Author Archives: steve zemke

Help Needed to Save Trees!

Posted on by

Help Save Seattle Trees During Development! 

Comments needed on 2024 SDCI Omnibus Ordinance –

Seattle City Council Bill 120823   

The SDCI 2024 “Omnibus bill” is coming up for a public hearing on Wed. Sept 4, 2024, at 2 PM in the Seattle City Council Land Use Committee.  You can give public comments by registering online 2 hours before the meeting, attend the City Council in person and/or send an e-mail to Council@Seattle.gov

There are several areas where conflicting statements exist in the omnibus bill that need to be corrected relating to SMC 25.11 Tree Protection Ordinance. 

  Remove all language stating that “the basic tree protection area cannot be modified”.

The most glaring error has to do with having 2 definitions of what a tree protection area is.

  • The SDCI 2024 omnibus bill needs to be corrected to remove all language or references that state “The basic tree protection area cannot be modified” including in Section 25.11.070.

The first definition in SMC 25.11.130 of the “tree protection area” is one used by the International Society of Arboriculture as well as the Northwest Society of Arboriculture. It is one that is flexible and designed to help save trees when possible. Its use and implementation are outlined in SMC 25.11.060 – Requirements for trees when development is proposed. 

In SMC 25.11.130 definitions, the “tree protection area” is defined as “means the area surrounding a tree defined by a specific distance, in which excavations and other construction-related activities must be avoided unless approved by the Director. The tree protection area is variable depending on species, age and health of the tree, soil conditions, and proposed construction.”

The Master Builders via their attorneys,  Helsell Fetterman, wrote in their May 23rd, 2023 letter to the Seattle City Council” urging a second definition – “basic tree protection area” using the radius of the tree protection area as 1 inch diameter of the tree equaling 1 foot of the radius area.” In a separate comment they recommended that “The basic tree protection area cannot be modified” which was incorporated in SMC 25.11.070 – Tree Protection on sites undergoing development in Neighborhood Residential, Lowrise, Midrise, Commercial, and Seattle Mixed Zones.  

The full impact of that statement that “The basic tree protection area cannot be modified” is in contradiction to the Tree Protection Ordinance’s goal to protect as many trees as possible and SMC 25.11.060 which says the tree protection area can be reduced by the Director to save trees. The goal of the Master Builders was to allow developers to decide whether to remove Tier 2 trees rather than the city.

The problem is the language “The basic tree area cannot be modified.”  turns the decision over to the developers as to whether to save Tier 2 trees on developing sites. Modifying the tree protection area as outlined in detail in SMC 25.11.060 would save more Tier 2 trees.  Why is the city not acting in the public interest to save more large trees during development when it is possible by following the recommendations of how to create workable tree protection areas by the International and Pacific NW Society of Arboriculture rather than turning tree removal over to developers to decide?

SDCI actually agrees more trees could be saved when they state in in TIP 242A Seattle permits – Tree Requirements Associated with Development, dated July 8, 2024  that: 

“A Tier 2 tree may be removed if necessary for the construction of new structures, vehicle and pedestrian access, utilities, retaining walls, or other similar improvements associated with development. Tree removal under this scenario will not be authorized if there are viable alternatives to proposed development that would allow retention of the tree including adequate protection of the tree during construction according to SMC 25.11.060.”

In the same tip in their Dec 18, 2023 version they stated:

“The basic tree protection area, delineated using the “trunk diameter method” to determine if Tier 2 tree removal is allowed, is likely larger than necessary to protect most trees during development and is not required during construction.” 

 “The area of the outer half of the tree protection area may be reduced up to 35%”

 “Remember that the actual tree protection needed to protect the tree during development is always smaller than the basic tree protection area, leaving more room to fit your design on site.”

Remove 25.11.020 Exemption D in its entirety

  • 25.11.020 Exemptions: D. ((Trees located in an Environmentally Critical Area)) Tree removal as part of an Environmentally Critical Area tree and vegetation plan as provided in 25.09.070 except that tree service providers conducting work on these trees must comply with the tree service provider registry requirements of Section 25.11.100. 

This language “Trees located in Environmentally Critical Areas” was not in the previous ordinance (before the 2023 version) but is in the current version. It creates a whole new exemption to the ordinance. It emerged in one of the draft 2023 versions without public input and needs to be removed which is what the omnibus bill does. The whole Section D exemption should be removed. Why should removing and planting trees as part of a tree and vegetation plan be exempt from SMC 25.11?

Support following amendment in “SDCI Omnibus bill”:

  • 25.11.060A.4.b the tree protection area shall not be reduced more than 35% of the outer half of the tree protection radius unless an alternative tree protection area or construction method will provide equal or greater tree protection and result in long-term retention and viability of the tree as determined by a certified arborist.

Remove the following amendment in the “SDCI Omnibus bill”:

  • Footnote 1 in Table A for 25.11.050 In all other zones, all trees may be removed when development is proposed.

This is not a minor amendment but covers many other zones not mentioned in the Tree Protection Ordinance, including the Industrial Zone which has an exceptionally low tree canopy. There has been no analysis of the impact of this statement and the exclusion of trees in all other city zones from the requirements of the Tree Protection Ordinance. The fact that the other zones are not mentioned in SMC 25.11 means there is no requirement for tree replacement or in-lieu payments or requiring tree service providers removing trees in these zones being registered with the city.

The following statement in Table A for 25.11.050 Tier 2 trees during development – part of a permit needs to be amended to add SMC 25.11.060:

  • “Approval for removal is part of overall development permit consistent with Sections 11.060, 25.11.070, or 25.11.080”

Add “trees” to applications for lot boundary adjustments

  • SMC 23.28.020 – Application for approval of lot boundary adjustment
  1. A plot plan as appropriate showing the location and dimension of existing structures and trees in relation to the proposed lot boundary adjustment.

 

Steve Zemke

stevezemke@TreePAC.org

2024 Election endorsements by TreePAC

Posted on by

TreePAC makes first 2024 endorsements

Bob Ferguson for Washington State Governor  Bob Ferguson for Governor

 Tanya Woo – Seattle City Council – Position 8 Tanya Woo    TreePAC previously endorsed her to fill seat this year. This vote is for the remainder of term – one additional year. U. Tanya Woo endorsed by Seattle Times 

  No on 2117 (on Nov. Ballot) Vote is to support and join No on 2117 Campaign which has over 200 endorsements and is to join with other climate activists. No on 2117

 Gerry Pollet for 46th LD State Representative. Representative Pollet has been a strong tree and environmental advocate in Olympia  Gerry Pollet   Seattle Times endorses Gerry Pollet

 

Comments on draft 2045 Seattle Comprehensive Plan Climate and Environment Section

Posted on by

The following comments to Seattle’s draft 2045 Comprehensive Plan are in regards to legislation passed last year by the Washington State Legislature on Comprehensive Plan requirements.

  1. In the Climate and Environment Section, p 149, of the draft One Seattle Comprehensive Plan,  the heading Tree Canopy, should be changed to Urban Forest and Tree Canopy. 
  2. Discussion – Seattle’s urban forest and tree canopy is fundamental… add “climate resiliency”

Rationale for adding urban forest is legislative amendments noted in text below. Highlighting is by Tree PAC for pointing out specific sections. Underlined areas are new to the State Growth Management Act.

The Washington State Legislature in 2023 passed E2SHB 1181 – AN ACT Relating to improving the state’s climate response through updates to the state’s planning framework.

Section 1.(14) Climate change and resiliency. Ensure that comprehensive  plans, development regulations, and regional policies, plans, and  strategies under RCW 36.70A.210 and chapter 47.80 RCW adapt to and mitigate the effects of a changing climate; support reductions in  greenhouse gas emissions and per capita vehicle miles traveled; prepare for climate impact scenarios; foster resiliency to climate  impacts and natural hazards; protect and enhance environmental,  economic, and human health and safety; and advance environmental  justice. …

Section 3.(3) The comprehensive plan of a county or city that is required or chooses to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 shall consist of a map or maps,  and descriptive text covering objectives, principles, and standards used to develop the comprehensive plan. The plan shall be an internally consistent document and all elements shall be consistent with the future land use map. A comprehensive plan shall be adopted and amended with public participation as provided in RCW 36.70A.140. Each comprehensive plan shall include a plan, scheme, or design for each of the following: (1) A land use element designating the proposed general  distribution and general location and extent of the uses of land, where appropriate, for agriculture, timber production, housing,  commerce, industry, recreation, open spaces and green spaces, urban and community forests within the urban growth area, general aviation  airports, public utilities, public facilities, and other land uses.  The land use element shall include population densities, building intensities, and estimates of future population growth. The land use element shall provide for protection of the quality and quantity of groundwater used for public water supplies. The land use element must give special consideration to achieving environmental justice in its goals and policies, including efforts to avoid creating or worsening environmental health disparities. Wherever possible, the land use element should consider utilizing urban planning approaches that promote physical activity and reduce per capita vehicle miles traveled within the jurisdiction, but without increasing greenhouse gas emissions elsewhere in the state. Where applicable, the land use element shall review drainage, flooding, and stormwater runoff in the area and nearby jurisdictions and provide guidance for corrective actions to mitigate or cleanse those discharges that pollute waters of the state, including Puget Sound or waters entering Puget Sound. The land use element must reduce and mitigate the risk to lives and property posed by wildfires by using land use planning tools, which may include, but are not limited to, adoption of portions or all of the wildland urban interface code developed by the international code  council or developing building and maintenance standards consistent with the firewise USA program or similar program designed to reduce  wildfire risk, reducing wildfire risks to residential development in high risk areas and the wildland urban interface area, separating human development from wildfire prone landscapes, and protecting  existing residential development and infrastructure through community wildfire preparedness and fire adaptation measures.

2nd change – In the Land Use Element General Development Standards:

Policies LU 4.8 Use following phrasing:

Use urban forest and  tree requirements to preserve and enhance the City’s physical, aesthetic and cultural character and to enhance the value of the trees and urban forest in addressing stormwater management, pollution reduction, climate resiliency and heat island mitigation.

Suggested comments on EIS and One Seattle Comprehensive Plan drafts

Posted on by

Monday, May 6th at 5 PM is the Deadline to Submit Comments on the EIS and One Seattle Comprehensive Plan drafts

Under the State’s Growth Management Act, cities and counties have to update their 20-year Comprehensive Plans for growth every 10 years. Seattle is in the process of updating its 2045 Plan now. The 2045 draft One Seattle Comprehensive Plan and draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)were released in March. See all documents related to the One Seattle Comprehensive Plan here.

The deadline to submit public comments on these plans is this Monday May 6th at 5 PM.

E-mails are needed to the city urging a higher priority to saving Seattle’s existing trees and canopy which are providing climate resiliency and health benefits now rather than allowing developers carte balance to clearcut lots and pay a fee for the city to plant trees elsewhere that decades later, if they survive, may provide benefits.  Yes, we need housing, but we need trees to provide healthy neighborhoods where people live and work. We can have both if we plan and work together to keep Seattle the Emerald City.

Seattle needs to build some 100,000 new housing units, according to state projections, to meet growth over the next 20 years. They also must comply with new state legislation requiring them to allow 4 plexes across the city and six-plexes within 1/4 mile of frequent transit.

The city has prepared 5 alternative development scenarios which are presented in their draft EIS. This e-mail is to provide you with some information on how the plan will impact Seattle’s trees and urban forest and help you pick which alternative you would like to see the city choose.

We are asking you to send one e-mail responding to two things – which alternative you prefer and cutting and pasting our suggested questions for more details on what the impacts will be of the different scenarios.  After evaluating the public comments, the city will pick one alternative and do a final EIS on it.

Click on this link to see the draft EIS Proposal and Alternatives. Discussion with maps of the alternatives goes from page 2-22 to 2-55.

Here is a summary of housing units proposed with the 5 alternatives:

Alternative 1 -no action baseline – 80,000 new housing units
Alternative 2 Focused – 100,000 housing units
Alternative 3 Broad -100,000 housing units
Alternative 4 Corridor 100,000 housing units
Alternative 5 Combined 120,000 housing units

Here are some selected comments on the 5 Alternative Choices and impacts on plants and animals from the draft EIS:

Alternative 1 – No Action  – ” would be expected to result in a lower potential for development-related tree canopy cover loss than any of the action alternatives, both citywide and in the individual analysis subareas. Based on the amount of area where development or redevelopment may result in losses of vegetated areas, Alternative 1 would also likely have the lowest potential for short-term and long-term decreases in the diversity and/or abundance of plant and animal communities in areas where development or redevelopment projects occur.”

Alternative 2 – Focused – “Under Alternative 2, about 3,000 acres of currently lower-density parcels may be converted to higher-density uses(neighborhood centers), the smallest area of conversion among the action alternatives (Exhibit 3.3-4). Growth would be focused in neighborhood centers. Among the action alternatives, Alternative 2 would thus have the lowest potential for development-related impacts to vegetation (including loss of tree canopy cover) citywide.”

Alternative 3 – Broad – “Compared to Alternative 2, a substantially larger area of currently lower-density parcels— approximately 32,500 acres—maybe converted to higher-density uses in urban neighborhood areas (Exhibit3.3-4). Such parcels would be distributed throughout the city.  Based on the amount of area where currently low-density parcels may be converted to higher density uses, Alternative 3 would be expected to have the higher potential for loss of tree canopy (and, by extension, a higher potential to impede progress toward the City’s canopy cover goal) than Alternatives 2 and 4”.

Alternative 4 – Corridor – “The area of currently lower-density parcels that may be converted to higher-density uses in corridor areas would be approximately 20,500 acres—more than under Alternative 2 (3,000 acres) and less than under Alternative 3 (32,500 acres) (Exhibit 3.3-4).  The distribution of the areas likely to experience development-related canopy cover loss would be less focused than under Alternative 2 and less widespread than under Alternative 3. As a result, in areas with relatively high proportions of existing canopy cover, the impacts of Alternative 4 would also likely lie between those of Alternatives 2 and 3. Among the action alternatives, Alternative 4 would thus result in a moderate potential for loss of tree canopy cover.”

Alternative 5 – Combined – “Under Alternative 5, approximately 33,700acres of currently lower-density parcels may be converted to higher-density uses—more than under any of the other alternatives (Exhibit 3.3-4).14 These areas would be distributed throughout the city. As such, all areas with relatively high proportions of existing canopy cover would be likely to experience additional canopy loss.  Even though Alternative 5 would convert more lower-density parcels to higher-density uses, the potential for development-related canopy cover loss would likely be lower than under Alternative 3. This is because Alternative 5 would focus more development in neighborhood centers and corridors, rather than distributing it in urban neighborhoods throughout the city. Development or redevelopment projects in neighborhood centers and corridors would be expected to result in less canopy cover loss than would projects in areas classified as urban neighborhoods. Alternative 5 would thus have a lower likelihood than Alternative 3 of impeding progress toward the City’s canopy cover goal, but a higher likelihood than Alternative 2 or Given the highest number of homes produced and the broadest range of areas affected, Alternative 5 would tend to have the highest potential for loss of tree canopy.”

Alternative 1 is do nothing different and has the least houses produced. It is not being considered as a growth option.
Of the 4 growth alternatives, Alternative 5 would have the most canopy loss, then Alternative 3, then Alternative 4, then alternative 2 has the least canopy loss of the 4 alternative growth alternatives.

Alternative 2 and 4 concentrate growth more in existing built up areas or along corridors and have less canopy loss as a result.

*Pick which option you support and make this your first comment. Feel free to add your own comments to support your decision.

*Second comment section. Copy and paste below items:

Suggested questions and comments.  You can also add our own comments and links to news articles and urban forestry and climate science articles that help explain your concerns and position. See plants and animals section in draft EIS pages1-33 to 1-39  for more information.

P 3-3-29-30 Please analyze the potential impact of the 5 options on Seattle plants and animals. This is a Seattle EIS, not a regional or state EIS.  Saying “unlikely to result in appreciable impacts on regional populations of plants or animals”‘ and “none of the alternatives would be expected to result in impacts that would reduce the likelihood of survival or recovery of a plant or animal species in the wild” is avoiding commenting on the specific impacts on Seattle plants and animals.

  • p 3-3-30 Saying that “none of the action alternatives would be expected to have significant, unavoidable adverse impacts on tree canopy cover.” is not backed up by facts but speculative at best. The new tree protection ordinance increases the potential for tree removal and loss in several ways. One is that all the zones that can undergo development under the ordinance state that the newly defined “basic tree protection area cannot be modified” despite Portland, Oregon and the Northwest Society of Arboriculture saying it can be modified to save trees. This and current guaranteed lot coverage of 85 – 100% for multifamily lots and above and rezoning to occur in the Neighborhood Residential zone means more trees, especially large ones, will be removed.   What is your estimation of potential canopy acreage loss (over 5 year periods consistent with the city’s canopy studies) with increased development and density in each alternative?
  • What is your estimation of tree planting needs and a time frame to replace the equivalent lost canopy area and volume (over 5 year periods as tracked by the city’s canopy studies)?
  • Is canopy area and volume replacement equivalence even possible with replanting since removed trees, if not removed, would have increased growing according to scientific articles?What is the acreage available and suitable for planting trees in each of the following public areas – the city’s right of ways, Natural Areas, and Developed Parks?
  • How many trees and what size will need to be planted in these areas every year to make up for trees and canopy removed during development on lots? How many trees and what size for all canopy loss?
  • What is the available acreage available to plant trees on private property?
  • When will it be possible to reach the 30% citywide goal?
  • What potential is there for more than 30% tree canopy in Seattle over time?
  • Is up to 40% canopy coverage, over time, as proposed in the previous Comprehensive Plan possible?
  • Canopy volume, especially of coniferous trees during our rainy season, are critical factors in reducing stormwater runoff. What is the projected loss in canopy volume over the next 20 years as big conifer trees are removed?
  • What is the projected increase in stormwater runoff and what costs are associated with on site and alternative city water management policies of stormwater and pollutant runoff as a result?

As to commenting on other tree potential mitigation measures, add:

  • Amend the Tree Protection Ordinance to require developers to maximize the retention of existing trees 6″ DSH and larger.
  • Give SCCI Director the ability to ask for alternative site designs to save trees.
  • Support building higher and building attached units to allow for tree retention and planting areas like Portland, Oregon has with 20% areas for multifamily and 40% for its 1-4 unit family zone.
  • Amend Tree Protection Ordinance to require ordinance to apply to all city land use zones.
  • Remove the “basic tree protection area” loophole in the Tree Protection Ordinance that allows developers to unnecessarily remove almost all large trees on lots.
  • Require developers to submit a Tree Inventory and

Please send your comments on the draft EIS to:

PCD_CompPlan_EIS@seattle.gov 
and council @seattle.gov

Comments on the draft Comprehensive Plan itself should be sent to:

OneSeattleCompPlan@seattle.gov or Use Engagement HUB

Just released  Seattle Urban Forestry Commission  – Adopted UFC feedback on draft one Seattle Plan
Donate Now to support our efforts!

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