Tree Committee Recommendations Will Not Preserve Trees
The Redding Tree Committee has now concluded its recommendations for changes to the Redding Tree Management Ordinance. As currently proposed, the revisions will result in saving few of our native oak trees in Redding and, in the end, facilitate the removal of more trees in Redding than the current ordinance.
The Committee was composed of a broad spectrum of the citizens of Redding, from developers to environmentalists, each honestly representing their views. Each City Council member appointed two members, two were from the Planning Commission, and two from Redding Community Services Advisory Committee. One major problem with the Tree Committee was that, while the majority of the Committee members would be considered tree advocates, few understood the intricacies of planning and the tree ordinance. The opposition to substantive changes to the tree ordinance were two members representing development interests and three members who generally sided with development interests. A former Planning Department Manager on the Committee was solidly in the developers’ camp, had the most knowledge of the tree ordinance, and had considerable influence over the Committee.
Development Services Director Jeremy Pagan oversaw the Committee and Aaron Hatch was the Committee Chair. Pagan was unbiased in overseeing the Committee, generally letting the Committee make the final decisions, at times offering context as to what his department sees in enforcing tree-related issues.
A few minor improvements were made to the ordinance as the two months of meetings progressed, most votes being 7 to 5 in favor of tree advocates. However, at our second to last meeting, which was to decide mitigation for the removal of oak trees, a motion was made by one of the “tree advocates” to establish in-lieu fees as mitigation for the removal of native trees.
Unfortunately, the former Planning Department Manager then “clarified” the motion to consider an in-lieu fee as a discretionary option to the approving body for preserving a candidate tree or trees as defined by the ordinance. The person making the original motion approved this clarification and the motion was passed 9 to 3.
Before the above motion was voted on, I quickly made a counter-motion that removal of all 6” DBH (Diameter at Breast Height) or larger native oak trees would require an in-lieu fee. This motion failed 4 to 5, with three tree advocates abstaining.
The definition of “candidate trees” is very subjective, and is generally a decision made by an arborist hired by the land developer. For most projects, less than 5% of trees are considered candidate trees, and often under 1% of the trees. Thus, with this motion, 95% or more of the oak trees in Redding could be removed with no mitigation required. This is a complete defeat for increasing Redding’s tree canopy and preserving more of our oak trees. It means Redding continues to remain largely an outlier in California as far as respecting the importance of our native oaks and mitigating their removal.
Other News
For more conservation news, activities, and events, please see Shasta Environmental Alliance’s May 2023 Newsletter. ~David Ledger, Conservation Chair