Category: tree canopy

Tree-planting’s great; but look at big picture, too

Davis Cable, former head of the Catawba Lands Conservancy, just gave an intriguing presentation to the Charlotte City Council, about a new initiative to try to plant 50,000 trees across the city, to help the city with its adopted goal of having 50 percent of the city land under a canopy of trees by 2050. The city canopy now is about 46 percent. If the city is built out according to current zoning, the canopy will shrink to 45 percent.

It’s a public-private venture – not a new nonprofit being formed but an initiative called Tree Charlotte, Cable explained. The Foundation for the Carolinas has given $20,000; so has the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. The idea: Get the community involved and engaged in planting trees.

It’s probably the best warm-fuzzy idea I’ve heard emerge from this windowless chamber in the government center in ages. Who could be against this idea?

But as I analyze why Charlotte has lost so much of its canopy, one inescapable conclusion is that a huge amount of the loss has to do with new development, mostly in the suburbs. Duh, right? But think about how much of any new retail development is that huge surface parking lot. Yes, the city requires trees sprinkled through it, but it’s not the same as the woods that had to get cleared to build it. If we could drive less, we could save a lot of trees.

And what about subdivisions that spring up with no rezoning needed, because all the undeveloped land in the city got automatically zoned for subdivisions (or more intense development) about 30 years ago? There is no zoning for farms or woods or protected areas. Most subdivisions are virtually clearcut. To be sure, the city has a new tree ordinance that requires new developments to save small amounts of trees on the site. That’s better than nothing. Still …

And all that new commercial development that serves those new subdivisions means new or expanded roads, which mow down trees. (And I do mean roads in this instance, not city streets, which of course should all have street trees.) Streets, parking lots and rooftops mean more stormwater runoff, which requires big pipes and stream “restoration” projects that take out even more trees.

In short, more city-style development – with multi-story buildings close to each other, so you can easily walk to places you need to go, with parking decks instead of surface lots, and a vastly improved transit system – would result in a lot more trees saved on the edge of the city, as many of those  suburban developments wouldn’t be getting built.

Meanwhile, if multiple developers are to be believed – and I think they’re probably not making this up – redeveloping inside more urban-style areas is really, really tough, and made harder by some well-intentioned but bizarrely enforced zoning and inspection standards.

As Cable made his presentation to a receptive City Council, here’s what I was sending out via Twitter: 
Good presentation to #cltcc [Twitter-speak for Charlotte City Council] on Charlotte tree canopy. Push on to plant more trees, says Dave Cable. But much is going unsaid … (cont)
Cont. … Re tree canopy: Shouldn’t city look at its devt rules that allow/encourage major spread into undeveloped (treed) areas? 
Good pix of a Peachtree Hills retrofit plan, adding back trees in clearcut subdivision. Worthy effort. BUT … it’s after-the-fact.
Yes, plant trees. Also save em: Build city streets, not huge ROW-sucking highways. End auto-pilot OK for subdivisions on city fringe.
AND, to encourage more tight, urban-style infill stop requiring suburban-style “buffers” and berms in urban areas.
I applaud the tree-planting effort. It’s a good idea and will help.
But it’s the rules of development that shape how the city grows. If Charlotte wants to be a place that isn’t always trying to catch up to its tree loss by planting thousands of new trees, shouldn’t it take a holistic look at what sort of development the city is allowing, and where?

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.