2/24/25—Quality of Life Committee—Council Chambers. Discussion: Ord. Cal. No. 34,989—An ordinance to amend and reordain Sections 106-211–229 of the Code of CNO, relative to the protection of trees and other vegetation under the purview of P&PW.
The Council’s Quality of Life Committee held a public hearing on the proposed Parks & Parkways ordinance that was introduced “By Request” by Councilmembers Harris and Thomas. Only two members of a five-member committee were present—Lesli Harris and Freddie King—so the meeting proceeded without a quorum.
Scott Howard was the first to speak in opposition the ordinance. His conclusion, based on a careful reading of the text, was that the proposed ordinance failed to make sufficient reforms to the existing City Code provisions, which were enacted in 1956 and have not been amended since. He asked that the committee not advance the ordinance but instead reconvene negotiations to consider a broad range of tree protections not yet addressed.
Mary Mysing-Gubala spoke next in opposition to the ordinance because it lacks Transparency. She asked for assurances in the ordinance that Parks & Parkways would provide notice before removing major trees; the current draft has no such assurances.
Allain Hardin spoke in opposition because the ordinance fails to foster Cooperation among contractors and city departments, which is especially needed with Safety & Permits. The ordinance has no definition of “Public Utility,” which should be defined broadly to include entities that could impact the city’s trees. Nor does the ordinance define “Heritage” or “Landmark” trees, which our neighboring Parish of Jefferson sees fit to protect in its laws. He held up a 71-page tree preservation study done by the City Planning Commission in 2020 and asked why it was never acted upon, despite the fact that the last section is entitled . . . “next steps.”
David Marcello spoke in opposition because the proposed ordinance lacks adequate Enforcement provisions. He called for stronger protections when work involves the destruction of trees and for authority to withhold permits from contractors who repeatedly violate tree protection laws. He concluded by submitting a statement from Joseph Evans, a landscape architect and licensed arborist, who opposed the proposed ordinance because it “does not adequately safeguard the city’s iconic live oak streetscape or support critical reforestation efforts.”
The speakers established their opposition to the inadequate Parks & Parkways ordinance and highlighted concerns about inadequate assurances of Transparency, Cooperation, and Enforcement in the current text.
Anyone wanting to learn more may view the video or read a transcript (TBD) of the meeting.
Leave a Reply