Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/07/2006

Home

removal, and stormwater management. For example, a 2002 study by the group shows that.residents of Atlanta save $2.8 million. annually on their energy bills due to shade from Atlanta's tree canopy. Similarly, in Economic Value of Forest Ecosystem Services: A Review, Douglas Krieger shows that the value of 500,000 mature mesquite trees in Tucson, Arizona, is estimated at $90,000 per year for runoff control and $1.5 . million per year for particulate matter removal. Compare this to the Puget Sound region, where stormwater flow during a heavy rain has increased about 29 percent since t972, a period during which heavily vegetated areas decreased by 37 percent. Ano.ther study by American Forests says that to replace the Sound's lost stormwater retention capacity with reservoirs and other engineered systems- will cost the local cominunities $2.4 billion plus annual maintenance costs. Economic benefit. While tree conservation ordinances burden some developers by con- straining site plans and imposing additional costs on development, the value added when a comm un ity saves trees on a per-site basis sig. nificantly outweighs the costs imposed in most instances. According to Nature Friendly Communities by Christopher Duerksen and Cara Snyder, new methodologies exist for the assess- ment of economic benefits that result from regu- lations such as tree conservation ordinances. Communities around the country are using them to demonstrate the public purpose of saving trees and open space in dollars and cents. In Trees Make Cents by Scenic America, author Elizabeth Brabec says growing evidence illus- trates that tree-friendly communities can realize substantial economic benefits from their con- servation policies. From helping attract and retain employers and employees who value a high quality of life to bringing in tourist dollars an investment in tree protection can pmvide measurable payoffs in the short and long tenm. Specifically, lots with mature vegetation in a new subdivision command a premium over those that have been denuded and replanted with smaller trees and bushes: Increased property values generally mean more tax revenue for local governments, which offsets the costs of protection. For example, a study of the 4,800 parcels surrounding an '~:f:'~~;~,i WEB.;'ErASED:ENijANCEMEr+J5;:>~~~r~,~ To enhance the reading experience for Zoning Practice subscribers, we have provided a list of resources and links to.the ordinances featured in this article on the Zoning Practice web- pages of APA's website. We invite'you to check out this enhancement at www.planning.org/ZoningPractice/ currentissue.htm. 8,300-acre nature reserve in the rapidly urban- izing oak woodlands in Riverside County, california, determined that a decrease of to percent in the distance to the nearest oak stands and to the edge of the permanent open space land resulted in an increase of $4 mil- lion in total home value and an increase of $t6 million in total land value in the commu- nity. In short, property closer to the reserve was more valuable. Additionally, there is substantial growing evidence that trees can add signifi~ant mone- tary value to development projects by making the site more pleasant for consumers. In one survey in Hampton, Virginia, over 80 percent of the respondents said they preferred shopping at a business that had substantial landscaping and mature trees. Perhaps most compelling are the testimonials the National Association of Home Builders received from developers who .' grab a market advantage by building enViron- mentally sensitive developments. KEY LEGAL ISSUES AND RECENT COURT DECISIONS In general, tree protection ordinances tend to raise the same legal issues as other local land-use controls. Experience shows that they are likely to be challenged primarily on two grounds: due process related to the vague- ness of review standards, and takings. Although not challenged as frequently, enabling legislation remains a key drafting consideration for legal defensibility of tree conservation ordinances. Thus, the first step for anyone drafting such an ordinance is to confirm that the regulatory body does, in fact, have the authority to promulgate tree conser- vation regulations. This authority or enabling legislation is typically derived from specific enabling legislation; environmental protection statutes; planning, zoning, and subdivision laws; and home rule or charter authority. Due process: standards for permit reviews. Like all reasonable. regulations, tree protection regulations must satisfy the due process requirements of the U.S. and state constitutions. To do so, the standards should be clear and understandable so that an aver- age person does not have to guess at what is being required of them. Fairness and regula- tory efficiency dictate that local ordinances contain clear standards that result in pre- dictable decisions by staff and review ~om' missions and limit administrative discretion. Most modern tree protection ordinances require a developer'or landowner to obtain a permit before undertaking specified activities such as vegetation clearing or tree removal. Courts are generally quite deferential to local governments when it comes to setting and ZONING?RACTICE 7.06 99 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION I page 3