7/9/2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

July 9, 2002 single site watching equipment removing vegetation. In addition, the size and forested nature of some developments would require that more than one Certified Arborist be on-site. Any developer who is unscrupulous enough to want to remove saved trees will find a way to do it despite the on-site Certified Arborist. There were concerns that there would be a perception of possible collusion between the Certified Arborist and the developer, or at least undue influence, since the Certified Arborist was being paid by the developer. To address that issue, staff revised an earlier version of the ordinance to provide that the Certified Arborist would be paid by the county, and the county would be reimbursed its expense from the developer. This process, however, would create additional workload for the county in tracking, handling, and coordinating this process. In addition, this revised process produced concerns that the Certified Arborists would inflate their charges since they would be working for the county and it would be the county's responsibility to get the money from the developer. Additionally, some Certified Arborists took exception to the idea that they would act in such an unprofessional manner. Performance Guarantee: There was concern that, for large projects or projects of high value, the bond amounts would not be sufficient to deter illegal tree removal; however, if the bond amounts were set too high the smaller projects would not have sufficient financial resources, or would find financing difficult to obtain. This would necessitate the implementation of a complex formula for determining bond amounts. There was concern that financial institutions would not back or support the bonding requirements since the bonds would be perceived as a high risk investment. Comments were received that the bonds should remain in place for a period of up to three years after the project was complete. This was to ensure that the trees survived. This generated concern that, if a saved tree were to die, it would be difficult to determine if the tree died as a result of the development activity or of natural causes. Finally, staff looked at the data gathered over the last 10 years to determine if there is a real or perceived problem with tree removal permit violations. In the previous 10 years, the county has issued 770 tree removal permits. Of these, 25 pertiiits were issued after -the -fact, and only five of the 770 permits issued resulted in any enforcement action due to the illegal removal of trees. The five violations represent 0.65% of all the tree removal permits issued during the last 10 years. These figures indicate that the cost associated with these alternatives would far outweigh the benefits that would be produced. Based on all the information noted above, staff determined that the best, most efficient and most cost effective method of ensuring that saved trees remain protected is to implement a protocol that: clearly defines those trees that are to be saved (e.g., tree survey, labeling trees in the field); requires that the saved trees have solid and visible protection barriers in place before any land clearing or tree removal activity can take place; provides for monetary penalties for illegal activities; and provides for other deterrents to illegal activities (e.g., restoration actions, suspension or revocation of contractors license). It is staffs opinion that the proposed ordinance meets this protocol. 40