Author Archives: steve zemke

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

 

January 2023 Seattle Tree Protection Findings Briefing

Posted on by

January 2023 Seattle Tree Protection Findings Briefing Packet Click on bottom of slide to see results      NW Progressive Institute – January 2023

See also::

Second set of Seattle tree protection poll findings affirms voters value urban forests – NW Progressive Institute – Dec 20, 2021

Seattle voters overwhelmingly favor policies to protect and expand the city’s tree canopy – NW Progressive Institute – Sept 15, 2021

Talking Points for Seattle Tree Protection Ordinance Update

Posted on by

Priority Issues for Seattle Tree Protection Ordinance Update testimony before the Land Use Committee

  • Remove the guaranteed  “development area of 85%.” for lowrise, midrise, commercial and mixed zones. If middle housing legislation passes in Olympia, all of Seattle will be up zoned  by the state as multifamily. It will greatly reduce space for trees on building lots in the city. Seattle City planners need flexibility to save trees for healthy communities.
  • Require 20% lot allowance for “tree preservation and planting areas” in multifamily areas and 40% tree lot allowance on lots with  1-4 units in the neighborhood residential zone like Portland has.  Portland passed legislation in 2020 to allow up to 4plexes  in their neighborhoods after the state mandated zoning updates. Portland responded in Nov 2022 to update the tree protection legislation by creating dedicated areas for tree retention and planting. https://www.portland.gov/code/11/50/050
  • Require a Tree Inventory of all 6″ DSH and larger trees and a Landscape Plan prior to any Building Permit being issued.
  • Require “maximizing the retention of existing trees 6″ DSH and larger” throughout the entire development process. Urban forests need a diversity of tree ages and species to be healthy and sustainable.
  • Require all in-lieu fees for trees that can’t be preserved or replaced on site to be based on the square inches of trunk starting at 12″ DSH to equalize their value based on size. Larger fees can both serve as a disincentive to remove trees and also more fairly compensate for the increasing ecoservices value lost by the city as trees get larger. In-lieu fee should be $17,87 per square inch for all removals 12″ DSH and larger.
  • Require for replacement 2 trees for 12-24″ DSH trees removed, 3 trees for 24 – 36″ DSH and 4 trees for above 36″ DSH for more equivalency of the increasing value of ecoservices trees provide as they increase in size. One for one replacement is no equivalency for what is lost as trees increase in size. Mayor Harrell’s Executive order 2023-03 requires the city to replace any healthy tree removed at a 3:1 ratio.
  • Keep the long standing and widely used exceptional tree and significant tree nomenclature.  Remove the term “tiers” and give trees their dignified names back, like exceptional and significant, so the community can continue its relationship with trees, rather than thinking of them only as numbers

 

Seattle Mayor Harrell’s Draft 2023 Tree Protection Ordinance Issues

Posted on by

 

2023 Draft SDCI Tree Protection Ordinance Issues 4/4/2023

We support the following provisions in the 2023 SDCI draft Tree Protection
Ordinance:
1. Lowering the upper limit for exceptional trees to 24” Diameter at Shoulder Height (DSH) from 30” DSH
2. Requiring street trees be planted whenever development would add one or more principal dwelling units on a lot
3. Continuing protection for exceptional trees less than 24” DBH and tree groves and heritage trees
4. Continuing prohibition on removal of trees 6” DBH and larger on undeveloped lots.
5. Requiring replacement of all 12” DSH and larger trees removed by developers
6. Requiring an in-lieu fee for developers to replace trees 12” DSH and larger that cannot be replaced on the development site.
7. Requiring in lieu fees be used to replace and maintain newly planted trees removed by developers
8. Limiting removal of 6”-12″ DSH significant outside development to two trees in 3 years.
9. Protected trees and replaced trees are covered by a covenant.
10. Requiring 5-year maintenance for relocated or required replacement trees
11. Requiring 6-day advance notice online of all 6” DSH and larger trees proposed for removal by Tree Service Providers, posting on site on day of work and remaining for 5 days after removal.
12. Creation of 3 new positions to monitor and assist in implementing and enforcing provisions in the ordinance draft.

 Key provisions that need to be revised or added to the draft ordinance:  

 1. Require 20% lot allowance for “tree preservation and tree planting areas” in multifamily areas and 40% lot allowance for 1-4 units in the neighborhood residential zone as Portland Oregon does in their family residential zone.  Portland passed legislation in 2020 to allow up to 4plexes  in their neighborhoods after the state mandated zoning updates. Portland responded in Nov 2022 to update the tree protection legislation.  https://www.portland.gov/code/11/50/050

 2. Remove the guaranteed “85% lot development area” provision.  If the current middle housing legislation passes in Olympia, almost all of Seattle would be affected by this change, with a significant loss of tree canopy city wide. The city needs flexibility to evaluate development and protecting trees lot by lot, not one size fits all circumstances. 

 3. Require a Tree Inventory of all trees 6” DSH and larger and a Tree Landscaping Plan be submitted by developers, as Portland Oregon does, prior to any building permits being approved. This information fits with collecting in lieu fees prior to issuing building permits and facilitates reporting and tracking of tree loss and replacement, rather than city workers having to pull this information from site plans. Mayor Harrell’s Executive Order asked for data on trees removed and replaced. Getting this information up front from developers is the best way to do this. 

 4. Require developers throughout the total development process to maximize the retention of existing trees 6” DSH and larger with adequate space for trees to grow and survive. The current draft removes consideration of protecting 6”-12” DSH trees and also removes them from site plans. Keep them on the site plans and protect them during development.  Trees 6” DSH and larger represent 45% of trees in the NR zone according to Seattle’s Ecosystem Values Report. Most of these trees are established potential replacement trees for existing large trees that die. Trees 12” DSH and larger only represent 18% of the trees in the NR zone. A diversity of ages and species for trees is essential for a healthy urban forest. 

 5.  Retain definitions and use of exceptional and significant trees. Remove the confusing and biased proposed new classification of trees as Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, and Tier 4. The use and understanding of trees as exceptional has been in the tree ordinance since 2001 and described in more detail in the 2008 Director’s Rule. 16-2008. Significant trees are understood to be those 6” DSH and larger that are not exceptional. Many other cities, including in this region, use these definitions.  

 6. Require for replacement 2 trees for 12-24″ DSH trees removed, 3 trees for 24 – 36″ DSH and 4 trees for above 36″ DSH for more equivalency of the increasing value of services trees provide as they increase in size. One for one replacement is no equivalency for what is lost as trees increase in size.  Require that tree replacement numbers increase with the size and canopy volume of the removed tree. such that in 25 years or less they will reach equivalent canopy volume lost.  Waiting 80 years to replace an 80 year old tree is too long.

 7. Increase in lieu fee schedule to require the $17.87square inch in-lieu fees to start with 12″ DSH trees rather than 24″ DSH trees. In-Lieu fees need to adequately cover the city’s additional cost of planting and maintaining the trees for 5 years. 

 8. All replacement in lieu fees and fines should go into a One Seattle Tree Fund as stated in Mayor Harrell’s ‘s Executive Order. It should be a dedicated Tree Planting and Preservation Fund like Portland, Oregon has (not into SDCI’s budget). The Fund should be added to this draft. The Fund should report yearly on its budget to the City Council and Mayor. The One Seattle Tree Fund should be overseen by the City Urban Forester located in OSE because the distribution of funds would be interdepartmental. Allow the One Seattle Tree Fund (Tree Planting and Preservation Fund) to also accept fines, donations, grants, purchase land, set up covenants and for educational purposes as Portland, Oregon does. 

 9. The role of the new City Forester position created by the Seattle City Council in OSE should be defined in this ordinance. 

 10. Create an Urban Forestry Division within SDCI with additional staff as recommended in a separate budget provision or expand the Urban Forestry staff and responsibility in the Office of sustainability and Environment for independent oversight of trees. 

 11. Expand the existing Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) Tree Removal and Replacement Permit Program using the Accela database system to include SDCI to cover all significant trees 6” DSH and larger, and all exceptional trees, on private property in all land use zones, removed both during development and outside development. The proposed ordinance remains a complaint-based system relying on citizens which has been proven to not be effective in code compliance. SDCI only has 2 arborists who are mostly deskbound.to check site plans and in the field. 

 12. Require SDCI to submit quarterly reports to the Office of Sustainability and Environment on tree removal and replacement as currently required by other City Departments and as required yearly by Mayor Harrell’s Executive Order 

 13, Extend ordinance to cover all land use zones, including Highrise, Industrial, Downtown and Institutions 

 14. Allow city certified inspectors to enter property if necessary to ascertain any illegal tree activity 

 15. Expand the required tree protection covenant to include a replacement requirement for a tree that dies. Make it a permanent “protected tree planting site” for the life of the building. 

16. Remove or clarify language of tree drip line “may be irregular in shape to reflect variation in branch outer limits” Dripline is used to determine tree protection area and branches shortened in some areas may not reflect root structure or may have been removed in certain areas if tree has been limbed up. 

 17. Require that maintenance of relocated and replacement trees include “watering as needed” 

 18. Require street trees be planted if ADU’s are added to a lot. ADU’s, particularly Detached ADU’s, reduce space for trees on site and increase tree removal and are currently exempt from original lot coverage limits in NR zone. 

 18. Remove the 1000 square feet addition to an existing structure exemption requiring planting street trees. Additions increasing the building footprint are removing existing or potential tree planting and preservation space. 

 19. Give the SDCI Director the authority to reduce or waive any fees assessed by this ordinance, taking into account a homeowner’s financial circumstances or ability to pay. 

20. Split the purpose and intent section. Add to intent “address climate resiliency and reduce heat island impacts across the city” 

21. Require removal of invasive plants, like ivy, scotch broom, and holly from development sites to help stop the spread of invasive species in our city that add to maintenance costs and replacement of dying trees. 

 4/4/2023 draft – Please contact Steve Zemke stevezemke@friends.urbanforests.org with any additional issues, concerns and/or corrections, regarding the above document. Thanks 

Comments on Seattle’s 2021 Tree Canopy Assessment Final Report

Posted on by
  1. The City of Seattle 2021 Tree Canopy Assessment Final Report was produced by the City of Seattle’s Office of Sustainability and Environment using findings from the University of Vermont Spatial Analysis Lab report. However, the interpretation of data was done by unnamed people in the city of Seattle, who wrote or reviewed the “final report”.  The University of Vermont collected some of the data but are not the authors of the report. 
  2. The report defines tree canopy as “The layer of leaves, branches and stems that provide tree coverage of the ground when viewed from above.” Not mentioned is that the measurement is done at 8 feet above the ground. This is in contrast to US Army Corps of Engineers, who defines the Tree strata as starting at 20 feet in height, and the shrub/sapling layer from 3-20 feet in height  https://www.sas.usace.army.mil/Portals/61/docs/regulatory/Workshop_Vegetation_Fall2011.pdf 
  3. So, the City of Seattle canopy actually includes all shrubs and hedges such as laurel, holly and rhododendron bushes that frequently are over 8 feet high, and smaller saplings. The canopy measured would  more accurately be described as “tree and shrub cover.”
  4.  Although asked and confirmed before the report was released that the report would look at tree canopy volume, the report has no such analysis despite LIDARS ability to do so. This is important as tree canopy volume is a more accurate measure of the environmental services trees can provide to cities, as compared to tree canopy area.
  5. While the report defines a large (exceptional) tree as > 30 inches diameter, it does no analysis of large trees gains or losses, and neglects to compare any changes in large exceptional trees over the time period. 
  6. The report mentions trees planted by the city but provides no data on any survival rates of the trees planted. Also, the number of trees removed by SDOT or Parks is not given,  only the number of new plantings. 
  7. The report looked at tree loss during development but only looked at development projects that were begun and completed between 2017 and 2021. The actual tree loss calculation should have looked at all projects that begun between 2017 and 2021 for the most accurate results, not just those that were completed.  What is missing are projects that begun in that time period but were not completed. This is important as trees are usually removed at the beginning of projects, so the actual tree loss is likely significantly higher than what was reported. Also, if the next 5-year analysis follows the current calculations, projects begun before 2022 but completed after 2022 will not be in the analysis, leaving a gap in calculating tree loss during development. 
  8. Key data points in Table 4 in the Appendix show that redeveloped parcels in neighborhood residential zone saw a 33.6% loss of tree canopy and redeveloped parcels in multifamily zones saw a 49.6% reduction in tree canopy.  Issues of concern for future canopy loss include middle housing legislation being considered by the Washington State legislature which would basically convert most of Seattle’s neighborhood residential zone to the multifamily zone. Also, ADU legislation was passed in Seattle in July 2019 for the neighborhood residential zone which will allow 3 units of housing to be built on any lot, increasing potential for additional tree loss. 
  9. Figure 8 is in contrast to other references on trees and urban Island heat impacts. Figure 8 is a scatter plot showing the relationship between maximum afternoon temperature and percent tree canopy, and the report somehow concludes that “…at the hexagon scale on a hot day (where a hexagon is the size of several city blocks) hexagons with 26% tree canopy experienced temperatures that were 1-degree lower than hexagons with no canopy.” This interpretation is misleading as to the on the ground results and is an example on how statistical analysis can be misused. See references below for additional information: 
  •  The original report “Seattle and King County Washington Heat Watch Report” done in 2020 reported as high as a 24-degree F temp difference across the county. The analysis of heat impacts is much more nuanced and is affected by a number of things like time of day, tree canopy, buildings and pavement, closeness to water and size of area considered. The “one-degree lower statement” unfortunately is contrary to what many other researchers have found and clearly misrepresents the temperature differences between areas with trees and those not having trees. 
  • NPR – “In Seattle the difference between the coolest and hottest neighborhoods could be as much as 14.5 degrees, according to a 2019 NPR analysis of surface thermal data from NASA and US Geological Survey satellite imagry from summer days in the last decade.” 
  • King 5 June 23, 2021  “Areas of King County with more paved landscapes and less tree canopy are feeling the heat more intensely than less urbanized areas, according to a new study from King County and Seattle. More urbanizesd areas were as much as 20 degrees hotter due to an abundance of hard surfaces like parking lots, rooftops and streets which absorb heat, 
  • According to Portland State University research – “While testing solutions that reduce urban heat, the study … showed that paving over places that previously had a lot of tree canopy could raise the temperature as much as 25 degrees Fahrenheit on a summer day. Nearby neighborhoods would experience a spillover effect.” Portland State University Study Demonstrates How Plants, Trees, and Reflective Materials Can Reduce Extreme Heat of City Neighborhoods, 2019
  • New York Times – Hidden Toll of the Northwest Heat Wave: Hundreds of Extra Deaths, Aug 11, 2021, ” During the deadly heat wave that blanketed Oregon and Washington in late June, about 600 more people died than would have been typical , a review of Mortality data for the week of the crisis shows.”    
comments by Steve Zemke and Rich Ellison
TreePAC and Friends of Seattle’s Urban Forest
March 6,  2023

Amend Washington State HB 1181 to include Urban and Community Forests

Posted on by
Testimony to Washington State Legislature:
My name is Steve Zemke. I am the current Chair of Friends of Seattle’s Urban Forest and Tree PAC. I recently completed serving 6 years on the Seattle Urban Forestry Commission.  Over 20 years ago I was the campaign manager for I-547 which was a precursor to the Washington State Legislature passing the GMA in 1990. I am speaking in support HB 1181

I have a simple ask. Please add the words “urban and community forests” to HB 1181.  They are critical to climate resilience in our urban areas.

Urban forests are also a budget and appropriations issue. Hilary Franz is requesting $8 million in the budget for urban and community forestry, The Federal Government is also adding millions to the states for urban and community forestry.

DNR Urban Forestry Legislative Update

In Nov 2022 at the Partners in Community Forestry Conference in Seattle, Commissioner of Public Lands Hilary Franz said, “Our urban forests are no longer a nice-to-have. They’re absolutely a must-have. Our urban forests are no longer a preferred line item on our budgets. They’re actually a testament to whether we are truly fulfilling our moral responsibility to an economically, environmentally, and socially just society.””

Here are my suggestions of where references to “urban and community Forests” could be inserted in HB 1181.

Page 6, line 13 – In the Land Use element add after open spaces and green spaces, “urban and community forests”,

In the same paragraph on the Land Use element , add sentence – “The land use element must evaluate urban and community forest canopy and its role in climate resilience, reducing heat island impacts, providing health benefits, and ecosystem services.”

P 17, line 37 Insert in last sentence. Identify, protect and enhance “urban and community forests “and natural areas to foster resiliency to climate impacts , as well as areas of vital habitat for “plant and animal diversity,” safe passage and species migration

page 6  Section 1. (10)  Environment is more than air and water quality. It should include “healthy soil and plants and animals”

Thanks for considering this.

Our urban forests are a key component to keeping our cities livable as we increase housing. Trees are essential for climate resilience. With good planning we can have both trees and housing in our urban areas. It is not a question of one or the other. We can have both. This legislation needs to detail the necessity of cities and towns to incorporate their urban forests and trees as part of their climate resiliency plans as we also grow our housing supply.

Steve Zemke

Testimony on HB 1181 on adding amendment on “urban and community forests” to climate resiliency in Comprehensive Plans

Posted on by

My name is Steve Zemke. I am the current Chair of Friends of Seattle’s Urban Forest and Tree PAC. I recently completed serving 6 years on the Seattle Urban Forestry Commission  Over 20 years ago I was the campaign manager for I-547 which was ae precursor to the Washington State Legislature passing the GMA in 1990. I am speaking in support HB 1181

I have a simple ask. Please add  the words “urban and community forests” to HB 1181.  They are critical to climate resilience in our urban areas.

Urban forests are also a  budget and appropriations issue. Hilary Franz is requesting $8 million in the budget for urban and community forestry, The Federal Government is also adding millions to the states for urban and community forestry.

in Nov 2022 at the Partners in Community Forestry Conference in Seattle, Commissioner of Public Lands Hilary Franz said, “Our urban forests are no longer a nice-to-have. They’re absolutely a must-have. Our urban forests are no longer a preferred line item on our budgets. They’re actually a testament to whether we are truly fulfilling our moral responsibility to an economically, environmentally, and socially just society.””

DNR Urban Forestry Legislative Update

Here are my suggestions of where references to “urban and community Forests” could be inserted in HB 1181.

Page 6, line 13 – In Land Use element add after open spaces and green spaces, “urban and community forests”,

In the same paragraph on the Land Use element , add sentence – “The land use element must evaluate urban and community forest canopy and its role in climate resilience, reducing heat island impacts, providing health benefits, and  ecosystem services.”

P 17, line 37 Insert in last sentence. Identify, protect and enhance “urban and community forests “and natural areas to foster resiliency to climate impacts , as well as areas of vital habitat for “plant and animal diversity,” safe passage and species migration

page 6  Section 1. (10)  Environment is more than air and water quality. It should include “healthy soil and plants and animals”

Thanks for considering this.

‘Our urban forests are a key component to keeping our cities livable as we increase housing. Trees are essential for climate resilience. With good planning we can have both trees and housing in our urban areas. It is not a question of one or the other. We can have both. This legislation needs to detail the necessity of cities and towns to incorporate their urban forests and trees as part of their climate resiliency plans as we also grow our housing supply.

Washington State HB 1078 would allow developers to clearcut trees on urban lots!

Posted on by
Text of  e-mail below was also sent to all House Local Government Committee members
To: Davina.Duerr@eg.wa.gov <Davina.Duerr@eg.wa.gov>
Subject: Concerns regarding HB 1078 to void tree and urban forest ordinances during development

Dear Representative Duerr,
This bill needs to be amended or rejected.  If passed as is, it will become known as the Washington State Urban Clearcutting Bill.
This approach to override city and town tree and urban forest ordinances was in last year’s middle housing legislation and it has been pulled it out as a separate bill because it was controversial at the time. Adding “tree banks” to get people to support it now does not change the issue of removing existing trees that could be saved. in many cases with better planning. Trees and density can co-exist – it is not trees or housing we need both and can do that.  People need trees where they live to have healthy communities.
As written HB 1078 reads as a state mandate that would allow developers to override city and town tree protection ordinances that require tree retention or planting trees on a building site. It would allow developers to legally clearcut lots with trees and tree groves, not replant any trees on site, and create new blighted areas and heat islands.

HB 1078 directs that city and town tree ordinances “must allow an option that allows obligations for the protection and management of these trees imposed by the ordinance to be satisfied by the use of a tree bank”

HB 1078 implies that any city regulations to retain or plant trees on a building site can simply be ignored by paying a fee into a tree bank.

The bill declares “In regulating the removal of trees during development, however cities sometimes impose regulations that limit or prevent development opportunities that would provide additional housing, even if the removal of trees in these circumstances would not impair the health of the community.”

HB 1078  makes two false assumptions.
The first false assumption is that removing established trees in “noncritical areas will not impair the health of a community”

The area you remove trees from will lose climate resiliency and environmental services. Existing established trees provide heat island reduction, reduced storm water runoff, decreased air pollution, physical and mental health benefits, wildlife habitat, noise reduction and a sense of place. This occurs lot by lot and can extend to neighborhood impacts also.

The second false assumption is that trees are preventing developing a property but that is seldom the case.  Tree ordinances almost always allow developers to remove trees that limit the development potential of a lot. Seattle’s existing tree ordinance, for example, does not apply to “Tree removal shown as part of an issued building or grading permit as provided in Sections 25.11.060, 25.11.070, and 25.11.080;”

This bill needs to be amended to clarify that developers must comply with local tree protection ordinances to save trees when they can and replant trees removed when they can on site but can use a tree bank or tree mitigation fund or tree replanting fund to plant trees elsewhere as needed if they cannot do it on the building lot.

These replanted trees can be targeted for race and social and environmental equity when they cannot be replanted on the building site. All building sites in the city need to require tree replacement, not just those in “noncritical areas.”  Replanted trees must have equivalence to the size of the tree removed – replacement fees must increase as the size of the removed tree increases to make up for lost ecosystem services of the tree removed.

HB 1078 should also be amended to say that developers must maximize the retention of existing trees on all building sites like Austin, Texas does.   Seattle, e.g., also requires that in its platting and short platting process but needs to extend it to the total building process.

Several additional comments on amending bill:

Recommend changing Tree Bank to a Tree Planting Fund or Off Site Mitigation Fund or similar terminology as recommended by phytosphere.com that covers all trees removed, not just ones removed in “non-critical areas”  
“Although “tree bank” has a nice ring to it, it has been applied to a wide variety of programs (and in some cases to organizations). It is certainly legitimate to define the term in a tree ordinance and use it locally in that sense. However, the fact that different jurisdictions use the term in different ways may lead to confusion. In general, we recommend the use of more descriptive (albeit more prosaic) terms such as “tree planting fund” or “off-site mitigation planting” to describe the off-site mitigation tactics that are specified in the ordinance.”
An example of a Tree Planting Fund.; Portland, Oregon has a Tree Planting and Preservation  Fund  11.15.010
A.  Purpose. The purpose of the Tree Planting and Preservation Fund is to facilitate tree planting, to ensure mitigation or tree replacement when tree preservation or tree density standards are not met on a particular site, and to advance the City’s goals for the urban forest and intend to achieve equitable distribution of tree-related benefits across the City.
B.  Expenditures. Money in the Tree Planting and Preservation Fund may be used only as follows:

.  To plant trees on public or private property, including streets. Planting trees includes the cost of materials and labor necessary to install and establish a tree for a 5 year period;

2.  To purchase conservation easements for the perpetual retention of trees and tree canopy. Such conservation easements shall allow the City to replace trees that are removed when they die or become dangerous; and

3.  To acquire land to permanently protect existing trees or groves.

C.  Contributions. Contributions to the Tree Planting and Preservation Fund may occur through a number of means, including:

1.  Payment made in lieu of tree replacement as part of a tree permit issued as stated in Chapter 11.40;

2.  Payment made in lieu of preservation or planting where site or street characteristics or construction requirements make it infeasible to meet the requirements of Chapter 11.50;

3.  Payment of restoration fees for enforcement actions for Private Trees; and

4.  Voluntary contributions.

D.  Administration of the Tree Planting and Preservation Fund. The Tree Planting and Preservation Fund is administered by the City Forester, maintained in a dedicated separate account, and is independent of the general fund. Any balance in the Tree Planting and Preservation Fund will be carried forward into subsequent fiscal years.

HB 1078 seems at cross purposes as stated in the Department of Natural Resources Dec 2022 Newsletter – Tree Link Newsletter – Urban and community Forestry in Washington

“During her remarks last month at the Partners in Community Forestry Conference in Seattle, Commissioner of Public Lands Hilary Franz said, “Our urban forests are no longer a nice-to-have. They’re absolutely a must-have. Our urban forests are no longer a preferred line item on our budgets. They’re a testament to whether we are truly fulfilling our moral responsibility to an economically, environmentally, and socially just society.”

“Later that morning, Commissioner Franz announced her intention to seek an $8 million investment from the state Legislature when the 2023 legislative session begins in January. Urban and Community Forestry Program staff worked with DNR’s legislative and policy teams to draft a vision for the program that, if funded, will allow DNR to meet the demand for funding and the needs of our urban forests.”

Steve Zemke, Chair – Tree PAC , 

                             

City Council Initial Balancing Package – Seattle City Budget – items relating to trees and urban forest

Posted on by
Budget balancing amendments proposed on Monday – add Urban Forester position to OSE, request for OSE report on tree planting funds needed, added $250,000 for SDOT tree planting,  $500 thousand cut in 2024 for Green Seattle Partnership funding
 
Public Hearing today, Tues Nov 15, 5 PM 
 
see full Seattle City Council Select Budget Committee Initial Balancing Package proposal | Monday, November 14, 2022
pages 190 – 199
“Budget Action Title: Add $147,000 JumpStart Fund (2023) and $190,000 JumpStart Fund (2024) and 1.0 FTE Strategic Advisor 3 to OSE for a City Urban Forester position
Budget Action Description: This Council Budget Action would add $147,000 JumpStart Fund in 2023 and $190,000 JumpStart Fund in 2024 and 1.0 FTE Strategic Advisor 3 to the Office of Sustainability and Environment (OSE) for a City Urban Forester position. The 2022 Adopted Budget included Statement of Legislative Intent (SLI) MO001-A-002-2022 requesting that the Mayor’s Office provide “a report with recommendations for the creation of a ‘chief arborist’ position that would promote the preservation of Seattle’s tree canopy and provide independent oversight of the City’s management of trees, with an initial focus on the preservation of exceptional trees.”
OSE submitted a SLI response (see Attachment A) on September 30, 2022, that provided recommendations for the position’s job responsibilities and qualifications and described opportunities and challenges related to the proposed position. In this response, Executive staff recommended that this position’s title should be City Urban Forester and that it “work with executive leadership and staff across urban forestry departments to establish and/or affirm citywide and department-specific strategy intended to support a healthy and robust tree canopy and urban forest in Seattle; provide an on-going assessment on the efficacy of policies and programs in meeting these goals; and recommend changes as needed to decision-makers.” In addition to the job responsibilities described in the SLI response, OSE is expected to: • Evaluate the City’s rules and regulations and propose changes as necessary to the Mayor and City Council that would provide the City Urban Forester with the necessary authority to accomplish its duties as envisioned; and • Ensure that this position: (1) advances racial equity and environmental justice; (2) oversees and implements the proposed Tree Canopy Equity and Resilience Plan and Seattle’s 2020 Urban Forest Management Plan as one of its core functions; and (3) supports development of policies that will help the City achieve its goals for an enhanced, healthy tree canopy and increased diversity of housing options for Seattle’s residents.”
p 206-207
“Budget Action Title: Request that OSE provide a report on Citywide funding for tree planting, stewardship, and other urban forestry-related activities
Statement of Legislative Intent: This Statement of Legislative Intent would request that the Office of Sustainability and Environment (OSE) collaborate with the City Budget Office and Urban Forestry Interdepartmental Team (IDT) to develop a report on the City’s funding and expenditures for tree planting, stewardship, and other related activities. Currently, there are nine City departments that have a role in managing Seattle’s urban forest: • OSE coordinates citywide policy development, updates the Urban Forest Management Plan and monitors its implementation, and provides administrative support for the Urban Forestry Commission; • Seattle Department of Transportation manages trees in the public right-of-way; • Department of Finance and Administrative Services (FAS), Seattle Center, Seattle Parks and Recreation, and Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) manage trees on their property; • SPU engages community in urban forest stewardship on both private property and in the right-of-way; • Seattle City Light maintains trees near power lines; • Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections (SDCI) and the Office of Planning and Community Development develop policies and plans; and • SDCI enforces regulations for trees on private property. This distributed structure of the City’s urban forest management functions makes it challenging for the public to have a comprehensive understanding of how the City invests in maintaining and enhancing Seattle’s urban forest. FAS has recently agreed to create a Funding Source code to track revenue from illegal tree removal penalties and ensure that this revenue is used to support tree planting, stewardship, and planning activities. This modified accounting system will be implemented beginning on January 1, 2023. The report should include funding and expenditures for tree planting, stewardship, planning, and other related activities by department. Where possible, the report should provide information over multiple years to help reveal trends. Additionally, the report should offer recommendations for how the City can improve its practices on reporting the requested information moving forward and identify areas where additional funding may be needed so that the City can successfully implement the actions described in Seattle’s 2020 Urban Forest Management Plan”
p 211-212
“Budget Action Title: Add $250,000 JumpStart Fund (2023) to SDOT to plant trees in the public right-of-way
Budget Action Description: This Council Budget Action would add $250,000 JumpStart Fund in 2023 (one-time) to the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) to plant and support establishment of trees in the public right-of-way (ROW). Preliminary results from the City’s 2022 Canopy Cover Assessment revealed that canopy cover has declined by 1.7 percent citywide (and by 0.3 percent in the ROW) between 2016 and 2021. This funding should be used to plant new trees in environmental equity priority communities and other areas with low tree canopy cover in Seattle, and tree species should be resilient to climate change and pests.”
p 221- 223
“Budget Action Title: Reduce proposed funding for the Urban Forestry – Green Seattle Partnership CIP project by $500,000 REET II (2024) in SPR 
Budget Action Description: This Council Budget Action would reduce proposed funding by $500,000 Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) II in 2024 (one-time) in Seattle Parks and Recreation (SPR) for the Urban Forestry – Green Seattle Partnership Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project. Remaining funding for this CIP project totals $1.2 million in 2024. The revenue forecast adopted by the Forecast Council on November 2, 2022, projects a reduction in anticipated revenues compared to the revenue forecast that was used to develop the Mayor’s 2023-2024 Proposed Budget. This updated forecast reduces the resources available to balance the 2023-2024″