SAVE SEATTLE'S TREES!

IMPROVING TREE PROTECTION DURING REGULATION OF PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT

Comments from Richard Ellison, Save Seattle's Trees, December 1998

Thanks to the Strategic Planning Office and members of the City Council for their efforts to find solutions to save trees in Seattle. Save Seattle's Trees applauds all solutions that preserve trees and wildlife habitat.

This document starts with a significant issues: page-1 followed by detailed comments: pages 2-5.

GENERAL

Something between the "no cut" and "no regulation" approach must be found.

"Everyone should be held accountable for the same standards."

Flexibility in site design is an important key to "making it work".

Waiting 2 years for "evaluation" of voluntary programs is a 5 year loophole, as new proposals take at least 3 extra years. In 5 years, many vacant lots may be developed on, with irreversible loss of significant trees.

Tie incentives for increased density/height/zoning changes to additional tree/open space preservation.

DCLU should request additional funding to reflect the City's seriousness and commitment to the urban forest

WHY REGULATIONS

Replacement of trees in lieu of preservation still allows for irreplaceable losses of SEPA significant trees.

Replacement tree maturity likely requires 50-100 years and so will not mitigate bird habitat losses.

Maturity of replacement trees is unlikely as new street trees live only 22 on average.

With 50% of vacant lots zoned Single Family, regulations should protect trees on this extensive resource.

"New regulatory requirements would only be established where they are likely to do the most good in protecting trees." Single family lots and steep slopes as the most vegetated areas outside of parks in Seattle.

REGULATIONS

New regulatory requirements should apply to all major projects, not just those undergoing Design Reviews.

Tree banks are loopholes that create "dead zones", and are a last resort, not an "early, easy and free" option.

SEPA should not be eliminated but clarified and strengthened to guarantee SEPA "Substantial tree"protection.

No exemptions, or incentives, should be allowed for building on steep slope areas.

Exemptions allowing a certain number of trees to be cut is a bad loophole. Minimum saved, not minimum cut.

Any "permit to remove large amounts of vegetation" should trigger automatic design review requirements before any vegetation removal permit approval.

SINGLE FAMILY HOMES

Voluntary means should exist only for projects with existing homes. All new single family homes on vacant lots should not have voluntary requirements under any circumstances.

"Over half of the vacant developable land in Seattle is zoned single family."

RESEARCH NEEDED

DCLU, for each project, should record the number of significant trees, by size and species, which are either lost or preserved in development. Annual tallies can be made to evaluate the programs success.

A survey of other jurisdictions and their laws regarding tree removal is necessary to see other successes.

Tie neighborhood planning for increased populations to tree/open space preservation.

The City must go forward with rewriting the Comprehensive Plan in regards to an "Environmental Element." To not amend the Comprehensive Plan would be in violation of the spirit, if not the law, regarding the Plan

Seattle must fulfill its goal of being a leader Environmental Stewardship, (one of the 4 core values of the Comprehensive Plan), by assuming more direct control over its urban forest. While education and voluntary approaches to protecting our green space are laudable and are necessary steps, it will not be enough.

Experience by other jurisdictions with legal protection of only publicly owned trees, and only voluntary protection of privately owned trees, is that volunteerism does not resolve the rapid loss of a cities significant trees.

We agree that flexibility in site design is an important key to "making it work" for developers and homeowners. However, flexibility should not include eliminating all trees on site or using "tree banks" or the "transfer of landscape requirements" as mitigation.

SEPA "Substantial" trees, the majority which have failed to be protected, need greater definition and some real guarantees from development. Citizens should not have to beg and file appeals for each individual SEPA "Substantial" tree threatened. The City needs to act as steward, guaranteeing that the best one percent of the finest trees in Seattle are not for sale. The key is to very flexible in design options. And sometime to say "no way" to a design that would remove SEPA "substantial", " Heritage" type trees.

In addition, even a small percentage of the remaining significant trees need some minimal protection baseline for all developments, especially on vacant, fully vegetated sites.

New regulatory requirements should apply to ALL major projects, not just those undergoing Design Reviews. Presently, only a small percentage of projects undergo design review. This means most are not in the Design Review program and this could be a large loophole.

Loopholes will not be fixed for at least 4-5 years. If we reevaluate a new tree protection program after two years, the evaluation process takes time. We must evaluate, propose changes, hold hearings on new proposals, and create changes. This will take at least an additional 3 years. So, loopholes in this current proposal would not likely be corrected for at least 5 years.

For example, a May 29, 1996 memorandum from Councilperson Drago proposed " tree preservation goals and policies be addressed and completed as early as possible in 1997." It is years later and the Council still has no goals and policies.

Continue to discourage building on steep slopes. Proposed changes in the Multifamily Housing Code approved by the Councils Economic and Community Development Committee would allow greater building height for structures on steep slopes. Steep slope areas are currently areas with the greatest concentration of significant trees and vegetation outside of parks. We need to minimize development of these sites, and we should not provide incentives to develop on them.

Taller buildings with smaller footprints are perhaps preferable for many flat sites undergoing development, but steep slope areas are different. Steep slopes are an exception-- these areas should not be developed on at all and development should be discouraged here, and not encouraged.

Tree banks become a major loophole for any developers, and should be a last resort, not an early, easy and free option. Tree banks create more "dead zones", this in a city that which already has less open space per resident than necessary in many communities undergoing growth. Dead zones cannot support native birds, nor do they act as corridors for wildlife between major greenspace areas.

Minimizing regulations as a preferred approach should not be used as an excuse to reduce the quality of life in Seattle by not including tree protection.

Mature trees provide not only hospitable wildlife habitat, but critical wildlife habitat.

A survey of other jurisdictions and their laws regarding tree removal is necessary to evaluate the success of their programs, which both preserve trees and allow economic vitality.

Education should also include information about aggressive (invasive) non-native species removal. Invasives are a major threat to the urban forest, and removal should be part of any mitigation plan for new developments.

Neighborhood's with the biggest tree canopies (like the Central District and Broadmore) have the most native birds. Preserving trees means preserving critical habitat, and communities (and developers) need to celebrate (and so educate) their community about this tree habitat resource.

Bonds should be automatically required for developments that require preservation of Heritage trees or any SEPA significant trees. This is supported by past City Council actions.

The City should think ahead and plan now (minimums) how they will evaluate their tree retention program.

DCLU for each project should record the number of significant trees, by size and species, which are either lost or preserved in development. This can serve for annual evaluations of the success of this program. It can also serve to further any inventory of trees in Seattle.

OPTION 1: REGULATIONS FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES

There are many reasons why new single family home construction should be included in the regulations:

"Everyone should be held accountable for the same standards."

"Over half of the vacant developable land in Seattle is zoned single family."

"New regulatory requirements would only be established where they are likely to do the most good in protecting trees" --- As half of the vacant lots are zoned for single family homes, regulations could save a tremendous amount of trees.

Vacant lands should not be completely cleared at the discretion of the landowner. Without regulations, too many significant trees will be lost. Some minimum retention requirements should exist.

Perhaps not all trees can be saved on a lot, but similarly, all trees should not be lost. Let there be some flexibility in the location of which trees are saved and lost. If someone wants a big open yard, then they must preserve trees elsewhere on the property.

New homes on vacant lots are an intolerable exemption. Exemptions for single-family homes should only be for existing homes, perhaps where new clearings are less than a maximum square footage or percent of the lot.

Design review is a good program to preserve trees. However, most projects do not use Design Review and they should not be excluded from tree preservation. Design Review could assist in providing special exemptions or flexibility to help preserve trees.

Replacement of trees is already standard. New landscapes usually have tree plantings. Tree replacement is NOT adequate mitigation, and is NOT a preferred option, over requirements for the retention of trees. Language regarding replacement of trees must acknowledge replacement as a last option.

Making trees "compatible with surrounding neighborhoods" cannot justify removal of trees if few trees exist in a neighborhood. If trees on site are rare in a neighborhood, there should be extra efforts for preservation.

Protection of trees is the issue. Saplings cannot replace mature trees in volume of canopy for at least 25 years or more. Therefore trees lost are lifetime losses to most Seattle adults.

The average life span of new street trees is only 22 years or less, and so rarely reach maturity. Therefore, how can the City expect new plantings to replace mature trees?

Building taller with smaller building footprints than existing can create greenspace.

Tie increased density/height/zoning changes to tree/open space preservation.

Tie neighborhood planning for increased populations to tree/open space preservation.

All efforts should be made to minimize loss of mature trees and greenspace as developments proceed.

Options should be considered which allow increased height and/or density only when there is a net increase in open space.

No exemptions should be allowed for building on steep slope areas.

Options for parking requirements could have saved dozens of trees in a recent public housing project.

Voluntary means should exist only for projects with existing homes.

Projects on vacant lots or short plots should have mandatory requirements and be treated like multiplex developments.

Bonds could be used to protect trees for a period (3-5 years) to insure variance allowances for trees are not abused.

The failure of SEPA to protect and preserve even 3 trees designated "SEPA Substantial" in a 1994 ruling by the Seattle City Council indicates that some modification to SEPA is necessary.

SEPA should not be eliminated but clarified and strengthened to insure tree protection for all SEPA "substantial" trees. Use SEPA to guarantee SEPA "substantial" type trees.

Long-time established tree lists by forestry and arborist professionals make a good baseline to clarify which tree "fits" SEPA's narrow guidelines. The problem is one of enforcement, which includes support by the City Council for its "SEPA" trees, the best 1% of Seattle's trees.

SEPA could be a good avenue to protect trees if SEPA can be "tightened up" in regards to actual protection.

We should insure that all trees which obviously fit SEPA guidelines actually receive protection.

Protecting only Heritage Trees would protect few trees currently, and so would be a major loophole to allowing tree cutting.

Recommended tree candidates for SEPA protection include:

Washington State's Big Tree List, updated annually by the University of Washington's Dept. of Forestry

Trees of Seattle, a list compiled by renowned northwest arborist Arthur Lee Jacobson

Heritage trees, as designated by current Seattle programs

Trees > 24 inches in diameter, certified as healthy, are recognized as unique to Seattle (City arborists office surveys show only 1% of Seattle's street trees fit this definition).

Vacant lots need protection from arbitrary tree removal.

Penalties for illegal removal of significant and protected trees could be a denial of building permits on the lot for a period of years.

Exemptions allowing a certain number of to be cut is a bad loophole. One lot may only have 5-10 significant trees, so a 5-10 tree exemption would allow complete clearing. A reverse strategy is better, where a minimum number of trees must be preserved (5-10?) and percentage (50%?) of the total trees overall.

Flexibility as to which trees are preserved remains the critical ingredient to satisfy developers.

Viewing needs can be addressed by selected removal and proper pruning practices.

Bad wording: "Permits to remove large amounts of vegetation would not be approved unless associated with new development," as written, sounds like a big loophole allowing developers free and easy access to tree removal.

Any "permit to remove large amounts of vegetation" should trigger automatic design review requirements before any vegetation removal permit approval.

Relying on tree professionals is a good idea, but must be followed up with using only certified professionals. Penalties for misuse of privileges, like any engineer or geologist.

A tree preservation plan should have some minimum standards. Saving at least 5 (?) trees + a minimum percentage of the significant trees should be required.

While minimum standards are good, standards must be sculpted carefully. For example, defining replacement standards with expectations of reaching "the same total tree cover upon maturity" is a poor approach for many reasons:

Replacement of trees in lieu of preservation allows for massive losses of habitat/canopy

Maturity may require 50-100 years and so is not mitigating impacts

Maturity is unlikely as new street trees live only 22 years or less on average (1993 City Survey)

Low income housing projects should not be allowed special license to remove trees due to added costs.

Costs associated with preserving trees cannot be used as an excuse to allow poorly designed projects or development in areas where new structures are not desired (steep slopes).

With 50% of vacant lots zoned single family, something must be done to protect significant trees now.

Something between the "no cut" and "no regulation" approach must be found.

Waiting for 2 years for "evaluation" of voluntary programs is really a 5 year delay, and in 5 years, the majority of these vacant lots may have been developed on, without adequate tree protection.

DCLU should request additional funding to reflect the City's seriousness and commitment to:

protecting mature trees and

ensure rapid evaluation of permit application so new regulations don't become a "log-jam".

The City should consider a bond issue to provide funding for tree protection and general ecological planning. This could be a separate bond (small, perhaps for one million dollars), or incorporated as part of a larger open space bond issue. A bond issue could be act as a "litmus test" for community support of the urban forestry issue.

Fund an expanded City Arborist's office, which should have oversight and coordination of all urban forest issues. Lack of a central office with the rapidly expanding urban forest programs is creating a lot of problems.

There is too much work to be done in the urban forest to only use volunteers.

Fund more restoration projects, such as an extensive Urban Conservation Corps program. Year-round and summer crews of youth and/or disadvantaged people could probably find matching funds with Federal or private funding agencies.

The Mayor's Environment Oversight Committee cannot serve in place of an Environmental Element in the Seattle Comp Plan. The City Council must fulfill its obligation to the Citizens of Seattle for a 20 year environmental plan within its Comprehensive Plan, as outlined in the 1996 Proposed Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan authored by Save Seattle's Trees.

The City must go forward with rewriting the Comprehensive Plan in regards to an "Environmental Element." To not amend the Comprehensive Plan would be in violation of the spirit, if not the law, regarding the Plan requirements.

What's a Lorax?

Web site created by Josh Moore. Copyright 2001 [Save Seattle Trees]. All rights reserved.