Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Forest Conservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State law shifts to 'net gain' on forest cover; city staff propose local ordinance and a fix for multifamily exemption
Summary
City Forester briefed the committee on 2023 state bills that move the standard from 'no net loss' to 'net gain' of canopy, define new buffer widths and exemptions, and staff proposed compressing the local adoption schedule and drafting parallel language to close an exemption that could sidestep forest requirements on larger multifamily projects.
City Forester Brian Adams told the committee that two 2023 state bills (House Bill 1511 and Senate Bill 526) together change the Forest Conservation Act’s direction from a no‑net‑loss standard to a statewide goal of net gain in forest land or tree canopy measured every four years.
Adams said the law adds definitions (for example, “degraded forest”), codifies riparian buffers (50 feet for intermittent streams and 100 feet for perennial streams) and replaces prior varied mitigation thresholds with a one‑to‑one mitigation ratio in most cases. It also lists several exemptions and alternatives, such as exemptions for solar facilities and managed orchards and new options to meet mitigation through urban reforestation and other planted green infrastructure.
Why it matters: staff said the change aligns with city priorities (the city had already moved to one‑to‑one mitigation and has a canopy goal) but warned a drafting detail in the state bill could exempt certain multifamily projects (thresholds referenced in the bill) from local mitigation requirements. If that exemption stands, staff said, downtown or corridor redevelopment of formerly developed lots could avoid adding street trees or pocket‑forest mitigation and lead to a net canopy loss locally.
Local response and timetable: staff proposed compressing the local review schedule and bringing the enabling ordinance to the committee and planning commission quickly so the city can adopt local provisions before state deadlines and avoid applications defaulting to state rules. Staff also said they plan to draft parallel local language (a ‘Title 17’ insertion) that would require multifamily developments over the stated unit threshold to comply with the city’s chapter on tree requirements, preserving street‑tree and small‑site mitigation expectations.
There were no votes at the meeting. Committee members and staff said they will continue to refine the draft ordinance, seek planning‑commission input and aim to act before the state’s effective timeline to avoid unintended exemptions.
