the Director's determination letter provided no appeal of the action taken has been filed. E. Appeals Pursuant to Section 8145-4.4 of the Scenic Resource Protection Overlay Zone, the decision of the Planning Director may be appealed to the Ventura County Planning Commission upon filing of the proper form and payment of appropriate fees within ten (10) calendar days of the Notice of Decision. The decision of the Planning Commission shall be final and conclusive. Any decision by the Commission shall become final and effective upon its adoption. The applicant will receive notice within fourteen (14) calendar days after the date of the Commission'a action. III. PERMIT APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS The materials required to complete an application are described below. The Planning Division may waive the filing of one or more of the items listed when deemed unnecessary to process the application. The Planning Director may also require the submission of additional information when determined necessary for permit processing. " 2 7 The accuracy of all information, maps and lists submitted shall be the responsibility of the applicant. A. Application Form Application shall be made on the standard application form supplied by the Planning Division and included in this packet as Attachment "A". The signature of the property owner, lessee, or individual with power • of attorney will be required in all cases. B. Justification Statement An application requirement, which may not be waived, is a written statement by the applicant substantiating his/her justification for planned actions involving protected trees. As required by the Ordinance, the Planning Director's decision on the required standards will be based on the applicant's statement. All statements should establish how the remaining protected trees in the vicinity of the project or construction site will be protected, that any construction or use will be done with approved preservation methods, and that one of the following findings can be made: 1. That the retention of the trees as described in the application frustrates the planned improvement or proposed use of the property to such an extent that the applicant would be deprived of the reasonable economic enjoyment of the property, or 2. That the condition of the tree(s) subject to this ordinance with respect to disease, danger of falling, proximity to existing or proposed buildings and/or structures or interference with utility services cannot be controlled or remedied through reasonable preservation procedures and practices. C. Site Plan Map The requirement for a site plan map may be waived in some -situations involving the removal of dead, diseased or hazardous trees. In those cases determined to require a site plan map, three (3) copies of a site plan map are to be submitted to provide the Planning Division with a clear and accurate portrayal of the project and project site. The following outline describes the information which should be included on the site plan map. A sample Site Plan Map is included in Attachment I1B • tt 1. Size: Maps should not exceed 30" x 40" in size. 2. Scale: The scale should not be smaller than 1" = 40'. 3. Title Block: In one corner of the map, indicate the name of the property owners, applicant, appropriate consultants, address(es) and phone number(s) of those involved in preparing the plans and application. 3 4. Physical Characteristics: The body of the map should accurately portray the following existing and proposed features: a. property lines; b. streets, access easements and/or public or private driveways and any other paved areas; C. buildings or structures; d. setbacks of all buildings and structures from property lines; e. parking areas; f. land uses on parcel; g. proposed grading and construction - including utilities. h. diameter of canopy and accurate plotting of driplines and mean natural grade at base. S. Tree Locations: The nap shall indicate the specific location of trees proposed to be removed and/or relocated, and those within 100 feet of the project or construction area. In situations involving groves of protected trees (more than 20 trees), it will not be necessary to show each tree on the map but the grove location should be clearly marked. D. Fees Fees shall be assessed as contained in Board of Supervisors` Resolution 222. The appropriate fee should be made payable to the Ventura County Planning Division. Jl In those obvious situations where photos accurately depict protected trees as dead or hazardous, therefore not requiring a field inspection or expert review, the fee will be a non-refundable fee. In all other situations the fee required is a deposit fee against which 'the processing costs incurred by the County will be charged. The funds not used will be returned to the applicant when the processing of the permit has been completed. IV. STANDARD CONDITIONS The Planning Director, or designee, in approving an application for a Tree Permit, may impose such conditions as deemed necessary to ensure that the permit will be in accord with the intent of the ordinance and these guidelines. These conditions may include, but are not limited to, the following: A. The replacement of trees proposed for removal with trees of a suitable type, size, number, location and date of planting. In determining whether replacement is reasonable and may be required, the Planning Director shall consider, but is not limited to, the following factors: 1. The vegetative character of the surrounding area near the project site, and 7 4 2. The number of trees subject to this ordinance which are proposed :• \ to be removed in relation to the number of such trees currently J existing on the project site, and 3. The development plans submitted by the applicant for the proposed construction or the proposed use of the project site. V. ENFORCEMENT The Planning Division shall enforce the provisions of the Scenic Resource Ordinance and these Guidelines by responding promptly to reports of violation. Planning Division enforcement personnel are empowered under Ordinance Code Section 8165-2 to issue citations for misdemeanor/infraction violations of the prohibitions of the Ordinance or any condition of an approved Tree Permit. IH:IG220 S o d ev Cr a $ o r ga �aa> o_.Re�c�S� 3' °fit,=AR A o A 306 f 00 r ^ 0Fr o a?�pr o A Asr r mail -'^l-� c7 - 4 O 91 3� Et s r Ot 6: I_ z 0 i- G W Trees: The Simi Valley City Council supports a resident's request that governrr=t increase protection for oak trees on uninoorporated land. Pap• 4 By M V(E COMEAUX Daily N•wa stall Wrom . SIMI VALLEY --,The City Council has thrown its support behind a resident's request that government extend greater pro- tection to oak trees on unincor- porated land - The Simi Valley council en- dorsed earlier this week new ef- forts aimed at preserving oaks on property outside cities. "I think the council would sup- port anything that would protect oak trees, within reason, Coun- cilman Bill Davis said Tuesday. "The problem is we're talking about ... county property. What we'd like to do is have some con- trol over those properties so we could protect the trees before a developer destroys any of them and then turns around and asks for annexation," Davis said. The council adopted no partic- ular proposal or action, but the council said it supports efforts of resident John Etter, who has called for county ordinances to protect oaks and natural or his- toric vegetation such as old or- chards and non-native trees. County Supervisor Jim Dougherty, who represents Simi Valley, has rejected Etter's pro- posal as impractical, said Brian Miller, an administrative assis- tant to Dougherty. However, members of the county planning staff arc developing a proposal to expand an ordinance already on the books that protects trees in scenic areas, Mitk:r said. "We're looking to transfer it so it would be applicable to the rural areas," Miller said_ "That's where the development is taking place." A countywide ordinance would interfere with activities of farm- ers and ranchers by requiring them to obtain a permit to cut trees or branches, Miller said. Etter contends that wider gov- ernment protection is needed to preserve oaks and to monitor land alteration such as grading. "I love the outdoors, wildlife and trees, and they're vanishing so fast it's ridiculous. We're going to look back someday and say, 'It's all gone. Where is it?' " Four cities in the county have tree -protection ordinances, offi- cials of the county Planning Divi- sion said. Simi Valley has an or- dinance that protects oak trees and mature or historical trees of more than 10 inches in diame- ter. Moorpark regulations require tree permits and approval ley the Planning Commission or m- munity Development Director for any activity that may result in relocation or destruction of any tree four inches in diameter on public or private property. Thousand Oaks has a compro hcnsive ordinance protecting a variety of trees once they grow to a trunk diameter of two inches or more. Ojar requires permitts to prune, relocate or remove healthy trod on public prpQcr iy and some on private property. i6 14WtSISL/-�A-6)It 1 PLANNING DIVISICN TO: Jim Dougherty, Supervisor DATE: March 27, 1989 Fourth District FPS: Keith Turner, Direct Planning Division SUBJECT: John E. Etter's letter Of 12/8/88 Per your request, we have reviewed the above referenced letter regarding i n recent land clearing/grading activities on Big Sky Ranch and the need for greater environmental regulation. The following comments are provided to issues in the same order as Mr. Etter's letter presents them: Oak Tree Protection .he issue of oak tree protection is fairly well covered in my 3/14/89 memo to you regarding oak tree protection for Santa Susana Knolls. Since the Big Sky Ranch is designated Open Space on the General Plan Iand Use Map, the only option which would prevent oak tree removal such as that which occurred on Big Sky Ranch, would be to adopt a Countywide oak tree protection ordinance. As stated in my 3/14 memo, this option would be very costly to implement ($70,000/yr.) and enforce ($45,000/yr.), would cover virtually all unincorporated land (537,100 acres), and would result in undue hardship and cost to individual land owners (especially farmers). Natural Vegetation Not all native vegetation is worthy of protection. Through the policies of the County General Plan and by environmental laws, all discretionary development must be evaluated for its impact on significant biological resources (e.g., riparian vegetaticn, endangered species, wetlands, vernal pools), and where significant impacts are identified, all feasible mitigation measures must be incorporated. Although these policies and laws don't apply to farming and ministerial grading activities, they nevertheless do provide sane degree of protection. Although the county could adopt an overlay zone which could provide an added degree of protection to biological resource areas by requiring a special permit for all ministerial development actions (e.g., zone clearances, grading permits, building permits), the preparation, inplementation and enforcement of such an overlay zone would be very time consuming and expensive. Flurthermore, the need for such an extraordinary measure has not, in our opinion, been demonstrated and a ecuplete, detailed inventory of biological resources has not been prepared by any governmental agency. Such an inventory would be very time corsuniuxl and costly to prepare. Jim Daugherty, Supervisor March 27, 1989 Page 2 Historical Vegetation Identifying and preserving historical features (including historical ones and non-native trees) are the responsibility of the Axmty's Historical Commission, which is adminj,,tered by the General Services Agency. Any meaningful and equitable regulations governing such historical vegetation in our opinion would be very difficult to draft, and as with the oak tree ordinance, would likely prove to be a burden on farmers and ranchers. Sensitive Areas See response to Natural Vegetation above. I hope the above information meets your needs. If you require any clarification or additional information, p':easc call me at Extension 2481. BS:gg/023 cc: Ricci Wittenberg Tom Berg '-J PIANNING DIVI.SICH TO: Jim DoL4ierty DATE: Mardi 14, 1989 Supervisor, Fourth District FRCM: Keith Turner Cvis Director, Pl on SUR=: Oak Tree Protection for Santa Susana Knolls Per your request, we have evaluated what it would take to provide oak tree protection for Santa Susana Knolls. Existim Regulations Under existing Cunnty ordinances, oak tree protection is only provided on lands zoned with the overlay designations of "SRP" (Scenic Resource Protection) or "SHP' (Scenic Highway Protection). Under the locational criteria of the General Plan, the SETT zone is currently only applicable to properties within the "viewshed of lakes as being worthy of special protection" and the SHP zone is only applicable to properties within the viewshed of designated State or County scenic highways. The Santa Susana Knolls area meets neither of these two criteria. Basic CptiorLs To provide oak tree protection measures to Santa Susana Knolls, three alternative approaches could be pursued: 1. Amend the zoning ordinance to enact a Ccu my -wide oak tree protection ordinance. 2. Amend the locational criteria of the General Plan so that Santa Susan Knolls could be zoned SRP. 3. Amend the zoning ordinance to enact an oak tree protection ordinance (wane as #1) , but apply these requirements only to urban and rural type zones. With regard to a County -wide oak tree ordinance, the Board of Supervisors considered such an ordinance in 1982, but rejected it because in their opinion it would have affected too many property owners (especially farmers). James Dougherty Marsh 14, 1989 Page 2 This option, from a technical and fiscal standpoint, would be easier and less costly to enact than Options 2 or 3 since the draft ordinance language has already been Prepared and the amendment could be processed with existing staff in a relatively short period of time (3-6 months depending on priority). Administration and enforcement of such an ordinance, however, has significant technical and fiscal implications. A tree permit would be required in order to remove any oak tree (above a certain size) anywhere in the County. If all affected property owners (including farmers) ccrnplied with the ordinance, hundreds of tree permits would have to be processed each year. This has significant cast and time inplications for property owners, and fiscal and staf f irr, lirpl ications for the County. Enforcement of an oak tree ordinance would be difficult and would have its own fiscal and staffing implications. 2. General Plan Anent/SRP Overlay Zone With regard to the SRP overlay zone, the Planning Division is currently in the process of amending the General Plan to adopt an Area Plan for the Zhaisand Oaks Area -of -Interest. As part of this amendment, we will be recccnenduig changes to the locational criteria for the SRP overlay zone. As cisrently drafted, the General Plan Amendment will expand the SRP locational criteria to include "scenic areas identified by an area plan as being worthy of special protection. " This General Plan Amendment- is expected to be presented to the Board of Supervisors for adoption sometime this next summer. The Santa Susan molls area, however, is not now covered by an Area Plan . Therefore, in order for the oak tree protection measures of the SRP zone to be applied to Santa Susan. Knolls, an Area Plan for Santa Stzana molls would have to be prepared and adopted. This would require the Board to aut1=ize a special budget request to have the Planning Division prepare an Area Plan for the area. This would require Board approval of a new staff allocation (Planner II - Fixed Term) for approximately one year, and a budgetary allocation of approximately $80,000 from the General Fund. The budget request could be made either mid -year or as part of the FY 1989-90 County budget. This option presumes that all or a majority of the Santa S s =:: a Knolls area contains scenic rescxiroe qualities worthy of special protection. Furthermore, if the area is zoned SRP, not only will a tree permit be required for oak tree removal, but a Planning Director CUP will be James Dax�herty March 14, 1989 Page 3 required for all gradirr3 over 50 cubic yards. This would mean that most owners of vacant parcels would have to go through the CUP process in order to build their homes. This would not only be costly and time ccnsLmu.ncj for them, but the permit load on current County staff would increase. In light of the problems associated with enacting an oak tree ordaranoe Courrty-wide or amending the General Plan to establish the sRP overlay zone in Santa Susan Knolls, we have explored other mech<�n� by which we could enact an oak tree protection ordinance for specific geographical areas such as Santa Susana Knolls. County Counsel has advised us that whatever mechanism we use, we need to establish objective and rational locational criteria, and that we must then apply that criteria uniformly. Urban and rural zoning districts could be used as the locational criteria to establish oak tree protection regulations for specific geographical areas. Because oak trees are a scenic/aesthetic resarcA and because urban and rural zones have a much larger number of people who would appreciate oak trees than either Open Space or Agricultural zones, then urban and rural zones could be singled out for oak tree protection. Furthermore, sine most development which threatens oak trees is located in urban and rural zones, the greatest need for oak tree protection is in urban and rural zones. We have reviewed this rationale with Jim Thous of County eel's office, and he believes that this approach is both rational and objective, and that within each applicable zone district the regulations would be applied uniformly. Limiting oak tree protection to urban and rural zones greatly reduces the amount of unincorporated lam which would be affected and, therefore, greatly reduces the number of potential tree permits which would have to be processed. Although this appin. would result in many more tree permits than the GPA-SRP option, this option would - • - eei ti i• .. This option would require a little more time to prepare and process (5-7 months) than a County -aide tree ordinance (3-6 months), but would be significantly less time manning and expensive to prepare and process than the GPA-sRP option (12 mx?hG) _ James Dougherty March 14, 1989 Page 4 Conclusion Attached is a table which summarizes zes the pros and cons of each of the three alternative approaches. Considering all technical and fiscal factors, Option No. 3 is the preferred method fna staff perspective. It should be noted that Supervisor Schaefer's office is also interested in pursuing oak tree protection for the Bell Canyon area. Option 3 could satisfy the needs of bath Bell Canyon and Santa Susan molls. If you have any further questions please call me at lion 2481. M7:gg/014 Q,. Option 1 Optical 2 Option 3 County -Wide Area Plan and Tree Ord. For Tice Oiri. SRP Zone for Urban and Rural Bell Canyon Zones Only PPepcZrdti Time: 3-6 Months 12 Mcurths 5-7 Marths (Depending on (P"N i res budget (De -ending on Priority) request) Priority) Staffing: Dastinig staff New Planner Existing staff (Planner II) Cost: FJasstllng budge:: $80,000 (New Existing budget budget allocation) I=lementation: Land Area 537,100 Ac. 230 Ac. 40,000 Ac. Affected: Staffing: New Planner Existing staff New Planner (Full time) (1/2 time) County Cost: $80,000 1st yr.+ No additional $45,000 1st yr.+ $70,000/year cost (existing budget) $35,000/year Permit Proc- essing Time: 1 day-3 weeks/ 1 day-3 weeks/ 1 day-3 weeks/ Tree permit Tree permit Tree Permit 4-9 mos./ Grading CUP Applicant $28 to $1,000/ $28 to $1,000/ $28 to $1,000/ Cost: Tree permit Tree permit Tree Permit $635 to $5,000/ Grading QJP ?� • ���u - n�i Staffing: New Planner Existxx3 staff New Plsrr=- (1/2 time) (1/4 time) CU. Cat: $45,000 1st yr.+ Little additional $27,000 1st yr.+ $35,000/year cost (existing $17,000/year budget) To: From: Subject: County of Ventura PLANNING DIVISION MEMORANDUM Supervisor Jim Dougherty i n Keith Turner, M r G Planning Divas n Tree Ordinances In response to your request about tree ordinances,a survey was conducted to identify any city ordinances that protect trees or vegetation on public or private property. As you know, the County has a "tree protection ordinance" currently limited to scenic resource protection areas, i.e., viewsheds of lakes. J: . Crian Join Carole Date: January 6, 1989 Our findings revealed that of the ten cities surveyed, Moorpark, Ojai, Simi Valley, and Thousand Oaks have tree ordinances. There are no ordinances protecting any type of vegetation other than trees in Ventura County. Thousand Oaks Of the four cities in question, Thousand Oaks has the most comprehensive tree ordinance for oaks and other trees. Sycamore, cottonwood, California pepper, elm, eucalyptus, pine, palm, almond, walnut, black walnut, and alder are also protected. A protected tree is classified by a trunk diameter of two inches or more. In the City of Thousand Oaks, an applicant is required to identify all protected trees on proposed projects. This must be done by a licensed horticulturist or landscape architect and incorporated into a landscape plan. Project encroachment into driplines, and trimming or felling of any protected tree are strictly prohibited without the appropriate permits and Planning Commission approval. This ordinance requires the preservation of all protected trees on public and private property. Oiai In the City of Ojai, oaks and sycamore trees are protected under the Ojai Tree Ordinance. This ordinance is quite restrictive concerning mature healthy trees and applies to any protected tree on public property, and to private property which is vacant, undeveloped or in the process of modification. Permits to prune, relocate, or remove trees are issued to applicants pursuant to the Planning Commission's discretion. Moorpark rk In the City of Moorpark, any activity that may result in the relocation or destruction of any tree four inches in diameter on all public or private property requires the Community Development Director's and Planning Commission approval, as well as approval of the appropriate tree permits. On any project which Supervisor Jim Dougherty January 6, 1989 Page 2 requires a Planned Development Permit, a tree report must be included with the application materials in order to identify the condition and location of all protected trees on the lot(s). Simi Valley The City of Simi Valley has a mature tree ordinance which protects oaks, mature, and historical trees of more than ten inches in diameter. This ordinance involves virtually the same requirements as Moorpark's tree ordinance, and requires the preservation of all trees classified as protected. In the four cities mentioned, tree permits for pruning, encroachment, relocation, or removal are issued if the applicant is able to demonstrate the appropriate justification, e.g., if the tree is a hazard to public safety, diseased, or if the location, size, or shape of the tree(s) on the proposed project creates certain unmitigable economic hardships for the developer. Furthermore, where tree removal permits are granted, applicants are usually required to replace the felled trees with trees of suitable type, or in the case where felled trees are assigned an economic/aesthetic value, this value must be replaced in the form of general landscaping improvements. I hope this information proves useful. Please let me know if you have any additional questions. My extension is 2481. KT:lb/A4 cc: Tom Berg -�b John E. Etter :reet tia 93065 Mr. Michael D. Bradbury District Attorney, County of Ventura 800 South Victoria Avenue Ventura, California 93009 Res Big Sky Ranch Grading Dear Mr. Bradbury: In view of the investigation of alleged violations of environmental protection laws by Big Sky Ranch Company, I urge your department to bring criminal charges against Big Sky Ranch (Watt Industries). I feel this case presents a good opportunity for Ventura County to set a precedent that Will give all developers the message that our county will not tol— erate the indiscriminate abuse of the environment and the blatant disregard of laws meant to protect our resources. I intend to contact the State Attorney General's office and my state representatives to inform them of this situation and to request that legislation be introduced to strengthen the vague county ordinances that currently deal With environmental and hillside erosion control issues (i.e. ordinance Ps 3683 and 3539). Also, a review of the California Environmental Quality Act is in order because Big Sky Ranch property no longer conforms to a minor land use alteration. I look forward to hearing from you regarding this matter. Sincerely, John E. Etter cc: James Dougherty, Ventura County Supervisor t' BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF VENTURA 3190 EAST COCHRAN STREET, SIMI VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 93065 Mr. John Etter 2536 N. Marilyn Street Simi Valley, California 93065 Dear Mr. Etter: MEMBERS OF THE BOARD SUSAN K. LACEY Chair MADGE L. SCHAEFER MAGGIE H. ERICKSON JAMES R. DOUGHERTY JOHN K. FLYNN JAMES R. DOUGHERTY SUPERVISOR, FOURTH DISTRICT (805) 584-4811 April 7, 1989 Oak trees in the County are protected if they fall within a designated scenic resource area. In addition to that, the cities of Thousand Oaks, Ojai, Moorpark and Simi Valley all have tree protection ordinances of one kind or another. At this time, Supervisor Schaefer and I are cooperating in trying to extend the County Oak Tree Ordinance into the urban and rural zones. As you can readily see, most of the oak trees in the County are already protected in one way or another, particularly if they are in areas likely to be developed. Attached is material which indicates simply passing a blanket ordinance which prohibited cutting down a tree anywhere in the County would be an expensive measure to draft and almost impossible to enforce. Worse, since most oak trees are already protected, there is no good reason for it. Your letter also raises questions about natural and"historical" vegetation, as well as sensitive areas. You must be aware, all of these areas are already covered through the issuance of discretionary permits which address the concerns raised in your letter. I can find no compelling reason to spend the taxpayers money to count the plants and trees in Ventura County. Nor can I even imagine telling every farmer and rancher in the County they cannot clear brush from their land or cut down a dead oak tree or even cut a branch off a live one without paying a fee and getting a permit from some bureaucrat. I do not share your apparent belief in an all-powerful authoritarian bureaucracy as the answer to every problem we face. This County is unique precisely because we have protected agriculture and allowed it to function without trying to kill it with unnecessary and expensive rules and regulations that would add only minutely to the environmental protection already afforded. Mr. John Etter April 7, 1989 Page Two Since we are already doing most of the things you want done, you'll forgive me for wondering if there isn't another motive behind your letter. Thank you for communicating with my office in writing. I respectfully request that you continue that practice. Sincerely, /AIIM E S R. DOU HER Supervisor Fourth District JRD:cv Attachment John E. Etter 2536 North Marilyn Street Simi Valley, California 93065 (805) 526-4232 March 28, 1989 Mr. Michael Bradbury District Attorney, County of Ventura 800 South Victoria Avenue Ventura, California 93009 Dear Mr. Bradbury: I am pleased to see that you are in the process of improving the county grading/erosion ordinance. This improvement will hopefully make it easier for your department to address any questionable grading practices. Now that the county allows development on unincorporated county land, I fear that our current oak tree protection ordinance is not adequate. I talked with Greg Brose about the possibility of improving the county's oak tree protection ordinance. Mr. Brose said it's possible, and he would bring up the issue, informally, during the grading ordinance discussions with various county departments. Hopefully, an improved ordinance would include more than oak trees. (Please see attached copy of my letter to Supervisor Dougherty.) The reason I am asking your department for help in this matter is that it seems Mr. Dougherty's office is at a loss as to how to approach this improvement; similar to the way the Public Works Commission was at a loss as how to approach the Big Sky grading incident. Please let me know if I can be of any assistance to you or your office. Sincerely, John E. Etter cc: Greg Brose ,.Z John E. Etter 2536 North Marilyn Street Simi Valley, California 93065 805-526-4232 December 8, 1988 Mr. Jim Dougherty Supervisor, District 4 3190 Cochran Street Simi Valley, California 93063 Dear Mr. Dougherty: In view of the recent incident on the Big Sky Ranch, north of Simi Valley, the need for stronger, comprehensive county -wide oak tree and natural/ historical vegetation ordinances are now evident. With the pressure being put on Ventura County by developers to utilize our lands, our cur- rent ordinances are obsolete. The following is a brief outline of items that should be addressed in this proposal: Oak tree protection - should include all oak tree species, living or dead. Protecting the dead trees would help deter the inten- tional killing of unwanted trees, a practice that has been suspected in the past. Living trees should be protected from development infrastructure whenever feasible. Oak tree limbs may not be cut unless they have been deemed to be a hazard to safety, power lines, roadways, buildings, etc., or are diseased. Natural vegetation - includes all native species. The Department of Fish and Game recommends that we preserve riparian areas to protect the numerous endangered species that depend on these areas for survival. The act of brush clearing, except for the purpose of fire prevention disrupts and scars our landscape, and needs to be addressed. Historical vegetation - The existing stands of old orchards and non-native trees are now a part of our heritage and offer good ascetics as well as habitat for our wildlife. Sensitive areas - including marshlands, vernal pools and stream - beds. Although state laws currently address the blockage of streambeds, there is not adequate protection of the vegetation surrounding these areas. When any land alteration is proposed, developers and land owners must be required to work closely with government agencies. When permits are applied for, the applicant's land should be subject John E. Etter December 8, 1988 Mr. Jim Dougherty Supervisor, District 4 to inspection for rare plants along with archaeological and paleontological studies. New environmental ordinances can establish Ventura County as a leader in setting the standards for environmental protection. I look forward to working closely with you in this matter. Sincerely, John E. Etter JE/le cc: Maggie Erickson Supervisor, District 3 John Flynn Supervisor, District S Madge L. Schaefer Supervisor, District 2 Susan K. Lacey Supervisor, District 1 c c c g J , > E I.G.` c o5 u � � c � c' 1 a ea ;; L K m C �+ 0' a"E a r- OcL C.QI. E o V to y � C O g V U 00 07 C Lam X aioc« O 7 W e u a ca o «„ u c °� E °3"� d ii Ea a� c c �� m c x y u u o >-t as a o co o o -15 c:9 a c� t ��icoo00_�Et°61-,c4,�c C� �E3 1'E>va�"accriovc �,dBEoo �T J 7IV harj o-`aa �� E.�� r� � ate.= ai g r� c .o vcris c._ cri o E 7S « L 0 7 u C d« O L "' O ��= O v C a Q„c°J,�. U Eco o r3 L mL o�� J u °u°.-a- 1 oo. «ca-2SCL v cuQ>+ -o ooa,e0>1 a a.m« �y�y c � c9 t m G.0 L w .O. E C. ..� H b� Ea��as 914 z c E a 0 awco � J AC E «-._� ao as QQ c9� mUb n = as Ev c �... > �- Gi = > v ..0. y0 C 3 = u jt.v off ❑ oos T3 i� 3 yJ A o E es _ a, u c/ >iej cax+« 30°J> u'3Eu�« E`-9 �-o+ •__�.....sasa�.iissaaaaao�aaa,asa■..aaei:..� 18 Part i/Tuesday, December6, 11 � 3 E ouo� c v c.0 > EO CC ea �` C C0as 3: G'' « °C Eas c�Na3a� pucq ova^ a;�s3f/raNN a—L E _ r _ 3u arc c a - NQ o O E a �u 3 o c._O_� a� E '- U coas EU c ci�L 3 c ..0 >pj_�L0tj as TO� �� p l4 O VT' as aU as U j u L cQ •— (� y x� C T y� N C V 3 y C Ni u .- - �_ u c L E�c��L`p-3oY inacu�v3uL- E ` o.E g_ c ;v , o2 g o c o c o o c O u C i p �` O 'nIT as U i roam_-.- Tu. 4u uC.. Y �p300 ac jP! o 3 > v N ,v --a iJL•C�.�'Gj �.N � �O k N Ni N C (A u CQ C -- L �f" v �E- c a as aim a a a 3 3 c E N« a ° � o oho 00 00 7 w u sue'--om�R 3 c cn " u CL « as X oo nLooL s u a_ up—.o 3 c aL L my �O cy No c Qo o �` c v` G n �•�L Tin�N•E c p m o V E E c,00_ �_�� co teveoo�;LE + N Y V U= C N_ N W c C4• 3 E u t 7 r_ < �.�_ o �� mL 3as aE u ,� �� o a��t_>- v u� TES o� ac u ii ' 1 b `=0`0 c o= �� a oc nE TTV aaCn _p � u�� �, •c N oo a ao " E O �i V u e9 C cp 0 U '-��``[� c y " ± ° a r p c u ca ,—C4 o 3 Q Q ' CO N °fit c 1[ . x o CJ L. O STC aCJ pQa '.' NC U L cas � O.e� `k•-asco a q T u - 5 €_� T �.0 U U E VG 41 .0 ° L a E 7 C U .. 1M�1 / 8961 '9 838n3330 'Avos3rll / SM3ry ti w y 1 u u u El R L C4, y p YEgw<iL.o.Co ° i �J..c3 G � T 9~ V EL 2:- cc L 3 .�i� cam=° W c3Y;t-•v> *cc C�m c V u L 10 c E o o E> onL writil O. C O. apt= 1 aO�aQ �i m m E ea S2 c� c E o� cc u m� ;E� Qm �,E=oE5 E° �v.U_U�(JL VL L� UN'C Yi' St+ r E L n 3 0 u Yit� t ma t OtG C� O u _ I^ pv Ut ccuE_ E3GUTczuv'-� c_`-'� > cos c _�° c u- -tO„ 3 E- E E U E > G m° e6 c c v E Q c E A N e v` o . D = 44°u0�'o�`-�E9L�� EL Cu�o T m o �V o u Q K c '•' u c _ >�� r� z V� E E E J u > t U N ON; U C m ? y J I (I7 L N� .m J = U ; ; o C ? � T pUZI Z F L O E