Mayor & Commission Meetings

LEGISLATIVE REVIEW COMMITTEE Thursday, November 2, 2023 City Hall Conference Room 301B Committee Members Present: Committee Members Absent: Commissioner Carol Myers, Chair Commissioner John Culpepper Commissioner Jesse Houle Commissioner Ovita Thornton Commissioner Allison Wright Staff: Niki Jones, Assistant Manager Brad Griffin, Planning Sherrie Hines, Deputy Chief Attorney Doug Hansford, Building Permits & Inspection Stephanie Green, Sustainability Office Sarah George, Recorder Stephen Bailey, Transportation & Public Works Rani Katreeb, Transportation & Public Works Shirelle Hallum, Transportation & Public Works Commissioner Myers called the meeting to order at 1:03 p.m. A. Approval of Minutes: Commissioner Wright made a motion to approve the October 5, 2023 minutes. Commissioner Houle seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously. B. Public Input: There was none. Commission Identified Items of Interest: C. Examine modifications to the code of ordinances related to invasive plant species, specifically identify means by which bamboo and other plant species in the ordinance can be mitigated Assistant Manager Jones introduced the topic and summarized discussion from the past meeting. Staff shared a presentation, and Deputy Chief Attorney Sherrie Hines reviewed the proposed invasive plant definition, which is shown below. Invasive plant means a species that (a) is non-native to a specified geographic area, (b) was introduced by humans (intentionally or unintentionally), and (c) does or can cause environmental harm, economic harm, or harm to humans. Specific invasive plant species within Athens-Clarke County are defined as Category 1, Category 1 Alert, and Category 2 plants, excepting turf grasses (i.e., Bermuda grass), by the Georgia Exotic Pest Plant Council (“EPPC”) Invasive Plant List, which is maintained by the University of Georgia’s Center for Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health and is available online at https://www.gaeppc.org/list/. Further, the Athens-Clarke County Sustainability Office has identified additional plants that are, as yet, not listed as Category 1, Category 1 Alert, or Category 2 plants by the EPPC but that spread aggressively in Athens-Clarke County, are not native to Athens-Clarke County’s specific Piedmont ecoregion, and cause substantial harm to Athens-Clarke County’s ecosystem. As such, the following plants shall also be considered invasive plants within  Athens-Clarke County: Euonymus fortunei (Winter Creeper), Mahonia bealei (Leatherleaf Mahonia), Perilla frutescens (Perilla Mint aka Beefsteak Plant or Chinese Basil), Pyrus calleryana (Bradford Pear aka Callery pear), and Ulmus parvifolia (Chinese Elm). Deputy Chief Attorney Hines explained that the first portion of the proposed definition was used as a way to help distinguish what is intended by the term “invasive”. She also clarified that this is not the same definition that the Exotic Pest Plant Council (EPPC) uses, but it is a very similar concept. She explained that, while staff could have stopped after the first section of the proposed definition, they felt further clarity would be helpful. The second portion of the proposed definition is modelled off of Brookhaven’s ordinance and makes it very clear that, if someone would like to know more about what is specifically categorized as invasive, there is the Georgia Exotic Pest Plant Council Invasive Plant List that can be referenced. Staff recommends focusing on Category 1, Category 1 Alert, and Category 2 plants, excluding turf grasses. She explained that these categories are the ones that have the most demonstrable harm or the most potential to cause harm. She noted that staff anticipates that this list will be updated in the very near future, because it is quite old. There are also certain plants on the Category 3 and Category 4 list that are serious problems locally, noted in the last portion of the definition, that staff would request the Mayor and Commission specifically designate as invasive plants as well. Assistant Manager Jones explained that, in examining the Code of Ordinances as it pertains to invasive plants, one of the biggest things that staff needed to address was creation of a common definition. He further summarized that the Committee discussed in the first meeting two separate issues that were identified regarding invasive plants: public nuisance and new developments. Deputy Chief Attorney Hines also explained that there are other ordinances within the Code of Ordinances that she would recommend changing if the Mayor and Commission adopts a definition like the one proposed, which would include sections of the Code that provide definitions of ornamental plants, weeds, and undesirable vegetation that will need to be updated to remain consistent. She explained that this is something that she could bring back to the Committee as discussion moves forward if it is needed. Stephanie Green provided an overview of the categories of invasive plants, which plants are captured under each list, and if those plants have been identified within the boundaries of Athens-Clarke County. She explained that Category 1 plants are non-native plants that are a serious problem in Georgia natural areas by extensively invading native plant communities and displacing native species. She noted that the category approach is to invasive plants is a well- known nomenclature for how rank your invasive species and their detriment to the environment. It is very dependent on how easily that species is known to spread without human help and how much harm it does to the natural systems. She explained that there may be plants that do a lot of harm but that do not spread, as well as non-native plants that do not spread, that would not be considered invasive. She noted that, when they describe environmental and ecological harm, they are referring to, in most cases, species that effectively crowd out our native species. This can result in less biodiversity and loss of soil and erosion. These Category 1 invasives may also change the soil complex and collect nitrogen, which then has cascading effects on our habitat on things that we may not realize; she noted that one study has shown that kudzu increased air pollution around it. Examples shared for Category 1 plants included kudzu, Japanese stiltgrass, and autumn olive. Stephanie Green explained that Category 1 Alerts are non-native plants that are not yet a serious problem in Georgia natural areas but that have significant potential to become a serious problem. She noted that the Sustainability Office and others in their industry think of this category as early detection, rapid response; when these plants are identified, they will destroy them to the Legislative Review Committee Meeting Minutes Page 2 110223  best of their ability as fast as possible, as they do not want them to become Category 1 invasives. Examples shared for Category 1 Alerts included Japanese knotweed and Japanese chaff flower. She explained that there are several invasive plants on the Category 2 list that have been found in Clarke County, but many on the list are not ones that they spend a lot of time treating with the exception of sacred bamboo and golden bamboo. She explained that there are several large County tracts that have pretty bad infestations of bamboo; while bamboo does not tend to spread, when it takes hold it is extremely hard to get rid of and is damaging. Examples shared for Category 2 invasives included thorny olive, Nandina, and golden bamboo. Commissioner Myers inquired about applications that assist people with identifying plant species. Stephanie Green shared two options for applications to identify plants. Commissioner Myers further inquired if these applications would also denote which plants are invasives. Stephanie Green shared that they would note which are non-native plants; however, because the invasive plant lists are based on states, it would not note invasives. Stephanie Green shared that the Committee previously inquired as to whether or not the definition should also exclude Category 3 and Category 4 invasives as well. She explained that staff recommends just focusing on Category 1, Category 1 Alerts, and Category 2, because the list is in the process of being updated, and many of these will move to Category 1 and Category 2. Examples shared for Category 3 plants included Bradford pears, monkey grass, and leatherleaf mahonia. Commissioner Wright reiterated the importance of the educational component to this topic that was mentioned by Commissioner Thornton in the first meeting. She explained that there are likely residents who do not know plants in their yard are invasives. Stephanie Green agreed and noted it is not often that these are planted with intent. It is usually due to people not being aware. Stephanie Green reviewed Category 4 invasive plants, and she noted that there are a lot of these that we know that are present but that may not arise to the level of harm that need to be treated. She explained that they do treat Chinese holly and Japanese holly on the list, as they tend to hybridize a lot, which could over time change the native species. Stephanie Green also explained that they were asked to review the Athens-Clarke County (ACC) Tree List to make sure that the list did not include species that would be considered invasive under the proposed definition. She shared that there were three species on the Athens-Clarke County tree list that would be contradictory to the proposed definition of invasives; these are the Princess tree, Callery pear, and Sawtooth oak. The Princess tree and Callery pear are both currently listed on the ACC Tree List as “conserve” and Sawtooth oak is listed as “limit”. She explained that the Sustainability Office would recommend Princess tree and Callery pear be updated to “no plant” when the tree list is next updated. Assistant Manager Jones asked Brad Griffin if he had anything to add or anything that the Committee should be cognizant of as discussions continue. Brad Griffin explained that he does not think there is anything to be aware of with the tree list. He explained that the “conserve” level of use means that, if there are some free-standing Bradford pear trees on your property that you do not intend to cut down as part of development, you can count them as towards your conserve canopy. He shared that he does not believe they have any existing requirements to remove plants from property. He explained that, because there is a tree ordinance and an arborist to complete reviews during application submittal, he does not believe it is a big deal to make modifications to the tree ordinance or tree list. He does, however, think if we move forward into the next level of landscaping and ornamental plantings, it will be a much bigger deal in terms of changing submittal requirements of developers. He noted that the vast majority of developments, while they are required to have a tree plan at the time of submittal, do not have finalized landscape plans submitted. Brad Griffin Legislative Review Committee Meeting Minutes Page 3 110223  advised that the first thing we would have to do is require a finished, completed landscape plan for the entire project with plant schedule for all new developments other than single-family. This is another layer of complexity that they are probably not prepared to do at the time they submit. He shared it would require more work on staff. In addition to having staff review the plant list for each new development to make sure there is nothing on the list that is prohibited, it would also require all of the planners to do final inspections, be familiar with what all of those plants that are prohibited look like, and inspect every plant on the ground. He also explained that, in reviewing the Category 1 and Category 2 list of invasives, very few of those plants are ever used in the commercial industry. He explained that he was uncertain the amount of additional work that would be required for three or four plants may not be worth the benefit. Stephanie Green inquired if it could be done through education with the developer on what should not be planted without requiring the landscape plan and inspection. Brad Griffin explained that he is not sure how we would regulate it if we did not have something to review and sign off on. He shared that it is often more difficult when we try to enforce things after the fact that were never actually reviewed in the first place from a legal standpoint. He also advised that it is difficult telling some that they cannot do it while others can; he inquired about how effective it would to not allow commercial businesses to plant if we are not going to restrict homeowners’ ability to plant them. He shared that he believes it should be more of an educational approach that discourages planting of invasives. He also explained that there are sections in the zoning ordinance where developers are required to have formal ornamental planting buffers. He noted that we could include a list at that point for those areas that we as the government are requiring to ensure invasives are not planted. Commissioner Myers inquired about whether or not there was a place in the process to give out a one-pager for education on invasives that would be effective. Brad Griffin explained, that to him, the method that works more effectively would be a public education to homeowners and residents. He explained that the corporate development group from other states developing multifamily projects are unlikely to review a one-pager and implement based on it; they tend to put out bids to find landscaping companies to contract with for their project. Commissioner Myers inquired if it would be helpful to provide to local developers. Brad Griffin explained that he did not see anything wrong with discouraging them from planting them, but it is a big step between education and requiring inspections and potential removal. Assistant Manager Jones requested clarification about Brad Griffin’s recommendation on where we could add in the ordinance for invasive species that we do not allow. Brad Griffin explained that he would recommend adding it in the areas where we are requiring development to put plants in the ground, and he noted he believed it would be a short list of plants prohibited. Commissioner Wright agreed that it would be helpful to include the prohibited plants where we require plantings, because she believes the last thing that we would want to do is to require a buffer and then it lead to the further spread of invasives. She also noted that she is unsure if we can restrict people’s choices outside of the requirement. Deputy Chief Attorney Hines advised that she believes that the Mayor and Commission can. She shared this is different than a lot of the things that ACCGov regulates, as it is clearly a nuisance. She explained this is something that can be done as nuisance abatement or as an ordinance violation because of the severe harms to the ecosystem, water, wildlife, and climate change. She explained that, in terms of other jurisdictions, the ordinance that is most similar to the recommendation from Brad Griffin is the City of Doraville’s ordinance. She explained that their ordinance is only triggered if they have a land disturbance permit or some other kind of tree plans that are required. Not only do they prohibit planting of invasives on their list, but they also require that, if the developer identifies any invasive species on their property, they actually have to affirmatively remove them before moving forward. She explained that the Mayor and Commission could affirmatively declare that certain invasives are nuisances that cannot be planted or need to be removed. Legislative Review Committee Meeting Minutes Page 4 110223  Commissioner Wright shared that she needs more time to review the wealth of information that was provided to the Committee. Commissioner Houle inquired as to whether or not we do or could distinguish in our code between someone intentionally planting a species on their property versus just having it on their property. Deputy Chief Attorney Hines explained that staff would not suggest passing an ordinance that requires residents to affirmatively go and remove invasives on their property whether they planted them or not. This is because it is sort of retroactive and we are aware that there are challenges in removing invasives even for those who are really motivated to do so. She further shared that it is really important to not engage in the concept of intentional planting or plants being present when you arrived. She shared that the City of Fairfax, Virginia’s ordinance provides a definition of a bamboo owner in their ordinance that includes any owner who permits running to bamboo to grow or remain on their property even if the bamboo has spread from adjoining properties or were planted by someone else. Commissioner Houle requested clarification about how the definition of bamboo owner is different than requiring removal retroactively. Deputy Chief Attorney Hines advised that the ordinance is specifically about allowing it to spread onto someone else’s property. If you allow bamboo to spread onto your property, whether you intended to or not, it can still spread to someone else’s property, so the property owner will have to maintain or remove it; however, the resident can maintain bamboo if they want as long as it is only on their property. Assistant Manager Jones requested clarification on how Code Enforcement would ascertain whether or not someone allowed bamboo to spread on their property. Deputy Chief Attorney Hines advised that she believes that once bamboo has gone on an adjacent property and crossed the property line, then the original owner would be responsible for removing it from the other properties. Commissioner Houle noted that they believe that is an easier approach with invasive plants like bamboo; however, the Committee is also discussing invasives that can spread from birds. They shared that they are puzzled by there being no meaningful way to have an ordinance that prohibits deliberately planting invasives on property. Deputy Chief Attorney Hines advised that she believes the Mayor and Commission can have an ordinance that prohibits deliberately planting invasives on property and noted the City of Atlanta’s ordinance does do that. She noted that she cannot be certain if it will be challenged or not, but the question would be whether the government has the right to tell private property owners what they can do. She explained the government does tell private property owners what they can do in a number of different situations, and she believes, because this can be tied to a pretty serious public health or environmental risk that they might be able to win a challenge. That said, she explained it is certainly riskier to tell private property owners what they cannot do compared to, for instance, developers who require permits. Commissioner Houle inquired as to whether it would be Code Enforcement or the Police Department enforcing an ordinance that did prohibit deliberate plantings on private property. Deputy Chief Attorney Hines shared that it certainly could go through Code Enforcement, but there is also the nuisance abatement route; theoretically, if the funds and interest were sufficient, the government could abate invasive plants, similar to the City of Atlanta, though this approach is not what is being recommended. Commissioner Houle inquired about why staff recommended excluding turf grasses. Stephanie Green shared that it is extremely expensive and difficult to get remove; it also does not rise to the same levels as the others in the way that it spreads and the harm caused. Deputy Chief Attorney Hines shared that there could be different levels of categories that apply to difference sections of the code depending on the interest of the Committee. Commissioner Houle shared that at the beginning of the discussion on this topic Assistant Manager Jones shared that there were two separate issues to consider: new development and public nuisance. As discussion has continued, they are now thinking of it as four issues or categories: new development new plantings, new development removal, public nuisance, and the question of prohibiting planting on single family lots. They shared that their initial thoughts at the moment are that they hope we Legislative Review Committee Meeting Minutes Page 5 110223  would be as restrictive as possible for new development but then be careful about what, if anything, is done for the other categories. Assistant Manager Jones requested further clarification around Commissioner Houle’s category for new development removal. Commissioner Houle shared that this captures the question around requiring new developments to remove invasives, similar to Doraville. Brad Griffin confirmed that we do not require removal, but the developer would not get credit for it. Commissioner Houle explained that it might be a two-part question in that case. Which of these would count as credit towards conserving canopy and which would we want them to remove? Brad Griffin expressed concern with requiring removal. He explained that if he were a developer that is building a subdivision on 200 acres, he would be responsible for ensuring that all of the invasives are removed on the wooded aspect of the property. It would incentivize cutting down as much as you could cut down to limit the amount additional invasive removal that would need to be done. Deputy Chief Attorney Hines advised that the other ordinances make distinctions between undeveloped parcels and shared that this can be further discussed. Assistant Manager Jones explained that at the next meeting staff would review the recommendation regarding the educational component and the cost of the invasive management. D. Review and update Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Assistant Manager Jones summarized the past meeting discussion on this topic. He shared that, at the last meeting, the Committee voted to rename the policy the “Residential Traffic management Program” and to advance the data-driven and opt-out policy, as well as include a separate request-based neighborhood component. Stephen Bailey reviewed the proposed changes to the policy. Commissioner Myers requested staff provide a gray-shaded copy of the policy to denote what changes were made. Stephen Bailey shared that staff would provide that to the Committee. In the updated policy, Stephen Bailey shared that the roadway classifications in the policy have been updated to be consistent with the GDOT roadway classifications. He also explained that language was added regarding the residential zoning districts for context. The other main changes to the policy were regarding the program procedure and overview. Stephen Bailey explained that the program initiation has changed, and staff has removed all mention of the petition process, given it is now going to be data-driven. Commissioner Wright inquired as to whether or not it would be more appropriate for item c under definitions to be “resident” rather than “renter”, because the proof of rent is not necessarily an arrangement that someone would have to be the resident. Stephen Bailey shared staff did not modify the definition or term, but that he believes modifying that would match the intent. Shirelle Hallum advised that she did not believe the definitions would be needed any longer, as they were pertaining to the “opt-in” policy. Stephen Bailey agreed that is an option as well. Commissioner Wright agreed that if it is no longer relevant that she understands. Shirelle Hallum explained that it might be relevant in the opt-out policy. Commissioner Wright agreed that, as it moves forward, the Committee can consider the most appropriate terms to use. Shirelle Hallum introduced and conducted an activity to assist the Committee in considering the weighting for priorities in the criteria. She explained that “volume” describes the number of cars over 25 mph. “Crash severity” weighed the crashes by how severe the crashes were. “Sidewalk access” represented the percentage of the road has sidewalk on it. “Equity” used the Social Vulnerability Index from the CDC with 16 factors. “Residential density” described the number of people per census block group. Legislative Review Committee Meeting Minutes Page 6 110223  Commissioner Houle recommended the Committee consider possible alternatives to the word “pleasant” in the purpose statement of the policy. Commissioner Houle suggested “accessible”. Commissioner Wright shared she had written down “inviting” or “welcoming”. She also inquired if there had to be a term there or if it could just say “improving pedestrian safety for the residents of Athens-Clarke County”. Commissioner Houle suggested it saying “improving pedestrian and public safety”. Commissioner Myers suggested that, at the next meeting, Committee members come with suggested edits on the policy, so the Committee can consider the changes to the data-driven policy. Assistant Manager Jones shared that once Committee provides comments at the next meeting and the criteria weights have been considered, staff can compile the changes into a final draft for the Committee. E. Schedule/Agenda Changes The next LRC meeting is scheduled for December 7, 2023 at 1:00 p.m. Commissioner Houle made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Wright seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 2:38 p.m. Legislative Review Committee Meeting Minutes Page 7 110223