| Coalition for a Stronger Tree Ordinance | ||
|
||
|
Reply
New Tree Rules for Single-Family Zones
On April 19, new rules went into effect for tree planting and protection requirements in single-family zones. The recently passed Mandatory Housing Affordability Ordinance 125791 made several important changes to tree protection requirements in the Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) 25.11, Tree Protection, and SMC 23.44, Single Family Zone. Those changes are:
- SMC 25.11.040, Restrictions on Tree Removal, no longer includes an exemption from the exceptional tree designation or from requirements for tree removal on single-family lots less than 5,000 square feet. The exceptional tree rules now apply to all sizes of lots in single-family zones, including the residential small lot category. Trees can now be removed only under the same criteria that apply to lots greater than 5,000 square feet.
- The residential small lot (RSL) zone is now a part of SMC 23.44, Residential, Single-Family.
- The tree planting, retention, and protection requirements for single-family zones, formerly located in SMC 23.44.008.I, are now in a new section, SMC 23.44.020. The “caliper inch” planting or retention requirement for lots zoned as single-family 5,000, 7,200, and 9,600 remain the same (SMC 23.44.020.A). Planting or tree retention requirements for RSL lots is different. It is based on a point system and providing street trees is now required (SMC 23.44.020.B). Unlike the other three single-family zones where street trees can be counted toward the planting or retention requirement, street trees are not counted toward the on-site requirement in RSL zones.
For more information about tree protection rules, see our Tree Protection Code webpage.
article copied from SDCI website – New Rules for Single-Family Zones
Below are fantastic links from Dale Blahna who is a social scientist with the USFS locally. I’m sure there is a lot here to work with to make the case for/steward/protect trees.
Advocacy News
- New “Financing Urban Tree Canopy Programs” guide and case stories – Chesapeake Tree Canopy Network
- USDA Forest Service Announces Availability of Updated Public Awareness Products .
- A Site Index for Urban Trees – Tree Fund product in the works by Bryant Scharenbroch.
- To fight pollution China reassigns 60,000 soldiers to plant trees. – Independent News
- Wildlife make a Plea for Urban Trees – National Wildlife Federation
- Planting trees is smart for cities – The Nature Conservancy
- Dry Times Drought Impact on Urban Trees – NOAA
- Urban Tree Cover Saves The U.S. Up To $12 Billion Annually – Forbes
- Urban trees grow fast, die young – PLOSone (important to maintain what you have!!)
- Humans are making droughts worse – Nature and USA Today
- Fridays for Future – More than a million young people held climate strikes last month
New Research
- Campbell, Lindsay K.; Svendsen, Erika; Sonti, Nancy Falxa; Hines, Sarah J.; Maddox, David. 2019. Green readiness, response, and recovery: a collaborative synthesis. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-18x. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
- Lerman, Susannah B.; D’Amico, Vincent. 2019. Lawn mowing frequency in suburban areas has no detectable effect on Borrelia spp. vector Ixodes scapularis (Acari: Ixodidae). PLOS ONE
- Warren, Paige S.; Lerman, Susannah B.; Andrade, Riley ; Larson, Kelli L.; Bateman, Heather L. 2019. The more things change: species losses detected in Phoenix despite stability in bird-socioeconomic relationships. Ecosphere
- Lerman, Susannah B.; Contosta, Alexandra R. 2019. Lawn mowing frequency and its effects on biogenic and anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. Landscape and Urban Planning
- Lerman, Susannah B.; King, David I; Arendt, Wayne ; Paulina María M., ; Paulino, Luis R. 2019. Mourning dove nest on a Palmchat colony in urban Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic. The Urban Naturalist. 24: 1-5.
- Steenberg, James W.N.; Millward, Andrew A.; Nowak, David J.; Robinson, Pamela J.; Smith, Sandra M. 2019. A social-ecological analysis of urban tree vulnerability for publicly-owned trees in a residential neighborhood.
- Domke, Grant M.; Walters, Brian F.; Nowak, David J.; Smith, James ; Ogle, Stephen M.; Coulston, John W. 2019. Greenhouse gas emissions and removals from forest land and urban trees in the United States, 1990-2017.
- Nowak, David J. 2019. The atmospheric system: Air quality and greenhouse gases.
- Nowak, David J.; Aevermann, Tim . 2019. Tree compensation rates: Compensating for the loss of future tree values.
- Biedenweg, Kelly ; Williams, Katherine ; Cerveny, Lee ; Styers, Diane . 2019. Is recreation a landscape value : Exploring underlying values in landscape values mapping.
- Baur, Joshua W.R.; Cerveny, Lee . 2019. Social impacts of homelessness and long-term occupancy on national forests and grasslands: A national study of U.S. Forest Service law enforcement officers.
- Mockrin, Miranda H.; Locke, Dexter H.; Stewart, Susan I; Hammer, Roger B.; Radeloff, Volker C. 2019. Forests, houses, or both Relationships between land cover, housing characteristics, and resident socioeconomic status across ecoregions.
- Kondo, Michelle ; De Roos, Anneclaire ; White, Lauren ; Heilman, Warren ; Mockrin, Miranda ; Gross-Davis, Carol ; Burstyn, Igor . 2019. Meta-Analysis of Heterogeneity in the Effects of Wildfire Smoke Exposure on Respiratory Health in North America.
- Fishler, Hillary K.; Mockrin, Miranda H.; Stewart, Susan I. 2019. Response and future readiness: Vegetation mitigation after destructive wildfire.
- Snyder, Stephanie A.; Kilgore, Michael A.; Emery, Marla R.; Schmitz, Marissa . 2019. Maple Syrup Producers of the Lake States, USA: Attitudes Towards and Adaptation to Social, Ecological, and Climate Conditions.
- Frey, Gabriel ; Emery, Marla R.; Greenlaw, Suzanne . 2019. Weaving together livelihood and culture in Maine, USA.
Public Health Findings –
- Dr. Kathleen Wolf – Urban Nature and Human Health (presented on April 11)
- TNC and NASA – The Value of US Urban Tree Cover for Reducing Heat-related Health Impacts
Citizen Science Articles –
- David Maddox – Ecosystems for Everyone: Building Shared Vocabularies, Based on Values (presented April 17) Click here to view the recorded presentation
Location: Minneapolis, MN -September 30-October 1
USFS Announces FY19 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) Request for Applications
Deadline: June 28
1st Global i-Tree Science and User Symposium: Discovering the Value of Your Forest
Dates: June 16-19
Location: Syracuse, NY
PLOS one has a call for urban ecosystem papers
Deadline: July 12
Groundwork USA Announces Call for Letters of Interest – apply for your city to become the next Groundwork partner
Deadline: July 31
Call for Paper – Special issue of “Forests” focused on “Benefits of the Urban Forest Under Global Change”
Deadline: September 25
Information above thanks to :
|
On March 18, 2019 the Seattle City Council passed CB 119444 – Mandatory Housing Affordability (MHA) legislation.
As part of that legislation they passed a Companion Resolution – RESOLUTION 31870 calling for additional measures by the City and its partners that complement mandatory housing affordability (MHA) implementation to promote livability and equitable development, mitigate displacement, and address challenges and opportunities raised by community members during the MHA public engagement process.
Section 6 of that resolution dealt with updating Seattle’s Tree Protection Ordinance.
Section 5. The Council recognizes the environmental, social, and economic benefits of Seattle’s urban forest and commits to working with community members and City departments to update the City’s tree regulations, advancing the goals of the Urban Forest Stewardship Plan across Seattle. Potential measures may include, but are not limited to, the following:
A. Retaining protections for exceptional trees and expanding the definition of exceptional trees.
B. Creating a permitting process for the removal of significant trees, defined as trees 6 inches in diameter at breast height or larger.
C. Adding replacement requirements for significant tree removal.
D. Simplifying tree planting and replacement requirements.
E. Maintaining tree removal limits in single-family zones.
F. Exploring the feasibility of establishing a in-lieu fee option for tree planting.
G. Tracking tree removal and replacement throughout Seattle.
H. Providing adequate funding to administer and enforce tree regulations.
I. Requiring that all tree service providers operating in Seattle meet the minimum certification and training requirements and register with the city.
This is an affirmation by the Seattle City Council of their current intent to update Seattle’s Tree Protection Ordinance SMC 25.11. The Seattle City Council in 2009 passed a similar resolution but never updated the ordinance. It’s now 10 years later.
Unfortunately the Councilmember leading the effort, Rob Johnson, resigned on April 5, 2019.
Councilmember Sally Bagshaw has agreed to take over the update of the ordinance. The goal is to complete the drafting process of a new ordinance and have a vote by the end of September at the latest. In October and November the Seattle City Council shifts to drafting and adopting the City Budget.
Update – posted on Rob Johnson’s Trees for All page
Johnson, Herbold & O’Brien Lay Out Path Forward on Tree Protection Legislation
Commit to protecting exceptional trees, maintaining Seattle’s reputation as a ‘truly Emerald City’
September 12, 2018
Members of the Council’s Planning, Land Use and Zoning (PLUZ) Committee issued the following statement specific to the City’s forthcoming tree ordinance earlier today:
“The benefits of tree canopies are numerous: a cleaner, more resilient environment, and a more beautiful and equitable city are among them. Management of trees is part of the complex challenge necessary to preserve these important benefits. In response, the Council’s PLUZ committee has discussed a framework which aims to create stronger stewardship of the trees we have, allow our canopy to keep pace with growth and greater density, and plant more trees in neighborhoods that lack them.
“We share a common goal with many of our constituents to protect our environment and grow our tree canopy. Together with the community we have been seeking stronger protections for our city’s trees in order to meet our goal of at least 30% tree canopy coverage in Seattle. This approach inspired us to propose a new requirement for permits to remove significant trees, while also requiring those who remove trees to replace them.
“From the start we’ve been committed to crafting this proposal in an open manner. We’ve hosted three public meetings on the proposal and went to great lengths to include the public at the ‘table’ by releasing working drafts for community input. In our collective experience with Council policy-making, it is unusual for draft legislation to be released to the public and discussed in committee before a bill is officially introduced. We’ve taken this approach because of our shared desire to incorporate input we receive before introducing legislation. We have already included much of what we’ve heard, including lowering the threshold for tree replacement to 6” in diameter, requiring certification for tree service professionals and extending these protections to all zones throughout the City.
“We’ve also heard that the community is interested in taking more time to consider this draft legislation, and that adding new replacement requirements was not enough protection for exceptional trees. In response to that critical input, last week Chair Johnson made a commitment to take more time with this legislation. All three committee members also strongly agree with advocates that we must maintain and strengthen the current protections for exceptional trees.
“In addition to maintaining and strengthening protections for exceptional trees, the committee will continue to consider important issues including the method we use to measure trees, protections for tree groves, funding to properly enforce the ordinance, and more. We all believe that these can be resolved with the community through the normal legislative process. Some of these issues will be discussed at the September 19th, 2018 meeting of the Planning, Land Use and Zoning Committee meeting. We plan to continue consideration in December after our budget process wraps up.
“It’s our hope that this approach will serve to incentivize preservation of trees as our city grows, and will maintain Seattle’s reputation as a truly Emerald City.”
Seattle Still Has Not Passed Needed Tree Protection After Ten Years
For 10 years Seattle has been saying it is going to update its Tree Protection Ordinance. While the Seattle City Council’s proposed goals on passing an updated Tree Protection Ordinance in its Concurrent Resolution 31870 to CB 119444 (see below) are laudable, in 2009 it passed a similar resolution, Resolution 31138, but after 10 years has not acted to follow through with passing new legislation.
Resolutions do not protect our urban forest as development continues to remove trees. While the City Council resolution proposes significant changes, the Seattle City Council needs to act to actually update its current Tree Protection Ordinance SMC 25.11, not just pass another resolution.
Seattle also continues to flagrantly ignore its existing requirement in SMC 25.11.090 since 2001, mandating developers replace all trees 24 ” DBH and larger and all exceptional trees removed during development.The MHA Ordinance does not address the issue of tree replacement not occurring.
SMC 25.11.090 – Tree replacement and site restoration.
- Each exceptional tree and tree over two (2) feet in diameter that is removed in association with development in all zones shall be replaced by one or more new trees, the size and species of which shall be determined by the Director; the tree replacement required shall be designed to result, upon maturity, in a canopy cover that is at least equal to the canopy cover prior to tree removal. Preference shall be given to on-site replacement. When on-site replacement cannot be achieved, or is not appropriate as determined by the Director, preference for off-site replacement shall be on public property.
- No tree replacement is required if the (1) tree is hazardous, dead, diseased, injured or in a declining condition with no reasonable assurance of regaining vigor as determined by a tree care professional, or (2) the tree is proposed to be relocated to another suitable planting site as approved by the Director
One only needs to ask 2 questions to determine that most large or exceptional trees removed during development have not been replaced as required by SMC 25.11.090:
“Where are the replacement trees that were required to be planted the last 18 years.”
“If the developers did not replant the trees, how much money did the city get from the developers to replant the trees and where are they?”
Council Concurrent Resolution 31870 to MHA Ordinance CB 119444 – section 6 on trees:
Section 6. The Council recognizes the environmental, social, and economic benefits of Seattle’s urban forest and commits to working with community members and City departments to update the City’s tree regulations, advancing the goals of the Urban Forest Stewardship Plan. Potential measures may include, but are not limited to, the following:
- Retaining protections for exceptional trees and expanding the definition of exceptional trees.
- Creating a permitting process for the removal of significant trees, defined as trees 6 inches in diameter at breast height or larger.
- Adding replacement requirements for significant tree removal.
- Simplifying tree planting and replacement requirements.
- Maintaining tree removal limits in single-family zones.
- Exploring the feasibility of establishing a in-lieu fee option for tree planting.
- Tracking tree removal and replacement throughout Seattle.
- Providing adequate funding to administer and enforce tree regulations.
Seattle City Council Resolution Number: 31138
Title
A RESOLUTION concerning policies for the protection of trees on public and private property within the City of Seattle, stating the Council’s priorities for legislative and Departmental actions to increase the overall health, quality and the extent of trees within the City of Seattle.
Status: Adopted as Amended
Date adopted by Full Council: August 3, 2009
Vote: 8-0 (Excused: Clark)
|
||
|
||
|
Dear Seattle City Council,
Please add the following amendment proposed by the Seattle Urban Forestry Commission to the proposed Mandatory Housing Affordability Ordinance The language proposed is within the scope of the final Environmental Impact Statement as discussed in section 3.6.3 MITIGATION MEASURES. To sustain our urban forest it is essential that trees removed during development be replaced. The proposed amendment addresses that issue.
SMC 25.11.090 – Tree replacement and site restoration (A)
“Each exceptional significant tree (six inches DBH and larger) and over two (2) feet that is removed in association with development in all zones shall be replaced by one or more new trees, the size and species of which shall be determined by the Director; the tree replacement required shall be designed to result, upon maturity, in 20 years, in a canopy cover volume that is at least equal to the canopy cover volume prior to tree removal. Preference shall be given to on-site replacement. When on-site replacement cannot be achieved, or is not appropriate as determined by the Director, preference for off-site replacement shall be on public property a fee-in-lieu shall be paid to the City to replace and maintain the tree or trees in the neighborhood where they were removed or elsewhere as needed in the city. The City shall enter all significant trees on site, trees removed, and trees replaced into SDCI’s current database system; noting tree species, common name, DBH, height, condition and location.“
Please add this amendment to the final Mandatory Housing Affordability Ordinance. Tree replacement is important to not lose tree canopy. Can we count on you to support and vote for this amendment? Thank you.
Sincerely,
|
||
|
||
|
January 9, 2019.
MHA Council Committee
City Hall
600 4th Ave
Seattle, WA 98124
RE: Amendments to MHA Ordinance
Dear Councilmembers,
The Urban Forestry Commission (UFC) would like to provide additional input as you undertake amendments for the Mandatory Housing Affordability (MHA) Ordinance.
The UFC is concerned about the feedback loop between all the different pieces of tree
protection legislation currently being considered. The Tree Protection Ordinance (currently on hold) affects Green Factor, its Director’s Rule, and the MHA Ordinance.
The UFC still feels mitigation measures proposed on the MHA EIS are not enough, especially being that the Tree Protection Ordinance is on hold. Available space for trees is being significantly reduced as part of MHA. The UFC believes the City needs to be more intent in protecting existing trees and requiring tree replacement. Other efforts that would support successful tree protection would include:
1. Clearly defining what a tree is (as done in version D7 of the Draft Tree Protection
Ordinance).
2. Including protection for all significant trees 6” in diameter and larger (not just
exceptional trees) removed during development in all zones.
3. Establishing a fee-in-lieu option to fund tree replacement when it’s not possible to do
on site.
4. Replacing significant trees removed on site or paying an in-lieu fee to the City to
cover replacement and maintenance costs in the neighborhood or elsewhere in the city
as needed (SMC 25.11.090).
5. Establishing the tree replacement requirement to be calculated based on canopy
volume lost and tree species and size at maturity (in 20 years).
6. Setting a minimum canopy cover requirement per property, including Residential Small
Lots.
7. Capturing all data on significant tree retention, loss, and replacement into the City’s
database.
8. Properly funding enforcement for tree protection to be effective.
9. Considering previous input provided by the UFC on the Green Factor Director’s Rule
letter of recommendation and Draft MHA Ordinance recommendations, which was
based on the current draft DR and additional changes might be warranted.
The UFC would like to propose specific language changes to SMC 25.11.090 (A), as follows:
Each exceptional significant tree (six inches DBH and larger) and tree over two (2) feet that is removed in association with development in all zones shall be replaced by one or more new trees, the size and species of which shall be determined by the Director; the tree replacement required shall be designed to result, upon maturity in 20 years in a canopy cover volume that is at least equal to the canopy cover volume prior to tree removal. Preference shall be given to on-site replacement. When on-site replacement cannot be achieved, or is not appropriate as determined by the Director, preference for off-site replacement shall be on public property a fee-in-lieu shall be paid to the City to replace and maintain the tree or trees in the neighborhood where they were removed or elsewhere as needed in the city. The City shall enter all significant trees on site, trees removed, and trees replaced into SDCI’s current database system; noting tree species, common name, DBH, height, condition and location,
The UFC would be happy to work with Council to help explore creative ideas and solutions to support Seattle’s urban trees as our city grows and gets denser as well as coordinating the different elements to tree protection regulation currently being considered by the City.
Sincerely,
Weston Brinkley, Chair Steve Zemke
cc: Mayor Durkan, Nathan Torgelson, Samuel Assefa, Jessica Finn Coven, Michelle Caulfield, David Driskell, Mi Podowski, Maggie Glowacki, Chanda Emery, Brennon Staley, Vera Giampietro, Urban Forestry Management Team, Urban Forestry Core Team, Sara Maxana, Aaron Blumenthal, Eric McConaghy, Yolanda Ho, Amanda Hohlfeld
see original document here – Re: Amendments to MHA Ordinance
The following email was sent to the Seattle City Council urging they add a tree
mitigation amendment to their proposed MHA Ordinance.
To Seattle City Council:
Last week the Seattle Urban Forestry Commission adopted and sent to the Seattle City Council and Mayor a letter entitled Re:Amendments to the MHA Ordinance Jan 9, 2019. In the letter was a specific recommended amendment regarding tree mitigation to add to the draft MHA ordinance 119184. It is within the scope of the MHA EIS. TreePAC and others support this amendment and need your help to sponsor it and get it considered by the full MHA Committee. Can you help us?
Proposed amendment: SMC 25.11.090 – Tree replacement and site restoration (A)
“Each exceptional significant tree (six inches DBH and larger) and over two (2) feet that is removed in association with development in all zones shall be replaced by one or more new trees, the size and species of which shall be determined by the Director; the tree replacement required shall be designed to result, upon maturity, in 20 years, in a canopy cover volume that is at least equal to the canopy cover volume prior to tree removal. Preference shall be given to on-site replacement. When on-site replacement cannot be achieved, or is not appropriate as determined by the Director, preference for off-site replacement shall be on public property a fee-in-lieu shall be paid to the City to replace and maintain the tree or trees in the neighborhood where they were removed or elsewhere as needed in the city. The City shall enter all significant trees on site, trees removed, and trees replaced into SDCI’s current database system; noting tree species, common name, DBH, height, condition and location.”
References as to why this amendment is within the scope of the MHA EIS:
Under Section 3.6.3 Mitigation Measures in the MHA Final EIS Nov. 2017 Biological Resources Section it states “The following mitigation measures are provided which would reduce impacts.”…
“Executive Order 2017-11: Tree Protection:
In October of 2017, the Mayor signed executive order 2017-11 directing City departments to improve departmental coordination, strengthen enforcement and adopt new regulations to improve and expand protections for Seattle’s urban trees and canopy cover. …The order also calls for expansion of compliance options to include in-lieu payment options for tree mitigation. Fees from any in-lieu payment will be used for mitigating the loss of canopy cover through replanting and reforestation while prioritizing addressing racial and economic disparities in accessing and enjoying the benefits of urban trees.”
Burgess’s executive order 20-17 in “Section 1. Enforcement Adjustment and Procedural Improvements” says “(B) SDCI will require consistent documentation for required tree removal review on private property including mitigating canopy cover loss of trees removed, and monitoring of planted trees for survival. Informational materials and resources for developers, property owners, and the public related to trees and vegetation management shall be updated to reflect this emphasis”
Thanks for your consideration. We are also contacting other Council members asking for their support as we know 5 votes are needed to pass it.
Steve Zemke -Chair Friends of Seattle’s Urban Forest