Tree Regulation Update  – August 1, 2018

Central staff memo – proposed tree regulation bill  – August 1, 2018

SMC 25.11 – Tree Protection Ordinance being repealed but not posted on Council website or as part of the bill.

The draft tree ordinance is not a finished product as there are sections referenced but missing and links and numbers missing in the text.

While it incorporates a number of positions that we urged the city to include, like tree permits for all trees 6 ” DBH and above and fees to replace trees in all zones, it also removes major protections that are in the current ordinance. It repeals the current ordinance without including the repealed language in the draft.  It says the current ordinance is in Appendix A but they do not post Appendix A with the draft.

Reading the bill by itself, it appears to be a good draft until you  realize what is being removed.

What  is changed or removed:

–  major change –  going from a concept of tree removal to canopy removal.  Canopy is a much less precise measurement  dependent on LIDAR studies which are really a vegetation cover analysis, not a tree cover analysis. The 2016 LIDAR analysis measured canopy at 8 feet which can include a lot of shrubs like laurel bushes. The city should stick with tree removal, not canopy removal. 

– change – SMC 25.11.090 requiring developers to replace all trees over 24′ DBH and that are exceptional. It replaces it with requiring developers to replace all trees over 6′ DBH but only up to the canopy goal in that zone. This will result in a net loss of trees where the original canopy is greater than the average for the zone.

– removal – designation and protection of exceptional trees which are the largest trees of a species. The current ordinance said developed  property owners can not remove exceptional trees unless they were hazardous. The change significantly reduces protection for large trees. From Director’s Rule 16-2008 – “An exceptional tree is a tree that: 1. Is designated as a heritage tree by the City of Seattle; or 2. Is rare or exceptional by virtue of its size, species, condition, cultural/historic importance, age, and/or contribution as part of grove of trees and trees …”

– removal –protection of tree groves ( they were added as exceptional in 2009). Tree groves no longer protected.

– removal – a limit of 3 trees being removed per year which were significant (over 6 ” DBH) but not exceptional. Draft sets no limit on number of trees that can be removed.

– removal – prohibition of cutting down any tree over 6″ DBH on an undeveloped lot. Limit would now be by zone, eg allowing a fully treed lot to reduce the canopy removal, eg  100% canopy cover to 20% in the multifamily zone would be allowed with no replacement required.

A SEPA Analysis is required under state law. It would require filling out an environmental checklist which is not very detailed.  The City would probably come back with a determination of non-significance    With the major changes proposed and the uncertainty of what the impacts of a drastically revised draft as currently written would be, requiring an EIS would make sense. There  will be a two week comment and appeal time.

If the city responds by putting back the removed provisions mentioned above from the current ordinance and required tree replacement for all trees removed over 6″ DBH either on site or off site in all zones while keeping the canopy goals for coverage of lots, then  this would be a strengthening of the existing ordinance. However, as written right now, it appears to  significantly reduce  protection for existing large trees and allows canopy coverage to decrease in zones. A Douglas fir that is 80 years old that is cut down takes 80 years to replace an equivalent canopy. Every tree removed is a loss to the existing canopy coverage and only over a long period of time can it be replaced. Not all trees replaced survive.

According to the Tree regulations Research Project, the city deals with about 10,000 permits/year. Most of these have trees associated with them. The proposal for major tree permits  under the current draft, which are probably mostly during development, would require a detailed tree inventory and tree report identifying trees on site by species and size so identifying exceptional trees would be no problem.

The question is how many minor tree permits are expected and my guess is far less.  It really does not seem it would be  a big problem identifying tree species for minor permits, making the “too difficult to determine tree species” not a credible argument compared to the benefit of protecting exceptional trees.

Using canopy goals in 2013 Urban Forest Stewardship Plan would result in lower goals than actual canopy cover measured in 2016 LIDAR Study in 2 zones. Institutional canopy cover measured in 2016 was 25%, UFSP goal is 20%. Multifamily canopy cover measured in 2016 was 23%. UFSP goal is 20%. LiDAR study also showed higher canopy cover in Developed Parks and Parks Natural Areas than listed as canopy goals.

Trees for All  Timeline now is for a single Sept 5th public hearing and possible vote by the Planning,  Use and Zoning Committee on Sept 19th. If the full Council does not vote by the end of Sept this proposal will be back before the Council in January as they deal with the budget for next year in October and November.

Now is the time to let Mayor Durkan and the Seattle City Council know that the current draft is not acceptable as proposed but needs to be further revised. Current protections that were removed need to be added back. The ordinance  needs to be based on individual tree removal, not canopy in terms of replacement.

You can send comments to [email protected] and [email protected]