Recommendations for Updating Seattle’s Tree Ordinance

Posted on by April 11, 2018

Recommendations for Updating Seattle’s Tree Ordinance 

The current Seattle Tree Ordinance SMC 25.11 was written in 2001 with a major update in 2009 and some additional amendments since then. It has some good provisions like protecting tree groves and exceptional trees but needs serious updating.  Its main problem is that it does not require significant protection of trees during development and does not require replacement for trees removed during development and by private property owners. While green factor helps some, it does not significantly replace many of the services trees provide in our city – like helping to remove air pollution from our growing city, reducing storm water runoff without creating new infrastructure or providing habitat for birds and other animals.

Other cities both in Washington State and nationally have come up with urban forest ordinances that address many of the problems with Seattle’s current ordinance. Changes needed include:

 Re-instate a policy of no net loss of tree canopy.  Seattle’s previous Comprehensive Plan had a policy of no net loss of tree canopy. This was removed in the 2035 Comprehensive Plan. This needs to be re-stated in an updated tree ordinance.  We cannot reach our goal of increasing tree canopy if we do not replace what is being lost each year through development, by trees dying, by both legal and illegal removals on private property. A complaint-based tree code enforcement process after trees have been cut down is not working to save and replace trees Some cities that have a no net loss policy includes Atlanta, GA and Annapolis, MD; Issaquah, Lake Forest Park; Redmond and Shoreline.

To achieve no net loss of tree canopy requires that tree canopy removed must be replaced on site, off site or a fee in lieu for the city to replace the trees be paid into a Tree Replacement and Maintenance Fund. This should apply to significant trees (over 6 inches DBH) and any exceptional trees removed during development or as hazard trees. For a healthy urban forest Seattle needs both a diversity of tree species and sizes. Replacement trees should be based on the size of a tree removed  (eg, small, medium and large)  to ensure that over time an equivalent canopy volume is replaced.

The fee in lieu value shall be determined based on current arboriculture practices and shall be periodically updated to keep pace with costs of replacement and maintenance. Adjustments reducing fees for property owners may be determined for those that the cost is a hardship.

The Tree Replacement and Maintenance Fund shall also collect funds based on fines for violation of this ordinance.  Fines need to be appropriately large to effectively deter illegal removal of trees. The Fund may also be used to assist individuals that need help to comply with the tree ordinance. Donations by non-profits, corporations and members of the public can be made to the fund to further city goals to maintain and increase the city’s tree canopy.

To track and monitor tree loss and replacement Seattle needs to expand the current tree removal and replacement permit system run by the Seattle Department of Transportation.   Such an expanded system should be comprehensive and require a tree permit to remove any significant or exceptional trees on both public and private property. Tree permit applications and approvals shall be posted on line and data kept and posted on all trees removed and replaced to track compliance. One city website  portal should be used for all tree permits applications to make it easier for people to comply.

As SDOT does, trees to be removed shall be marked with a yellow ribbon and a notice posted that is visible and can be read from the property line for 2 weeks prior to a non-hazard tree being removed.

To help monitor and replace trees lost during development require that an Urban Forest Canopy Impact Assessment be done by a certified arborist – basically a tree survey detailing the impact of the development on the urban forest canopy and trees on site prior to issuing a construction permit. It would be used to determine canopy loss and to quantify replacement trees needed to be replaced on site, off site or a fee-in-lieu value.  The Urban Forest Canopy Impact Assessment Report shall include a map of the property with all trees six inches DBH and larger noted and numbered, canopy area, and trees to be removed clearly labeled.

  • Species: speaks to size of canopy and amount of storm water benefit.
  • DBH: speaks to age of tree and canopy coverage.
  • Tree Height: speaks to canopy volume and amount of environmental benefit.
  • Canopy Width (area): speaks to canopy volume and amount of environmental benefit.
  • Tree Condition: speaks to overall forest health and environmental impacts.
  • Photographs of the trees on the parcel and adjacent properties.
  • Canopy coverage as a percent of area pre- and post-project development.
  • Canopy impact assessment must include a revegetation plan for the site where trees are removed and details on where off site trees will be planted and maintained or whether in lieu fees are proposed to pay the city to replant and maintain trees.

Expand SDOT’s current tree service provider’s registration to cover all tree work done in the city. All tree service providers must register with the city of Seattle to ensure that they comply with city ordinances and regulations to protect and grow the urban canopy. Tree service providers shall include all those who cut down. prune or plant trees in the city. SDCI and other city departments will work with SDOT to establish and maintain one list of approved Tree Service Providers for the City.

Other updates needed:

Expand purpose and intent of ordinance to include “The Tree Protection code is one of the implementation measures of the Seattle Comprehensive Plan and the Seattle Urban Forest Stewardship Plan. Together with education and other initiatives, these regulations protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Seattle and are consistent with other plans and policies of the City. In so doing, the appearance of the City is enhanced, and important ecological, cultural, and economic resources are protected for the benefit of the City’s residents and visitors.”

A 5-year Tree Maintenance Bond shall be posted to ensure trees planted or retained on a development project survive as well as for trees planted off site. Any fee in lieu system for trees removed shall be according to standard arboriculture guidelines and shall include costs for planting and survival for 5 years. Any trees dying during the 5-year period must be replaced. Any replacement trees will be considered significant trees by the city to ensure they are not removed without replacement.

The tree ordinance should consider ways to consolidate tree oversight and maintenance into one city department that does not have a conflict of interests in terms of their mission statement.  The Seattle City Auditor in 2009 recommended that the 8 city departments currently overseeing trees should be consolidated and recommended that the Office of Sustainability and Environment was a logical choice.

Remove exemption for lots under 5000 square feet complying with tree ordinance.

Limit the removal of significant non-exceptional trees to no more than 2 in any 3 year period.

Add more definitions including:

          “DBH” means diameter of a tree at breast height – 54 inches above ground

“Canopy area” means the area below the tree dripline as viewed from above

“Canopy volume” means the 3 dimensional volume of tree foliage branches

“Fee-in-lieu” – a fee paid into the Tree Replacement and Canopy Maintenance Fund to replace tree canopy lost on site and not replaced on site or off site either during development or on private property

“Hazard tree” a tree that has a structural defect that makes it likely to fail in whole or in part and has the potential to harm people or buildings.

“Seattle Comprehensive Plan” – 20 year plan adopted by the Seattle City Council and Mayor to guide future growth in Seattle

”Seattle Urban Forestry Stewardship Plan” – Plan adopted every 5 years to guide protection and  enhancement of Seattle’s urban forest

“Significant tree” – any tree on a property that is over six inches or more in diameter at DBH.

“Tree” – woody vegetation which is 6 inches or greater diameter at breast height (DBH), measured 54” above the ground mid-slope. Multi-stem trees like vine maple use the following formula to determine their DBH = square root of the sum of each stem DBH squared. A Tree does not include any species which appears on the King County Noxious Weeds or Weeds of Concern list. A Tree may be alive or dead.

“Tree permit” – permit required for all significant and exceptional trees removed on private property, including during development, and trees removed on public property

“Tree protection area” – area denoted on site plan for protection of significant and exceptional trees during development

“Tree Replacement and Maintenance Fund” means a fund established to facilitate mitigation and tree replacement when trees cannot be replaced on the site from which they were removed.

“Tree Service Providers” – Tree Service contractors who meet the requirements of the city to register to do tree care work

“Urban Forest Canopy Impact Assessment” – detailed report on impact of development on urban forest canopy and trees used to determine canopy loss or gain during development and to quantify replacement values.

No Net Loss of Trees Key Component of Tree Ordinances

Posted on by May 9, 2018

One of the key components in any tree ordinance has to be the concept that one of the goals of the ordinance is to ensure that there is a no net loss of trees and tree canopy. It seems many cities unfortunately have not adopted this policy goal. More cities over time, however,  are seeing the need for “no net loss” policies to maintain their tree canopy.

Cities that advocate a no net loss of tree canopy:

Annapolis, Maryland – City Council  passes stricter tree reforestation law, Capital Gazette, March 27, 2017 – “When developers are required to replant cut down trees in Annapolis they must replace those trees acre for acre. That’s the new law after the Annapolis City Council voted to pass legislation dubbed the “No Net Loss” provision”

Atlanta, GA – Tree Ordinance -“It is the policy of the city that there shall be no net loss of trees within the boundaries of the city.”

Issaquah, WA – Tree Canopy – “In 2008, Issaquah adopted targets for tree canopy
coverage of 51% of total land within Issaquah and no net loss of overall coverage.”

Lake Forest Park, WA – Tree Ordinance – “Implement canopy-based regulatory and permitting strategies that result in at least no net loss in tree canopy coverage and is grounded in a 30-year maturity cycle for trees.”

Norcross, GA – Chapter 113 – Tree Preservation – “It is the policy of the city that there shall be no net loss of canopy coverage as defined in this chapter within the boundaries of the city, including property owned by the city.”

Palo Alto, CA – Urban Canopy – “The Urban Forest Master Plan’s forest preservation goals will incorporate new landscape design requirements to address multiple goals including: Water Efficiency, Protection of regulated trees, Shading of hardscape features, Compatibility with existing landscapes, Native habitat, No net loss of tree canopy”

Redmond, Washington – Tree Protection – Purpose – “Mitigate the environmental and aesthetic consequences of tree removal in land development through on and off-site tree replacement to achieve a goal of no net loss of trees through-out the City of Redmond”

Sammamish, WA – – Development Standards – Trees  – “Mitigate the environmental and aesthetic consequences of tree removal through on-site and off-site tree replacement to achieve a goal of no net loss of canopy throughout Sammamish”

Shoreline, WA – Trees –  “Among the goals of our tree regulations is to ensure there is no net loss of Shoreline’s tree canopy coverage. One way of doing this is by regulating the rate of cutting and requiring replacement trees to be planted.”

Comments Regarding Draft Director’s Rule 21-2017 –  Calculating Tree Valuations and Civil Penalties for Tree Protection Code Violations 

Posted on by January 18, 2018

Comments Regarding Seattle DCI Draft Director’s Rule 21-2017 – 

Calculating Tree Valuations and Civil Penalties for Tree Protection Code Violations

For this Director’s Rule to be successful we believe that SDCI needs to implement a permit based system for tree removal.

The current prohibition in SMC 25.11 from cutting down exceptional trees and removing more than 3 six inch or more DBA non-exceptional trees per year and other limits to tree removal are mainly based on a complaint system that is not working. While having the ability to impose fines for violations that are reported, most violations have and will go unreported, which does not help to deter trees being removed illegally.

 The recent Tree Regulations Report by OSE and SDCI confirms that serious problems with compliance are a result of the current complaint based system. One ominous trend is reports we are hearing of realtors/developers requiring property owners to remove trees prior to a sale being completed on properties that are going to be developed. The proposed six-month prohibition on tree removal prior to development, while a significant improvement, is still a complaint based system that will be difficult to monitor without a permit system.  With a permit based system, tree removal prior to development can be monitored which will reduce the number of violations.

A better system to protect trees under the existing ordinance is to require the use of a permit system for all trees over 6 inches in diameter. This provides a check on the possible removal of more than 3 significant trees a year that are not exceptional, will reduce the number of exceptional trees being cut by providing confirmation as to whether a tree is exceptional or not before they are cut down, reducing the loss of exceptional trees which are protected under SMC 25.11.

The language in SMC 25.11.100 already gives SDCI the authority it needs to issue permits and other conditions to replace the current mainly complaint based system with a permit system.  In fact DCI already issues permits for Hazard Tree Removal and under the ECA Restoration Plan Application

“SMC 25.11.100 Enforcement and penalties

A. Authority   The Director shall have the authority to enforce the provisions of this chapter, to issue permits, impose conditions, and establish administrative procedures and guidelines, conduct inspections, and prepare the forms necessary to carry out the purposes of this chapter.”

 A comprehensive permit system would allow more careful and timely consideration of exceptional trees removed as hazard trees before they are cut rather than trying to determine this after they are cut. While a permit for a hazard tree exists, many people are not aware of it.  Over 70 different tree species with different diameters DHA are listed in Director’s Rule  16-2008 Designation of Exceptional Trees.. A permit requirement for all trees will significantly reduce exceptional trees being removed without verification.

 SDOT currently has in place a permit system and posting requirement that is working to stop illegal tree cutting in the right of way. Other cities have also implemented successful permit systems, including Lake Forest Park, WA; Portland, Oregon; Sammamish, WA; Atlanta, Georgia; and Vancouver, WA.   

Also, we recommend requiring arborists and other tree care people to register with the city as SDOT currently does for tree care providers..  This allows them to be informed of current tree laws and ordinances and sign that they agree with city tree policies and regulations, have a Washington State Contractor’s license and Seattle Business License, and have a certificate of insurance license with Seattle listed as an additional insured.  This puts the main responsibility on compliance with Seattle’s tree ordinance on tree service providers rather than expecting individual property owners to understand all the laws and regulations.

As to the actual calculation of tree appraisal values, we are not certain why these values do not start at 100% and be adjusted downward based on actual evaluations in the field. Minimally we think a 100% valuation should be placed on a tree being an exceptional tree either individually or in a tree grove.  Also we think that conifers should get a higher valuation based on their year round ability to reduce stormwater runoff and mitigate air pollution and carbon dioxide utilization and reduction. In addition, consideration of location besides reducing heat effects on buildings and air pollution from high traffic areas should consider air pollution reduction from a health impact like higher asthma occurrence in areas with fewer trees like South Park and Georgetown.

Also as to penalties, consideration should be given to owner’s ability to pay and reduction in penalty based on what is replanted either on or off site that is comparable to the loss of the tree or trees. And the responsibility of tree care providers understanding Seattle City laws and their responsibility in complying with the laws before commencing work needs to be taken into consideration.  A second or multiple violations should result In higher penalties and suspension of their registration with the city and ability to do work in the city.

Steve Zemke     Chair – Friends of Seattle’s Urban Forest

Response to Ingraham High School Classroom Addition Draft SEPA Checklist Jan 2018

Posted on by January 22, 2018

Friends of Seattle’s Urban Forest -Response to Ingraham High School Classroom Addition Draft SEPA Checklist Jan 2018

Westward View into Northwest Tree Grove at Ingraham High School

Healthy Madrone Shoot arising from Stump #110 – labeled “protect potential for new growth” when previous addition was built in 2011.

To right of NW addition to school is 23.5 in DBH Douglas fir in Northwest Grove area to be cut down along with smaller fir trees planted as mttigation for previous addition

The tree analysis and plan outline and other appendix information was not posted on line as of the community meeting on Thursday January 11, 2018.  I first received a copy of the full draft SEPA Checklist with Appendix  from the school district on Friday Jan 12, 2018 .  Because  the appendix to the SEPA analysis was not online or easily available, as was acknowledged at the January 11, 2018 meeting,  you need to extend the comment period. In this day and age the public should not have to go to the Broadview Public Library or the School District Office or pay to be sent a copy of the complete document even if it was clear that more information was available. It was not immediately clear to me that an Appendix was missing and that  I would have to search it out to see the information used to fill out the checklist. I do not believe I am alone in experiencing concern that the full document was not readily available.

The second major problem is that part of the proposed construction area is in the “Northwest Tree Grove”which was designated as an “uncommon plant habitat” by a Seattle Hearing Examiner” as a result of a previous SEPA evaluation for the BEX III classroom addition on the West side of the school. This is not mentioned in the SEPA Checklist.

The third major problem is that no mitigation is proposed for the removal of the trees on the north lawn or the 22.5 inch DBH Douglas fir (#109) tree proposed being removed or for at least 4 “non significant” Douglas fir trees planted as mitigation for the previous BEX III Project or the Madrone sapling growing out of #110 “stump – Protect Potential for New Growth ” also identified in the BEX III Project or other trees planted for mitigation but that died and were not replaced. The city is working to increase tree canopy and this project is decreasing tree canopy.

Further detail:

The tree report and the draft SEPA analysis  neglect completely to mention that the west end of the  proposed new building will intrude into the Northwest Tree Grove area that went through a school district and Seattle Hearing Examiner process when they built the BEX III addition on the west side in the Northwest starting in 2009 -2011.  The Seattle Hearing Examiner Ann Watanabe in a May 4, 2009 decision declared that the “Northwest Grove is an uncommon plant habitat under the SEPA policy …The northwest grove is uncommon account of the conifer/madrone/salal association which is present, and the relative scarcity of that association” In 3 areas new madrone shoots are currently  growing. One of these is from stump  (tree 109) which would be removed by the current proposal. See attached photos.

The intrusion into the Northwest Grove starts just west of the sidewalk entry from N 135 to the Westside addition built under BEX III.  This area includes 2 separate areas where mitigation Douglas firs were planted. One spot has 2 Douglas firs and the other has 2 Douglas firs along with salal and Oregon grape clumps. Additional mitigation trees, Douglas fir and western red cedar  were planted in this area and other parts of the Northwest Grove but died and were not replaced.

In addition to removing a tall 23.5 inch DBH  Douglas fir (tree 109 )from this Northwest Grove area  they are removing a healthy madrone shoot with 2 stems  totaling 2.75 inches DBH. This shoot is coming out of a stump (Tree #110) that was labeled in BEX III as   “stump -Protect Potential for New Growth”  in the Seattle School District Ingraham High School Renovation, Demolition and New Construction Second Addendum to Revised 2008 SEPA Checklist Nov 19, 2009. There are only two other areas in the Northwest Grove where madrone shoots are coming up. (see photos) It is not clear how trees and an area deemed to be protected can now be removed.

Other trees will also be cut down and cleared from the North lawn area. A number of these were also part of the mitigation for the BEX III intrusion into the Northwest Grove.   But nowhere in the tree report by Tree Solutions,which also did the arborist report in 2009 for the intrusion into the Northwest Grove of trees for the BEX III project,  is any mitigation being proposed for any of this new tree removal except re-planting street trees being removed under this project, which the city explicitly requires.

Nowhere is there mention of the previous intrusion into the Northwest Grove, its impact on the Northwest Grove size and tree removal then and protections and mitigation measures put in place as a result for that project. The Seattle School District is once again intruding into the Northwest Grove as delineated in BEX III which was designated as an “uncommon plant habitat” under SEPA. This time they has proposed no  mitigation for this new project or acknowledged that they are removing mitigation put in place for the previous project or acknowledged that many of the trees and shrubs planted as mitigation for BEX III have died on the school campus and have not been replaced in the Northwest Grove or elsewhere on the school campus.

The School District needs to implement a more environmentally sensitive and responsive plan than what is being proposed.  They need to honor the previous mitigation agreed to and propose serious mitigation for the  new actions that are sustained. They need to replace canopy lost on an equivalent basis with new trees and replant trees and vegetation that died  since BEX III was completed that was part of that mitigation process  agreed to for that project.

Steve Zemke

Chair – Friends of Seattle’s Urban Forest

Chair – TreePAC

Note – Comment period has been extended to Jan 29, 2018.

Comments should be e-mailed to SEPAcomments@Seattleschools.org

Seattle Mayor Tim Burgess signs Executive Order to Increase Tree Protection

Posted on by October 14, 2017

From This Week in the Mayor’s Office – Oct 13, 2017

Protecting Seattle’s Tree Canopy

Mayor Burgess signed an Executive Order focused on strengthening Seattle’s protections for trees on private property today. The order directs the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections to better implement existing tree regulations through:

• Strengthening the existing regulations through new and updated Director’s Rules;

• Increasing penalties for illegal tree cutting; and

• Developing a fee-in-lieu program to mitigate tree loss

Further, the order asks City staff to explore how Mandatory Housing Affordability (MHA) policies could support Seattle’s urban forestry goals.

“Seattle’s tree canopy is a treasure that provides critical health and economic benefits to our city,” said Mayor Burgess. “It must be protected, nurtured, and expanded. As we grow as a city, we must also grow our commitment to be good stewards of our urban forest.”

Beyond policy, the preservation of Seattle’s tree canopy also relies on engagement from local communities. Head to Sam Smith park on Saturday, October 14, to celebrate Arbor Day with City staff and community members by planting new trees and embarking on a guided tour of Seattle’s urban forest. The Seattle Arbor Day celebration is a free, family-friendly event open to the public.

Seattle Arbor Day Celebration
Saturday, October 14, from 8:30 am – 12 pm
Sam Smith park, across from 2800 S. Massachusetts St.

*Note: The activities will be northeast of the intersection of Martin Luther King Jr. Way and S. Massachusetts St. Parking is limited to adjacent streets.

Click here to visit the Trees for Seattle homepage.

Lake Forest Park Buys 5 Acre Woods from Seattle Public Utilities for Park

Posted on by October 1, 2017

Press Release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

September 29, 2017

Lake Forest Park and City of Seattle Come Together

to Save 5 Acre Woods

September 28:

After two years of intense negotiation and advocacy by community groups, the Lake Forest Park City Council has voted unanimously to purchase Five Acre Wood from the City of Seattle. The 5.6-acre parcel is the city’s last remaining tract of undeveloped land, and will now become an urban forest park. The City Council also resolved to sign an agreement with Lake Forest Park Stewardship Foundation, to develop plans for fundraising and a long term park.

Seattle Public Utilities had held the land for many years as a potential site for a future water reservoir. The lush, mature forest, wetland and stream provide wildlife habitat, tree bank and potential for nature trails that will continue to benefit residents of Lake Forest Park and the City of Seattle. It also contributes to the health of Lake Washington.

Seattle Green Spaces Coalition worked with Lake Forest Park Stewardship Foundation on community outreach and fundraising efforts. Contributions to purchase the land were also made by King Conservation Futures, the Tulalip Tribe, and many individuals.

We credit the leadership of Lake Forest Park City Council, Seattle Public Utilities and Lake Forest Park Stewardship Foundation for recognizing the value of green space in urban areas. We also applaud their ability to work together to retain this green space.

The Seattle Green Spaces Coalition works to keep public lands in public hands for public benefit. We help or spearhead efforts to create public-private partnerships, and public policies that foster maintaining the green spaces that keep our urban environments livable. The City of Seattle owns more than 400 acres of surplus public land, and each site has powerful potential benefits for public use.

Contacts: (all available for interviews and to provide additional materials)

· Mary Fleck, Co-Chair, Seattle Green Spaces Coalition 206.937.3321 / maryfleckws@gmail.com

· Elaine Ike, Co-Chair, Seattle Green Spaces Coalition 206.933.0163

(Photo left to right: Deputy Mayor Catherine Stanford, Kim Josund, executive member Lake Forest Park Stewardship Foundation, mayor Jeff Johnson, Natalie-Pascal Boisseau (Board member Lake Forest Park Stewardship Foundation) City Council member Tom French) PressRelease.LFP

Make Developers Pay for Tree Canopy Loss!

Posted on by September 18, 2017

Action Alert –  TreePAC.org and Friends of Seattle’s Urban Forest

With the tremendous growth going on in Seattle, trees are more threatened than ever. Developers are clamoring for fewer restrictions and are winning as the Seattle City Council continues to assist developers in their push for more housing and especially affordable housing.  Current legislation before the City Council Planning, Land Use and Zoning Committee, CB 119057 modifying the design review process, is set to be moved on in committee, this Tuesday, Sept 19th at 9:30 AM. It will speed up the design review process and make more administrative decisions rather than citizen review.

The current tree protection ordinance is out of date and has been in interim status for 8 years. Its way past time to update it as development interests put increased pressure on tree loss.   Besides repeatedly recommending the City update its interim tree ordinance, The Seattle Urban Forestry Commission has made 2 recent specific recommendations to the City Council to act on now.

  • The first recommendation is to track tree and canopy removal per project. Specifically, the Commission recommends tracking significant tree removals, exceptional tree removals, and removed canopy coverage, in square feet, as part of a complete application.Without this data, the City cannot accurately quantify tree and canopy removal and implement appropriate tree planting efforts. See the Commission’s previous letter of recommendation dated June 25, 2014 (enclosed).
  • The second recommendation is to provide a fee-in-lieu option for projects unable to replace trees equal to the number of trees and amount of canopy removed by a project. There is a lost public benefit associated with the removal of public and private trees which impacts human psychology, ecosystem services, public health, and neighborhood character. A tree removal fee-in-lieu option should be similar to the alternative compliance option for stormwater mitigation yet deposited in an Urban Forestry Account to fund planting and maintaining for long-term, healthy trees in Seattle.

Please contact the Committee members before Tuesday if possible, either by e-mail or phone,   and urge them to act on these recommendations. They can also be contacted after Tuesday urging support for passing a strong tree ordinance. If you are able to come to the committee meeting on Tuesday in Council Chambers in City Hall, there is a public comment period at the beginning of the meeting.

Rob.Johnson@seattle.gov –  Chair    206-684-8808

mike.obrien@seattle.gov    206-684-8802

lisa.herbold@seattle.gov   206-684-8803

lorena.gonzalez@seattle.gov     206-684-8802

Thanks,

Steve Zemke – Chair – TreePAC.org and Friends of Seattle’s Urban Forest

www.TreePAC.org

www.friends.urbanforests.org

P.S. for additional information see:

Seattle Urban Forestry Commission letter – Design Review Program Improvements – CB119057

Friends of Seattle Urnban Foest and TreePAC letter –

Concerns about CB 119057 modifying design review process

Seattle Urban Forestry Commission – Comments on Design Review Improvements – CB119057

Posted on by September 17, 2017

Seattle Urban Forestry Commission
Tom Early, Chair • Steve Zemke, Vice-Chair
Weston Brinkley • Leif Fixen • Megan Herzog • Craig Johnson
Joanna Nelson de Flores • Sarah Rehder • Andrew Zellers
September 13, 2017.
Councilmember Rob Johnson
City Hall
600 4th Ave.
Seattle, WA 98124

RE: Design Review Program Improvements – CB119057

Dear Councilmember Johnson,
The Urban Forestry Commission commends the intent of the Design Review Program
Improvements. A city should continually re-examine its procedures in order to efficiently meet its goals. Based on the Commission’s review, the proposed changes conflict with the goals of the City’s Urban Forest Stewardship Plan (UFSP), specifically to reach 30% canopy cover by 2037. In light of this, the Commission makes two recommendations to the proposed Design Review Program Improvements, which should also be applied to the current permit review procedures such as clearing and grading.

The first recommendation is to track tree and canopy removal per project. Specifically, the Commission recommends tracking significant tree removals, exceptional tree removals, and removed canopy coverage, in square feet, as part of a complete application. Without this data, the City cannot accurately quantify tree and canopy removal and implement appropriate tree planting efforts. See the Commission’s previous letter of recommendation dated June 25, 2014 

The second recommendation is to provide a fee-in-lieu option for projects unable to replace trees equal to the number of trees and amount of canopy removed by a project. There is a lost public benefit associated with the removal of public and private trees which impacts human psychology, ecosystem services, public health, and neighborhood character. A tree removal fee-in-lieu option should be similar to the alternative compliance option for stormwater mitigation yet deposited in an Urban Forestry Account to fund planting and maintaining for long-term, healthy trees in Seattle.

These recommendations are intended to aid the UFSP’s monitoring goals and provide an offsite approach to mitigate tree canopy cover loss due to development. Thank you for the
opportunity to provide comments on the proposed Design Review Program Improvements
described in CB119057.

Sincerely,
Tom Early, Chair

Concerns about CB 119057 modifying Seattle design review process

Posted on by September 13, 2017

Concerns about CB 119057 modifying design review process

Testimony before Seattle City Council Planning, Land Use and Zoning Committee

Sept 11. 2017

Steve Zemke – Chair – Friends of Seattle’s Urban Forest and TreePAC

CB 119057 was submitted to the Seattle City Council Planning, Land Use and Zoning Committee on August 15 to significantly modifying the Design Review process. The purpose is to shorten and reduce much of the design review process for large projects and make administrative and hybrid decisions decisions instead to speed up developers building more projects to meet housing needs. Exceptional trees would then in some decisions be an administrative or hybrid decision by DCI instead of public review.

Right now we are getting no significant return on trees lost and what you are proposing will accelerate the loss. Below are two recommendations critical to this bill.  If you add this in this ordinance it will be a big leg up on also revising a private tree ordinance to help protect and enhance our urban tree canopy. You have to act now.  If you do not developers will continue to remove Seattle’s tree canopy and Seattle and its citizens will loss while developers pay nothing for the removal.

– The need to track tree loss by requiring an Urban Forest Canopy Impact Assessment for all development as recommended by the Seattle Urban Forestry Commission. https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/UrbanForestryCommission/FinalIssuedDocuments/Recommendations/ADOPTEDDPDReportingLetter062514.pdf

– Mandate replacement on or off site of all tree canopy lost or payment into a City Tree Replacement and Maintenance Fund with tree value based on a professional appraisal as approved by the Council of Professional and Landscape Appraisers.

Starting on page 36 of the proposed ordinance the full design review removes all the current design review criteria and says “the Director may establish by rule, the information that the applicant shall present” Then removed on the next page are an initial site analysis, a drawing of existing site conditions that included all tree over 6 inches and species and a number of other conditions. The existing requirements should be retained and expanded to include the canopy impact assessment,

On page 43 the Administrative design review process also eliminates all the existing site evaluation requirements. They should remain.  Then add that “the administrator can add additional requirements.”

The problem remains that DCI’s mandate is to help builders build. Exceptional and other trees will continue to be lost as they are given minimal value in this process. If trees limit the full development potential of the lot they can be removed. The city suffers canopy loss but there is no requirement that the developers compensate the city for the loss of existing canopy.

You need to include a provision that if trees cannot be saved developers need to pay into a Tree Replacement and Maintenance Fund to compensate the city for the ecological and environmental benefits currently provided by a healthy urban forest. If developers are not required to compensate the city, it will be impossible to require compensation from homeowners or anyone else in the future for loss of exceptional trees.

Other cities have established tree funds.  Here are two examples.

Here for example is language from Portland Oregon’s Tree Ordinance for a Tree Planting and Preservation Fund.   https://www.portlandoregon.gov/citycode/?c=66002

11.10.070 Fees. A. Generally. The City Council may establish and amend by ordinance permit, inspection, review, enforcement, in-lieu of planting or preservation, appeal and other fees as necessary to sustain the development permit, tree permit, and other Development Service or Urban Forestry programs. All fees, charges, civil penalties, and fines established by authority of this Title will be listed in the Portland Policy Documents. B. Fees in lieu of planting or preserving trees. Where allowed by other provisions of this Title, a fee may be paid into the Tree Planting and Preservation Fund in lieu of planting or preserving trees. The fee per tree is the entire cost of establishing a new tree in accordance with standards described by the City Forester. The cost includes materials and labor necessary to plant the tree, and to maintain it for 2 years. The fee will be reviewed annually and, if necessary, adjusted to reflect current costs. See Section 11.15.010 for more information on the Tree Planting and Preservation Fund.

“11.15.010 Tree Planting and Preservation Fund. 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 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: 1. To plant trees on public or private property, including streets, in the same watershed as the site from which the funds were collected. Planting trees includes the cost of materials and labor necessary to install and establish a tree for a 2 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. ”

Woodinville is a local city that has established a Tree Fund. http://www.ci.woodinville.wa.us/Documents/CityHall/Ordinances/Ordinance%20589.pdf

21.50.040 City Tree Fund established.

(1) Fund Established. A City Tree Fund is established for the collection of any funds used for the purpose and intent set forth by this chapter.

(2) Funding Sources. The following funding sources may be allocated to the City Tree Fund: payments received in lieu of supplemental plantings; civil penalties collected pursuant to this chapter; agreed-upon restoration payments or settlements in lieu of penalties; sale of trees or wood from City property; donations and grants for tree purposes; sale of seedlings by the City; and other monies allocated by City Council.

(3) Funding Purposes. The Tree Board shall provide recommendations with each budget to the City Council for approval of how the fund will be allocated. The City shall use money received pursuant to this section for the following purposes:

(a) Acquiring, maintaining, and preserving wooded areas within the City;

(b) Planting and maintaining trees within the City;

(c) Identification and maintenance of heritage trees;

(d) Establishment of a holding public tree nursery;

(e) Urban forestry education;

(f) Urban forest canopy coverage assessment; or

(g) Other purposes relating to tree and woodland protection and enhancement as determined by the City Council. (Ord. 611 § 8 (Att. A), 2016; Ord. 589 § 2, 2016)

There is more in  CB 119057 that is of concern but along with the Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan and HALA, DCI’s mission and policies are  intent on helping developers build faster and more intensely. For 8 years DCI and Seattle  Mayors and the Seattle City Council have ignored updating protection for private trees but has been very adept at finding ways to help developers. Trees should have standing in the city, not just developer’s “rights”. Seattle needs an independent city department or agency whose mission it is to save and protect trees and advocate for their role in the city structure and life.  Tree protection should be in a separate Department from DCI as DCI’s prime mission to help builders build things.  DCI has a severe conflict of interest and this legislation is one more example of reducing protection for trees. The most logical location would be in the Office of Sustainability and Environment which should be expanded to a full City Department.