Testimony on HB 1078 before Washington State Legislature

Posted on by

My name is Steve Zemke representing TreePAC and Friends of Urban Forests. I served on the Seattle Urban Forestry Commission for 6 and a half years and also as VC.

There has been confusion on this bill as to the Bill summary for SHB 1087 including language from HB 1087. SHB 1087 needs its own separate bill summary.

OUR Specific Ask – Urge passage of SHB 1078 with new definition of “tree replanting areas” instead of tree banks as “tree replanting areas.

The use of the term “tree banks” is confusing and has different meanings, including trees in nursery situations and tree stock development.

Replace definition of “tree banks” with “tree replanting areas” and “tree bank programs” with “tree replanting programs”

Amend to:

“Tree replanting areas” can be designated by a community to replace trees removed that cannot be retained or replanted on site. To compensate for tree loss, tree replanting programs shall provide for the payment of a fee in lieu to cover the cost of buying replacement trees, planting, maintaining and watering them up to 5 years to ensure survival.  Trees replanted shall be roughly equivalent at maturity to the canopy lost.

Bill also provides needed funding for DNR to draft model ordinances. Many cities do not have the technical expertise on staff needed to draft this legislation. Added language in 2SHB 1078 to provide funding also to cities would be welcome

Please pass HB 1078 with amendments. Thank you.

Comments on Addendum to 2022 SEPA Determination of Non-Significance Seattle Tree Legislation March 2023

Posted on by
From: Steve ZemkeSent: Friday, April 7, 2023 11:54 PMTo: gordon.clowers@seattle.gov <gordon.clowers@seattle.gov>; Nathan Torgelson <nathan.torgelson@seattle.gov>Subject: Comments on Addendum to 2023 SEPA Determination of Non-Significance Tree legislation March 2023

Dear Gordon Clowers and  Nathan Torgelson,
Description:
  1. item 2 does not list other zones that can remove 3 tree  per year. Just saying all other zones is not something people can readily understand? Is it 1 zone or 5 zones. What are the other zones?
  2. item 3 – vague language -“or similar improvements associated with development” These items should be clearly identified.
Regarding zoning capacity calculation in dense zones;
Washington State is on the verge of state mandated upzoning by the state legislature which would mandate 4 plexes in all zones and up to 6 plexes in certain circumstances in Seattle and a number of other cities. No mention is made regarding the potential impact on trees that will occur if this happens.  Seattle’s neighborhood residential zones currently is at 34% canopy cover while multifamily is at 23%.
The 2021 City of Seattle Tree Canopy Assessment Final Report in Appendix A notes notes that the neighborhood residential zone has 7034 acres of canopy while the multifamily zone has 933 acres.
Appendix B Table 2 notes that redeveloped parcels in the NR zone lost 33.6% of its canopy and redeveloped parcels in the multifamily zone lost 49.5% of its canopy.
Considering the likelihood of the state rezoning the NR to a multifamily zone the following statements are not accurate if HB 1110 or similar upzoning legislation passes in Olympia.:
Fact statement by the Addendum -The city’s research for the prior proposal indicated that about 92% of the estimated properties with trees greater than 24-inches diameter are located in neighborhood residential zone and 6% in lowrise and 2% in commercial.
You assume that multifamily and commercial zones will face “greater long-term pressure for redevelopment than NR zones.”
Based on the momentum for passage of HB 1110 that is simply not true.
You state that the 92% of properties with larger sized trees “may experience a lesser pressure.” Again this is just not likely. Builders are pushing up zoning of single family zones statewide and nationally. It’s already happened in Oregon. And its likely to happen in Washington.
The guaranteed 85% development area in the Ordinance will shift to the current NR zone and you have not even mentioned this despite legislation in Olympia last year and greater momentum this year. Legislation has passed the House and is in Senate Rules.
Current code allows more flexibility in tree protection site by site. The change is what the builders want predictability that they can remove most of the trees on a lot and maximize their profit while Seattle’s canopy declines. If the state Legislature  passes HB1110 , there is no way Seattle can reach 30% tree canopy citywide. It will over time descend into low 20’s % canopy cover with an ordinance that guarantees 85% canopy cover.
Tree covenants need to be for the life of the building, not the tree. The code elsewhere requires hazard tree to be replaced. That includes dead trees. The covenant should be considered a “tree planting area” for the life of the building.
This DNS should be rewritten to address the issues raised above as to the impact of the state potentially rezoning our NR zone to multifamily zone. This would have a significant environment impact.  It is not an unknown possibility. The city needs to evaluate what would be the impact on the tree canopy in the city if the state rezones to allow 4 plexes and 6 plexes in Seattle’s current NR zone.
Tree covenants need to be for the life of the building, not the tree. The code elsewhere requires hazard tree to be replaced. That includes dead trees. The covenant should be considered a “tree planting area” for the life of the building.
Steve Zemke Chair Tree PAC and Friends of Seattle’s Urban Forest

2024 Statement on Washington Legislature’s SHB 1078

Posted on by

Please pass SHB 1078 with a new definition of “tree replanting areas” replacing “tree banks”

The use of the term “tree banks” is confusing and has different meanings, including trees in nursery situations and tree stock development.   

 Replace the definition of “tree banks” with “tree replanting areas” and “tree bank programs” with “tree replanting programs”  

Amend “tree banks” to read:

 “Tree replanting areas” can be designated by a community to replace trees removed that cannot be retained or replanted on site. To compensate for tree loss, tree replanting programs shall provide for the payment of a fee in lieu to cover the cost of buying replacement trees, planting, maintaining and watering them up to 5 years to ensure survival.  Trees replanted shall be roughly equivalent at maturity to the canopy lost.  

Bill also provides needed funding for the Washington State Dept. of Natural Resources (DNR) to draft model ordinances that include requirements for developers to pay for and plant trees they remove.. Many cities do not have the technical expertise on staff needed to draft this legislation. Added language in 2SHB 1078 to provide funding to help cities is welcome.  

 Please pass SHB 1078 with amendments. Thank you. 

 As housing increases many trees are lost that help to keep our cities healthy. Trees reduce heat island impacts, clean our air of pollution and reduce water pollution from storm water runoff. They support mental and physical health by providing nature in our cities.  

 To sustain our urban forests and canopy, developers should maximize the retention of existing trees and replant them on site if possible when they are removed.  When not possible, trees should be replaced in other areas of cities with low tree canopy to increase climate resiliency, environmental equity and reduce heat island impacts. In-lieu fees are needed to help pay for tree replacement costs, including replacement trees, maintenance and watering costs for up to 5 years to establish new trees. 

 Thank you for considering this bill. Please amend the terminology and include consideration of all costs with in-lieu fees being covered to increase the survival of replanted trees.  Vote Yes on this bill. 

`Washington State Legislative Bills affecting trees and urban forests

Posted on by

Washington Legislative Bills Affecting Trees and Housing Week Jan 18 – 22, 2024

Basic information on Legislative information links courtesy of Ruth Williams:

Legislature home page: https://leg.wa.gov/Pages/default.aspx

Bills home page: https://app.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/

House home page: https://leg.wa.gov/House/Pages/default.aspx

Senate home page: https://leg.wa.gov/Senate/Pages/default.aspx

Legislative committees home page: https://leg.wa.gov/legislature/Pages/CommitteeListing.aspx

Comment on a bill: https://leg.wa.gov/legislature/Pages/BillCommentsHelp.aspx

Search & Tracking Tools

Bills By Topic Find bills by subject as organized in the Topical Index prepared by the Code Reviser’s Office.
Past biennial: 2021-22, 2019-20, 2017-18

Bill Tracking Create personalized lists of bills you wish to track through the 2023-24 legislative process.

Search (Documents) Search documents from the current year, back to 1985 and current web pages using search criteria & term

Click on the bill links for more information, including bill text and summary of bills.

Bills in action this week: Jan 18 -22, 2024

HB 2321 – Modifying middle housing requirements and the definitions of transit stops

Monday Jan 22 Scheduled for public hearing in the House Committee on Housing at 1:30 PM (Subject to change). (Committee Materials)

Thursday Jan 25 Scheduled for executive session in the House Committee on Housing at 8:00 AM (Subject to change). (Committee Materials)

Sign in to comment and /or testify on this bill. To testify you must sign up by 12:30 – one hour before the hearing starts. You can comment on the bill up to 24 hours after the hearing starts. This bill is a revision of HB 1110

emails – housing Committee members – strom.peterson@leg.wa.gov, emily.alvarado@leg.wa.gov, mari.leavitt@leg.wa.gov,

jessica.bateman@leg.wa.gov, frank.chopp@leg.wa.gov,

debra.entenman@leg.wa.gov, julia.reed@leg.wa.gov,

mark.klicker@leg.wa.gov, april.connors@leg.wa.gov,

andrew.barkis@leg.wa.gov, spencer.hutchins@leg.wa.gov, sam.low@leg.wa.gov

Recommended comments:

Support removal of “((to ensure compliance with existing ordinances intended to protect critical areas and public health and safety)) which weakened tree protection in HB 1110.
P 13 line 9 amend to read as follows – “tree canopy and retention, protection and planting.”
P 14, Under Section 2 (8) The provisions of this section do not apply to : Remove Line 20-21 (d) A lot that was created through the splitting of a single residential lots This language would void complying with local tree canopy retention, protection and planting ordinances.
This is a big loophole as many lots are being split in Seattle and elsewhere. House bill 1245 now in the Senate on lot splitting does not exempt lot splitting from complying with local ordinances for protecting trees and urban forests. Trees are needed to keep neighborhoods healthy, climate resilient and environmentally equitable,

HB 1078 – Concerning urban forest management ordinances.

Thursday Jan 25th 4 PM – Scheduled for a public hearing in House Appropriations Committee,

Suggested Comments – Sign in pro on bill with amendments to ensure replanted trees are maintained and watered for 5 years. In Lieu fees are essential so as not to remove public benefits of trees and put replacement burden on all taxpayers, instead of those removing the trees. Require that cities strive to maintain as many existing trees on developed sites as possible as it takes decades for new large trees to grow. We do not want to create new heat islands by clearcutting lots. Add street trees as a requirement for all lots being developed and maximize the retention of existing trees on lots. The climate crisis is r.eal, and we need to keep all of our neighborhoods and the people who live there healthy.

Bill was originally proposed for establishing tree banks off site for trees removed and is now bill asking DNR to come up with draft legislation.

Sponsors: Duerr, Doglio, Simmons, Reed, Ryu, Walen, Ramel, Macri, Reeves, Kloba

HB 2113 – Concerning compliance with the housing element requirements of the growth management act.

Wed. Jan 23 – Scheduled for executive session in the House Committee on Housing at 4:00 PM (Subject to change). (Committee Materials)

Comments can be sent to Housing Committee prior to their voting.

Housing Committee members e-mails:

strom.peterson@leg.wa.gov, emily.alvarado@leg.wa.gov, mari.leavitt@leg.wa.gov,

jessica.bateman@leg.wa.gov, frank.chopp@leg.wa.gov,

debra.entenman@leg.wa.gov, julia.reed@leg.wa.gov,

mark.klicker@leg.wa.gov, april.connors@leg.wa.gov,

andrew.barkis@leg.wa.gov, spencer.hutchins@leg.wa.gov, sam.low@leg.wa.gov

Jan 15 – Public hearing in the House Committee on Housing at 1:30 PM. (Committee Materials)

Jan 18 – Executive session scheduled, but no action was taken in the House Committee on Housing at 8:00 AM. (Committee Materials)

—

HB 2160 – Promoting community and transit-oriented housing development.

Sponsors: Reed, Fey, Mena, Alvarado, Berry, Bateman, Ormsby, Ramel, Macri, Street, Peterson, Gregerson, Ryu, Cortes, Riccelli, Doglio, Pollet

Capital Budget Committee – Tharinger,Callan, Hackney, Abbarno, McClintock, Steele, Alvardo, Bateman, Cheney, Christian, Dye, Eslick, Farivar,Fosse, Kloba< Kretz, Leavitt, Maycumber, McIntire, Morgan, Mosebrucker, Orwell, Peerson, Reed, Rule, Sandlin, Shavers, Srearns, Waters

Thursday Jan 25 – Scheduled for public hearing in the House Committee on Capital Budget at 1:30 PM (Subject to change). (Committee Materials)

Recommended Comments – HB 2160 as currently written needs amendments to both make sure transit is accessible for pedestrians and that transit areas are not clearcut of trees and become new heat islands in our cities. Trees are important for public health and livable communities. Transit areas must be safe to walk for people to reach public transit.

Require sidewalks and walkways in station areas to make transit accessible so that people are not walking in the street and competing with car traffic. Many areas in our cities have no sidewalks.
Require street trees be planted to not create new heat islands in our cities. Help make our cities more climate resilient.
Allow increased height on buildings if trees are retained on building lots.
Require that trees removed be replaced on site with comparable sized trees at maturity or in other parts of a city with low tree canopy to increase environmental equity and climate resilience. Require fee in lieu payments for removed trees like Seattle and Portland Oregon do for replanting off site trees to pay for replacement costs and watering and maintenance to establish the trees.
Urge use of impact fees for sidewalks and pocket parks
Require adequate infrastructure for utilities like water and sewer before building projects are approved
Please amend HB 2160 and then vote yes to allow more housing near transit and to connect communities.

Additional bills being watched:

HB 1245 – Increasing housing options through lot splitting.

Sponsors: Barkis, Robertson, Wylie, Fitzgibbon, Peterson, Walsh, Chambers, Kloba, Gregerson, Graham, Waters, Reed, Walen, Christian, Riccelli, Macri, Bateman, Doglio

Jan 8 By resolution, reintroduced and retained in present status.

Rules Committee relieved of further consideration. Placed on third reading.

Rules suspended. Placed on Third Reading.

Third reading, passed; yeas, 94; nays, 4; absent, 0; excused, 0. (View Roll Calls)

IN THE SENATE

Jan 10 – First reading, referred to Local Government, Land Use & Tribal Affairs.

Companion Bill: SB 5364 -Increasing housing options through lot splitting.

Sponsors: Frame, Gildon, Liias, Nguyen, Saldaña, Shewmake, Torres, Van De Wege, Wilson, C.

HB 2071 Concerning residential housing regulations.

Sponsors: Duerr, Bateman, Fitzgibbon, Berry, Reed, Ormsby, Ramel, Pollet, Kloba

Jan 8 First reading, referred to Housing. (View Original Bill)

Jan 15 Public hearing in the House Committee on Housing at 1:30 PM. (Committee Materials)

Jan 18 Executive action taken in the House Committee on Housing at 8:00 AM. (Committee Materials)

Majority; 1st substitute bill be substituted, do pass. (View 1st Substitute) (Majority Report)

SB 6024 – Promoting community and transit-oriented housing development.

Sponsors: Trudeau, Saldaña, Frame, Kuderer, Lovelett, Lovick, Nguyen, Nobles, Valdez, Wilson, C.

Companion Bill: HB 2160

Jan 8 – First reading, referred to Local Government, Land Use & Tribal Affairs. (View Original Bill)

Jan 11 – Public hearing in the Senate Committee on Local Government, Land Use & Tribal Affairs at 10:30 AM. (Committee Materials)

SB 6061 – Concerning exemptions for housing development under the state environmental policy act.

Sponsors: Lovelett, Salomon

Jan 9 – First reading, referred to Local Government, Land Use & Tribal Affairs. (View Original Bill)

Jan 16 – Public hearing in the Senate Committee on Local Government, Land Use & Tribal Affairs at 8:00 AM. (Committee Materials)

HB 1735 – Adding net ecological gain as a voluntary element of comprehensive plans under the growth management act.

Sponsors: Lekanoff, Fitzgibbon, Ramel, Pollet, Macri

Jan 8 – By resolution, reintroduced and retained in present status.

HB 1347 – Integrating community-based health assessments into foundational environmental policies to improve environmental justice.

Sponsors: Pollet, Lekanoff, Berry, Ramel, Kloba, Slatter, Ryu, Taylor, Doglio

Jan 8 – By resolution, reintroduced and retained in present status.

HB 1381 – Concerning salmon-safe communities.

Sponsors: Dye, Lekanoff, Pollet

Jan 8 – By resolution, reintroduced and retained in present status.

Rules Committee relieved of further consideration.

Referred to Environment & Energy.

HB 1517 – Promoting transit-oriented development.

Sponsors: Reed, Taylor, Ramel, Berg, Peterson, Stonier, Walen, Wylie, Simmons, Fitzgibbon, Chapman, Berry, Slatter, Mena, Barkis, Rule, Duerr, Gregerson, Chambers, Bateman, Cortes, Doglio, Pollet, Low, Fosse, Tharinger

Jan 8 – By resolution, reintroduced and retained in present status.

Links to 3 polls done by the Northwest Progressive Institute on Seattle Trees

Posted on by

Below are links to 3 polls done by the Northwest Progressive Institute showing strong support for protecting Seattle’s trees and urban forests.

1. https://www.nwprogressive.org/weblog/2021/09/seattle-voters-overwhelmingly-favor-policies-to-protect-and-expand-the-citys-tree-canopy.html

Seattle voters overwhelmingly favor policies to protect and expand the city’s tree canopy – NPI’s Cascadia Advocate
In July of 2021, we teamed up with TreePAC to investigate support for a a range of sensible ideas for creating policy tools to protect trees. Majorities of over 75% and 80% endorsed every single one of our ideas.
www.nwprogressive.org

2. https://www.nwprogressive.org/weblog/2021/12/second-set-of-seattle-tree-protection-poll-findings-affirms-voters-value-urban-forests.html

Second set of Seattle tree protection poll findings affirms voters value urban forests – NPI’s Cascadia Advocate
Respondents to NPI’s October 2021 general election survey of the Seattle electorate are in strong agreement that the city should update its tree ordinance to strengthen tree protection policies, with more than seven in ten voters backing a majority of ideas tested.

3. https://www.nwprogressive.org/weblog/2023/03/two-thirds-of-seattle-voters-concerned-about-tree-loss-with-housing-density-increasing.html

Two-thirds of Seattle voters concerned about tree loss with housing density increasing – NPI’s Cascadia Advocate
68% of 651 likely February 2023 special election voters interviewed from January 26th-30th for NPI by Change Research said they were concerned about tree and canopy loss, while 30% said they were not. Only 1% were not sure.
www.nwprogressive.org

Are We Really Protecting Trees With This New Tree Ordinance?

Posted on by

ARE WE REALLY PROTECTING OUR EXISTING TREES WITH THIS NEW TREE ORDINANCE?

The passage by the Seattle City Council of CB 120534 on May 24, 2023 culminates a 14-year effort to update Seattle’s Tree Protection Ordinance. While there are many good provisions in the new ordinance, it has evolved with the assistance of the Master Builder of King and Snohomish County with a focus on tree removal and replacement over increased protection of Seattle’s trees on private property as Seattle builds more housing.

Missing from CB 120534 is any sincere effort to maximize the retention of our existing trees during development, especially large mature trees. While the ordinance greatly reduces the removal of trees outside of development; besides saving a few heritage trees, it allows developers to continue their clear cutting of lots to maximize their building potential and profits.

Without increased efforts to maximize the retention of existing trees across the city during development, all areas will see a significant decrease in tree canopy, increased adverse health impacts, a decrease in climate resiliency and increased heat island impacts. Areas currently with low canopy and environmental inequity will only get worse as they will also lose trees during development.

The Council bill now guarantees developers an 85% guaranteed lot development area in Low Rise zones and 100% in Mid Rise, Seattle Mixed and Commercial Zones. This will leave no space for trees in most cases. It will result in significant new tree loss. For example, the 2021 Seattle Canopy Study noted that the Seattle Mixed Zone currently has a 12% canopy cover.

People need trees where they live for healthy communities and healthy houses. The new ordinance prioritizes a policy that will create housing without requiring trees. Living close to trees dramatically improves our health. Lower rates of asthma, cardiovascular disease and cancer, improved pregnancy outcomes, better mental/emotional health and improved cognitive function are all correlated with living near trees.

While replacement trees during development can be planted on site if there is space, most will be planted off site in public areas like parks and along streets through paying the city an in-lieu fee. Few trees if any will be retained in multifamily zones. New trees will need decades to provide the benefits our existing trees provide now.

There is no requirement for developers in Seattle to have a tree retention and planting area like Portland, Oregon passed last year. They did this after complying with Oregon’s legislation in 2020 that said Portland had to allow 4-plexes in single family zones. Portland provides an option to save a 20% tree retention and planting area in multifamily zones and 40% in their family residential zone. New trees are expensive to plant and maintain for 5 years. The Seattle Parks Dept. says it would need to spend $4000 to plant, maintain and water a replacement tree for 5 years. Replacement trees also have low survival rates—our existing trees are already established.

Large trees shading housing and the immediate area can be the difference between life and death during heat waves, but this ordinance promotes the removal of trees near homes being built. Summer heat events are coming more frequent and are expected to increase with climate change. According to The New York Times, some 600 people died during the Northwest’s 2021 heat dome event.

Areas with large trees can lower temperatures 10 degrees or more as shown by numerous studies. Seattle did not investigate the impacts of tree loss on lots guaranteed 100% development areas in their 2022 DNS and 2023 Addendum. They did not consider the potential impacts of the state passing legislation like HB 1110 even though “middle housing” legislation came close to passing the previous year and was introduced in this year’s legislative session. HB 1110’s passage requires middle housing of 4-plexes and up to 6-plexes near frequent transit across Seattle including in the Neighborhood Residential zone.

Current development practices result in significant tree loss, which will worsen as new housing is built without space for trees on lots. Seattle’s 2021 canopy study showed a 50% decline in tree canopy on multifamily lots that were developed. Multifamily zones currently only have a 23% canopy cover. Washington state’s new middle housing bill, HB 1110, will expand multifamily housing throughout the city. Seattle has a 30% canopy goal by 2037 but has never produced a plan on how to reach that goal.

Most middle housing currently being built in Seattle (mostly townhouses) already exceeds the 85% low rise guaranteed development area and has at most a few small trees in the street planting area. Seattle’s 2021 canopy study showed a 50% decline in tree canopy on multifamily lots that were developed. Washington state’s new middle housing bill, HB 1110, will expand multifamily housing throughout Seattle.

New housing CAN be built WITH trees: Many of Seattle’s trees grow on the edges of lots that tear down existing housing and should not be an obstacle to development. Other trees on the lot can be worked around in many cases by repositioning new buildings.

Last year, developers in the Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish County Hearing Examiner appeal of Mayor Harrell’s 2022 draft ordinance presented no evidence that building added significantly to the cost of housing. This was the conclusion of the Hearing Examiner in the 2022 Master Builders of King and Snohomish Counties’ legal action after three days of testimony and considering the evidence, the Hearing Examiner concluded that the “Appellants’ arguments that the Proposal will increase the costs of development and will have negative impacts on the City housing supply were based on speculation, not any actual quantitative analysis that was introduced into evidence.”

Frontline communities, including South Seattle, will bear the brunt of a tree ordinance which misses the mark. Frontline communities already have low tree canopy and has lost more trees, faster, than other parts of Seattle. While the new ordinance focuses tree re-planting on these communities, which is a good start, it will also promote inequitable and unsustainable building practices by allowing the removal of the few large trees left in these areas.

Polls show that two-thirds of Seattle voters are concerned about tree loss as housing density increases and believe that Seattle needs to BOTH build new housing and do a better job of protecting its existing trees.

Seattle can do better and that is why more work is needed to address tree loss by maintaining more existing trees where people live as Seattle increases its housing supply. The city needs to seriously consider adding provisions to the tree ordinance like “maximizing the retention of existing trees” and “requiring a Tree Inventory (Arborists Report) and Tree Plan up front before building permits are issued” like Portland Oregon does.

We appreciate that the city has a goal to collect more data to make better decisions as asked for by Mayor Harrell to help it respond to the impacts of tree loss, climate change and increased housing over time. Requiring developers to file tree retention, tree loss and tree replacement information online prior to a building permit being issued as Portland does is critical to obtaining accurate information. Permits to remove trees as many other cities require will also help. We need a stronger Tree Protection Ordinance that also increases retention of existing trees, not one that mainly emphasizes tree removal and then replacement on public lands during development. Trees where people live are vital for healthy communities and healthy living.

For more information contact SteveZemke@TreePAC.org

Local Tree News, July 2, 2023

Posted on by

Volunteer in a local park this week – Shoreline Area News, July 1

The long road to access at Willamette Falls – High Country News, June 29

Edmonds mayoral candidates lay out priorities – Edmonds Beacon, June 29

The Tree of Life Is Falling Down – Seattle Met, June 28

Edmonds Planning Board agenda for June 28 includes work session with tree board – MyEdmonds News, June 26

Local activists call for forest protection – MyEdmonds News, June 26

PNW primed for wildfire as officials prepare for likely active season – SeaTimes, June 26

OPINION | Seattle’s Tree Ordinance Is an Affront to Climate Justice – South Seattle Emerald, June 24

Watch the Video: Frozen Frontiers – Nature Conservancy, June 22

Habitat on Lasqueti Island (BC) protected with conservation covenant: Islands Trust – The Province, June 20

Saving lives from extreme heat: Lessons from the deadly 2021 Pacific Northwest heat wave – SeaPI, June 20

Stormwater Heatmap Milestone: Impervious Surfaces at one square meter resolution – Nature Conservancy WA, June 15

Reader view: Saving trees on Dayton Street – MyEdmonds News, June 15

LFP Public Hearing on tree canopy preservation and enhancement – Shoreline Area News, June 14

Methow conservation group buys 1,200 acres above Winthrop – SeaTimes, June 16

Follow up to trees cut down near RB Saltwater Park – Shoreline Area News, June 9

Land Commissioner Hilary Franz: Where there is heat – there is death – Shoreline Area News, June 8

Large trees at entrance to RB Saltwater Park cut down – Shoreline Area News, June 8

King County invites comment on Comprehensive Plan updates – Queen Anne & Magnolia News, June 8

Chris Eck seeks Edmonds City Council Position 1 – Edmonds Beacon, May 25

Seattle Updates Tree Protection Ordinance after 14 Years!

Posted on by

What Happened and What’s Next?

Dear Tree Protection Advocates,

Thank you for your continued support of our efforts to increase the retention and protection of Seattle’s trees and urban forest. With your help we have made major progress but still have work to do.

Last year we successfully partnered with Seattle to help advance the draft Seattle Tree Ordinance, with the Hearing Examiner ruling against the Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties (MBAKS) attempt to stop it. The Hearing Examiner ruled that “Appellants’ arguments that the Proposal will increase the costs of development and will have negative impacts on the City housing supply were based on speculation, not any actual quantitative analysis that was introduced into evidence.”

This year, the Seattle City Council, after 14 years of inaction, has finally passed an updated Tree Protection Ordinance (CB 120534} The Council bill is 64 pages long and is complicated. It is not a perfect bill. While it increases protection for trees outside of development and during development, it adds loopholes that also decrease protection for trees during development. The bill was passed by the Council last month and recently signed by Mayor Harrell.

After the Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish County (MBAKS) lost their Hearing Examiner Appeal against the City last year, they worked behind the scenes in the Mayor’s Office and with the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections (SDCI) to rewrite the draft legislation to increase their ability to clearcut lots. Once the draft Ordinance was sent to the Seattle City Council, they worked with the Seattle City Council Land Use Committee behind the scenes to add amendments for more ability to override city oversight on retaining existing trees during development.

Despite this, we still got passed a number of strengthening provisions, including requiring developers to replace all 12 inch and larger diameter trees, either on site or pay an in-lieu fee to the city to replant the trees in areas with low canopy, lowering the threshold for protected exceptional trees from 30 inches diameter to 24  Inches,  requiring tree services providers to register with the city, and reducing the number and size of significant trees that can be cut down outside of development.

We scored a victory in finally getting the Mayor and City Council to support and act to update the Tree Protection Ordinance.  We, however, need to continue our efforts for stronger tree protection for existing trees during development because people need trees where they live for healthy communities.

We need to continue to advocate for clarifying amendments this summer, which Land Use Chair Dan Strauss publicly said he would consider. We are working now to put together a list of possible clarifications and amendments. Community organizations, including Tree PAC, stressed more time was needed to evaluate the impact of some 48 amendments, that were presented to the public and the Land Use Committee only 48 hours (2 days) before they voted!  It was obvious that not all Council members or the public had sufficient time to evaluate the 114 pages of proposed amendments. Passing the proposed ordinance does implement a number of issues we have long fought for. Our work, however, is not done.

In addition, we are working on:

Monitoring and preparing to respond to the proposed draft Environmental Impact Statement to be released this summer on the upcoming 2025 Comprehensive Plan that includes urban forestry issues and increased multifamily housing across the city required by HB 1110 passed by the Washington State Legislature earlier this year.

Sending questionnaires to this year’s Council candidates on their urban forestry positions and supporting candidates that support increased tree retention and protections during development.

Ensuring the Seattle City Council and Mayor Harrell add the 4 staff positions in the upcoming budget for urban forestry as proposed.

Ensuring other urban forestry funding is increased as proposed.

Creating a One Seattle Tree Fund to accept in lieu fees and use them to replant trees in parks and street right of ways.

Urging City to fill Urban Forester position approved in last’s year budget.

Please help with a donation today so we can continue our work.

                                                  Donate now!

Thanks for your support.

Steve Zemke – Chair – TreePAC.org

See additional information here:

  1. “Are we really protecting our existing trees with this ordinance, Friends of Seattle’s Urban Forest, June 2023
  2. “Seattle City Council passed tree ordinance after years of debate,”  Amanda Zhou, Seattle Times, May 24. 2023
  3. “Ordinance aimed at protecting thousands of Seattle’s trees is approved by Council,” Michelle Esteban, KOMO News Reporter, May 23, 2023
  4. “Seattle City Council passes new tree ordinance,”  Hannah Weinberger, Crosscut, May 23, 2023
  5. “Seattle’s proposed tree ordinance is the legislative  equivalent of a chain saw,” Seattle Times editorial board, Seattle Times, May 19, 2023

Local Tree News – May 29, 2023

Posted on by

How wildfire risk is being managed in one WA forest – May 27, SeaTimes

City of Lynnwood releases results of Urban Forest Health Assessment – Lynnwood Today, May 27

Explore newly mapped trails in Seattle’s largest contiguous forest – May 26, SeaTimes

WEST SEATTLE PARKS: New ‘Tree Walk’ in Fauntleroy – West Seattle Blog, May 25

Tree Talk at Senior Center of West Seattle – West Seattle Blog, May 25

Seattle passes new tree ordinance amid calls to tweak legislation – KNKX, May 23

Seattle tree protection ordinance, years in the making, is up for a vote – SeaTimes, May 23

Seattle City Council passes tree ordinance after years of debate – SeaTimes, May 23

Seattle City Council passes new tree ordinance – May 23, Crosscut

Seattle speaks for its trees with overgrown set of new protections – Capitol Hill Blog, May 23

Applications invited for Edmonds Tree Board opening – MyEdmonds News May 22

Seattle’s proposed tree ordinance is the legislative equivalent of a chain saw – SeaTimes, May 19

Can Seattle balance its need for housing with its need for trees? – May 19, KNKX

‘Tree retention evaluation’ — City sorting out how to keep Cal Anderson’s maple trees and fix the sidewalk around the park – Capitol Hill Blog, May 17

Washington slates $50M for trees to shade salmon streams – May 16, Crosscut

Lake Forest Park neighbors denounce bus-lane plan that removes trees – SeaTimes, May 15

Reminder: Second community conversation about tree code updates scheduled May 15 – MyEdmonds News, May 13

Guest editorial: City should reconsider Discovery Park plan – May 11, Queen Anne News

City receives $29,500 grant to plant 100 street trees – MLT News, May 11

Keep funding projects that protect our state’s forests – Kitsap Sun, May 9

Bainbridge’s lip service to climate always yields to growth – Kitsap Sun, May 9

City Council considering more than 50 amendments to Seattle’s tree protections – Capitol Hill Blog, May 4

Living with Trees – Real Change News, May 3 (go Martha Baskin!)

Kubota Garden is a South Seattle gem. Keeping it free is a challenge – SeaTimes, May 2

Every Tree Helps – The Nature Conservancy and Tacoma’s GRIT, May 2

Sherwood state forest: Environmental impact – SeaTimes, April 28

Why must a small Mason County forest be harvested? – Kitsap Sun, April 28

WA budgets $2B to cut greenhouse gas emissions; here’s where money will go – SeaTimes April 27

Climate Action Shoreline: Act Now – Shoreline Area News, April 26

A ‘150-acre wonderland of forest and flowers’ awaits on Bainbridge Island – HeraldNet, April 26

Tell your Seattle City Council to pass strong tree protections – SeaTimes, April 25

Seattle can’t protect its urban forest without a census of its largest trees – SeaTimes, April 20

Careful tree thinning – April 19, Queen Anne News

5 types of all-season crabapples that thrive in the Pacific Northwest – SeaTimes, April 15

A trek into Spring in the mountains of eastern Washington – April 14, KNKX

WA, Seattle launch campaign to plant thousands of urban trees – SeaTimes, April 14

Washington launches new statewide tree-equity collaboration – April 13, Crosscut

Second annual Cherry Blossom Festival a blooming success – DailyUW, April 12

You might be responsible for a Seattle street tree and not know it – April 12, Crosscut

Podcast | Who owns the trees outside your window? – April 12, Crosscut

Forest Service wins Stillaguamish logging suit over conservation group – HeraldNet, April 12

Join the LFP tree board to plant a tree in Horizon View Park Saturday – Shoreline Area News, April 11

MEET JUSTIN URRESTI: TNC WASHINGTON’S WESTERN FORESTER – April 11, TNC

Design review: Tree preservation, parking, and new housing — A 13th Ave project with something for everyone on Capitol Hill – April 10, Capitol Hill Blog

Comment: Mature forests do more for climate, wildlife, water – HeraldNet, April 8

UW cherry blossoms reach peak bloom – SeaTimes, April 6

County zoning plans will destroy rural life in Kitsap – Kitsap Sun, April 4

Balancing the health of its ‘urban forest’ with ‘a critical need for more housing,’ Seattle shaping new tree protections – Capitol Hill Blog, March 30

Updated Comments on Tree Ordinance Amendments proposed to be voted on by the Land Use Committee on Thursday

Posted on by

E-mail sent to all Seattle City Council Members:

Dear Councilmember Dan Strauss,
Concerns regarding amendments are based on Wednesday, April 26 amendment sheet, which is the latest the public has seen.
We have not seen any updates on amendments on the Land Use Committee Agenda sent out today, May 1 for the two scheduled meetings on May 4th, so these comments are based on last week’s update.  Only 2 of the 9 sections had revisions last Wednesday and actual amendment language was still not available in most cases.
A2 – Why allow for 100% lot coverage in MR, commercial and SM zones? Do we want zero tree zones and more heat islands? This was not discussed in the 2023 DNS or 2023 Addendum. The 2021 canopy study says the multifamily zones haves a 23% canopy cover, the commercial/mixed use has a 12% canopy cover. Why put in things that guarantee tree removal. Other cities are struggling to add trees.
A4 – A guaranteed 85% lot coverage needs to be removed. The 2023 Addendum to the 2022 DNS did not take into account the impacts of HB 1110 and other state legislation that makes the ability to retain trees much more difficult. The Hearing Examiner last stated that the balance of keeping trees and increasing housing were both goals in the Comprehensive Plan and that last year’s draft balanced these goals. Now new provisions are being added that will remove more trees. Existing trees are the survivors.  Replacing them is costly and removing their current benefits in an increasing climate crisis.
A4, A-5, and A6 – A guaranteed 85% lot development area needs to be removed. Keep the flexibility using FAR as the current ordinance language provides to let tree retention, protection and planting be decided lot by lot depending on what trees are on the lot and moving building placement if possible.. Exceptions can be made for greater building lot coverage if conditions permit but there is no flexibility for trees with an 85% guarantee for development area.   Existing townhouses less than 15 feet wide have been built in Seattle. Retain flexibility in design and lot placement on site development
A-7 Support creation of Tree Preservation and Planting Areas of 20% for multifamily areas and 40% for Neighborhood Residential areas like Portland, Oregon has done. With state legislation requiring allowing 4 plexes and 6 plexes across most of Seattle having passed the State Legislature with HB 1110,  Seattle will never reach 30% tree canopy but will shift to 23% or less currently in the MR zone. We need trees where people live, in their neighborhoods, for a livable city.
B-7 Allow the in-lieu fee fund to be the One Seattle Tree Fund proposed by Mayor Harrell. Allow it to both preserve and plant trees like Portland, Oregon does. Add to tree replacement, that funds can also be used to protect existing trees, including tree groves,  by use of covenants and land purchases and donated land to create neighborhood dedicated tree parks and protected tree areas.
B-10 Expand the possible options to be explored to include creating a Climate and Environment Dept that has an Urban Forestry Division. The goal shall be to give Green Infrastructure protection and enhancement as an important focus on livability in the future of our city. We are facing an impending climate crisis and need to think of new ways to address the future by thinking boldly.
C-2 – Rather than “request SDCI modify its practices to consider trees at the beginning of the tree permit process” require that they do by requiring a tree inventory and a tree (landscaping plan) plan be submitted with a request for a development permit. Other cities like Portland, Oregon do this. Mayor Harrell has said we need data to make good decisions, and this is one way to get data. Require that developers maximize the retention of all 6″ DSH trees and larger (not just 12″ DSH and larger) throughout the entire development process. Six inch DSH trees are established trees, survivors, that have a head start on growing larger and do not need $4000 or more spent to plant and maintain for 5 years.
D-7 As written, there are 2 problems here.  This provision could apply to vacant lots which were to have no trees removed unless hazardous, and if a developed lot, why allow removal of more trees just because a lot has 40% trees.  This was not discussed in the DNS or addendum and states no compelling reason to allow this loophole to remove more trees.
E-4 would require a lot of replacement trees. Certainly 1:1 (which may become equivalency in the distant future) is not an answer. The UFC recommended 2 for 1 for trees 12-24″DSH , 3 for 1 for 24-36″ DSH and 4 for1 for trees over 36″ DSH Mercer Island has 1 for < 10 ” DSH, 2 for 1 for 10″ -24″ DSH ,3 for 1 for 24″-36″ DSH , and 6 for 1 for over 36″ DSH and exceptional trees.
E-5 and E-10 address the same issue and should be combined.
F-3 – Should include two violations in a year for any illegal tree cutting rules, eg two violations of removing a Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3 trees or more than two Tier 4 trees in 3 years.  Minor violations, like paperwork or address violations should have fines but not push a company out of the city. Let fines increase with multiple minor violations if necessary for corrective action by a company.
F-4 – Several reasons to keep 15% or greater canopy area and branches 2 ” diameter as reportable work – It is consistent with SDOT procedures, allows collection of data of canopy removal (both canopy area and canopy volume loss), and allows SDCI and public ability to check on tree trimming work. Likely outcome of change will be much less tree trimming work will be reported as reportable work.
G-6 – Change “require consideration” to “require” Tree Protection Areas must be set up for all Tier 1 – Tier 4 trees on neighboring property whose root zones are also on the lot where the development is occurring. This includes both public and private trees.
H-4 – Opening up options to remove Heritage Trees besides being hazardous reduces them to Tier 2 trees -Exceptional Trees.
Keep Heritage Trees non-removable unless they are a hazard tree. There are not that many of them and most are said to be street trees.
I-4 As proposed by Urban Forestry Commission, amend the Tier System to include the currently used nomenclature to make it easier for the public to understand. eg Tier 1 – Heritage Trees,, Tier 2- Exceptional Trees, Tier 3 – Significant Trees 12-24″ DSH and Tier 4 Trees – Significant Trees 6-12″ DSH. We are aware of no other city that has a Tier System which creates confusion and de-emphasizes the value of the trees to the public.
Steve Zemke