Heritage Tree Ordinance Part 4

For staff who wants it put off because they are just too busy, they sure got busy in just one week.

UPDATE & RECOMMENDATION

This item was discussed at the February 26, 2008 Workshop.

Staff recommends approval of the motion to delay further discussion of this matter until the summer of 2008 as part of the Strategic Planning process. Based upon the Council’s discussion staff would propose the following prior to Strategic Planning:

• Scheduling a presentation at a future Workshop meeting by the Morton Arboretum to provide information to both the public and Council regarding this matter; and
• Schedule and promote a virtual town hall meeting on the Village website to allow for public comment regarding private property tree preservation; and
• Schedule and promote a town hall meeting to allow for public comment regarding private property tree preservation.

The good news is Morton Arboretum will make a presentation. They have advised most communities who have a Heritage Tree Ordinance (HTO), and will provide a ton of information on the benefits of large trees, why they should be preserved, why a village tree canopy is important enough to be critical, and why even private property trees should be preserved.

The next step is for the Council to determine if there is consensus to direct staff to prepare a private property tree preservation ordinance for consideration. Staff would ask for a minimum of 90 days to prepare a recommended ordinance. Policy details that would be established in a recommended ordinance include:

• Definition of Heritage trees (e.g. Heritage trees could be defined as the oldest, largest and most important native component of the Downers Grove urban forest such as oaks and sugar maples over 24 inches in diameter and hickories over 18 inches in diameter)
• Determine relevance, if any, of tree canopy coverage
• Creation of a public hearing process for private property Heritage tree removal in the absence of building construction activity
• Determination of what level of private property improvements/building construction activity would trigger Village review of a privately prepared Tree Survey and Tree Preservation Plan (for the purpose of identifying Heritage trees and the impact of private property construction activities on said trees – such surveys and plans are prepared by a private, licensed arborist)
• Determination of application fees for Village review of Tree Survey and Tree Preservation Plan
• Codification that removal of private property Heritage trees would be permitted, however property owners would be subjected to a financial penalty when removing Heritage trees
• Determination of appropriate financial penalty for removal of Heritage trees.

The bad part is then it is up to staff to decide what gets covered, and whether what Morton will tell them has any relevance to what staff wants to see in an ordinance.

Also note that now they have actually gone ahead and chummed the waters with references to fines and procedures that residents must follow: well, you all can read the above and the whole text of the green sheets here, and listen to what council had to say on Feb 26th at the workshop, or read it here in the minutes, and listen to what they said here at the council meeting on March 3rd.

Those who stand guard for private property rights will be well advised to begin circling. I will be thrilled if we ever have an HTO that prevents unwarranted* clear cutting of property by developers. Instead, here we go; a major undertaking for writing a complex ordinance that creates new processes, new procedures, new responsibilities for residents, new fines, all that directly impact the resident-where there is no problem.

And that, in a nutshell, is the problem. If council sticks their head in the sand and does not define what the ordinance needs to cover, and instead allows staff to put forward a complex convoluted ordinance, they will get it wrong: they have a strong recent history for getting it wrong. Putting this off to the strategic planning process (no longer being considered for the TCD3 citizen summit?) moves it to an already crowded agenda with a short time frame from start to finish.

In order to have an effective HTO that addresses our needs and does not trash resident rights, we will have to turn out and be heard. We will have to do the heavy lifting again, just to make sure we do not get trampled in the rush to do nothing.

* un·war·rant·ed (ŭn-wôr'ən-tĭd)
adj. Having no justification; groundless: unwarranted interference.
See Synonyms baseless, indefensible, undue.

Heritage Tree Ordinance Part 3

Some residents say we do not need any ordinance, that there is no problem with clear cutting property. Even lawyers suddenly do not remember definitions of words like unwarranted when facing the complexity of a simple ordinance.

I would ask this: Do you live next to a clear cut lot that was built out and now, as a direct result, have water problems? I have talked directly to residents who do now have water problems, and they do live next to, or near, property that has been clear cut and built out. It is not a coincidence: it is a direct connection.

Since it did not happen to me, there is no problem, and no need for a solution, is a novel, but not new, way to look at things.

Trees are irrefutably linked to reduction of flooding. To think otherwise is to deny the suns' rise in the east. The village is asking taxpayers to shell out $340 million to fix all the past water flooding problems caused by innocent ignorance and willful irresponsibility. To then not try and minimize future problems in even the smallest way is fiscally and socially irresponsible.

Heritage Tree Ordinance Part 2

"Go away. We're busy."

The Village Manager and staff have decided the “Heritage Tree Ordinance” (HTO) is not going to happen right now. Unless someone on council takes exception to it, it will be left on the back burner. That is too bad. We need a responsible, moderate, heritage tree ordinance now, so we can measure and adjust it if needed in the future.

First and foremost, this is not a case of the Village barging in and stealing property rights. Why? Because we do not have a problem with tree removals outside of construction. We should not fix what is not broken. This is not a property rights issue. Residents consistently rank protecting and maintaining trees and tree canopies as a top concern.

A decently written conservative HTO for private property should only affect trees on private property in four situations:
1) If a demolition permit is requested;
2) If a major addition is undertaken;
3) If a new subdivision is planned (not likely anymore); and
4) As part of the Planned Unit Development process.

Trees have a very real fiscal and environmental function and impact. Trees affect air quality, reduce the urban heat island effect, reduce energy demands, assist with stormwater management, benefit public health (emotional and physical), and have a positive economic impact on property values in a community.

Trees make money.

Trees are good business. Very large trees are very good business. Large trees increase property values. Ask any realtor: all other things being equal, which sells for more; house with big trees, or house with no trees? It is not a coincidence that many realtor initiated redevelopment projects save trees where they can. Big trees add a sense of permanence and quality to any home. A McMansion set in big trees looks less like a McMansion.

Maybe a realtor can add a comment on that, but one of the reasons we have higher property values is the tree canopy.

Trees save us from ourselves.

6CO2+5H2O = C6H10O5 + 6O2
Read Part 1 for more. The conversion of carbon dioxide to oxygen is extremely efficient. Plugging the numbers into the equation, 600 gallons of water that a big tree can absorb in one day, about 2 ½ tons, combines with about 7 ½ tons of carbon dioxide and gives off about 5 ½ tons of oxygen, transpires a variable amount of water as water vapor (why it is cooler under the tree) and adds a ton or so to the weight of the tree above and below ground. Did I mention trees are huge carbon sinks?

Quit stalling.

Staff does not feel staff is up to this right now. Come back in six months. That's stalling. Nothing will have changed in 6 months. The village will be neck deep in construction, up to their eyeballs in anothger excuse to do nothing. This relates directly to our poor current building and construction codes. I would urge the council to direct staff to do a bit of multitasking, and come up with a modest proposal that covers the four points outlined above. It would require only minor modification of the original proposal written over three years ago. Staff does not have to reinvent a totally new ordinance. They have even done the homework of looking at the key features of more than a dozen other cities and villages that already have this type of ordinance. We do not need a grand slam home run, we just need to get on base.

We do not need perfect that covers every contingency, we need a solid ordinance that gives us a starting point, that gives the village a mechanism to preserve trees that should be preserved, that clearly lays out expectations of builders, that protects trees that have been around for far longer than we have, and have every right to be around far longer than we will.

Heritage Tree Ordinance (Part 1)

6CO2+5H2O = C6H10O5 + 6O2

Trees take in carbon dioxide and water, both things we have too much of here in DG, fix the carbon to the water to make...more tree (cellulose), and exhale the remaining oxygen. Most trees have root structures that are wide and shallow to gather nutrients and water, and maybe some soil based carbon. A fully grown tree can absorb up to 600 gallons of water in a 24 hour period. Once the soil surrounding a root structure has been flooded or saturated, that ability is greatly diminished; that is why many trees die if their surroundings get too wet.

Some trees, like swamp oaks, red maples, river birches, keep soaking up water whether or not the ground is saturated. They adapted to the marshy lowland prairies where we now live. Willows are the midwest champs for soaking up water, but they grow fast and are weak, and tend to fall over in high winds.

Shade trees have expansive canopies for several reasons; to collect gaseous carbon dioxide (greenhouse gas), to collect sunlight as the trees' power source for the chemical reactions, and to transpire out the oxygen and excess water vapor.

Oak, maple, hickory, can get very big and live a long time. There are many in Downers Grove over 100 years old, very large, usually over two feet in diameter at chest height (Diameter Breast Height, or DBH). They do a lot for us besides keep us in shape picking up fallen sticks and branches every spring and raking leaves every fall, and providing homes for birds and squirrels and other wildlife. When Pierce Downer moved here, he set up his homestead near a grove of trees. No trees, no Pierce Downer, no Downers Grove.

By blocking direct sunlight and transpiring water vapor into the air, trees provide a cooler shaded area. A big enough tree shades one or more homes, effectively reducing energy costs to cool a home in summer. They act as wind breaks, reducing energy costs of heating in winter. They soak up water, reducing the effect of heavy rains. They slow the movement of water run off. They clean up water by acting as a natural filter. They exhale oxygen into the air. In a village with stormwater problems that cost many millions to fix, and in a world obsessed with global warming and greenhouse gases, that matters.

In 2005, the village enacted specific measures to protect public and parkway trees. Proposed by the Village Forester, it was a direct response to development killing trees, primarily by damaging the root structure and the tree trunk. Before, trees were in the way; now, trees must be protected to their drip line with a chain link fence, and no materials or vehicles can damage them.

At that time, the Village Forester also proposed similar protections for "heritage" trees on private property that were deferred for future consideration. In a few weeks staff will bring council a "heritage" tree ordinance that will effect large, mature trees of a specific type, size and age. Last time, two years ago, the proposal was fairly extensive and ambitious.

Most communities use a tree preservation ordinance as a tool when working with developers. Rules and requirements are clearly set down in writing so there is no misunderstanding of the expectation and intention to preserve large "heritage" trees. Builders in communities that have such an ordinance cannot simply clear cut properties and then design a project. Instead, there is a survey of trees on the property, and, in meetings with staff, decisions are made regarding what happens to the "heritage" trees.

What matters is trees help us and contribute to the desirability, the livability, of the village as a whole. We will lose our ash trees to the Emerald Ash Borer: a certainty that is no longer a discussion topic for all but the most grossly uninformed. That 18.6% of our public tree canopy goes away is not trivial; ash trees are efficient helpers that will not be replaced for many years. We have no more margin for error. We need all of our trees, or as many as we can keep to help our village through the next 40 years: not just trees on public land, all trees.

There has been significant talk by residents about what such an ordinance should and should not do; whether it is needed or not. Everyone likes trees, but a tree ordinance that crosses over to private property collides with personal property rights. No one wants government interfering with their personal lives, wants being told what they can and cannot do on their own property.

When the village publishes the green sheet information on February 22 we should have a better idea of the scope and purpose of the proposed ordinance.

Tree Update

Interim Director of Public Works Robin Weaver broke the sobering news to council tonight: the Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) is on the way, it's closer than anyone thinks, and nothing anyone has done stops the 100% lethality of this pest. Evanston is getting hammered right now; hundreds of trees need removal, and their Public Works crews are swamped.

It's all very sad. Ash trees had their foibles, but some, especially purple Ash, really are beautiful shade trees. Hardy, tolerant, robust, and completely vulnerable to a small bug from China. Probably the best way to know the EAB has arrived will be the tiny sideways 'D' holes in the tree, and the woodpeckers pecking away eating everyone they can find. Sorry, the woodpeckers don't stop them either.

Public Works will be taking out 400-450 trees this year, trying to get ahead of the problem like everyone else did not. Replacing all those trees is going to cost money, and it is my intention to see what we residents might do to help lower the cost to the village. I'll report in on this if/as things happen.

The good news is it is now policy to route sidewalks around non-ash, non-invasive mature trees whenever possible. The three block long project on Carpenter between 59th and 62nd originally called for the removal of 20 trees on the east side of the street. That is now down to two trees, and when the project is up for resident input I hope to save at least one more if possible.

This is a new attitude at Public Works. Before, residents had to know, had to go, had to protest removal of trees. Then, it was residents had to push our way into the process to save the tree(s) on our property, and then it was no sure thing. Miss the meeting due to work: bad things happen.

Now, I have been told, the project designers do that part automatically. Save the trees is the mantra; they count more than ruler straight sidewalks one foot off the property line. Mission accomplished.

The 18 trees saved on Carpenter translates into a street canopy that remains intact, and a $$ savings to the village of just over $7,500. For three blocks. Imagine if we had this policy in place when we started the sidewalk program.

We will still save ourselves tens of thousands of dollars moving forward, not to mention 40 years regrowing needlessly destroyed street canopies.

Trees Winning New Friends at Public Works

Mark Thoman	Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 4:16 PM
To: Robin Weaver , Kerstin von der Heide Cc: "Pavlicek, Cara"
Ms. Weaver, Ms. von der Heide, et all, I live at the SE corner of 61st and Carpenter Streets, which will undergo a major multi-month construction project starting this spring. My reason for writing (I will follow up with you, Ms. Weaver, if possible prior to Council's Tuesday meeting), is to see if it is possible to meet with yourself and our Village Forester Ms. von der Heide, and whomever else you feel would be an invested party, for the purpose of discussing modifications to sidewalk placement along Carpenter. I am not protesting sidewalks, and do not seek to delay or prevent their installation. What I do seek is to keep intact as many non-ash trees along Carpenter as is possible, and to make this an ongoing objective for all future sidewalk projects. This will require rethinking the typical linear 5' wide sidewalk placed 1' off property lines. Ms. von der Heide is aware when the sidewalk was placed along 61st Street, that I was in favor of the sidewalk, and devastated by the lack of thinking that went into removal of a 40 year old healthy maple 16' from the street. When the snow clears you will still be able to plainly see where the botched trunk grind/sodding has resulted in a dead depression in my front yard, and how unnecessary the removal really was. Moving forward, we as a village must place a prime value to our remaining non-ash, non-invasive mature tree inventory, and be creative in replacing the ash population that we will lose as quickly and affordable as possible. What I ask the village to consider, and this project can serve as the test bed, is to re-engineer the sidewalk component, to rethink the placement so as to avoid taking down trees. I've looked at the plans- the sidewalks are the typical straight lines, and it looks like they will take out significant numbers of non–ash trees and shrubs. These trees contribute to minimizing the extensive storm water problems my neighbors have to the north on Carpenter, and help keep water from cascading down onto my neighbors to the south. Their loss would be a tragedy, but I believe it can be reduced to an absolute bare minimum by thinking it through starting now, several months ahead of the project. Simple judicious planning, open minded engineering, and sensitive project management can avoid the prospect of any street losing fully grown, mature non-ash tree stock, even with sidewalks being installed for children and pedestrian safety. Having a sidewalk meander slightly as it travels down a parkway is a small price to pay in order to skip 40 years spent growing a replacement tree canopy. To that end, existing mature non-ash trees on public property and parkways must take priority over future planned sidewalks. This will take a different mindset than what has been normal in the past, but our tree future is not normal, and we cannot take out trees that take 40 years to replace, simply so a sidewalk can be laid in a straight line. I would appreciate the opportunity to meet with you and whom you think appropriate at a mutually convenient time to discuss this matter in more detail, and I am willing to volunteer my time to assist in any way I am able, to effect a positive change in the sidewalk process that results in saving non-ash trees. I don't have Kerstin's email. I guessed at her e-address, and would appreciate you forwarding this to her if I missed. Thank you for your time and consideration, and I look forward to meeting with you on this very important issue. -- Best Regards, Mark Thoman 1109 61st Street, Downers Grove, IL 60516-1820 HP 630-852-7260 WP 630-515-1186 F 630-515-1189 M 630-750-5179

---

	Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 9:04 AM
To: Mark Thoman
Good luck on this one. I noticed at our old house, when they ran the sidewalk through, they whacked the beautiful 20’ Burr Oak that I had nurtured from a small sprig. And from your personal experience, there doesn’t seem to be much sensitivity on this issue at Village Hall. From the 12/18/07 Village Council Meeting minutes: “Mr. Thoman said he attended a meeting last week with the Village Forester who made a presentation regarding the potential Emerald Ash Borer infestation, saying that this will wipe out most of our ash trees. He said the Village needs an aggressive plan for tree replacement. Trouble will come with the installation of sidewalks. He reviewed the process for installing sidewalks, saying that the retention of trees is a higher priority than ruler-straight sidewalks. His area is scheduled for sidewalk installation, which will mean removing a number of trees and shrubs. Installing a meandering sidewalk, rather than ruler-straight, would allow some trees to be saved.”

---

Weaver, Robin	Wed, Jan 2, 2008 at 4:49 PM
To: Mark Thoman Cc: "Pavlicek, Cara" , "von der Heide, Kerstin" , "Millette, Mike"
Hello Mr. Thoman. I wanted to let you know that we haven't forgotten your e-mail request for additional care and saving of trees along our projects, especially since we will be losing a substantial number of trees due to the Emerald Ash Borer. Between snow and ice control activities and vacation schedules we haven't had a chance yet to review your specific area and the work scheduled there. Within the next two weeks we should be able to review the site and the plans and discuss them as they relate to tree preservation. I will get back to you at that time. Robin Weaver Interim Director of Public Works Village of Downers Grove 630-434-5461 rweaver@downers.us

---

Mark Thoman	Thu, Jan 3, 2008 at 9:14 AM
To: "Weaver, Robin" Cc: "Pavlicek, Cara" , "von der Heide, Kerstin" , "Millette, Mike"
Ms. Weaver: Thank you for the update. At this point with the EAB, it should come as no surprise my very strong support for Ms. von der Heide and her tree ordinance. Other communities in the Chicago area (and elsewhere) have shown that a tight tree ordinance can be a very positive addition to the community. It is critical that, if as a village we are to regulate protection of non-ash, non-invasive tree species, we set the regulatory bar very high for the private sector by how we treat existing tree stock on public land, and that means top priority to keeping existing trees intact and unharmed. Thanks again for keeping me informed. -- Best Regards, Mark Thoman 1109 61st Street, Downers Grove, IL 60516-1820 HP 630-852-7260 WP 630-515-1186 F 630-515-1189 M 630-750-5179 markthoman.blogspot.com

---

Weaver, Robin	Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 4:28 PM
To: Mark Thoman
Hello Mr. Thoman. In our internal joint review of the plans for work on Carpenter Street we determined that the plans call for the removal of 20 trees. There is room to instead locate the sidewalk further into the Right-Of-Way (closer to the street) and avoid almost all of the trees. It is likely that two trees will be removed. So, design changes are being made to the plans. We will also take precautions to protect the trees, just as we require private developers to protect public trees. Now that we've enacted an internal process to jointly review all the capital projects in advance of design, our work will be better planned, have fewer conflicts and be more efficient by incorporating capital and operating considerations. Your interest in this project and interest generally in our parkway tree program is appreciated. Robin Weaver Interim Director of Public Works rweaver@downers.us 630-434-5461

---