Category Archives: tree planting

Press Release by NPI/Tree PAC on Poll Supporting Updating Seattle’s Tree Protection Ordinance

Posted on by

New Seattle poll findings: Voters overwhelmingly favor policies to protect and expand city’s tree canopy

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.

Complete answers to all three questions are available via this Cascadia Advocate post.

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.

Additional contacts for this press release

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

Help Needed NOW! Urge Washington State Senators to Pass E2SHB 1216

Posted on by

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.

Sign in “Pro” on E2SHB 1216

This must be done 1 hour before the Committee meets.

Send an e-mail now to State Senators urging they pass this bill!

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.

Your Help Needed Now to Pass E2SHB 1216 to Protect our Urban and Community Forests

Posted on by

Urge Washington State Senators to Amend and

Pass E2SHB 1216

Thanks to your strong support E2SHB 1216 (Engrossed 2nd Substitute HB 1216) was passed by the Washington State House of Representatives and is now in the State Senate.

E2SHB 1216 – concerning urban and community forests – would direct the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to assist Washington cities and towns and counties in our state conducting tree inventories and canopy analysis, developing Urban Forestry Management Plans and drafting local Tree Ordinances.

A hearing on the bill is set for Tuesday, March 16, 2021 at 1:30 PM in the Senate Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources and Parks Committee.

How you can help.

Sign in Pro on E2SHB 1216  

must be done by 12:30 PM on 3/16/2021

Send public comments to Key Committee members

Executive Action scheduled for 3/18/2021
Action network e-mail urges Committee to amend the bill and then pass it.

Thanks for your help.

Support SHB 1216  and all bills helping Urban and Community Forests

Posted on by

 

Support SHB 1216  and all bills helping Urban and Community Forests

 by Richard Ellison, Tree PAC Vice-Chair

comments to the WA State House Appropriations Committee on Feb 16, 2021

I am a botanist with a MS degree from Washington State University, and a retired community college adjunct professor, having taught over 20 years in the Puget Sound area. I am also a board member of TreePAC.org, a non-profit group advocating for the protection of the urban forest and its place as critical infrastructure in a climate changing world.

Urban trees and the few remaining forest fragments are critical in public health and for the ecosystem services they provide. The remaining big trees intercept the record rainfalls and slow down the movement of water into our overloaded combined sewer systems.

Trees provide essential habitats for our native wildlife who otherwise would be gone from urban areas. They provide a critical function of filtering our air of particulates and chemical pollutants, especially notable during hot summers, peak fire seasons, and temperature inversions. Trees provide critical shade in summers during record heat waves, greatly reducing the urban island heat effects. They provide emotional comfort to citizens stressed from a dense urban community and bring great pleasures to the elderly, families, and children.

Climate change is here, it’s no longer a myth. The summers are setting new record high temperatures. Is this year going to be the hottest, or do we get a lucky break like last summer? You know the trend is getting hotter and hotter. That’s what this is all about. Trees help keep us cooler, physically and emotionally. The urban island heat effect is real, and increased air conditioning won’t help us survive, and a long drought may just dry up a lot of hydropower availability as well.

Winter peak storm events? Record rains? Well the PNW has a long term answer to that – forests and wetlands. But now the wetlands are getting pinched and the forests are the remnant trees that developers and urbanists sometimes consider expendable, when we are most desperately in need of more tree canopy, not less.

Salmon and orca and even the ignored native octopus require clean runoff waters from our cities, and tree roots and healthy soils can help provide this. Ever see woodpeckers, owls, eagles, and osprey in our cities? I have, and they need big trees for habitat, that’s where they live, roost, reproduce and hunt, and their other wildlife kin need habitat, and urban trees provide those remnant habitats so necessary to keep the matrix of our states wildlife healthy.

And the poorest of our urban communities are being heavily impacted by rapid urban development, and we must help reduce environmental inequities of poor air quality, urban blight, and bad development practices by increasing our support to maintain and increase our support of tree planting and tree maintenance in these communities.

Washington State’s Department of Natural Resources currently partners with the US Forest Service’s Urban and Community Forestry Program. SHB 1216  would expand this partnership and so enable the Department of Natural Resources to assist communities with tree inventories and canopy analysis, the development of Urban Forestry Management Plans, and the drafting of local Tree Ordinances.

Additionally, these bills help set up the Evergreen Community Recognition Program to acknowledge those communities that are making strides in the management and protection of their urban and community forests.

Thank you for your consideration. Please support legislation to study, protect and improve our precious urban forest resources.

Update – Urge Washington State House Legislators to Pass HB 1216 to Increase Protection for Urban and Community Forests

Posted on by

       Update – Urge Washington State House Legislators to  Pass HB 1216 to Increase Protection for Urban and Community Forests

Thanks to the over 200 people who responded to our previous e-mail on HB 1216 asking you to send an e-mail to the members of the House Rural Development, Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee.  The committee voted ‘do pass” on HB 1216  and sent it to the Appropriations Committee. A hearing has been set for Tues, Feb 16th at 1:30 PM. To stay alive the bill needs to be voted out of the Appropriations Committee by Feb. 22nd and sent to the House Rules Committee in order to be added to the calendar to be voted on by the full House. 

We have changed the text of the e-mail for you to send and expanded it to include all House members. We need you to send the new e-mail to let all House members know there is strong support for passing HB 1216. You can make a difference.

HB 1216 would direct the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to assist Washington cities and towns and counties in our state conducting tree inventories and canopy analysis, developing Urban Forestry Management Plans and drafting local Tree Ordinances.

HB 1216 was sponsored by Representative Ramos and 8 other House members. This bill was requested by the Department of Natural Resources and is supported By Governor Jay Inslee. Governor Inslee has earmarked $2.7 million dollars in his proposed State Budget to support DNR’s efforts to increase protection for trees and urban forests. HB 1216 would help the state meet its goals of increasing climate resilience, protecting human health and addressing environmental equity.

Please do these two Quick Action items:

1. Send an e-mail today to keep HB 1216 moving in the Washington State House of Representatives.  

Submit Public Comment to House Members Now!

2. Sign in as “pro” HB 1216 on the Appropriations Committee hearing page. You must do this by 12:30 PM Tues, Feb. 16th. to be counted. 

I would like my position noted for the legislative record 

If you would also like to submit written testimony for the Appropriations Committee Hearing legislative record click here. Submit written testimony for Hearing record HB 1216  Written testimony can be submitted up to 24 hours after the hearing starts.

Thanks for your help.

Portland, Oregon Again Leading the Way on Stronger Tree Protection

Posted on by

North Seattle Clearcut – Victory Hts

Tree PAC sent the following e-mail to Seattle’s Mayor and City Council:

Here is an update on what Portland, Oregon is currently doing regarding updating their Tree Ordinance.

Portland, Oregon last week took another strong step toward strengthening their Tree Ordinance.

“On Nov. 12, the Portland City Council adopted an ordinance that updates the city’s tree policies to promote greater preservation of trees when development occurs in certain types of commercial, employment and industrial areas, and to further incentivize preservation of larger trees in other development situations.”

Among the provisions of the updated ordinance, it

  • “Reduces the threshold for required preservation of private trees from 36 inches to 20 inches in diameter at breast height (dbh) wherever tree preservation is required
  • Reduces the threshold for the application of an inch-per-inch fee in lieu of preservation for private trees from 36 inches dbh to 20 inches dbh …
  • Directs Portland Parks and Recreation to bring a scope of work for future updates to the city’s tree code (Title 11 of Portland City Code) to City Council by March 31, 2021 and directs the City Council to consider funding for that work during the fiscal year 2021-22 City budget process.”

Link to full Portland news article below,  which has a link to the amended ordinance text for Chapter 11.50 -Trees in Development Situations and accompanying documentation of the adoption process.

Portland.gov – Portland City Council adopts updates to city’s tree code, strengthening tree preservation

Note that Portland will now require as of Dec 12th, that developers pay a Fee in Lieu of 2 for 1 replacement cost for removed trees 12-20 inches diameter and inch for inch cost for trees removed that are over 20 inches in diameter.

The amended ordinance in Exhibit C, of the accompanying document shows the new amended Fee in Lieu cost:

Portland Parks & Recreation Urban Forestry Title 11, Trees Fee Schedule DEVELOPMENT effective December 12, 2020

DEVELOPMENT

preservation, Fee in Lieu private trees

trees>12 inches and <20 inches in diameter …. $1800/tree

trees>20 inches in diameter ….. $450/inch

NON-DEVELOPMENT 

planting and establishment Fee in Lieu …. $450/inch

With budget shortfalls this year note that Seattle continues to lose potential revenue to support our urban forest infrastructure as lots during development are frequently clear-cut. Portland, Oregon meanwhile is generating revenue to help reduce tree loss and counter it by replacing trees. Here is a link to Portland’s latest report.  Urban Forestry Title 11 Fund Report Fiscal Year 2018-2019.

 Portland reported that they generated $1,444,426 for their Tree Planting and Preservation Fund and $981,720 for their Urban Forestry Fund for revenue in fiscal year 2018-2019 totaling $2,426,149. 

 These number will go up as Portland has lowered its threshold for its Fee in Lieu for tree loss during development from 36 inches DBH to 20 inches DBH. Private homeowner’s Fees in Lieu start at 12 inches DHB but are seldom used as it appears that they mostly choose to replace the removed tree and thus not have to pay a Fee in Lieu.

 Seattle has put off updating SMC 25.11 – its Tree Protection Ordinance now for 11 years. Even going by Portland’s latest figures Seattle has probably forgone $25 – $30 million since 2009 in potential revenue for urban forestry by not updating its tree ordinance as other cities are doing.

Thank you for your continued support for updating Seattle’s Tree Protection Ordinance. We need to move forward now.

Steve Zemke

Chair – Tree PAC

stevezemke@TreePAC.org

Public Comments Needed Now to Increase Seattle’s Protection of Trees

Posted on by

Action Needed Now to Protect Seattle’s Trees!

Public Comments are needed now supporting draft SDCI Director’s Rule 13-2020 for Increased Tree Protection – Deadline August 17th

Your help is needed now to ensure that stronger tree protection in Seattle moves forward. The Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections has released a draft update to its 2008 Director’s Rule on Exceptional Trees. Director’s Rule 13-2020 will be used to give updated guidance to developers and property owners on tree protection in Seattle.
Public comment in support of this update is needed by
Monday August 17, 2020

  SUBMIT PUBLIC COMMENT NOW  

The update was mandated by Mayor Burgess’s Executive Order 2017-11 – Tree Protection and by the 2019 Seattle City Council Resolution 31902 after strong citizen outrage over continued tree loss in the city.
The draft Director’s Rules would give greater protection to large trees, tree groves, Heritage Trees, and all trees over 6 inches in diameter at standard height (DSH). It would require Tree Care Providers to register with the city of Seattle and comply with city tree regulations. It would also finally require developers who remove exceptional trees and trees over 24 inches DSH to replace them on site or elsewhere in the city. This requirement has been in the current Tree Protection Ordinance since 2001 but was never enforced.
Adoption of the Director’s Rule as drafted is not guaranteed but can be changed or delayed due to public pressure. We would like to see stronger protection. The King County Master Builders, meanwhile, are urging their members to also submit public comments, including urging the update be delayed for 18 months.
The draft updated Director’s Rule is long overdue. Citizens have been urging updated tree protection for 11 years. Enough is enough.
The draft is a strong step toward adding more tree protection now while an updated city Tree Protection Ordinance is being considered.
You can help. We have put together a pre-written letter of support that includes amendments proposed by the Seattle Urban Forestry Commission in their public comments to the city.
Our pre-written letter highlights the main areas of support in the proposed Director’s Rule and our suggestions on how the Director’s Rule can be strengthened.
 

All you need to do is click on TAKE ACTION to get started.

You will be asked to let the city know who you are and where you live, so the city knows who is commenting. You can add your personal comments to the draft, and with one click, send it to the city to add your support. Thanks for your help.
When the updated Director’s Rule is finally adopted, it will be a big step forward in increasing protection for trees and draft Director’s Rule 13-2020Seattle’s Urban Forest ban forest.
Please share this e-mail with others to seek additional public input. Thanks!

Explaining why key provisions are in the 2019 Seattle Urban Forestry Commission draft Tree and Urban Forest Protection Ordinance

Posted on by

North Seattle Clearcut – Victory Hts

North Seattle Clearcut – Victory Hts

 

 

 

 

 

 

In June 2019, The Seattle Urban Forestry Commission submitted, at the request of Seattle City Councilmember Sally Bagshaw and Lisa Herbold,  a draft Tree and Urban Forest Protection Ordinance to the Seattle City Council and Mayor Jenny Durkan.

The Coalition for a Stronger Tree Ordinance is urging the public and  organizations to submit letters of support on the draft ordinance through the website www.DontClearcutSeattle.org.  A pre-written draft letter for individuals is available on the site to which additional comments can be added. A draft resolution is available for organizations to use to express their support.

Here is some further explanation on each item mentioned in the support letter for the Urban Forestry Commission’s draft Tree and Urban Forest Protection Ordinance.

1. Expand the existing tree removal and replacement permit program, including 2-week public notice and posting, as used by the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) – to cover all trees 6” DBH and larger on private property in all land use zones, both during development and outside development.

 Explanation – Seattle currently has a complaint based system to monitor tree removal. It doesn’t work because people only know a tree is being cut down when they hear the chain saw. Many trees are removed illegally. Exceptional trees on private property as defined by Director’s Rule 16-2008 are not to be removed unless hazardous. The first sign a tree is being removed is usually hearing a chain saw  or seeing the tree gone when they pass by. Many other cities like Portland,OR; Atlanta, GA; Vancouver,BC and locally Sammamish, Shoreline, Mercer Island, Redmond, Lake Forest Park and and Bellevue all require permits before trees can be removed, 

 According to the  Seattle Forest Ecosystem Values Report , 6″ DBH (diameter at 54″ high) and larger trees represent about 45% of the trees in the single family zone. That means 55% are smaller than 6″ DBH. A Douglas fir at 6″ DBH is about 30 years old.

During development and outside development – also means property on which construction is occurring and property on which construction is not occurring.

Notice – posting is to let neighbors know if a tree is legally being removed.

 2. Require the replacement of all trees removed that are 6” DBH and larger with trees that in 25 years will reach an equivalent canopy volume – either on site or pay an in-lieu fee into a City Tree Replacement and Preservation Fund. Allow the Fund to also accept fines, donations, grants and set up easements.

Explanation – Many cities require tree replacement when trees are removed. If trees are not replaced you are losing canopy. 

Seattle’s Tree Protection ordinance passed in 2001 actually says in SMC 25.11.090:

  “Tree replacement and site restoration. A. Each exceptional tree and tree over two (2) feet in diameter that is removed in association with development in all zones shall be replaced by one or more new trees, the size and species of which shall be determined by the Director; the tree replacement required shall be designed to result, upon maturity, in a canopy cover that is at least equal to the canopy cover prior to tree removal. Preference shall be given to on-site replacement. When on-site replacement cannot be achieved, or is not appropriate as determined by the Director, preference for off-site replacement shall be on public property.” 

The city has not kept a  record of  trees removed or replaced pursuant to this ordinance nor is there any record of developers paying the city to plant trees elsewhere. The city  has not been enforcing this part of the ordinance. 

Note: The current draft lowers this provision to replace trees to 6″ DBH and allows trees to be planted on private property in the city that needs more trees as part of the race and social justice initiative. The requirement to replant trees is extended to private property owners as many other cities do ,including Portland,OR. 

The fee in lieu dollar amount would be set by DCI and is not in the ordinance, so it can be set and raised or lowered to ensure compliance and deal with changing costs over time. There is no replacement fee if replacement trees are re-planted on the property they were removed from. DCI would also have the authority  to reduce, delay or cancel in-lieu-fees, depending on a property owner’s  financial circumstances.

3. Retain current protections for Exceptional Trees and reduce the upper threshold for exceptional trees to 24” DBH, protect tree groves and prohibit trees over 6”DBH being removed on undeveloped lots (vacant lots).

Explanation – There are about 6100 large exceptional trees left in Seattle according to the 2016 Seattle Tree Canopy Assessment. These are trees over 30″ DBH and up to 140 feet tall and probably 100 years old or more.  They are the survivors and provide the most ecological services to the city. They include Douglas fir, western red cedar and Big Leaf Maples. Reducing the diameter to 24″ DBH will protect more of these large trees that have lived longer than most people in the city, and will be impossible to replace in our, or our children’s, lifetime.

See Reasons to Save Big Trees in Urban Areas Friends of Urban Forests

4. Allow removal of no more than 2 significant non-exceptional trees in 3 years per lot outside development (i.e. no construction occurring)

Explanation – Seattle currently allows the removal outside development of 3 significant (> 6″DBH) trees that are not exceptional per year. This can quickly remove all trees on a lot. A number of other cites have lower numbers and limit it even more over a longer time period. Renton limits it to 2 trees in 1 year and 4 trees in 5 years as an example. 

5. Establish one citywide database for tracking tree removal and replacement permits, and to track changes in the tree canopy. Post online, all permit requests and permit approvals for public viewing.

 Explanation -The database system to track tree loss and replacement was recommended in the 2017 Tree Regulations Research Project report.  Mayor Burgess, in his 2017 Tree Protection Executive order, directed it to be set up to track tree loss and replacement.

6. Expand SDOT’s existing tree service provider’s registration and certification to register all tree service providers (e.g. arborists) working on trees in Seattle.

Explanation – SDOT has already set up a a system to register and certify tree service providers and this would extend it to all that work on trees on private property. Providers would have to sign a statement that they have read the tree regulations and understand what is required. 

7. Provide adequate funding in the budget to implement and enforce the updated ordinance.

Explanation – DCI currently is understaffed regarding tree protection functions that include monitoring tree related issues and checking compliance with existing regulations, site inspections etc. This funding will be required to implement and better enforce the existing and updated ordinance.

cross posted on www.Friends.UrbanForests.org

Seattle City Council Passes Legislation to Remove SEPA Appeals

Posted on by

The Seattle City Council just passed legislation to limit SEPA appeals by Seattle citizens on upzones for housing.

It took them only 3 months to pass this legislation giving more authority to the Departmental of Construction and Inspections to fast track developer projects. Meanwhile  they have not updated the Tree Protection Ordinance in 10 years. The Council first passed a Resolution to update the Tree Protection Ordinance in 2009 and passed two similar resolutions this year, including one in Sept saying they needed more time to study the issue. Right.

In 2017 they studied the issue in a report entitled “Tree Regulations Research Project” that they kept hidden from the public and only released after a public records request. Their findings included:

“Current code is not supporting tree protection.”

“We are losing exceptional trees (and groves) in general”

“We are losing exceptional trees (and groves) in general” “Conifers and large tree species are coming out with deciduous and dwarf species are coming in.”

“Landscaping Standards final inspection is not consistently applied.”

“Design Review and code-required tree protection are being avoided.”

And then publicly they continue to say, as they did in the introduction to this ordinance, “The Mayor and City Council find that the City’s codes have evolved in recent decades such that there is generally less need to employ SEPA, because other City codes and requirements effectively mitigate environmental impacts.”

The Seattle Urban Forestry Commission in June provided the Council and the Mayor with a draft “Tree and Urban Forest Protection Ordinance”  which the city has put on the back burner while they consider the issues. They have put the issue off until 2020 saying they need more public input.

Citizens can support this draft by going to www.DontClearcutSeattle.org and urging the city pass this legislation.

Tree PAC Question sent to Seattle City Council Primary Candidates 2019

Posted on by

Dear Candidate for Seattle City Council,

In 2009 the Seattle City Council passed a resolution to update SMC 25.11 the Tree Protection Ordinance. Ten years later this has not happened. But progress is being made. When the MHA Ordinance was passed in April, the Seattle city Council passed a Companion Resolution – RESOLUTION 31870 –
“calling for additional measures by the City and its partners that complement mandatory housing affordability (MHA) implementation to promote livability and equitable development, mitigate displacement, and address challenges and opportunities raised by community members during the MHA public engagement process.”

Section 6 of that resolution dealt with updating Seattle’s Tree Protection Ordinance.

Section 6. The Council recognizes the environmental, social, and economic benefits of Seattle’s urban forest and commits to working with community members and City departments to update the City’s tree regulations,
advancing the goals of the Urban Forest Stewardship Plan across Seattle. 

Potential measures may include, but are not limited to, the following:
A. Retaining protections for exceptional trees and expanding the definition of exceptional trees.
B. Creating a permitting process for the removal of significant trees, defined as trees  6 inches in diameter at breast height or larger.
C. Adding replacement requirements for significant tree removal.
D. Simplifying tree planting and replacement requirements.
E. Maintaining tree removal limits in single-family zones.
F. Exploring the feasibility of establishing a in-lieu fee option for tree planting.
G. Tracking tree removal and replacement throughout Seattle.
H. Providing adequate funding to administer and enforce tree regulations.
I. Requiring that all tree service providers operating in Seattle meet the minimum certification and training requirements and register with the city.

As someone running for election to the 2019 Seattle City Council  we would like to know if you support Section 6 of this Resolution.  Efforts are under way to try to pass the Tree Ordinance update this year. The Seattle Urban Forestry Commission has submitted a draft update to the Seattle City Council.

If you are elected  you would be charged with ensuring the ordinance  is implemented next year. A simple yes or no is all that’s needed.

____Yes I support Section 6 of Resolution 31870
____No I do not support Section 6 of Resolution 31870

Optional Comment (50 word maximum)      ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Thank you for your response. We will be posting candidates responses on the TreePAC website as well as e-mailing our supporters and posting on facebook. Your prompt response is appreciated. Please e-mail your response back to SteveZemke@TreePAC.org
Thanks.

Steve Zemke
Chair – TreePAC.

www.TreePAC.org