This proposal has been under discussion for a number of years.\u00a0 It has just passed the City Planning Commission on Thursday Dec. 18th.\u00a0\u00a0 It will go before the Dallas City Council in January or February.\u00a0\u00a0 Please read thru the proposed changed recommended by the Urban Forest Advisory Committee (UFAC).<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
City of Dallas Urban Forest Advisory Committee <\/strong><\/p>\n Tree Ordinance Recommendations\u00a0 <\/strong><\/p>\n Updated, June 16, 2017 <\/strong><\/p>\n History: <\/strong><\/p>\n As background information, the Dallas City Council passed a resolution authorizing the creation of the City of Dallas Urban Forest Advisory Committee (UFAC) as a permanent and integral part of city government in 2005.\u00a0 According to the resolution, UFAC will \u201cserve in an advisory capacity on matters of environmental stewardship, specifically concerning the care and planting of trees and the urban forest by advocating sound arboricultural and urban forest management practices.\u00a0 The committee will provide proactive leadership for the development of public policy and serve to educate citizens of Dallas regarding the numerous environmental, recreational, social and aesthetic benefits of a thriving forest.\u00a0 The committee will be authorized to make recommendations on plans, programs, or city codes which the council or Park and Recreation Board determine necessary or advisable for the care, conservation, planting, pruning, removal or disposition of trees citywide.\u201d\u00a0 UFAC is comprised of experts and professionals from the green industry as well as interested citizens and various other professions which offer support and an education in areas pertinent to urban forestry efforts.<\/p>\n In 2007, meetings were called by the UFAC chair that included the chief arborist, prominent developers, builders and the construction industry with the basic premise that trees could be removed without replacement if folks would build more sustainable and responsible developments.\u00a0 A \u201cmatrix\u201d was developed which assigns tree mitigation credits to developers based on how many trees they preserve, LEED certification of a building, water wise landscapes, or their efforts to become educated about tree preservation during construction.<\/p>\n In 2009, UFAC held three public meetings to request input from the public regarding recommended changes to the tree ordinance and UFAC`s current recommendations.\u00a0 Deliberations continued and in 2011, the Quality of Life Committee was briefed on UFAC recommendations and a respectful request was made to move the issue forward.<\/p>\n In February of 2015, the Zoning Ordinance Advisory Committee (ZOAC) began deliberations.\u00a0 UFAC is very appreciative of the hard work by all those involved for the two years of deliberations.<\/p>\n UFAC recommendations<\/strong>:<\/p>\n UFAC recommendations may change over time due to the direction of current deliberations or discussions with the various parties involved which may alter UFAC`s position on an issue.<\/p>\n Sec. 51A – 10.102,<\/u> (under the title of purpose and on the top of the first page of current staff recommendations), the word \u201cpreservation\u201d was removed and replaced with the word \u201cconservation\u201d.\u00a0 The current recommendations do not require any<\/u><\/strong> trees to be preserved, with the exception of \u201chistoric trees\u201d which are recognized by City Council with the consent of a property owner.\u00a0 There are currently no trees recognized as historic by the City Council and many feel that not protecting our largest and oldest trees is a mistake.\u00a0 In discussions with builders, developers, and architects over many years, there is a consensus that large and old trees should be preserved.\u00a0 However, they do not want to be forced into preserving any tree by the city.\u00a0 Given the relatively small population of large and old trees (projected to be less than 10%) and the many benefits they provide to our quality of life, it would be wise to require their preservation as long as their health and structural integrity are in reasonably good condition.<\/p>\n Sec. 51A \u2013 10.101<\/u>, definitions (55) (B), (on page 8 of the current ordinance recommendations from staff), Bois D` Arc or Osage-orange (Maclura pomifera), should be added to the list of significant trees.\u00a0 It is a native, hardy and drought tolerant species with extremely hard wood that is often used for fence posts, foundation support (such as older and smaller homes in Dallas) and the downtown streets of Dallas were once paved with Bois D` Arc blocks.\u00a0 The species has both male and female trees with the female producing large green fruit often called \u201chorse apples\u201d.\u00a0 For this reason, the female may not be ideal for all urban settings therefore the male should be protected.\u00a0 In this case, an applicant would be required to provide proof that a tree is a female, otherwise it would be considered to be a male and therefore a significant tree, assuming it is large enough to qualify.<\/p>\n City Ordinance 28367, Sec.51A-4.702<\/u>, regarding Planned Development (PD) District Regulations.\u00a0 A part of the stated purpose regarding a PD is to \u201cpreserve(s) significant natural features.\u201d\u00a0 However, many PD`s were approved in the past that relieved a property owner from some or all of the required tree mitigation or replacement requirements.\u00a0 Trees were removed without replacement or payment into the reforestation fund, as required by city regulations.<\/p>\n In effect, the city has lost a large amount of funds or replacement trees over the years and the property owner is provided a fiscal incentive which is not provided to all other property owners.\u00a0 This makes the application of a PD discriminatory and allows trees to be removed but not replaced as a financial incentive to only some property owners who file a PD application.\u00a0 Tree removal mitigation trees or dollars should not be used as a development incentive.\u00a0 A PD should be required to comply with the stated purpose of preserving significant natural features (which includes trees) and should not be used to skirt around the tree, landscape, or escarpment ordinance requirements.\u00a0 Close the PD loophole by not allowing the alteration of these important city ordinances.\u00a0 When trees are not replaced, our quality of life and the quality of our environment continues to decline.\u00a0 Here is a cut and paste of the language:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Sec.51A-10.134 (c), (1), (B)<\/u>, (page 49 under tree classification for mitigation, page 2 under tree class definitions), the value of \u201cclass 2\u201d trees should be increased to a 1:1 ratio to be more consistent with industry standards outlined in the Guide for Tree and Landscape Appraisers<\/em> by the Council of Tree and landscaper Appraisers.\u00a0 Class 2 trees include Oaks, Elms, Pecans and other valuable species which may be under 24 inches in diameter and therefore do not meet the definition of a \u201csignificant tree\u201d.\u00a0 It is inaccurate to devalue these tree species to a 1\/.7 ratio because it ignores all tree industry evaluation standards.<\/p>\n Sec.51A-10.133<\/u>, Historic Trees, (page 47). \u00a0A historic tree is defined in this section and it is protected when it is recognized by City Council and only with the authorization of the property owner.\u00a0 However, a heritage tree is not offered the same protection.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n A heritage tree is one that has deep significance to the community, such as a tree planted to honor and important person, a significant event, or recent tragedy that may not be considered \u201chistoric\u201d, according to the Texas Historic Tree Coalition (www.txhtc.org<\/a>).\u00a0 These types of trees are related to significant events or persons but may not be old enough to qualify or satisfy all the qualifications to become a historic tree.\u00a0 However, they are significant trees which are more than worthy of protection.\u00a0 The term heritage tree could be altered to historic\/heritage tree in this section which would still require the property owner and City Council`s approval for a heritage tree.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Sec.51A-10.135<\/u>, Alternative Methods of Compliance, (page 55 under sustainable site credits and page 58 under green site points or credits).\u00a0 In the initial discussions with builders, developers, and architects many years ago, incentives were offered for those that would use sustainable or green building practices.\u00a0 As a result, a spreadsheet was developed to provide the incentives which was often referred to as the \u201cmatrix\u201d.\u00a0 Although it was a new concept, it was not nearly as complex as the current incentive system.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The sustainable development incentives (SDI) were developed with some of the same principals as the matrix but were hard for the public to understand.\u00a0 In the final months of ZOAC deliberations, many green site points or incentives (GSI) were added to the recommended incentives which made it difficult to understand, especially how they would affect the many types of properties in Dallas.\u00a0 It is not clear how the various incentives would work together on any given property.\u00a0 UFAC fully supports sustainable development incentives but there are a considerable number of incentives offered and they are complex to understand.\u00a0 The conversion from canopy cover to points and inches of tree, is tough for the public to follow.\u00a0 It may be possible to develop a simpler and less complex system that finds a better balance in the number and types of incentives offered.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Sec.51A-10.104<\/u>, Soil and Planting Area Requirements (page 12).\u00a0 Regarding the minimum open soil area requirements for new or legacy trees and the total soil volume required, the amounts are not large enough to allow trees to grow anywhere near their life expectancy.\u00a0 In the case of newly planted medium and large trees, they would grow to around 16 inches in trunk diameter and then start to decline in health, according to research. Legacy trees would grow to around 24 inches and then start to decline in health.\u00a0 To spare a long discussion, UFAC felt these minimums should be increased slightly to allow for larger trees to grow in the future.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Sec.51A-10.125, Mandatory Landscape Requirements, (page 24). Shared access developments were recently allow a reduced landscape area from 20% down to 10% for small developments (under 10 individual lots) and 15% for larger developments (11-36 lots).\u00a0 Unlike other parts of the ordinance, required street trees are allowed to also<\/u> count as site trees, which reduces the number of trees planted and reduces the quality of life for residents.\u00a0 Given that the required landscape area was already reduced recently, street trees should not count as site trees.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n General recommendations not tied to a part of the ordinance:<\/u><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/u><\/p>\n Commercial single family residential developments over 2 acres should be required to comply with the tree and landscape ordinance requirements before<\/u> the lots are subdivided.\u00a0 Once a large single family development is divided into<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" This proposal has been under discussion for a number of years.\u00a0 It has just passed the City Planning Commission on Thursday Dec. 18th.\u00a0\u00a0 It will go before the Dallas City Council in January or February.\u00a0\u00a0 Please read thru the proposed … Continue reading \n
\n