tree ordinance - proposed changes

8/14/2019 Tree ordinance - proposed changes

1/6

COMMITTEE MEMORANDUM

COMMITTEE: Com mittee of the WholeFROM:DATE: August 21, 2SUBJECT: Tree Ordinance

Attached are proposed amendments to the tree ordinance submitted by MoultonProperties and a counter-proposal submitted by Emerald Coastkeeper's. The documents, inaddition to the amendment submitted by Sacred Heart Health System, will be topics ofdiscussion at the August 24" meeting of Comm ittee of the Who le.Attachments


2/6


3/6

From: [email protected]: Thursday, August 20, 2009 2:52 PMTo: Al CobySubject: Emerald Coastkeeper's Proposals for the Tree OrdinanceAttachments: 08.20.2009 Coastkeeper Proposals with Table Final(4).doc; bottom.letterhead

Dear City Ma nager Mr. Al Coby:The Eme rald Coastkeeper Board of Directors submits the attached for your review regarding theproposed tree ordinance for the City of Pensacola.Sincerely,Elizabeth McWilliarnsDirector of DevelopmentE,'bEWCOASTKEEPER*,mc.0 :850.429.8422c: 850.221 9205www.emeraldcoastkeeper.orq


4/6

Goal of Revised Tree Ordinance for City of Pensacola: Preservation of Pensacola'sExisting Trees.Background: For nearly three years the Emerald Coastkeeper, the City of Pensacola'sstaff, Environmental Advisory Board, Planning Board, along with other stakeholdersincluding Moulton Properties, other business interestsand organizations such astheLeague of Women Voters, have worked together to create a proposed compromised treeordinancethat was in final form as late as Julv 22.2009. Now at the Eleventh hour. as the,vrowsed ordinance is under consideration by Pensacola City Council, MoultonI hoperties has submitteQcomplgkly new and unyetted " ~ r o ~ s g dmendments" thatdimly contradict many of the compromises and positions agreedupon in the manyprior meetings and discussions. Disturbingly, though Moulton has claimed all along thatit supported the compromise version of the revised ordinance, its new proposedamendments are in some instances less protective than Pensacola's existingtreeordinance.

1 . Cap fees for residential property owners at $3,000.00. Add the following. .p a r w p h to section 12-6-2: dm rnothe Emerald Coastkeeper hasalways supported a cap for residential property owners, however, the$3,000.00 cap is much more in line with the other progressive cities in Floridaand far more protective of the existingtrees.2. Increase the mitigation cost per tree to $500.00. This is the amount agreedupon in the proposed compromised tree ordinanceas it stood on July 22,2009. At section 1266(B)(S) the language should remain as "...shall bevalued at fivekM &I,..",3. As the to replacement ratio of protected trees required to be replanted inSection 12-6-6(B)(4), the suggestion to keep the ratio the same as the present

existing tree ordinance is a step backwards for the City of PensacolaThe current ratios for replacement trees are inadequate to maintain current airquality in the City. Oxygen production will decrease, carbon sequestrationwill decrease and particulate matter will increase. The science is very clear-ratios must be increased to hold the status quo on air quality. The humanhealth effects of dirty air has increased asthma and health care costs, the Cityof Pensacola is on the verge of not meeting federal Clean Air Act minimumair quality standards.The City of Pensacola is predicted to reachNonattainment status next year at which time tens of millions of dollars of


5/6

federal highway funds will be lost, and we will have to purchase moreexpensive blends of gasoline. The United States Environment ProtectionAgency recognizes tree protection and preservation as a part of a StrategicImplementation Plan (SIP) that the City of Pensacola will have to develop. Aweakened tree ordinance will bring the full weight of the USEPA and theClean Air Act down on us. The city will lose millions of dollars.The language should remain the same as was set out in the proposedcompromised tree ordinance as stated on July 22,2009. This says nothing ofthe water quality issues that also depend in great part upon the quality of ourtree-preservation practices.

Benefitsof Trees in Urban AreaData from the USDA Forrest Service

Diameter Oxygen Ratio Carbon Ratio Pollution Ratio Averageat Produced For Sequestration For Removed For RatioBreast (Ibdyr) Oxygen (Ibslyr) Carbon (Ibstyr) PollutionHeight

0-3inches9- 12inches18-21inches27- 30inches> 30inches 1 -- '

Emerald Coastkeeper stands by the compromise figures in the existingproposed ordinance that City staff has recommended to council thatreads as follows:

(41 Replucement off>rutecred rees.When a protected tree isapproved for removal, it shall be replaced with a like species of thetree removed. The prescribed number of trees shall be planted foreach tree removed. The minimum diameter of a replace tree shallbe (3) inchesDBH.(a) A trunk diameter of four (4) inches to eleven (1 1) inches= Two 3-inch

DBH trees planted for each one removed.(b) A truck diameter of twelve (12) inches to nineteen (19) inches= Three

3-inch DBH trees planted for each one removed.(c) A truck diameter of twenty (20) inches to twenty (29) inches= Six3-

inch DBH trees planted for each one removed.


6/6

(d) A truck diameter of thirty (30) inches to thirty-five (35) inches =Twelve 3-inch DBH trees planted for each one removed.(e) A trunk diameter thirty-six inches to forty-three (43) inches = Sixteen3-inch DBH trees planted for each one removed.(f ) A truck diameter of Forty-four (44) inches or greater = Eighteen 3-inch DBH trees planted for each one removed.

4. The proposal that Healthcare facility mitigation be limited to $5,000 per acrefor is a major step backwards in tree protection. It is Jessrestrictivp than thecurrent ordinance, which has been in place for 10 years. For example S electCare paid $150,000 treemitigation under the current ordinance, but wouldonly pay $85,000 under Moulton's proposed $5,000 per -acre language. Evena figure of $10,000 per acre for a hospital would barely m eet the status quo. Afigure of $15,000 per acre would be required to realize any improvem ent inthe existing code.Furthermore, Coastkeeper takes exception to the hospitals arriving at the lastminute to foist amendments never before vetted during the years that thismatter has been under public consideration. The hospitals were invited likeevery other member of the public to participate in the lengthy process thatbrought this comprom ise proposal before the council. Rather than seekingspecial treatment (with no proffered justification), the hospitals should take aleadership role by embracing this comprom ise ordinance. Instead,Coastkeeper views this last-minute posturing as the classic "Old Boy" politicsthat the community resoundingly rejected during the last election. No othercommunity in Florida or elsewhere has granted such privileged status tohospitals. It is not warranted here. Financial records reflect Ascension HealthCare (Sacred Heart) owns 65 hospitals and num erous nursing homes andrehab centers and enjoyed $13.5 billion in sales in 2008. Hospitals should beleaders advocating for positive environmental human health issues and airquality in the community.Coastk eewr DroDoses Healthcare facilities should e o m ~ l v ith the samgpeaulations set ou t in the tree ordinance as anv other comm ercialpusiness. whether lam or small. in the Citv of Pensacola.

tree ordinance - proposed changes

Documents