Tag Archives: . Climate resiliency

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 , 

                             

Urge SDOT to Protect and Increase Tree Canopy in their Transportation Plan Update

Posted on by

 

Urge SDOT to Protect and Increase Tree Canopy in their Transportation Plan Update –

Comments end  Wed. August 31st

 

Comments are needed to urge support for protecting and increasing tree canopy in Seattle’s Transportation Plan update. The Transportation Plan update is being done in tandem with Seattle updating it’s One Seattle Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan is updated every 10 years to assist Seattle in planning for its growth in people, jobs, and housing over the next 20 years. The Transportation Plan guides the transportation component of the One Seattle Plan update.The Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) notes that “Our transportation system is more than just roads. It includes sidewalks, bridges, stairways, transit, paths and trails, bike lanes, crosswalks, public spaces like street cafes and benches, and much more. The transportation system is how everyone moves around the city, connecting us to places and opportunities. But COVID-19, climate change, and rapid population growth make it hard to keep this system running smoothly. That’s why we want to create a sustainable system that works now and in the future.“Missing from their discussion is the role of Seattle’s trees and urban forest in our transportation system. Land devoted to transportation in Seattle is some 23% of the city’s area. It contributes about 22% of the city’s tree canopy. SDOT is responsible for maintaining and growing these trees. Hard pavement like concrete and asphalt in roads and sidewalks absorb heat and create heat domes and heat island impacts that. As seen last year, excessive heat can be deadly. Trees are an important climate resiliency and mitigation factor in reducing heat island impacts by shading streets and sidewalks. Trees transpiring water also create cooling effects. Trees were shown to create as much as a 25-degree Fahrenheit temperature difference in a recent county wide study done by Seattle and King County.   Please comment on the Transportation Plan, noting that the trees and urban forest under SDOT’s oversight and responsibility are an important part of Seattle’s transportation system.Go to SDOT’s Seattle Transportation Plan Online Engagement HUB and submit your comments. You can also take their survey.You can also send an e-mail  directly to  STP@Seattle.gov with your comments.  Your response is due by the end of the day this Wednesday August 31st.Some examples of issues regarding trees to comment on:

Comments are needed to urge support for protecting and increasing tree canopy inSeattle’s Transportation Plan update. The Transportation Planupdate is being done in tandem with Seattle updating it’s One Seattle Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan is updated every 10 years to assist Seattle in planning for its growth in people, jobs, and housing over the next 20 years. The Transportation Plan guides the transportation component of the One Seattle Plan update.The Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) notes that “Our transportation system is more than just roads. It includes sidewalks, bridges, stairways, transit, paths and trails, bike lanes, crosswalks, public spaces like street cafes and benches, and much more. The transportation system is how everyone moves around the city, connecting us to places and opportunities. But COVID-19, climate change, and rapid population growth make it hard to keep this system running smoothly. That’s why we want to create a sustainable system that works now and in the future.“Missing from their discussion is the role of Seattle’s trees and urban forest in our transportation system. Land devoted to transportation in Seattle is some 23% of the city’s area. It contributes about 22% of the city’s tree canopy. SDOT is responsible for maintaining and growing these trees. Hard pavement like concrete and asphalt in roads and sidewalks absorb heat and create heat domes and heat island impacts that. As seen last year, excessive heat can be deadly. Trees are an important climate resiliency and mitigation factor in reducing heat island impacts by shading streets and sidewalks. Trees transpiring water also create cooling effects. Trees were shown to create as much as a 25-degree Fahrenheit temperature difference in a recent county wide study done by Seattle and King County.   Please comment on the Transportation Plan, noting that the trees and urban forest under SDOT’s oversight and responsibility are an important part of Seattle’s transportation system.Go to SDOT’sSeattle Transportation Plan Online Engagement HUB and submit your comments. You can also take their survey.You can also send an e-mail  directly to  STP@Seattle.gov with your comments.  Your response is due by the end of the day this Wednesday August 31st.Some examples of issues regarding trees to comment on:

    • More trees planted along streets and sidewalks will reduce urban heat island impacts
    • Environmental equity and justice require SDOT to plant and maintain more trees in low canopy areas.
    • SDOT needs to give priority to protecting existing trees and watering new trees to ensure their survival
    • Trees are needed along streets for shade to encourage people walking and help reduce crime.
    • Trees are important for both physical and mental health
    • Big trees can and need to be planted for more shade on the street side where there are no power lines
    • Trees along busy streets will help slow traffic and increase safety for pedestrians
    • More trees along streets in shopping areas and urban villages will encourage people to shop locally and help local businesses thrive
    • Trees planted along streets in industrial areas are needed to reduce pollution and stormwater runoff
    • Consider using more alternative sidewalk repair techniques s like flexible rubber and raised sidewalks to deal with tree roots would save more existing trees
    • Trees planted around transit stops would provide shade for people waiting for buses.
    • Trees planted along streets where kids walk to school make streets safer
    • Creating a street in both north and south Seattle planted with different recommended street trees for people to see will help people choose trees
    • Planting more trees along greenways and bike lanes to reduce heat impacts would increase people using them
    • Prepare a plan and goal to plant more trees in the right of way for climate resiliency
    • Trees help reduce stormwater and pollution runoff.
    • Trees help clean the air of pollution

Send a Be My Valentine E-Mail to State Senators- Add urban and community forestry amendments to E2Shb 1099

Posted on by

Dear Friends of Tree PAC

E2SHB 1099 is in the WA State Senate Housing and Land Use Committee. The bill would add a climate resiliency element that cities and counties need to consider when they update their Comprehensive Plans under the state’s Growth Management Act. They are considering amendments to the bill in Executive Session on Thursday before it is voted on in Committee.

Please help strengthen the bill by sending the Washington State Senators a Valentine Day email urging that they adopt the purposed urban forest amendments below.

 

We have a pre-written e-mail you can quickly sent them. Feel free to add your own comments.

Here are our proposed amendments we are asking for:

In Sec. 4 (1) – Page 7 line 14 – Add underlined words – “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, general aviation, airports, public utilities, public facilities, urban and community forests, and other land uses.”
In Sec. 4 (1) – Page 7 line 22 – Insert following sentence – “The land use element must evaluate urban and community forestry canopy cover and its preservation and enhancement to mitigate heat impacts and associated health impacts on humans and the natural environment,”
In Sec. 4 (9) (b) (i) (A) – Page 17 line 30 – Add following words (bolded only to designate they are new words to add to current new sentence in bill) to the following – “Identify, protect, and enhance urban and community forests and other 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; and”

Thanks for your help!

Steve Zemke

TreePAC – Chair

www.TreePAC.org

Contributions to support TreePAC are always welcome. Click here to donate.