03 Feb Speak for Heritage Tree ordinance with PC recommendations Thursday Feb 4th 6pm city council

The trees in Austin need your help!  Please, come to speak for a stronger Heritage Tree Ordinance this Thursday Feb. 4^th at 6pm at City Council.  City Council will be voting on this ordinance.

We need a stronger Heritage Tree ordinance with all of the recommendations from the Planning Commission.  Also, we need to maintain our current level of protection for the protected trees section:  City staff added utility exemptions (to their version of the ordinance) for routine operations (“safe operation and maintenance”) that will weaken the current protected trees ordinance!  These utility exemptions are not needed.  There are emergency provisions in place for immediate hazards and safety issues.  Currently, 40% of the “protected” trees get removed, which means that we are not protecting our trees as much as we should.

You can sign up to speak on item 38 (amendment for tree protection) from 10 am to 6 pm on Thursday.  Park free in the city hall underground garage, go to the first floor, and use the computer to sign up.

Caution:  There are two versions of this ordinance:  The Planning Commission Recommendations (version 01.29.10), and the City Staff’s (version 02.01.10).  You can sign up to speak, or just sign up “in favor” of the ordinance BUT make sure to add that you are “in favor ONLY with all of the Planning Commission’s recommendations”.  If you don’t specify, you will be voting for the City staff’s draft, which is a weaker ordinance.

If you sign up to speak, all you need to say is that you support the Heritage tree ordinance, but only with the Planning Commission’s recommendations, because without the PC’s recommendations, the heritage trees and the protected trees sections of the ordinance will be weakened. 

And then, share how you feel about the trees in Austin, about the so many older and larger trees that get removed everywhere, share what you would like to see in Austin:  maximum density housing everywhere, or respect for the older trees, and letting them live their lives where they are. 

Are older trees significant to you?  Do you want the city to increase their efforts in preserving the older trees that are in good health, as opposed to trading them for younger trees to be planted elsewhere?  Currently, some trees are saved in the lots to be developed, but the rest are traded by planting new young trees somewhere else, or by contributing money to a fund, which doesn’t get used.  In Austin, only 5% of all trees are of heritage tree size (24 inches in diameter and larger).  In average, it takes a Live Oak 75 years to reach 24 inches, and 130 years to reach 30 inches.  It’s a very slow process, not particularly faster for other tree species.

With all of this trading of older trees in lots that get developed for younger trees planted elsewhere, Austin meets the goal of having 70%  reforestation (young trees of 12” diameter and less), but only meets 5% preservation (older trees that are 24 inches and larger), while that goal is 10%.  This perceived “balance” of reforestation (planting new trees) vs preservation (of older trees) is already unbalanced.  In addition, Austin only has a 30% green urban canopy while the recommended is 40% for a healthy urban canopy.  This means that we are loosing millions per year in benefits that the trees could be contributing, including carbon sequestration.  The older and larger trees contribute the most per tree, they are the workhorses.

Most pecans and oaks, and many other trees, have an average life expectancy of 300-500 years.  An old tree is not about to die, unless it is in poor health, or it was injured by improper pruning or other causes.  Some tree species, usually those planted at subdivisions by developers, have a life span of only 50 years.  This heritage tree ordinance is for a specific list of tree species that includes oaks, pecans, cypress, etc., and it takes health into account.  This HT ordinance, with the PC’s recommendations, is to protect the older trees that should be preserved. 

Thank you!

Zoila

Austin Heritage Tree Foundation 

BACKGROUND:  The Austin Heritage Tree Foundation (as well as many other environmental organizations, neighborhood associations, and tree advocates) supports that the heritage tree ordinance be approved BUT only with all of the Planning Commission’s recommendations.  We support the Planning Commission’s recommendations.

Without these additional recommendations, the City staff’s version will not only weaken the heritage tree ordinance, but it will also weaken the existing protected trees ordinance.  This is because of the addition of 5 clauses that allow exemptions to city entities, and these were added to the protected tree and the heritage tree sections.  These exemptions for city entities where added even though there is a clause in the ordinance that states that there will be no exemptions for any city entity.

The Heritage tree ordinance versions 09.19.09 was thoroughly reviewed by the Urban Forestry Board, the Environmental Board, and the Planning Commission.  These boards and commissions agreed in almost all recommendations. They all agreed that the intent of the HT ordinance was to preserve the majestic and iconic heritage trees of Austin for future generations, and that it was their intent to ensure that this ordinance did not fail to do so.  There has been, however, very strong opposition to these recommendations from developers (RECA for instance).

The items in questions in order of importance are as follows: 

·         City staff added 5 utilities provisions for maintenance and safe operation (these are not for immediately hazardous situations but for convenience, and without the stipulation that all other possible measures be taken to not remove the tree, and that an executive make this decision.  For instance, “safe operation” could mean any situation when the tree in the way because “safe” is a subjective call.  This will weaken the heritage trees section as well as the protected trees section, which was not supposed to be changed.  These routine maintenance operations should require a permit to remove the tree from the city arborist.  See Item 1 below.

·         Single stem vs multi-stem.

·         A public process for trees 24-30”.

·         “ a use of property” vs “all uses of property”.

·         Heritage trees are traded for younger trees on site if the result is “overall superior tree preservation on site”.

1)  Exemption clauses added by city staff for utilities:

The first 3 of these exemption clauses were proposed by AE and the last 2 by city engineers.  Ironically, this HT ordinance process started when the city formed a Tree Task Group to address the public’s concerns with AE’s pruning practices, which AE said were necessary for the safe operation and maintenance of the utilities.  The 5 clauses are:

• 25-8-624A3 (protected trees section) and 25-8-642A2 (heritage trees section): City Arborist may grant a removal permit request if “the tree is an imminent hazard to life or property or the safe operation of existing public utility services, and the hazard cannot reasonably be mitigated without removing the tree”

• 25-8-624A6b (protected trees section):  City Arborist may grant a removal permit request if “tree prevents the maintenance or construction of utility or drainage facilities that may not feasibly be rerouted”

• 25-8-624C5 (protected trees section) and 25-8-646F (heritage trees section):  Does not require an applicant (protected tree in private property) to request a variance… if Director determines that to do so would endanger the public health and safety.”

In addition, AE has proposed the following 2 additions, which we think cover all emergency and safe operation cases, and eliminate the need to add the additional exemptions listed above:

• 25-8-621D (protected trees section) and 25-8-641E(heritage trees section):  “A utility may, without a permit, remove a protected tree that poses an immediate hazard to the safe provision of services, as determined by the executive officer of the utility, only if the hazard cannot reasonably be mitigated without removal of the tree.  No later than 7 days after removal of the tree, the utility shall provide the city arborist documentation of the hazard presented by the tree and the need for its removal.”

2)  Multi-stem or single stem: 

A heritage tree is defined by the proposed city staff ordinance as a tree of a HT tree species with at least a single stem of 24” or larger.  A protected tree is defined by the current ordinance as a tree of any species that is 19” DBH multi-stem.  The Planning Comission proposes that all heritage trees be measured multi-stem (just like the protected trees). 

City staff proposes that protected trees be measured multi-stem, while the heritage trees be measured single stem.  Calculating the equivalent DBH (tree diameter measured 4.5 ft from ground) based on a multi-stem procedure for protected trees, and a single stem procedure for heritage trees, as proposed by city staff will create confusion in the field, and may result in protected trees been removed because the wrong procedure was used to calculate the equivalent diameter.  In addition, only 3 heritage tree species in the current list can be multi-stem, and not very often:  Live Oak, Cedar Elm, and Texas Red Oak.  Furthermore, all of the nearby municipalities use multi-stem.

City staff wants to use single stem for the heritage trees, and leave the protected trees defined as multi-stem, because they claim that changing to multi-stem will double the number of heritage tree cases that will have to go through an additional review, and that an additional staff person would be needed to handle this.  This is an exaggeration.  We don’t think that there would be that many cases added due to being multi-stem, if the current HT tree species list is used.

3)      A public process for trees 24-30”.

The city’s draft proposes an administrative process for HT 24-30”, and a public process (PC and ZAP) for those HT 30” and larger.  Most of the public, except developers, and the boards and commissions recommend a public process for all HT 24” and larger.  The PC recommends that this be achieved with the process proposed by city staff by adding a public review step to the administrative process:  For the city arborist to review the 24-30” administrative cases with the Urban Forestry Board which doesn’t approve but make a recommendation only back to the city arborist.  This is a simple added step which could be easily implemented.

City staff, however, opposes this recommendation because they state that the Urban Forestry Board would virtually have the right to approve (which they don’t) because the city arborist would be reluctant to go against their recommendation.  City staff also claims that this would require additional staff.  This is not correct since the city arborist already attends the board meetings.

While the proposed administrative process adds a slight layer of protection for the 24-30” trees, basically without the public review for these trees, a heritage tree is protected only if 30” or larger, in spite of other claims.  For comparison, all but one (Round Rock) nearby municipalities define a heritage tree in the 24 inch range. 

4)      “ a use of property” vs “all uses of property”.

The use of “a reasonable use of property” allows applicants to remove trees in practically every instance.  The Planning Comission recommends stronger language with the word “all” to protect heritage trees, as well as protected trees, closing the existing loop-hole that allows for unnecessary tree removals.

5)      Heritage trees are traded for younger trees on site if the result is overall superior tree preservation on site.

Heritage trees should not be sacrificed and removed to save smaller trees on site, except for the very few instances.  This is a heritage tree preservation ordinance, not an “overall tree preservation” ordinance.  We have to protect and preserve our heritage trees.  Planting smaller new trees is good, but they will not replace heritage trees until many decades, if they survive.  Newly planted young public trees have a 15 yr. life expectancy.  According to the Parks Department, public trees have a 30-50% chance of being dead or ill (mortality rate).

This trading of heritage trees was in a previous version of the ordinance in paragraph 25-8-642 (C), which has been deleted, as recommended by the boards and commissions.  However, instead, two clauses were added to the latest city staff’s draft to clarify that this trading is allowed if it results in “overall superior tree preservation on site”.

PLANNING COMMISSION HT RESOLUTION, 12.08.09 

Heritage Tree Ordinance – Staff recommendation with the following amendments:
1) 25-8-602 (1) HERITAGE TREE means a tree that has a total diameter of 24 inches or more, measured four and one-half feet above natural grade, and is a species prescribed by ordinance as eligible for heritage tree designation.
2) As noted above, the list of species will be prescribed by ordinance.
3) In 25-8-624 (A) (4) and 25-8-642 (A) (1), delete reference to "dying or" in "dying or dead."  This is not an issue as it has been accepted by city staff.
4) Revise 25-8-621 (B) to specify "…damaged protected tree that is an imminent hazard…".  This is not an issue as it has been accepted by city staff.

5) Specify that the ordinance pertains to all CoA departments to the same extent it pertains to citizens.
6) Delete 25-8-642 (C)
7) The review process for 25-8-642 (D) should be amended to state that the director may grant a variance from Sec. 25-8-641 to allow removal of a heritage tree … only after receiving a recommendation from the Urban Forestry Board and after determining, based on the city arborist’s recommendation…
8) Revise 25-8-624 (A) (2) prevents all reasonable use of the property;
9) Also directed the PC Codes & Ordinances Subcommittee to consider the mitigation and enforcement issues to be added later to the HTO, but this should not hold up the current ordinance.