We made this petition because Redding needs a new tree ordinance. Trees in this city have been devastated by unchecked development, and the result is an environmental disaster comprised of heat islands and endless asphalt, the last thing we need in our blazing hot city. When planted and maintained correctly, trees provide shade that makes biking and walking pleasurable, thus lowering our carbon footprint. Help us out by signing on and sharing this petition for a real tree ordinance to protect our trees. Then, show up to the march on August 10th at 2:30 at the Sundial and take the message to them, LIVE!

BACKGROUND

Redding's current tree ordinance fits with the current general plan for Redding, which is due to be replaced next year. The current general plan prioritizes development and encourages the kind of urban sprawl that reduces green fields and encourages more driving and heat islands. The next general plan must take climate change into account and prioritize developing a dynamic urban core at the heart of Redding. A major aspect of this is passing a new tree ordinance that will change the way Redding treats its urban forest.

For years, arborists and environmental advocates have tried and failed to get a tree ordinance in Redding that provides for the protection of our urban forest. Here are some of the items that would make a difference if added to the next iteration of our tree ordinance:

1. Requirements for the kinds of trees that can be planted in new developments in Redding: that they be hardy varieties that do not require lots of water, and that they have deep root structures, that they be naturally suited to our climate, and that they be given ample space to exist and good soil and water.

2. Substantial fees paid by developers to cut down trees of 6 inches or more in diameter. This vital provision will make urban sprawl projects less appealing and make the building up of Redding’s core more appealing, as well as vertical developments with smaller footprints. This central point is both the carrot and the stick for the kinds of projects that will make a difference in Redding’s response to the climate crisis.

3. Fees for cutting down trees will bring money into the city’s coffers. We would like to see these fees used to provide better maintenance of existing trees in the city of Redding, as well as for the payment of experts to consult on the future of our urban forest, and community education around the preservation of the trees in Redding.

4. A requirement that 3 trees be planted for every tree cut down, and that they be hardy, low-water, shade-giving varieties planted in good soil and far enough apart. We don’t want to see replacement trees wilting due to lack of the right conditions for their success or to neglect by those responsible for them.

5. A requirement that, after 15 years, the city will assess trees to make sure that all requirements were met, and that a fine be levied if it is discovered that the developer skirted these responsibilities.

6. A requirement that an arborist be consulted on the viability of any tree being considered for removal by a developer or the city.

7. A mandatory minimum space between, behind, and in front of buildings when planning new residential developments, such that large trees with full root structures are able to grow between, behind, and in front of homes.

Read a copy of the current ordinance, with suggested changes by David Ledger, here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TSEelbF7la9H23m7kMfH4UahRCCEjKgC/view?usp=sharing

PETITION

Dear Redding Planning Commission,

We know that Redding City Council is considering a new tree ordinance for Redding and that the Planning Commission is due to discuss it soon. We are concerned citizens of the city of Redding who want to see strong leadership on climate change. We are led by a group of young people who want bright futures in the North State. Protecting trees is both mitigation and adaptation work. It is mitigation because trees sequester carbon and provide shade, allowing residents to bike or walk instead of driving. It is adaptation because tree shade is one way to fight the intense heat of climate change-driven weather.

We are petitioning for protection for Redding's trees passed immediately in the form of a strong new tree ordinance and that arborists, native tribal members, conservationists and committed citizens be involved in crafting the new ordinance alongside developers and others who have a vested financial interest in reducing the efficacy of new measures.

Here are some specific measures that would make a stronger ordinance:

1. Requirements for the kinds of trees that can be planted in new developments in Redding: that they be hardy varieties that do not require lots of water, and that they have deep root structures, that they be naturally suited to our climate, and that they be given ample space to exist and good soil and water.

2. Substantial fees paid by developers to cut down trees of 6 inches or more in diameter. This vital provision will make urban sprawl projects less appealing and make the building up of Redding’s core more appealing, as well as vertical developments with smaller footprints. This central point is both the carrot and the stick for the kinds of projects that will make a difference in Redding’s response to the climate crisis.

3. Fees for cutting down trees will bring money into the city’s coffers. We would like to see these fees used to provide better maintenance of existing trees in the city of Redding, as well as for the payment of experts to consult on the future of our urban forest, and community education around the preservation of the trees in Redding.

4. A requirement that 3 trees be planted for every tree cut down, and that they be hardy, low-water, shade-giving varieties planted in good soil and far enough apart. We don’t want to see replacement trees wilting due to lack of the right conditions for their success or to neglect by those responsible for them.

5. A requirement that, after 15 years, the city will assess trees to make sure that all requirements were met, and that a fine be levied if it is discovered that the developer skirted these responsibilities.

6. A requirement that an arborist be consulted on the viability of any tree being considered for removal by a developer or the city.

7. A mandatory minimum space between, behind, and in front of buildings when planning new residential developments, such that large trees with full root structures are able to grow between, behind, and in front of homes.

Sincerely,

Sunrise Redding