Share Why not remove all mitigation requirements for existing residential properties of less than 1/2 acre? Trees grow and no longer desired in existing neighborhoods. I suggested this to Ms Fuentes, councilmember district 2, except for 1 acre properties. This is just an added expense, $2,000-$4,000 in my case, of removing undesired trees at the front of my .18 acre property. I have trees that shade the entire back and side yard - approximately 8 trees 8-40 feet tall. Why should I be required to place a large(3") tree in my front yard, a $500+ expense, when I have so much shade around my home already?
btw: several people in the neighborhood have topped their trees, apparently without any repercussions, over the years. on Facebook
Share Why not remove all mitigation requirements for existing residential properties of less than 1/2 acre? Trees grow and no longer desired in existing neighborhoods. I suggested this to Ms Fuentes, councilmember district 2, except for 1 acre properties. This is just an added expense, $2,000-$4,000 in my case, of removing undesired trees at the front of my .18 acre property. I have trees that shade the entire back and side yard - approximately 8 trees 8-40 feet tall. Why should I be required to place a large(3") tree in my front yard, a $500+ expense, when I have so much shade around my home already?
btw: several people in the neighborhood have topped their trees, apparently without any repercussions, over the years. on Linkedin
Email Why not remove all mitigation requirements for existing residential properties of less than 1/2 acre? Trees grow and no longer desired in existing neighborhoods. I suggested this to Ms Fuentes, councilmember district 2, except for 1 acre properties. This is just an added expense, $2,000-$4,000 in my case, of removing undesired trees at the front of my .18 acre property. I have trees that shade the entire back and side yard - approximately 8 trees 8-40 feet tall. Why should I be required to place a large(3") tree in my front yard, a $500+ expense, when I have so much shade around my home already?
btw: several people in the neighborhood have topped their trees, apparently without any repercussions, over the years. link
Why not remove all mitigation requirements for existing residential properties of less than 1/2 acre? Trees grow and no longer desired in existing neighborhoods. I suggested this to Ms Fuentes, councilmember district 2, except for 1 acre properties. This is just an added expense, $2,000-$4,000 in my case, of removing undesired trees at the front of my .18 acre property. I have trees that shade the entire back and side yard - approximately 8 trees 8-40 feet tall. Why should I be required to place a large(3") tree in my front yard, a $500+ expense, when I have so much shade around my home already?
btw: several people in the neighborhood have topped their trees, apparently without any repercussions, over the years.
Quietman
asked
almost 2 years ago
Thank you for your comment. Exempting residential properties from mitigation requirements would require action by City Council and is beyond the scope of this update.
Share Crape Myrtles (Lagerstroemia) should also be listed in the 3.5.4 A.2.b Mitigation Exempt species. While Crape Myrtles can be pretty, they are not a native species. Vitex is listed under the mitigation exempt list. Vitex is pretty as well. Vitex is not a native tree species. We should write rules to foster native plants. a 19" Crape Myrtle is not anywhere close to the size or ecological importance as a 19" pecan, oak, or elm tree. A 19" hackberry is more ecologically important than a crape myrtle. Just because it has pretty pink flowers doesn't mean it needs to be officially protected. Many individuals will preserve Crape Myrtles for appearances anyway. It just shouldn't be a preservation target or focus. on Facebook
Share Crape Myrtles (Lagerstroemia) should also be listed in the 3.5.4 A.2.b Mitigation Exempt species. While Crape Myrtles can be pretty, they are not a native species. Vitex is listed under the mitigation exempt list. Vitex is pretty as well. Vitex is not a native tree species. We should write rules to foster native plants. a 19" Crape Myrtle is not anywhere close to the size or ecological importance as a 19" pecan, oak, or elm tree. A 19" hackberry is more ecologically important than a crape myrtle. Just because it has pretty pink flowers doesn't mean it needs to be officially protected. Many individuals will preserve Crape Myrtles for appearances anyway. It just shouldn't be a preservation target or focus. on Linkedin
Email Crape Myrtles (Lagerstroemia) should also be listed in the 3.5.4 A.2.b Mitigation Exempt species. While Crape Myrtles can be pretty, they are not a native species. Vitex is listed under the mitigation exempt list. Vitex is pretty as well. Vitex is not a native tree species. We should write rules to foster native plants. a 19" Crape Myrtle is not anywhere close to the size or ecological importance as a 19" pecan, oak, or elm tree. A 19" hackberry is more ecologically important than a crape myrtle. Just because it has pretty pink flowers doesn't mean it needs to be officially protected. Many individuals will preserve Crape Myrtles for appearances anyway. It just shouldn't be a preservation target or focus. link
Crape Myrtles (Lagerstroemia) should also be listed in the 3.5.4 A.2.b Mitigation Exempt species. While Crape Myrtles can be pretty, they are not a native species. Vitex is listed under the mitigation exempt list. Vitex is pretty as well. Vitex is not a native tree species. We should write rules to foster native plants. a 19" Crape Myrtle is not anywhere close to the size or ecological importance as a 19" pecan, oak, or elm tree. A 19" hackberry is more ecologically important than a crape myrtle. Just because it has pretty pink flowers doesn't mean it needs to be officially protected. Many individuals will preserve Crape Myrtles for appearances anyway. It just shouldn't be a preservation target or focus.
Hatch Works
asked
almost 2 years ago
Thank you for your comment. Mitigation for non-native species such as crape myrtle is assessed at a lower rate than for native species per Environmental Criteria Manual (ECM) 3.5.4. Native species are listed in ECM Appendix F. Species listed as Mitigation Exempt in the proposed update are generally species that are invasive in character, or in the case of Arizona ash whose removal is advantageous for public safety reasons.
Share Eliminating mitagation for Arizona Ash? What does that mean exactly? I want to cut down a our Arizona Ash in our front yard and replant with an Shumard Oak Tree. The Arizona Ash tree was planted in 1984. The roots are pretty horrible. on Facebook
Share Eliminating mitagation for Arizona Ash? What does that mean exactly? I want to cut down a our Arizona Ash in our front yard and replant with an Shumard Oak Tree. The Arizona Ash tree was planted in 1984. The roots are pretty horrible. on Linkedin
Email Eliminating mitagation for Arizona Ash? What does that mean exactly? I want to cut down a our Arizona Ash in our front yard and replant with an Shumard Oak Tree. The Arizona Ash tree was planted in 1984. The roots are pretty horrible. link
Eliminating mitagation for Arizona Ash? What does that mean exactly? I want to cut down a our Arizona Ash in our front yard and replant with an Shumard Oak Tree. The Arizona Ash tree was planted in 1984. The roots are pretty horrible.
Lynne
asked
almost 2 years ago
Thank you for your comment. When regulated trees are removed the Land Development Code (LDC) requires that some form of mitigation be provided unless the tree in question meets the criteria of Dead, Diseased, or Imminent Hazard (LDC 25-8-624). Mitigation is usually addressed through tree planting. Certain species, however, are exempt from mitigation requirements. The proposed rule adds Arizona ash to that list. If your Arizona ash is of regulated size you may remove it with a permit, but it would not include any mitigation requirements under the new rule.
