PLANNING COMMISSION SAVES THE BOWIE ST HERITAGE TREE!
A beautiful and healthy 32 Heritage pecan tree, and the heritage tree ordinance, need your help!
Please, email the Planning Commissioners asking to deny the variance that would allow the developer to remove a 32 inch healthy heritage pecan tree at 315 Bowie St. This case is going to the PC tomorrow Tuesday 10.11.11 at 6pm. The developer, Endeavour, has provided 2 alternate designs that demonstrate clearly that the heritage tree can be preserved. The proposed designs demonstrate that the developer can build his tower as planned while at the same preserving the heritage tree. There is no need to remove this heritage tree.
An experienced consulting arborist has determined that this tree will not only survive but thrive if provided the care required by city code when preserving trees during construction and post construction. The heritage tree should be preserved and be part of a small tree sanctuary that the public could enjoy. This small area with such a beautiful and healthy tree would be an area that would increase traffic to the developer’s building. The heritage tree would be a beautiful part of the site. The community would enjoy this area, one of the few left in downtown Austin. In addition, a city project is planning to remove all of the vegetation on the west bank of Shoal Creek from 5th St to West St, to build a 12 ft. wide multi-use trail. When these plans are executed, there will be no vegetation, no tree, no shrub left along the creek bank of this entire 2 block area. It will be even more important to preserve this heritage tree if improvements can’t be made to save some of the trees and vegetation in Shoal Creek. Please, write to all commissioners asking them to deny the variance for the HT in 315 Bowie St. These are their emails: Thanks so much! ______________________________________________________________________________________ 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, which were added to the protected tree and the heritage tree sections of the ordinance. 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 version 09.19.09 was throughly 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).
HERITAGE TREE ORDINANCE BACKGROUND
A big thank you to all who made this possible
On 02.05.10, the city’s draft of the HT ordinance was approved by city council with added recommendations. City council members went out of their way to explain why they reached their decisions, which showed to me that they cared about the public’s opinion and had listened to our concerns.
The AHTF thinks that this was a good compromise, a prudent beginning, to start testing the implications on costs and delays that this new public process will have. Overall, we are very happy with many of the recommendations, a bit disappointed with a couple, but now we can move forward.
It’s a new day for heritage trees in Austin, a new beginning.
These are the recommendations as I heard them (my interpretation), this is not the official version:
1) The definition of HT changes to multi-stem. However, the requirement for a public process variance is only for HT with at least one stem that is 30 inches and larger. For all practical purposes, this means that the 24-30 inch trees are multi-stem, and that the 30 inch and larger remain single stem.
This was proposed to better balance the added cost and delays, and load that the public process will bring. The concern is that changing to multi-stem for the 30 inch and larger range will double the number of cases going to the public process.
2) The Heritage tree species list proposed by city staff stays in the ordinance, except that instead of listing all those different types of oaks, it will read “all oaks” (“all quercus species”). Future additions and deletions of tree species will be done by rule, with a public process review by the UFB.
3) All exemptions that were added for utilities, after the boards and commissions reviewed the ordinance, were deleted. City council stated that all city entities should follow the same rules that citizens are asked to follow.
4) The process for HT in the 24-30 inch range remains administrative. City council explained that they can’t lower the public process to include this range now, that they need data and experience (costs, delays, load added to the public process).
However, city council established that the city arborist will provide a monthly report to the UFB regarding the HT removals determined administratively, to determine the criteria used to make these decisions, with sufficient information to decide what criteria works or not.
5) City staff deleted the tree trading paragraph as recommended by the boards and commissions. However, instead, city staff added two similar clauses to the administrative and public processes, to clarify that this tree trading is allowed if it results in “overall superior tree preservation on site:
“Removal of the HT is not based on a condition caused by the method chosen by the applicant to develop the property, unless removal of the HT will result in superior overall tree preservation on the site”
City council challenged that the definition of “superior” is vague and subjective. They stipulated that HTs be traded not to achieve overall superior value (deleted these words from the ordinance), but in a design that will provide maximum ecological services from the trees, and include their historical and cultural significance value. These values (ecological benefits, historical and cultural significance values) will be determined by rule (a model) by city arborist.
6) The sentence “a uses of property” remains as is. City council agrees with city staff that the change from ”shall” to “may” is sufficient, and that changing “a use” to “all uses” would be too restrictive.
Enforcement and mitigation were not added, or discussed.
Approved 7/0
________________________________________________________________________________
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 heritage trees contribute the most benefits 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, cypresses, etc., and it takes health into account. _______________________________________________________________________________
January 2010
The Austin Heritage Tree Foundation 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.
The items in questions 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:
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:
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 Commission proposes that all heritage trees be measured multi-stem (just like the protected trees). 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. 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. 4) “ a use of property” vs “all uses of property”. 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 proposes that protected trees be measured multi-stem, while the heritage trees be measured single stem (see diagram). 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The use of “a reasonable use of property” allows applicants to remove trees in practically every instance. The Planning Commission 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. Please, read these slides. Newly planted young public trees have a 15 yr. life expectancy. According to the Parks Department, 30-50% of all public trees are dead or ill (mortality rate). 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.
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”.
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% of reforestation (young trees of 12” diameter and less), but only meets 5% of 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.
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.
LINKS
AHTF summary of Boards, PC and City staff recommendations page 1 and page 2
City staff version of the Heritage Tree Ordinance 02.01.10 click here
Planning Commission version of the Heritage Tree Ordinance 01.26.10 click here
City staff's summary of Boards, PC, and City staff recommendations click here
BOARDS AND COMMISIONS RECOMMENDATIONS
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."
4) Revise 25-8-621 (B) to specify "...damaged protected tree that is an imminent hazard...".
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.
Environmental Board Motion 11.18.09: click here
Urban Forestry Board Resolution 10.05.09: page 1 and page 2