Editors note: This story has been edited to add clarifying information from Michael Feerer about heat differences in tree canopies.
On Feb. 24, the City of Bellingham held a public hearing to revise and extend the interim landmark tree ordinance for an additional six months.
Revisions passed 7-0 and will move on to a final vote on Mar. 10.
The revisions aim to clear up language on monitoring and nominating trees as part of the Urban Forestry Management Plan that serves to both protect and retain significant trees in the community while balancing the need for housing and development in Bellingham, said Planning and Community Development Director Blake Lyon.
“Anytime you write something that quickly, it's bound to need some refinement and revisions,” Lyon said.
According to a memo, during the development of the Urban Forestry Plan, the city received an increase in development applications and requests to remove trees, with many landmark trees being preemptively removed.
In response, the city issued an emergency ordinance on May 20, 2024, to prevent the unnecessary removal of landmark trees.
“Bellingham is playing catch up,” said Whatcom Million Trees Project Founder Michael Feerer. “Most other cities of its size and larger, and even some smaller along the Washington coast and Oregon coast, all have the equivalent of a landmark tree ordinance.”
According to Feerer, Bellingham neighborhoods with greater canopy compared to those with less canopy suffer an 18-degree difference in surface temperatures during increasingly common extreme summer heat spells.
“The existing mature trees that are left are crucially important, as well as planting more trees,” Feerer said.
Whatcom Environmental Council Board Member Rick Eggerth said that while the ordinance mentions urban forestry management and the Whatcom County Climate Action Plan, it lacks specifics on how these plans will coordinate with one another.
“It's hard to assess in that kind of vacuum how the landmark tree ordinance will fit within that plan,” Eggerth said.
The language on landmark tree nomination was changed from requiring notification to allowing property owners to approve a nomination.
Feerer said this revision is useful to address the possibility of someone next to the property nominating trees to stall affordable housing projects.
“Those projects should be given a pass on that kind of nomination thing,” he said.
In addition, language monitoring efforts were revised to improve proposed development and tree replacement on those developments by including initial planning, Lyon said.
Staff verification makes sure a new tree has been placed and cared for and that they are replanting with a five-year check-in time.
“Not every tree is going to survive,” Lyon said. “But in order to make sure that those trees have the ability to ultimately and someday grow into a landmark tree, we want to make sure that they get started off on the right foot.”
Feerer believes the ordinance should include a publicly accessible score sheet to ensure the public can keep track of trees being considered for removal.
“It's very hard to try to find that information now, and it's almost impossible,” he said.
In addition, Feerer said black cottonwoods should be protected in the landmark tree ordinance if they are at least 30 feet from a structure and meet the 36-inch diameter requirement to qualify as a landmark tree.
Feerer indicated that many black cottonwoods in Bellingham tend to be along bodies of water known as riparian areas.
“They’re an important part of our local ecosystem. They're a native tree and important, especially in the riparian areas,” Feerer said.
The black cottonwood tree is currently disqualified from being nominated as a landmark tree due to its brittle branches and posing as a hazard to urban areas during severe weather events. Another ordinance protects the trees in critical areas such as wetlands, Lyon said.
Public comments from July raised concern that the landmark tree ordinance would drive up development costs that would be passed down to renters. Feerer said this means developers will need to use more care in site planning. He cited the ordinance, which contains a fair use clause that allows developers to petition the city to remove a landmark tree if it impedes development.
“The impact is wildly overstated in the builder, developer, real estate community,” he said.
Whatcom Environmental Council Board Member Oliver Grah said the potential negative impact from a loss in ecosystem services due to an ineffective ordinance would outweigh the impact on development.
“It'll increase, maybe not prices directly, but certainly the cost of maintaining our current culture and society, which values aesthetics and values the effectiveness of trees and tree cover on these ecosystem services,” Grah said.
Lyon said the ordinance includes incentives that provide more flexibility to address up-front costs early in the development process.
“In the context of housing, where we need housing, and we need a substantial amount of housing, we don't want to be a deterrent,” said Lyon.
DuPree Nugent (he/him) is a City News reporter this winter. He is a second-year student studying news/editorial journalism and creative writing. In his free time he enjoys long-distance running, listening to music, and reading and writing short stories. He can be reached at dupreenugent.thefront@gmail.com
