Besides the excellent ‘How To Save a Tree in Seattle before it’s too late‘ guide authored by TreePAC Board member David Moehring, we now also have a great Seattle Neighborhood Tree Guide available from another group of Seattle tree advocates – it’s available from the Links column on the right side of our home page, and here. Enjoy!
kevin
TreePAC
Beacon Hill Council Chair
Sept 15, 2021
“The loss of exceptional and other trees is tremendous blow to our (beloved Seattle) and in particular our beloved Beacon Hill majority people of color, immigrants and refugees community. We adopted El Centro De La Raza’s Air and Noise Pollution Community Action Plan that calls us to “plant trees”. But what is the use of planting trees to increase our canopy, if the current trees, especially exceptional ones, are cut down willy-nilly. We need the trees for our health to filtrate the air and noise pollution. This is an environmental, health, and climate injustice issue. We need to stop, think and do what is right for our beloved city of Seattle.”
Tina Cohen, Certified Arborist Northwest Arborvitae Seattle WA
I’m Tina Cohen and I’m a retired Certified Arborist. In my career I worked with both developers and tree preservationists.
I’ve been very discouraged by the cognitive dissonance of climate change and continued tree removal. If asked, most people will tell you they love trees and then add: BUT if they’re in the way or messy or remotely a hazard, then they should be cut down. Developers would tell me how much they love trees and at the same time they would remove all of them for a project.
Our existing large trees are a cheap and effective way to combat localized climate change. Besides providing obvious shade, they sequester carbon and help prevent erosion and flooding. UW’s Kathy Wolf and USDA Forest Service have done endless studies proving the value of trees. Large trees provide more benefits than small trees. The Seattle Municipal Code should reflect this and only allow removals if a tree is a hazard under existing conditions (not future development).
I urge the City to follow their existing code and in addition:
In conclusion, our elected officials have long delayed the update to Seattle’s Tree Ordinance, and SDCI fails to enforce our existing code. We need to change this before every tree is cut.
Tina Cohen, ISA Certified Arborist #PN0245A
ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified
Member American Society of Consulting Arborists
Registered Consulting Arborist #473, retired
Statement: July 2021 Tree Protection Polling Results by Josh Morris of Seattle Audubon
Sept. 15, 2021
Seattle Audubon is a 105-year-old environmental nonprofit that advocates and organizes for cites where people and birds thrive. Since neither people nor birds can thrive without a healthy, growing, and well-distributed urban forest, protecting Seattle’s trees is important to realizing our mission.
Trees, especially big mature trees, are icons of the Pacific Northwest. Many people love our trees and want to protect them at a greater level than we currently do. We see that clearly from the overwhelming support for improved tree protection, planting, and funding among participants in Northwest Progressive Institute’s July 2021 poll.
The results show more than 80% of respondents in support of maximizing tree retention during planning and development, and in support of focusing urban forestry investments in low-income and historically redlined neighborhoods. The first is needed to slow the threat of indiscriminate tree loss, and the latter is needed to address a glaring environmental injustice.
These results come as we increasingly recognize trees as important community assets whose benefits extend well beyond the parcels in which they are rooted. They promote good health and well-being. They bring bird song into our neighborhoods. They keep us cool in the heat and help prevent flooding. Trees are essential. And they are threatened in great numbers across Seattle from weak policy and weaker action.
Despite more than a decade of promises, Seattle leaders have failed to improve tree protections. Seattle can densify, prevent sprawl, protect more trees, and plant more new ones. We just have to plan for it. Washington, D.C., for example, continues to increase both population density and tree canopy cover through strong tree protections, dedicated funding, and coordinated urban forestry management. We can learn for their example. We can and should do better by our urban forest and for the communities, present and future, that depend on it.
Seattle Audubon hopes these poll results encourage City leaders to act and hold each other accountable for adopting improved tree protections without further delay.
Press Conference – Seattle City Poll shows strong support for updating Seattle’s Tree Protection Ordinance
Statement by Steve Zemke – Chair TreePAC
Results released today of a Poll done by Change Research in July for the Northwest Progressive Institute included questions regarding increasing protection for trees in Seattle. The responses showed strong support for updating Seattle’s Tree Protection Ordinance. TreePAC and other community groups and citizens have been urging Seattle mayors and City Council members for 12 years to update the ordinance. Their repeated delays and reluctance to act is strange considering the polls strong support for increasing tree protection. The polling firm Change Research noted the strong support.
Steve Zemke, Chair of Tree PAC and a former member of the Seattle Urban Forestry Commission for 6 years, said the response confirmed strong public support for action now. The Seattle Urban Forestry Commission has been advocating for the city to act since it was formed in 2009.
Steve Zemke said. “The Mayor and Seattle City Council should take heart in these poll results and move forward quickly to update and strengthen protections for trees and Seattle’s urban forest. The public wants action now after 12 years of delay by city officials.”
The poll focused on issues repeatedly raised by members of the public and the Seattle Urban Forestry Commission and incorporated in the 2019 Seattle City Council Resolution 31902 – A RESOLUTION declaring the City Council’s and the Mayor’s intent to consider strategies to protect trees and increase Seattle’s tree canopy cover.
The Seattle Urban Forestry Commission even produced in 2018 a draft updated Tree and Urban Forestry Protection Ordinance for the Seattle City Council and Mayor to consider but that was ignored by the City. Over a thousand e-mails were sent to city officials by citizens urging action. An on-line petition signed by over 5270 people also was sent to the city urging action.
Zemke noted, “With increasing climate impacts affecting citizens in the city, officials need to act now to stop the unnecessary loss of exiting trees and plant more trees in those areas with low tree canopy. To do otherwise is to ignore both science and the health and welfare of Seattle residents. With better planning, Seattle can continue to add needed housing that is affordable while also maintaining and growing its tree canopy. It is not an either/or situation. We can and must do both.”
Tree Pac Poll Release Comments
By Jessica Dixon
Plant Amnesty Board Member
9/15/21
The 2016 Seattle Tree Canopy Assessment estimated that the total number of trees 30”
in diameter and greater, or what the city defines as exceptional trees at just over 6,000
trees remaining in the city. These are the trees that do the heavy lifting when it comes
to carbon sequestration, intercepting stormwater and mitigating the heat island effect.
Incredibly, 5 years later, Seattle’s Department of Construction and Inspection (SDCI) is
just beginning to track the steady loss of these trees due to development. It is clear
that the prevailing approach to building on a site in Seattle continues; developers
ignore the existing trees as they develop their building plans and then scrape the site of
all the trees and understory as they build. Unlike many cities, including Portland,
Seattle, does not require tree removal permits or fee-in lieu payment for trees removed!
The latest proposal for the Talaris property, where in order to shoe horn 55 Single
Family lots onto this site by removing 155 exceptional trees, is business as usual!
The imperative of responding to climate change makes it clear that we cannot afford to
continue business as usual. We cannot afford to loose any more of our exceptional
trees, and we are here today to make the point that people in Seattle overwhelmingly
support stronger protections for our mature trees and our urban forest. We need
our city leaders to advance urban planning, public investment and city codes that allow
for and encourage more creative housing solutions and that plan for and protect our
vital urban forest.
Wednesday September 15th, 2021
For Immediate Release
Contact Andrew Villeneuve
Executive Director
Northwest Progressive Institute
This morning, at a press conference at the Talaris site in north Seattle, the Northwest Progressive Institute and TreePAC announced the release of several new findings from NPI’s July 2021 survey of the Seattle electorate that show overwhelming majorities of voters want their elected representatives to strengthen Seattle’s tree ordinance and protect the Emerald City’s urban forests.
The first question asked:
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: Seattle’s tree protection ordinance should be strengthened to include increasing tree planting in low income and previously redlined neighborhoods with insufficient tree canopy to reduce heat island impacts and counter climate damage?
82% of respondents said they agreed, while 11% said they disagreed. 7% were not sure.
The second question asked:
Please indicate your support or opposition for each of the following potential ideas for updating Seattle’s tree protection ordinance.
- Increasing protections for significant and exceptional (large) trees
- Adding replacement requirements for significant and exceptional tree removal
- Creating a city tree planting and preservation fund
- Requiring tree care providers (arborists) to meet minimum certification and training and register with the city
- Creating a permitting process for removal of significant trees (trees greater than six inches in diameter at four and a half feet high)
All of the ideas presented received support, ranging from 78% to 57%. Opposition ranged from 13% to 28%.
The third question asked:
Cities like Austin, Texas require developers to maximize the retention of existing trees throughout the planning, development, and construction process, while Seattle allows building lots to be cleared of trees during development. Do you support or oppose requiring Seattle developers to maximize the retention of existing trees throughout the planning, development, and construction process?
81% of respondents said they supported this idea, while 11% were opposed. 7% were not sure.
The poll of 617 likely August 2021 Seattle voters was in the field through Monday, July 12th, through Thursday, July 15th. All respondents participated online. The poll was conducted by Change Research for the Northwest Progressive Institute, and has a modeled margin of error of 4.3% at the 95% confidence interval.
“We’re grateful to have had the opportunity to work with TreePAC to research an important cause that doesn’t get the attention it deserves,” said Northwest Progressive Institute founder and executive director Andrew Villeneuve.
“Voters are ready and eager for their elected representatives to take action to defend and protect the Emerald City’s urban forests. The next Mayor and Seattle City Council must prioritize updating and strengthening Seattle’s tree ordinance.”
“The Mayor and Seattle City Council should take heart in these poll results and move forward quickly to update and strengthen protections for trees and Seattle’s urban forest. The public wants action now after twelve years of delay by city officials,” said Steve Zemke, Chair of TreePAC and a six-year former member of the Seattle Urban Forestry Commission.
“With increasing climate impacts affecting citizens in the city, officials need to act now to stop the unnecessary loss of exiting trees and plant more trees in those areas with low tree canopy. To do otherwise is to ignore both science and the health and welfare of Seattle residents. With better planning, Seattle can continue to add needed housing that is affordable while also maintaining and growing its tree canopy. It is not an either/or situation. We can and must do both.”
“The loss of exceptional and other trees is a tremendous blow to our beloved Seattle, and in particular, our beloved Beacon Hill majority people of color, immigrants and refugees community. We adopted El Centro de la Raza’s Air and Noise Pollution Community Action Plan that calls for us to ‘plant trees.’ But what is the use of planting trees to increase our canopy, if the current trees, especially exceptional ones, are cut down willy-nilly? We need the trees for our health to filtrate the air and noise pollution. This is an environmental, health, and climate injustice issue. We need to stop, think and do what is right for our beloved city of Seattle,” said Maria Batayola of El Centro de la Raza.
“Despite more than a decade of promises, Seattle leaders have failed to improve tree protections,” noted Joshua Morris, urban conservation manager for Seattle Audubon. “Seattle can densify, prevent sprawl, protect more trees, and plant more new ones. We just have to plan for it. Washington, D.C., for example, continues to increase both population density and tree canopy cover through strong tree protections, dedicated funding, and coordinated urban forestry management. We can learn from their example. We can and should do better by our urban forest and for the communities, present and future, that depend on it.”
Previous findings from the poll are available from NPI’s Cascadia Advocate.
Comments by Steve Zemke
TreePAC- Chair
Comments by Maria Batayola
Beacon Hill Council – Chair
Comments by Joshua Morris
Seattle Audubon – Urban Conservation Manager-
Comments by Jessica Dixon
Plant Amnesty – Board Member
Comments by Tina Cohen
Northwest Arborvitae – Certified Arborist
About NPI
The Northwest Progressive Institute is a regionally focused nonprofit working from Washington, Oregon, & Idaho to constructively transform our world through insightful research and imaginative advocacy. NPI was founded in 2003 and is based in Redmond, Washington. NPI’s July 2021 survey of the Seattle electorate is its first local poll and builds on the organization’s six year track record of credible, accurate statewide research polling.
Northwest Progressive Institute
8201 164th Avenue NE, Suite 200, Redmond, WA 98052-7615 | Twitter: @nwprogressive
Thanks to everyone for your previous strong support and e-mails sent to the Senate Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources and Parks Committee. The Committee voted to remove a bad amendment added to E2SHB 1216 at the last minute in the House. It would would have let private property owners “opt out” of local tree and urban forests ordinances. Public support to remove the bad amendment won in the end. It was removed.
E2SHB 1216 is currently in the Senate Ways and Means Committee. A Hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, March 30th at 1:30 PM.
E2SHB 1216 would provide $2.7 million per biennium for the Washington State Department of Natural Resources to assist cites, counties and tribes in doing tree inventories and canopy studies, developing Urban Forest Management Plans, and drafting Tree and Urban Forest Protection Ordinances.
Your help is critical now to keep the bill moving and get it enacted into state law. Here’s how you can help.
This must be done 1 hour before the Committee meets.
Click on the link above to send Senators a pre-written e-mail that you can edit.
Once passed out of Ways and Means, E2SHB 1216 will go to the Senate floor for a final vote. Like we did in the House, we need to show strong public support to get this bill passed!
Thanks for your help.
Quick response needed – Deadline Monday Nov 30th.The draft Seattle 2020 Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) needs to be strengthened to more aggressively protect Seattle’s existing trees and urban forest citywide.
The first Seattle Urban Forest Management Plan in 2007 adopted a goal of 30% tree canopy cover by 2037 for Seattle. The 2016 Seattle Tree Canopy Assessment has Seattle’s tree canopy at 28%. But the 30% canopy goal is still set at 30% for 17 years from now. Meanwhile Tacoma in 2018 determined they had a 20% tree canopy cover and set a goal of getting to 30% by 2030. Seattle needs to adopt a more aggressive goal and join Tacoma in setting 2030 as their target date to reach 30% tree canopy.
While tree canopy cover is an important metric to track trees, the data collected should also include 3-D slices to get an idea of canopy volume changes as well as tracking loss of large trees which provide the most ecosystem services to the city. Periodic 5 year assessment of canopy is an important tracking metric.
The 2020 UFMP needs to update the statement that the “replacement value of Seattle’s existing urban forest … is close to $5 billion dollars” to reflect current values. The figure of $4.99 billion dollars was from a 2012 Seattle’s Forest Ecosystems Values report when the tree canopy was estimated at 23% and is outdated. It would also greatly help to conduct a Natural Capital Assessment to get a better grasp on the ecosystem service value of the urban forest to the city.
The 2020 draft UFMP devotes only one page to the “importance of urban trees” while the 2013 Urban Forest Stewardship Plan devoted 5 pages. However, five pages are devoted to “challenges” and “competing uses.” Please devote more explanation to the benefits and documentation of the importance of urban trees like was done in the 2013 Plan.
The following clear Priority Actions listed in the 2013 Plan have been removed. They should be added back with their more detailed explanation.
Eighteen Action items are mentioned in the current draft. One of the most important items is listed last and is not bolded as a priority item. “Update the City’s tree protection regulations.” Seattle City Council Resolution 31902 specifically says, “Submit legislation in 2020 for consideration by the Council.” The specific lack of emphasis on the need to update SMC 25.11, the City’s Tree Protection Ordinance, is unfortunately consistent with the city’s current 11 year delay in modernizing and updating the ordinance.
Unlike many other cities, in Seattle
Resolution 31902 passed by the Seattle City Council in 2019 lists a series of regulations and actions to be considered on protecting trees, however a complete list is not in this Plan. For example, the adoption of an in-lieu fee if trees cannot be replaced on site, would help to provide needed funds to plant trees in “low-income and low canopy neighborhoods.” As the 2016 City Canopy Study confirmed, in “Census tracts with lower counts of tree canopy more of the population tends to be people of color and lower income.” Portland, Oregon just amended their tree ordinance to charge a fee in lieu of $450/inch for all trees removed by developers that are over 20 inches DSH. In 2018 when the fee in lieu was for trees over 36 inches DSH, they collected some $1.44 million for their Tree Removal and Replacement Fund.
Key activity metrics conspicuously lack tracking tree removal and only note tree planting. All metrics should be tracked on a quarterly basis and publicly posted on the city website. SDCI is not included in tracking tree replacement (or tree loss) in key activity metrics, even though this is mentioned elsewhere as one of their key priorities. Since all trees are supposed to be on a site plan for development, the information of existing trees, trees removed, trees replaced, in lieu fees paid and the location where replacement trees were planted should all be tracked. As noted, SDCI’s private property oversight covers some 72% of the trees in Seattle and should be the entity doing the most tracking of tree retention, loss, and replacement, both during development and outside of development. They should do this by requiring permits to remove and replace trees as many other cities have been doing for years.
The elephant in the room, but not discussed in detail in the draft plan, is the push for increased housing density and construction in the city. Lots are literally being clearcut across the city. Many trees are being lost, including large old trees that provide the most benefits to people living and working in the city. The city and this plan are not attaching a cost to this loss of trees and their benefits or looking for ways to both build and protect more trees. SDCI is not even willing to incorporate the phrase requiring developers “to maximize the retention of existing trees” in landscaping plans. Meanwhile Portland, OR in 2018 amended their tree ordinance to require permits to remove any tree outside the building development footprint to reduce the unnecessary loss of existing trees. Seattle should follow suit and also aggressively work with builders to develop alternative building design plans that could save more trees.
It is a long overdue priority to address the race and social justice and environmental inequities occurring in communities of color and lower income communities. Inclusive community involvement is a vital part of the solution, but the same development pressures facing areas with lots of trees also affect these communities. As the 2013 Urban Forest Stewardship Plan noted, replanting of trees to compensate for large trees cut down will take decades to compensate for the benefits lost, no matter where they are planted in the city. The loss is even more significant to the communities that have low tree canopy to start with.
Tree PAC urged the Seattle City Council to fund and enact the following item in the 2021. The first 4 items were adopted and the last two unfortunately were not added to the final budget adopted budget.
E-mail sent to Mayor and City Council.
Please support the following items in the city budget that support protecting trees
Tree PAC supports these budget items.
Tree PAC urges you add these 2 items to the budget.
Steve Zemke
Chair – Tree PAC
stevezemke@TreePAC.org