The county's Community Planning and Economic Development (CPED) department briefed the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) on the comments received for the Forest Lands Conversion Code Update.
Last Wednesday, April 3, Community Planning Manager Ashley Arai and Associate Planner Dana Bowers presented the Forest Lands Conversion amendments and led the review of tree protection standards.
Updating the Forest Lands Conversion code is included in the official development code docket as item A-25: Amend Forest Lands Conversion Ordinance and Review Tree Protection Standards.
The update would make the code consistent with other county codes and policies and incentivize retaining larger trees while maintaining flexibility for construction.
BoCC had three work sessions and a public hearing for the code revisions, and the board received eight oral comments with the following concerns:
Several commenters proposed tree replanting requirements of 200 – 300 seedlings per acre and a higher retention requirement for landmark and heritage trees.
The current standard for Tree Replanting is 0-190 seedlings per acre, depending on whether the area is for a rural county, urban growth area, or state commercial forestry permit.
The proposed standard is 100 for rural county and urban growth areas and 190 for state commercial forestry permits.
For Tree Retention, there are no current standards, and the proposed measures are to retain 30% of landmark and 70% of heritage trees.
“The landmark trees are any trees over 24 inches in diameter. So a 24-inch diameter tree — it is roughly around… 40 to 80 years old depending on the species. The heritage trees are 40 inches and greater, they're pretty rare in our county, and they also include culturally modified trees and any designated trees for historical reasons,” said Bowers.
Arai explained that per acre, these trees are combined in incentives, such as if someone cuts off trees in one acre, the individual can opt to preserve a landmark/heritage tree for 30 points [units/seedlings], which can be deducted from the 100-point replanting requirement.
“... Got to get back to 100, so your options are 100 new baby trees or to incentivize not cutting all the trees, we say, ‘hey we'll give you 30 points if you keep a landmark tree.’ So that way you don't have to plant 30 baby trees because you have this tree— this bigger tree,” explained Arai.
The board will have another work session to decide on future directions.
3 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
Laceyreader11
I wonder if the heritage trees are rare because of so much development. There should be a higher retention of landmark and total retention of heritage trees. It is so much easier to take a backhoe and yank the trees out then create a building plan that keeps them. However, it is not so easy to replace those large trees and the ecological effect they had on air and water quality. The trees, unseen by human eyes, are connected under the ground. Take the time to read this and share: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-whispering-trees-180968084/
Saturday, April 6 Report this
Yeti1981
This has literally been more than a year in the making and agreed upon by more than 30 stakeholders from all sides of the discussion. The 8 commenters are coming in at the final hour to throw a wrench in the mix. The proposal that everyone worked on should move forward as is.
Monday, April 8 Report this
longtimeresident
I agree with Yeti1981. No more talking.....
Wednesday, April 10 Report this