Tag Cloud
Friday, February 10, 2012
Proposed Ordinance Change for Tree Appeals
by Midtown George, published on December 7, 2008 at 4:59 PM
Storyline: We need a Trees Commission!!
On Monday, December 8th, the Urban Forest Services Committee, a standing committee of the City’s Parks and Recreation Commission, will meet. The Committee provides policy recommendations to the Parks and Recreation Commission on issues relating to the City’s urban forest. On the agenda for the meeting is a proposed ordinance change that would shift responsibility for hearing tree removal appeals. Currently, the Parks and Recreation Commission hears tree removal appeals.
A property owner wishing to remove a protected heritage tree must apply to the City for a permit. Permits affecting heritage tree requires the Director of the Parks and Recreation Department to hold a public hearing. Any person dissatisfied with the decision of the director may appeal the decision to the Parks and Recreation Commission. The proposed ordinance change would shift responsibility for those appeals to the City of Sacramento Planning Commission.
The expressed reason for this change is to consolidate under the Planning Commission all decisions related to the review and approval process of development projects. At times, decisions regarding tree removals
related to development projects have been appealed to the Parks and Recreation Commission. This change would assure no potential decisions conflicts will arise between the two Commissions.
The ordinance change is being proposed by the Development Services Department to ensure no development project will be stalled because a protected heritage tree stands in the way of progress. This action by city administrators is in conflict with Sacramento’s proud heritage as the City of Trees. Our City’s bountiful urban forest did not just happen overnight. For over a hundred years the community has planted, natured and protected trees. Now our protected trees large canopy trees are in danger of disappearing because many of today’s development projects lack any setback. The Parks and Recreation Commission understands that trees need space to grow. The Planning Commission has a history of approving development projects unfavorable to large canopy trees. The proposed ordinance change for tree appeals needs to be rejected.
Please attend the public meeting of the Urban Forest Services Committee. The meeting will be held Monday, December 8th, in the New City Hall, 915 I Street, Room 2121. The meeting is on the second floor. Please be sure to bring a picture ID for the security check.
If you cannot attend, please email a letter opposing the ordinance change to:
City Manager Ray Kerridge at RKerridge@cityofsacrament.org
Mayor Kevin Johnson at mayor@cityofsacramento.org.
Conversation Express your views,
debate, and be heard with those in your area closest
to the issue.
Leave a Comment
The committee will be starting its first discussion this evening on whether or not it makes sense to shift responsibility for hearing appeals on applications to remove heritage trees or other trees to the City of Sacramento Planning Commission from the Parks Commission. The discussion is the first and not the only opportunity for the public to learn more about the idea and to weigh in. The outcome of tonight's committee meeting will be presented early next year to the Parks and Rec Commission, and then if necessary to the Law and Legislation Committee and on to City Council. There are multiple opportunities to be heard.
The idea arose from some members of the Parks and Recreation Commission because decisions regarding development projects tend to be separated from the project’s impacts to heritage or street trees, when two different bodies are weighing in. Appeals heard by the Planning Commission can make better decisions based on the big picture and not just on the tree or trees itself.
What's important to note is that neither the Parks and Recreation Commission nor the Planning Commission have certified arborists as members so neither group is necessarily more knowledgeable about trees than the other. Members of both commissions, regardless of what body hears the appeals, will always continue to uphold or deny an appeal based upon the expertise of the City's arborists in Urban Forestry. And those arborists will continue to generate their findings, which will be posted on the City's Urban Forestry webpage before the first tree hearing. This process will not change.
While we encourage the public to learn more about the idea, we want to assure the public that there will be opportunities for the public to get involved and gain a greater understanding of why the idea is being discussed and its merits.
Linda Tucker, Public Information Officer, City of Sacramento Department of Transportation
We need to come together to honor our legacy as a city. We must move forward by taking action to reclaim our streets and neighborhoods for more canopy trees, not fewer.
How can we take credit for the past while we actively erode that legacy?
That said, we are a new publication and I welcome your feedback. We do not intend to be one-note on any issue.
I actually like your argument. The only issue I have is that I have only seen big beautiful trees go down and scrawny trees go up in Midtown. This is anecdotal evidence, but that's how I see it.
And I am not against development at all, but if a development affects a highway or street I would want review in the transportation commission. If a development is asking to cut down a designated heritage tree I would want that decision reviewed by those who know trees and our urban forest.
Ultimately, I agree with you that there needs to be a balance. Trees, historic preservation, walkability, transit, and development all push back and forth on all sorts of issues and developers often get caught in the middle wading through it. But we should have a healthy discussion about why these oversights and protections are in place and I hope that The Press can provide that.
This isn't a matter of going to two different commissions to get a decision on the same thing. The changes don't "streamline" decision making, they just change the department with jurisdiction over appeals from one with expertise in trees to one that lacks that expertise. This also isn't a matter of removing decaying trees: that's already part of Parks' work process, and has nothing to do with this decision.
It comes down to this--what matters more to you, profitability or livability? People here are talking about it a lot because the livability of the central city is more important to the folks here than making it easier to cut down trees.
I don't think it comes down to "profitability or livability." I don't think its as black and white as that. I think trees are important to Sacramento and the Central City. Its one piece to our vision of livibility of this area but I think the process of making decisions about trees and development is convoluted righ now. I think appropriate decisions can be made from one related process and commission not two seperate ones.
By the way there is no transportation or mobility commission. We have council, design, preservation, planning, parks and a number of advisory groups/committees. I can't imagine the mess such a commission would create.
No. The decision is about the tree, so the Parks & Rec commission are the people with the expertise. Changing to Planning is a political decision--a way to make it easier to cut down trees. Not sick trees, not damaged trees, not even trees that are in the way of a project.
"I think appropriate decisions can be made from one related process and commission not two seperate ones."
That's not what we're talking about here. This decision changes the process from a decision by a body that knows about trees to a decision by a body that does not know about trees. No steps are being removed from the process, they're just changing the process. It isn't a simplification.
So if a tree decision is appealed then it would still require a meeting, just a Planning rather than Parks and Rec meeting. But I have been mistaken on this issue before so feel free to correct me.
What I can say is that this is an interesting story that is worth a closer look.
There are reasons to change the ordinance, and the commissioners themselves seemed split on this issue. I hope that more people will write in and give another account of why this may be a good change.
For me personally, I will step back for the moment and try to collect more evidence before opening my big mouth.