Tree Regulations

 

Research Project Phase II

Final Findings and Recommendations

March 27, 2017

Agenda
• Tree Regulations Research Project Introduction – Faith (5 min.)
• Tree Regulations Research Findings and Final Recommendations –
Faith and Maggie (40 min.)
• Planned zoning changes potential impacts – Brennon (5 min.)
• Questions and next steps – (10 min.)

2

 Project scope
Objective: Tree Protection recommendations
Research questions
- Is current code protecting trees?
- Are we mitigating for tree loss?
- Is current code helping us achieve our canopy cover goals
Scope:
• Tree regulations effectiveness in Multifamily Lowrise and Single-family
• Tree protection regulations in regional cities and those similar in size
• 2016 canopy cover assessment results
• Planned zoning changes effect on tree loss

3

 Code, Title 25 - Trees protected
Exceptional Trees and Groves
• Definitions:

• Exceptional: Size, species, age, grove, or Heritage Tree.
• Grove: 8 or more trees =>12” in continuous canopy.
• Heritage: designated by community and City of Seattle

4

 Code, Title 25 - Removal of protected trees
• Prevent full development potential or hazardous. (If
hazardous, no replacement required).
• Removed exceptional trees and >24” to be replaced,
unless hazardous.

5

 Code, Title 23 – Development Standards
New and 100% Redevelopment
Single-Family - Trees required. Preservation and Planting options.
Lots >3,000sqft - 2” diameter/1,000sqft.
Lots <3,000sqft - 3” diameter/lot.

Multifamily Low-rise - Street trees required.
• Exceptional trees
If preserved, no Design Review for Tree Protection required.
If not preserved, Streamlined Design Review required to allow exceptions.
6

 Phase II Findings
In general
Current code is not supporting tree protection

Over-the-Counter approvals
Losing exceptional trees (and groves) in general. Most in Environmental Critical Areas. Majority
landslide-prone areas.
Hazardous = no replacement.

Type I and II permits
Development and Hardscape increase = Tree loss.
Conifers/large species coming out. Deciduous/dwarf species coming in.
* Landscaping Standards final inspection not consistently applied. Design Review is not working.
7

  

 

 

Phase II Findings
Over-the-Counter approvals
• 725 hazard tree removal approvals (2008-2016)
 59% in steep slopes.
• Approvals often include more than one tree.
• No replacement required
9

 Phase II Findings (from complaints)
Trees removed prior to development without approval
• Trends: Tree cutting complaints resolved as “Non-violation”
2008 = 27%, 2010 = 52%, 2015 = 75%
• Tree cutting complaints with retroactive hazardous tree removal
approval and no violation. Hazardous = no replacement.
• Perceived lack of responsiveness to tree removal complaints (Public
comment at Urban Forestry Commission)
10

 Phase II Findings
Type I and II permits
• Design Review and code-required tree protection are being
avoided.
• 0.3% Design Review projects cited Tree Protection
• Landscaping standards inconsistently inspected/enforced.
• Infrequent use of final inspection form - DR 30-2015,
Attachment A.
11

  

 

 



 

 

                    
          
 

 

 

 

     
    

 

   
   
  
 
 
 
   
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1
1
Ill W- IIrIrl'ldt-dr 7-1411 
1 1 I-ILI- r-arr.lp
I IILI- 
I 
I '4

T?i" 
ngII II:
I K-JLI-IJ- In,? I Ir 
.1 I ?pug-nun 
i ll: mar?mmH-I-mn
. 
.H

 

 

?lm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

II I 
tin-wr?lg"; I. 
a 
,nHr?F? I. I: .3 Jr I ?LlRealm runMINI mam
IIlam-LI?4L.WMEWWMH
lr I- . . awn-m
- II mEEm DRIVE 1 
5; If" I I I 3.1- . .I - - Mm?imtmqumHull
fF??wasIhlil hd-W in Ida-r II-
I I I - Igu"haw-"m? wanin?? THEE WI Lh- LEIITHA BIN: ll NIH-min- 

I TEE. 1-- Alum In. NEE dImI or 
.r I, mam) Wm ?Hub-dumb?!
I Ii 
If I1 1'an ?:30?me Mm ?ag

 




I. mwunw "mum?- d? umArlme-LAN

I

--I- ..





 

 

 

 

Plan set with accurate tree protection and
revegetation plans with mature canopy.
(Zoom of previous page.)
13

  

 

 

 





I

 





JSTMENT NO. 302341 
II{119' arr-5:1
- -

. qr:-

I
.-

.-

I

 



1


Hay-w -


. wI-wmm Imam


Wit-Ir. 

 

i









. 





541' WET



 
 
  

 

 

 



.I-I






 

IJI

 

1



 

1.1

 

 

Example of site plan existing trees

 

 

 

 

.


 

Iifqgl'?- 155.

I- fM?f?lpIIjIli?ili?llili

Jl?_I_lfI?

. I $ij 5

  

i 


macjgiiua: I
Ina-Ir 5319.95
.
x:
II

 


?PmINJFEL

Imam 
50' 

 

 



 

 

Iii-.15_9935?

LEGEND If fIg?"

3555522555 mum-Ir:
rm; 

im}.
3' FIBER CF11: Iir' 
Inueml


 

EII 

an mm mamas-DE. 55'

Irzz?l 
NW: 5F. 

 

rr-aw- Far il?HT
II I.- (Ian;

l_ SEWER Human-It:

2153:.
. . 


VERHCAL 
55 5-55 55FER 1-I5 WI: 
EISFMIJ - .
3 EELEDIIESI Ihl
mh'n'" ?915-le m] 

IIN: maritm- 

 

I'l: .ferE??n


..

 

 

a:



 

- -


L?irmawm?u

.I 

 

 

Example of site plan and landscape plan

 

 

 

  

 
  
 
  
 
 
  
 
 

31L timid" 

- - 
kl

 

 

DCURB BE HESTIUFIED
FEDS.

WIFE 


  

CARLETDH 
.AVEs ?1
JWE :?gjwa?ar"

I
mumm?
"mm-In??


  
   
 
 

  

 

.-
rm
radii-L?: ?1h

 



 

d. I
um
LIGHTS ARE TO BE SHIELDED

WAT FHIEIM 

ADJACENT PROPERTIES ENC 23:15:51.? A 

 

  

 

 

    
  

 

 

2' BIC 5' 
6LT FIT 
PLAHTEI 




FER 25.4552155In:
In: I-nlI?? IA

-3
dA

 

 

 

 

 

 

Phase II Findings
Landscaping Standards Required for Life of Project – SF, MF
• Director’s Rule 30-2015
• Installation and maintenance for life of project required.
• “Legal action” for non-compliance (SMC 23.40.002).

• 23.40.002 - Conformity with regulations required
• Change of use of any premises or any part thereof requires approval per 23.76.
• Owners are responsible for any failure of such premises to conform to regulations of Title
23.

• 23.40.004 Reduction of Required Spaces
• No minimum landscaping shall be reduced below minimum development standards.

16

 Examples on the ground

 

 I qiqdq.?

immw . .. .. .. .. .. .. mmii?umnin. .?wmrI

sz . mm_z.nn.mn.zm .. . . . . n?rmeEE . . I -
. I . .m?mm mcm?h?m. 

n. . Exam


204m.

a Umgmz?mu hm 

Ucm 3mm? mr?mm 
renamn. Em 
Em
I--.--
.- zmam. 
. mm a Umm?z?mu


mo??ir EzUmcnm 

 

 

 

 
  
  
   
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  

EUW mmEmm
.. mibEbj?Z 
?m?jl?bd?i ENDEIWU
mum?hum m.__Um mmEmm
1mm mm 
UN 

I
3/

.. .umUmm?rpz mam.
:u


.

.


.

..F.



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ham 8. Emma Em . 
.61 Em.
..om Em
Emm?amm 
mammu mrn..um ?nanbr m?mjzm
D?b?m
Um<mr013m2a Em
mr??m ..umn..u.u.mmU
mc?mm GabUm .
. . . 

1.3m. 
.ImnumznEtf?giiei
m. n?q?aonnmIbF m. 
:zUmm HDIIUZ Ezm?misu . L. 
mazm?c?mi. m. 

n?q?aogu 

.. n?q?eoon. I.

03.92.? .. . n?q?aonu 
@204 I . n?q?en?n. 

nQAEEonn. 
Z. lbm?iz 
?ne: 5. IE4. 
m??mhl n?q?aonn 
emqizn. mcm?.umemummu Emaizu .. .1. . Emma. 
mc?nmm .. .. .. . . .. mqo<m NH 488 . 
w. - 8.62333.


mm mm. . H. mm mmigmu

hin?.? nah-WE?:

 

 

Ite: PM 6455952 590? 5 Fountain Street

l-e-Ile?wrir?ng are our plan r'eatJ-ar'larirewas charge determining If the Cottonwood trees at your Fountain St, protect were exceptional.

Cottonwoods are deemed exceptional in a grove only and the canopies must be close enough to form a
continuous canopy, per city of Seattle guidelines. These trees do not meet this standard and are

See attaeh '3'13't3't? at leveeLied See tree identi?cation en Standard Plan. Per review with .
eertitied arteriet, Heal Baker, thie ie not ae a grove. 



"Ql '11 it}

may:
A. 12;}5; l:
.5911 8 Fountain St - gel: ?13
1- 


 


?m '19e?nivm?'} 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 w.

1 ?11.1-
IIKI
-11 

 

 

 

Final recommendations
1. Existing regulations with improvements
• Code improvements
• Process improvements
• Other opportunities

2. Permit system and protect additional trees
• All of 1, and 2

3. Permit system “Plus” and protect more trees
• All of 1, 2, and 3

Incentives to be considered in all of the above
24

 1. Existing regulations
with improvements

Existing with – Code Improvement
1. Revise definition for ‘hazard’ conditions
2. Require replacement/mitigation for hazardous tree removal
3. Remove process uncertainty by including required documentation for
tree removal applications (including site plans)
 Include exceptions for undue hardship

4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Require like-for-like replacement for tree
Add tree survivability language
Update list of exceptional trees (add species)
Protect/preserve large trees and groves for public benefit
Payment in lieu and performance bond. Address potential equity
concerns
26

 Existing with – Process Improvement
1. Record tree counts throughout development process (Pre-application
site visit to Final inspection)
2. Require use of Hansen/Accela monitoring tools
A. Monitor tree-related site work
B. Add survivability monitoring

3. Add dedicated urban forestry staff to oversee all tree and landscape
regulations
4. Remove Vine Maple from ECA Revegetation List and GF Tree List to
improve size class distribution
27

 Existing with - Other
1. Implement training program

A. Internal
A. Tree Protection/Preservation/Planting
B. Code enforcement
B. External
A. Training requirement for tree service Cos.
B. Hold them accountable for illegal removals

2. Develop tree loss mitigation tools
A. Permit and incentives
B. Subsidies for tree maintenance
C. Tree receiving zones

28

 Incentives - Citywide
• Citywide
• Subsidized trees. Tree giveaways and planting programs.
• Partnerships: with nurseries, non-profits.
• Tree expertise/advice for private tree owners. Leaf management assistance.
Reduced costs for yard waste bags. Annual Day of Tree Care – volunteer ISA
Arborists
• Property tax incentive for protected groves
• Allowances for construction staging in ROW to allow preservation of large
trees during construction (in partnership with SDOT)
• *Public education about importance of trees to increase private tree
stewardship
• *Good inventory system
29

 Incentives - SDCI
• SDCI
• Development bonuses (setbacks, lot coverage, density limits, parking, height,
Floor Area Ratio)
• Payment/more credit for tree retention
• Expedited permit
• Technical assistance on tree retention
• *Use fee in lieu to remove barriers to large tree ownership
• Maintenance assistance with equity focus (elderly, etc.)

• *Make tree cutting ‘forgiveness’ more onerous than permit
• *Performance bond linked to final inspection and Certificate of Occupancy
• Obtain valuation of mature trees to be preserved and include that amount in landscape
plan to be covered by bond.
30

 Incentives – other departments
• Other departments
•
•
•
•

Stormwater incentive (beyond just allowing it as option)
Drainage rate incentive
*Stop tree topping for views
*Increased City management of street trees (SDOT to manage all street
trees)

31

 2. Permit system and protect
additional trees

Permit + protect additional trees
Permit highlights – Portland, Sammamish, Lake Forest Park
• Tree Permit for tree removal on private property both during and
outside development
• Tiered permit type associated with/without development
• Categories of trees: exceptional, heritage, grove, and significant (6 – 12
inches)
• Allowances for tree removal based on zone and lot size per/year and
over “X” years
• Emphasize retaining with hierarchy
• Replacement required when trees are allowed to be removed.
33

 Permit + protect additional trees
Permit highlights – Portland, Sammamish, Lake Forest Park
• Emphasize planting native conifers close to other trees so that it
enhances environment
• Defines potential receiving sites - one being Environmentally Critical
Areas
• Large penalties for removal without approval
• Exceptions for emergencies, like our regulations
• Payment-in-lieu
• Protection standards for trees that remain on site.
• On site density requirements Portland
• Exempt areas based on zone or land use type

34

 Permit + protect additional trees
All of Option 1 and:
• Private property tree removal permit
• Track allowance for annual removal of three trees >6”
• Remove allowance for unlimited tree removal in SF<5,000
• Require mitigation
• *Create tree injury/removal violation penalties
• Hold tree service company accountable
• Administrative appeal of penalties
35

 3. Permit System ?Plus? and
protect more trees

Permit System “Plus” protect more trees
All of Option 1, 2, and:
• *Protect tree groves through covenants.
Provide support to home owners (from
payment in lieu).
• *Explore transfer of development rights.
37

 Next Steps
- Final report and research wrap up by March 31
- Jessica and Nathan decision
- E-team briefing memo
- CM Bagshaw and CM Johnson conversation
Beyond this project’s scope:
- Robust outreach and engagement if moving forward a new
ordinance
- Determine implementation costs of recommendations
38

 Related happenings
- TreePAC (political action committee) will host working
session to provide recommendations to the City RE: tree
ordinance update (April)
- Urban Forestry Commission interested in pushing for Tree
Protection Ordinance update
- CM Harrell and CM Bagshaw interest in Tree Regs update at
UFC member appointment meeting
39

 Tree Regulations Phase II

Questions?

Ifneeded:
Additional slides to clarify recommendations

40437 1027489

32836

5/21/2012

8/10/2010

2012 CONST

2010 CONST

TREES THAT MAY BE EXCEPTIONAL HAVE BEEN CUT-62579 OWNER ADVISED TO SUBMIT REPORT FROM ARBORIST
ON HEALTH OF TREES BEFORE THEY WERE CUT
TWO TREES HAVE BEEN REMOVED--OWNER IS
153508 SUBMITTING ARBORIST'S REPORT SAYING THAT THEY
ARE HAZARD TREES

VIOL

CLOSE

NVIOL

42

 • Zone: Single Family
• Entire parcel is ECA 2 - Potential Slide.
• Multiple trees removed without inspection.
• No violation or Hazard Correction Order issued.
• Directed to submit hazard tree removal application
after the fact.
• Case closed to Administrative Closure.

43

 



i.





i?

ii

Hazard. T543. '5 +5 clam? 


5215234 3514 14111 AVE 5 my SUB Renew AP 35215234 Submittal Closed FIELD U5I24Iztlo5 PULSIFER, 
5242522 4514 14TH ME 5 5IIE WORK. ?mm? ?m 4P Closed FIELD 5515:2515 LEUIJUJI. JULIE
5243555 3515 14TH AVE 5 SITE wool: Hazard tree removal of 1 White Poplar tree 53515?1. AP Closed FIELD 5311512515 JULIE
5243551 A 3524 14m 555 5 SITE wonlt Hazard tree removal of 1 White Poplar 53524-1. 45 Closed FIELD 5321512515 JULIE
5243552 4552 14TH ME 5 5rrE WORK Hazaerd tree removal at 4 White Poplars. .45 closed FIELD 5311532515 JULIE
5243553 3535 14TH 5513 5 SITE WORK Hazard tree removal or 3 whrte Posters. 45 Closed FIELD 5311512515 LEDIJUJI. JULIE
5243554 4555 14m 555 5 SITE wont: Hazaercl tree removal of 3 White Foplars. .45 Closed FIELIJ 5311532515 JULIE

Establish use as townhouse and construct a-unit

5242255 4515 14TH AVE 5 consmucm Flam.? 201:2 ?We? 3 5.305453 Permit Closed FULL NEW 5553:2515 LEDDUJ-I. JULIE
REVISIDII to alter area pawng for. use
as townhouse and construct 3-unit 

Establish use as townhouse and 3-unit

tmmhouse per plans. PR 1325.312 project HOE-184 -
5242255 _)4512 14m 555 5 coltsmucm Muisim my 55an 5 am paying at per Permrt Closed FULL NEW 5515322515 LEoouJ-t. JULIE
plans.
5251133 3522 14m 1155 5 Establish and eonstroet 3-Unlt townhouse. per plan. Permit Closed FULL rle 5555212515 JULIE
5251145 3535 14TH 555 5 must-Rum Emma" mm? "it? Pem'nt Closed FULL 1le 5552;2515 JULIE

parking East of the existing duplex, per plan.

Establish use and construct a new triplex with surface .
6251141 A 3923 14TH AVE 5 pa '1an East of the existing duplex, per plan. Penmt Closed FULL NEW BWOWEUIU LEDOUK. JULIE

E) 434th 

Tree Cutting closed to Violation or No Violation. Trend 2008 - 2015

2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015

27%
37%
52%
54%
55%
57%
64%
75%

75%
NVIOL

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

27%
NVIOL

0
NVIOL

VIOL

2008

NVIOL

VIOL

2009

NVIOL

VIOL

2010

NVIOL

VIOL

2011

NVIOL

VIOL

2012

NVIOL

VIOL

2013

NVIOL

VIOL

2014

NVIOL

VIOL

2015