|
Tree CanopyNext Meeting of the Planning Commission to discuss this topic Thursday July 9th 7:00 pm Enterprise Article by a SSEA member on Tree CodesCity of Shoreline Tree Code Seattle has just finished an integration of the 2007 satellite derived canopy cover with the DPD online GIS property maps: Seattle Tree canopy data To see the tree code changes proposed by an ad hoc group of citizens on February 9th, 2009 please see Comment #4 To the Planning Commission From The Tree Committee, Nancy Rust Chair The following is a letter from Nancy Rust, Chair of an ad hoc Citizens Committee on future tree codes to the Planning Commission on March 11th, 2009. It is Comment #11 on the City's link. We have printed it here because we feel it provides a good insight into how the proposed code changes might mesh with existing Decision Modules (DM) - At the February 9th meeting of the City Council, City staff presented the Council with 10 modules dealing with tree issues. During the public comment period, Nancy Rust, chair of our tree committee, outlined a proposal that the committee has worked on since last summer. The Council agreed to send both the committee's recommendation and the 1st nine proposals of the staff to the planning committee. We were disappointed when Paul Cohen did not refer to our proposal at the Planning Commission meeting on February 26. Our proposal was, however, included in your folder. We started our work by reviewing other cities' tree codes. This included Lake Forest Park, Kirkland, Redmond, Seattle, Tumwater, and Vancouver Washington. Since Shoreline's code is mixed in with clearing and grading, it seemed easier, for the most part, to use language from other cities rather than trying to amend Shoreline's. Much of our proposal is modeled after Lake Forest Park. The major difference between our proposal and the staff's is that ours is more comprehensive and has actual language whereas the staff's proposal deals with subject matter to be discussed. They are not, however, mutually exclusive. See our comments to the modules below: DM-1 Establish a baseline urban forest canopy city wide. This baseline would provide the context for the Council to make a policy decision, most likely in 2010, about a long-range City target for desired tree canopy. The target could be no-net loss of a city-wide percentage of canopy, or an increase or decrease of some magnitude, keyed to specific schedules. With such a baseline and target in place, the City could then monitor the overall City canopy, say every 5 years, to assess its health and identity any further programs or code amendments as needed. We support this as a long range goal. DM-2 Reorganize SMC 20.50.290 to separate clearing and grading provisions into a different subsection because the intent, purpose, exemptions, and regulations are different. Clearing and grading regulations will need to be modified to be consistent with the newly adopted storm and surface water manual. This would have made our job a lot easier and easier for the public to use, DM-3 Change the provision in SMC 20.50.310.B.I that allows the removal of 6 significant trees every 36 months without permit. This is potentially a huge hole in our city-wide tree canopy because we don't regulate or monitor this provision. Theoretically, if we have 16,000 single family lots then as much as 32,000 significant trees can be removed per year without review or monitoring. People sometimes cut trees that they think are not in a critical area and therefore do not notify the City. In our proposal we require a permit to remove any significant tree and each tree removed be replaced. We have also defined a significant tree as one whose diameter is 6 inches or larger, This is for all trees whether conifer or not. This is consistent with all the cities we looked at. DM-4 Amend SMC 20.50.310.A to establish clear criteria and thresholds when a tree is hazardous that is reviewed by a City third party arborist. Add requirements for replacement trees when hazardous trees are removed. Currently, property owners use their own arborists to determine a hazardous tree without thresholds to determine when it is hazardous. If the City doesn't agree with the assessment then we can require a third party assessment. This costs the property owner twice and prolongs a basic decision. Requiring the use of a City’s arborist makes the assessment more objective and less costly for everyone. We agree that each tree needs to be replaced. We also think that a list of approved certified arborists would work better. This lets the property owner choose. DM-5 Amend SMC 20.50.360 to allow for reasonable tree replacement ratios and the possibility to replace trees on other land within the City. Most development sites do not have the room to plant all the replacement trees. These replacement trees are easily cut down after the 3 year protection period because they are not defined as significant trees. Our proposal allows trees to be placed elsewhere if there is not room in the project. We are also proposing a five year bond time from and a larger amount for the bond. DM-6 Amend SMC 20.50.350.B.2 to remove code provisions for 30% preservation of significant trees if a critical area is on site because trees in critical area trees are already protected under the Critical Area provisions of SMC 20.80. A relatively small critical area could trigger 30% preservation on the entire site when the intent is to preserve the critical area and its trees. The change would keep the base significant trees preserved as well as all trees in the critical areas. We did not address critical areas in our proposal so do not have a comment on this. If, however, the amount of tree coverage to be retained is increased as in our proposal, the 30% retention requirement will need to be increased. We would like to see at least a 40% retention level for critcal areas DM-7 Amend SMC 20.50.350.B.1 to remove and replace the flat code provision for 20% preservation of significant trees. The existing rule is inequitable because, for example, a site that is covered with 100 trees would have to retain 20 trees, while a small site with only 5 trees would only have to save one. We could devise a more equitable system that requires tree preservation based at least partially on lot size. A more equitable solution to this problem is to establish a unit system where trees are given a unit value determined by their diameter . In our proposal 35 units per acre must be retained. A tree with 6 to 10 inches diameter would equal 1 unit whereas a tree with a diameter of 20 inches would have 6 units . In the case above the landowner with 5 trees may have to add some trees depending on the size of his trees and the size of the parcel. ( Based on the proposal of Lake Forest Park’s task force.) DM-8 Reorganize and clarity code provisions SMC 20.50.350.B-D that give the Director flexible criteria to require less or more trees to be preserved so that site design can be more compatible with the trees. The current code requires that all trees with the following qualities shall be preserved - in groves, above 50 feet in height, continuous canopy, skyline features, screen glare, habitat value, erosion control, adjacent to parks and open space, and cottonwoods. In general, these are good qualities but if all these requirements are applied inflexibly, the result would excessively preclude development on many lots. We are concerned that this might allow more trees to be cut. DM-9 Amend SMC 20.30.770(D) to provide greater clarity and specificity for violations of the tree code. Currently, code enforcement has difficulty proving violation intent and therefore exacting penalties. Our proposal has increased enforcement measures modeled after Redmond’s code. An idea that did not get into our proposal is to require all arborists to be registered by the city. That way they could be aware of our city’s rules.
|