More delays for Charlotte's tree ordinance

Charlotte has lost half its tree canopy since 1985, and Mecklenburg County has lost a third of its. (Read the report on that - see page 70 of this pdf.) So plenty of eyes are on a proposal – moving through the bureaucracy with the speed of Providence Road traffic at 5:30 p.m. – to strengthen the city's aging tree ordinance as it applies to commercial and multifamily development.

Finally, the plan was, the City Council's environment committee would render its recommendation today at an 11 a.m. meeting. This isn't final adoption, mind you, just a recommendation to be sent to the full council. The environment committee, which until Anthony Foxx was elected mayor last November was dominated by Republicans (on a council with a Democratic majority, mind you), has been gnawing on the ordinance since June 2008.

I don't know what all local developers think of it, because that's a large and diverse group – a fact you wouldn't know if you listen only to the local developers' lobbying group, REBIC. But REBIC and its members have been raising issue after issue for five years, first on the stakeholder committee, which could not reach consensus, and now as the ordinance is before the committee. During the stakeholder discussions REBIC used the time-honored "stall-it-by-demanding-a-cost-benefit-analysis" gambit, which took more than a year, in part because a few non-developers on the stakeholder committee suggested that maybe the anti-tree-ordinance folks shouldn't be the ones who got to choose the sites on which the cost-benefits were being analyzed.
REBIC didn't like the idea of pushing the required "tree save" from the current 10 percent up to 15 percent. They didn't like the idea that trees in parking lots should be planted closer together. Those issues have been, I think, resolved.

Today two sticking points remained: The city staff's proposal for how to deal with development on already-developed sites, and how to set the fees for a "fee-in-lieu" proposal, under which developers could opt to pay a fee rather than save the trees on a full 15 percent of the site. (It's all very complicated.) REBIC's preferred "fee-in-lieu" was laughable: just decide that all land in the city, for tree ordinance fee-in-lieu purposes, is worth $40,000 to $50,000 an acre and set the fees as if that were the case.

Council members offered several proposals to "compromise" between staff's recommendations and REBIC's ideas. Why the council members so rarely seem to just opt for their paid staff experts' recommendations, which have already been compromised during stakeholder talks, is beyond me. But instead of voting today, the committee has punted until June 21.

Best quotes of the day: Both courtesy of District 6 rep Andy Dulin.
- In the context of his worries that the tree ordinance will add costs to development: "We're going to jack up the cost of building a strip shopping center."
- "Developers love trees."

Charlotte's huge tree loss

A report to be given to the City Council on Monday shows that the city has lost half its tree cover since 1985. Read the report here - it starts on page 70 of the pdf.

The county as a whole has lost 33 percent of the tree cover it had in 1985, the report found.
The study is an Urban Ecosystem Analysis, performed with satellite imagery, GIS technology and American Forests' software. A major grant from The Women’s Impact Fund made it possible, with help from digital imagery provided by Mecklenburg County, and additional funding from the City of Charlotte and the Blumenthal Foundation.

The report notes: "Charlotte Mecklenburg’s tree cover has declined for the last 23 years and new policies and practices will need to emerge to reverse this trend. Based upon this latest data,
tree canopy in Mecklenburg County has reached the point where further decline will cause the County to fall below levels recommended by American Forests. Charlotte Mecklenburg is now at a crossroads that will set the course for environmental quality for decades to come."

The city and the county must begin counting trees as part of the essential urban infrastructure. Today they don't.

Yes, any time a city grows into greenfield areas it will lose large tracts of previously undeveloped woods. The problem isn't that the city has grown, but that it hasn't grown smartly – meaning that while plenty of land was targeted for development, no land was set aside for non-development. Other cities have done this routinely, through strategic use of water/sewer service and roads/no-roads policies. Many require parkland to be set aside (or a fee in lieu) with each development. This helps make up for the inevitable tree loss when greenfields get developed.

Not here.