2019 Documents

The  draft outline of the revised Tree Protection Ordinance the City presented the week of June 3 - 6, 2019 was heavily focused on creating a more "streamlined review process" for developers.  Most alarming was the revelation that City Planning was planning to do away with the orange/yellow sign postings and all appeal options of proposed tree removals. The right to appeal a denied tree cutting permit would remain for builders or anyone else who wanted to remove a tree, but the right to appeal to save a tree would be eliminated. No arborist preliminary permitting decision could be appealed in the new ordinance.

Elizabeth Johnson, the Urban Ecology Framework Project Manager, said that eliminating postings and appeal options was how the City could "reward" developers who were "doing everything right". However, an appeal is never filed against a developer, but a city arborist who issues a preliminary permit that does not comply with the tree ordinance.  Eliminating both the posting and the appeals process eliminates all transparency and the ability to hold the City accountable for the tree removal permits they issue.
And it prevents residents from knowing which
trees are coming down until after they are removed.   

Also, there is no apparent protection of trees offered for Atlanta's residential neighborhoods unless the property is in a stream buffer or contains "high value trees".  Trees on single family residential lots outside of stream corridors also need substantial protection given that is where 77% of Atlanta's tree canopy resides. Also, the City has not defined what is "high value".  Because that definition is an arbitrary one, not a scientific one, it may not be legally enforceable.  To remove protection for trees that are not "high value" is short-sighted: many trees that are not "high value" today are the trees that will grow into the high value trees of tomorrow. Finally, a high value model is meant to provide protection for special trees in addition to what the current tree ordinance provides, not to reduce or eliminate the current protection for trees that don't currently meet the high value definition.

The City also recommended providing a "free and easy" permit to remove one "non-high value tree" a year, but they did not provide evidence showing that this was a even citizen need, much less how it would help the City achieve its 50% canopy goal. 

While the City did recommend moving the planning process for trees to the beginning of the permitting process, the City pointed out that trees were only part of the equation -- that tree preservation had to be balanced with the City's goals for "affordability, mobility, and growth." Unfortunately, the City did not elaborate on which issues would take priority when a conflict arose between trees and affordability, mobility, and growth.

 The City appears to be saying that it can achieve 50% canopy by protecting the stream buffers and a handful of "intact forests", as well as planting 3,600 acres in a "young forest initiative", but they have not provided any data to demonstrate how these measures will enable the City to achieve its 50% canopy goal.  In fact, their entire draft was written without examining any of the tree removal data that has been collected in Accela (the City's online permitting database) since 2008.  This 10+ years of data would show them what types of trees we have been losing, both legally and illegally, as well as where the trees are coming down and for what reasons.  A proper data analysis would enable the City to craft an ordinance to help stem tree loss where the need is most critical. Instead, the City has chosen to move foward with a tree ordinance that is built more on perception than data.

Sticky note feedback from the June 6, 2019 presentation boards shows that people are very concerned about being able to plan for trees with clear, measurable goals, both in conserving and replanting trees. They want the City to hold developers more accountable for tree removal, strengthen enforcement, and create more effective deterrents to illegal tree removal. People want protection for all trees, not just those in stream buffers/intact forests. Also, they do not necessarily see some projects qualifying more than other projects for a pre-application due diligence review.

Reaction to being able to remove one tree per year was extremely negative; the City has overestimated the citizens' need to independently determine which trees they want removed. People want the City Arborist to determine if a tree should be removed, not the property owner, although there is some concern about the way the City Arborist Department is being managed.
 

Reaction to eliminating the appeal/posting process was equally negative. Instead of eliminating the appeal/posting process, people want the process to be made easier, with more lead time, and better notification and instructions on how to appeal, especially for those who are elderly or poor and/or cannot deal with the current complexities and expense of filing an appeal. Also, people want more education about the tree ordinance, protecting trees and habitat, and safety/tree maintenance issues, both for citizens and tree professionals. 

While people want special protection for trees of ecological significance, the “high value” model raises questions as to its scientific objectivity as well as its ability to preserve the overall canopy. People are concerned about impervious surfaces, excessive grading, and stormwater runoff -- these factors need to be included in any model assessing which trees are to be saved.

There is a huge lack of public trust in the process the City is recommending to streamline the review process and reward developers who the City arbitrarily determines is “doing everything right”. The proposed new tree ordinance lacks transparency and citizen oversight, and therefore, is viewed as ripe for corruption and abuse. It appears that the City may be placing more emphasis on affordability, mobility, and growth goals than the goal of growing the tree canopy to 50% -- or at least maintaining no net loss of trees.

Please click here to see more details about what the people said.

Below are the presentation boards that were at the North Atlanta meeting on June 6, 2019. 

• Click here for a summary of all the sticky notes across all the boards.
• Click on each board picture to see an enlarged view of the sticky note board.
• Click on each board title to see a picture of the board without the sticky notes.
• Click on each board # of comments for a transcript of the sticky notes posted on that board.

Boards are presented in order of the number of comments received (some comments take more than one sticky note) 

                   Development Standards                                                    Non-Construction Related
                           (45 Comments)                                                                    (33 Comments)

                         Protection Zones                                                             Doing Everything Right
                          (27 Comments)                                                                    (26 Comments)

                    TPO Intent and Purpose                                                      Arborist Process Flow
                          (25 Comments)                                                                      (24 Comments)

       What Should Atlanta's Methods Look Like?                 Due Diligence - Point A - Pre-Application
                             (18 Comments)                                                                  (15 Comments)

The City of Atlanta Planning Department unveiled its vision for a new Tree Protection Ordinance (TPO) at public meetings which were held in each quadrant of the city on four consecutive evenings, June 3 - 6, 2019. This vision was presented as a "draft outline" on which the pubic was invited to comment during a Q & A session. Attendees were also invited to write their comments on a feedback worksheet as well as post sticky notes to a series of eight different presentation boards in the hall adjacent to the meeting room.

The City Planning representatives at both the June meetings and the tree ordinance rewrite launch held in April said that the feedback worksheet comments would be made available online for public review. As of the date of this meeting, no public feedback had been posted by the City, but we did capture the feedback from the boards at the June 6 meeting. (Update: in August 2019, the City posted a summary of the feedback they received, although we have some concerns with how well City Planning heard what the people said, both in summary and from the sticky notes that were posted on the boards.) Although the boards were available at all four meetings, we only have photographs of the boards from the June 6 North Atlanta meeting. However, attendees who attended other meetings that same week say that the sticky note comments from previous evenings were similar to the ones at the North Atlanta meeting.

The sticky notes on the June 6 boards were transcribed and coded into common themes for a qualitative analysis of people's primary concerns. In many respects, what people are saying they want does not look like what the City is proposing. We encourage the City to step back and reconsider such things as allowing "one free tree removal a year" when this one feature received the most negative comments.