TreePAC

An independent Political Action Committee in defense of the urban forest

TreePAC

Category Archives: TreePAC

Housing Shortage; Build but also retain trees

Posted on by

Housing shortage: Build, but also retain trees

Re: “More regulations on housing push us further from the goal of meeting demand” [Aug. 7, Opinion]:

This Op-Ed perpetuates the false narrative that we can only house new neighbors by cutting down Seattle’s trees. We can and should grow our housing stock and our urban forest at the same time.

The science has long been in that urban trees give us cleaner air, cooler summers and better outcomes on every measurable public health metric. Our current building code puts protection of trees in new developments on a separate “tree review” track, which complicates the process.

What if each development started with a look at the existing trees and how new homes could be built while retaining them? Seattle would retain the ecological benefits of our established urban forest, and the residents of the future homes would enjoy the health benefits of living close to big trees.

Sandy Shettler, Seattle

Seattle Hearing Examiner Denies Master Builders Appeal on draft SDCI Tree Protection Ordinance

Posted on by
News Release
 Steve Zemke – Chair TreePAC
stevezemke@TreePAC.org
For Immediate release
Friday August 12, 2022

Seattle Hearing Examiner Denies Master Builders Appeal, Allows Tree Protection Ordinance Update to Proceed

SEATTLE – TreePAC, a citizen’s group advocating updating Seattle Tree Protection Ordinance, joined as an Intervenor with the city of Seattle in opposing a Hearing Examiner appeal by the Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish County.  The decision allows Seattle to now move forward with updating Seattle’s Tree Protection Ordinance, a process that citizen groups and others have been urging the city to do for 13 years.
In a strongly worded decision, the Seattle Hearing Examiner dismissed an appeal by the Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties (MBAKS) from a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) issued by the Seattle Department of Constructions and Inspections (SDCI). The appeal was regarding the potential environmental impacts of a draft update by SDCI of Seattle’s Tree Protection Ordinance.
The decision by Seattle Hearing Examiner Ryan Vancil stated, “The Director’s decision to issue a Determination of Nonsignificance for the proposed ordinance is not clearly erroneous and is AFFIRMED and the Appellants’ appeal is DENIED .”
The Hearing Examiner did not equivocate but soundly dismissed the MBAKS arguments and witnesses’ statements as speculation and not backed up by any actual data.
You can read the Hearing Examiner’s decision and detailed response here.
Quotes
Steve Zemke, Chair of TreePAC  “We appreciate the Hearing Examiner’s reasoned and detailed decision. Trees are critical to maintaining the health and vitality of Seattle’s communities and its citizens.  TreePAC supports the efforts of the city to both increase needed housing and protect our green infrastructure. It is not an either/or situation but a priority of the city to address both as mandated in Seattle’s current Comprehensive Plan.”
Seattle  Hearing Examiner Ryan Vancil in his decision “The record indicates that in developing the proposal, the Department considered the City’s goals and policies and developed a set of recommendations that struck a balance between the City’s housing goals related to housing and future development patterns and the City’s goals to maintain a healthy urban forest that provides sizable tree canopy coverage.”
Steve Zemke, Chair TreePAC  “Trees are critical to dealing with urban heat island impacts and stormwater runoff as the climate crisis continues. That requires protecting as many existing trees as possible and planting more trees in marginalized areas for tree equity and social justice. The proposed draft ordinance update helps the city to do that.”
###

Save the Aurora Ave N Sweetgum Trees

Posted on by
Please send an e-mail to Seattle City officials to help save the Aurora Ave N Sweetgum street trees  from being cut down..
Click on the link below to do it quickly through Action Network. Thanks.
https://actionnetwork.org/letters/aurora-ave-n-trees?source=direct_link&
Don’t Clearcut Seattle is a project of TreePAC. They maintain the action network website.
Donations to TreePAC are needed to support their work  protecting existing urban trees and efforts to plant more trees to increase our urban canopy. Please donate today. Thanks.
Contribute to TreePAC

 

Tree protest in North Seattle, 5-29-22

Posted on by

TreePAC and The Last 6,000 prevented (for now) a pair of exceptional Doug Firs from being cut down this weekend. Ideally this will force a permit from the landowner at minimum (and potential fines) but watch this space for more.

From KIRO 7, on the scene today:

New TreePAC newsletter on the site!

Posted on by

The latest Spring 2022 TreePAC newsletter is now on the site – click here to check it out! Highlights include the recent Seattle City Council passing legislation to require Tree Service Provider registration, some great news from Save Shoreline Trees and Trees4Livability in Bellevue , and the usual digest of local and worldwide tree news. Enjoy!

kevin orme
TreePAC

TreePAC Intervention approved in MBAKS Hearing Examiner Appeal

Posted on by

As this is public record now, here’s the official filing of our Motion to Intervene in the recent Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Hearing Examiner appeal of the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections’ draft Tree Protection Ordinance Determination of Non-Significance after their SEPA evaluation.  – you can read their original SEPA appeal here.. The hearing Examiner has approved TreePAC’s intervention.

 

 

 

Press Release – Seattle City Council Passes Tree Service Provider Registration Legislation

Posted on by
Press release
stevezemke@TreePAC.org
for immediate release:
Seattle City Council Passes TreePAC Priority Legislation to Increase Tree Protection in Seattle
 
The Seattle City Council today adopted legislation to require that Tree Service Providers working in Seattle be registered and certified to remove significant trees and do major pruning.
The ordinance passed was sponsored by Councilmember Alex Pedersen and Councilmember Dan Strauss. By a unanimous vote of Council member present, Council passes CB 120207 – AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and urban forestry; adding a tree service provider registration procedure and requirement .
Steve Zemke, Chair of TreePAC stated “We appreciate the City Council  taking action with this bill to increase tree protection. This is a good first step and we look forward to working with the Council to adopt a more comprehensive update of the Tree Protection Ordinance later this summer” Efforts to update the Tree Protection Ordinance have been going on for 13 years now after an interim draft was passed in 2009.
The goal of the adopted ordinance is to minimize the illegal cutting down of trees on private property that are protected by the existing Seattle Tree Protection Ordinance. The Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections (SDCI) will oversee the registration of Tree Service Providers and their meeting conditions in the just passed ordinance to be able to do tree work in Seattle. Registration will be required to be completed by Nov. 10, 2022. See summary and fiscal note here.
The new registration requirements are patterned after what the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT)  has been doing for the last 9 years. Spokane , Washington also has a similar program in place, to require registration of Tree Service providers doing any work on public trees in their city.
The state of Washington requires that a business be registered as a contractor if they deal with “Tree removal” – A contractor in this specialty falls and/or removes trees, stumps and/or branches on residential or commercial property or near a residential or commercial structure, outbuilding, or fence.” They also need to purchase a Washington Continuous Contractor Surety Bond in the amount of $12,000 for general contractors or $6,000 for specialty contractors. In addition, they need a general liability insurance policy in the amount of $200,000 liability and $50,000 property damage, or $250,000 combined single limit..
At least 8 other states require registration as a Tree Service Provider to do tree care work..  These states include – California, Connecticut, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Rhode Island.
Seattle’s registration process will provide additional oversight in protecting Seattle’s trees and tree canopy.. It requires Tree Care Providers to acknowledge they are familiar with Seattle’s Tree Protection Ordinance and other related regulations. If a second violation of current rules and regulations occurs in any year, the Tree Service Provider will not be allowed to work in Seattle for the next year. The city will publish a list on line of Tree Service Providers registered to work in Seattle.
The just adopted Ordinance was only one provision of nine recommended for adoption in 2019 by the Seattle City Council in Resolution 31902. A draft bill from the Department of Construction and Inspection on meeting some of the provisions in Resolution 31902, was released in Feb. with a SEPA determination of non-significance (DNS). The DNS is being appealed to the Seattle City Hearing Examiner by The Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties and several developers . Once this process is completed, the expectation and stated goal is that the City Council will take up this summer the adoption of a stronger tree ordinance.
The Seattle Urban Forestry Commission released a draft ordinance in 2019 – Tree and Urban Forest Protection Ordinance. . TreePAC is urging the Council to use this bill as the starting draft for a comprehensive update, instead of SDCI’s draft..

                                                                                                      #   #    #     #

Urge the Seattle City Council at Tues. March 29th meeting to pass CB 120207 to regulate tree service providers

Posted on by

URGE THE SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL TO PASS COUNCIL Council Bill 120207 

THIS TUES MARCH 29th

Dear TreePAC supporters,
Last Wednesday, the Seattle City Council Land Use Committee passed a key component in our effort to update Seattle’s Tree Protection Ordinance. All 5 committee members voted to forward Council bill 120207 – An ordinance relatng to land use and urban forestry adding a tree service provider registration procedure and requirement“ to the full City Council for a vote on Tuesday, March 29 starting at 2 PM.
This ordinance update is needed to help stop illegal tree removal in the city and to ensure that Tree Care Providers are knowledgeable of the existing tree code and regulations. If operating out of compliance, they will face fines for violations and after 2 violations are prohibited from working in the city for a year. The companies must be registered also as contractors with the state, carry adequate insurance and have workers compensation for their employees in case they are injured on the job.
Click on the link above to send a pre-written e-mail that you can edit.

The Seattle Department of Transportation has required such registration for nine years for contractors working on street trees. Spokane Washington also requires registration for all Tree Service Providers working on public trees.
Eight states require similar registration of Tree Service Providers doing work on both public and private property – California, Connecticut, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Rhode Island. Seattle needs to follow suit.
We need your help to ensure this bill passes the full City Council on Tuesday and is signed by Mayor Bruce Harrell. Please send the e-mail letter linked below with any added personal comments and stories of why this legislation is needed to the City Council and Mayor. Thanks for your help.
You can also help by calling Council members offices and urging they pass this much needed legislation. You can see their contact information here.
If you want to testify for the bill, you can sign up starting 2 hours before the 2 PM meeting time on Tuesday March 29th.  Public comment is at the beginning of the meeting. It will probably be limited to 1 minute.
PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may sign up to address the Council for up to 2 minutes on matters on this agenda; total time allotted to public comment at this meeting is 20 minutes. Register online to speak during the Public Comment period at the 2:00 p.m. City Council meeting at http://www.seattle.gov/council/committees/public-comment. Online registration to speak at the City Council meeting will begin two hours before the 2:00 p.m. meeting start time, and registration will end at the conclusion of the Public Comment period during the meeting. Speakers must be registered in order to be recognized by the Chair
Thanks for your help!
Steve Zemke
Chair – TreePAC.
Donations are welcome to help us continue our efforts. Thank-you.

Bellevue Group – trees4livabliity.org – online petition!

Posted on by

It’s great to see more tree advocacy groups springing up around the Puget Sound! The newest is Trees4Livability.org in Bellevue, which started up a few months ago. Here’s the latest, they are pursuing an online petition – if you have any relatives or friends in Bellevue, please get them to weigh in and sign!

From Trees4Livability:

Environmental advocates in Bellevue are coming together to improve tree protections in our city to help preserve livability, critical habitat, and combat climate change. Trees4Livability is a nonprofit formed by a group of concerned citizens to strengthen Bellevue’s tree codes. The group has a mission to preserve existing tree canopy and ecosystems, as well as institute rules to require replanting and maintenance of trees.

Bellevue has some of the weakest tree codes in the region. They allow developers to remove five Significant trees without a permit and have no special protections for Landmark Trees which take 100 – 150+ years to grow.

Trees4Livability is urging citizens who live, or work in Bellevue to sign their Tree Code Petition  https://trees4livability.org/tree-code-petition  during March to urge City Council members to make changes in 2022! This is a critical time for birds and wildlife in our region. Please sign the petition and spread the word.

T4L logo



Send an e-mail regarding the SEPA Analysis of Seattle’s draft Tree Protection Ordinance

Posted on by
The Seattle Department  of Construction and Inspections (SDCI)  issued a Determination of Non-Significance for their draft Tree Protection Ordinance update.
We are not impressed with their SEPA checklist evaluation that removing big trees and then planting little trees is a possible way to increase tree canopy.
They set a date to comment on the SEPA document and then said the comment period was extended for a month and then said that the date you can appeal the DNS is based on the first comment period, not the extended one. Many people, including us, thought once they heard the comment period was being extended thought they had more time to respond.
AN appeal to SDCI Director Torgelson, said sorry for the confusion but the appeal date stays the same. Seems SDCI really doesn’t care that they presented a contradictory commenting process that confused people and disengaged people from the process. Frustrating – yes.
Despite this, let’s move on – send in your comments  as soon as you can.
Here is some information to help:
 Washington State Dept. of Ecology -SEPA Review for Non-project proposals
Here is a  list of possible issues to cite in your comments. Problems with SDCI’s DNS – SEPA process:
  • does not credibly explain how removing large older trees and replacing them with small new trees can increase canopy.
  • does not discuss potential loss of tree groves and associated loss of bird habitat by not including street trees in definition of a grove
  • does not discuss impact of not including industrial zone or downtown areas which are high areas of urban heat island impact
  • does not mention that 2022 urban canopy results are being evaluated right now and will soon be available to compare tree loss with 2016 canopy study
  • does not discuss negative impact of reducing data tracking lost by excluding trees 6-12″DBH trees from developer site plans
  • Resolution 31902 asked to require replacement of 6″ DBH and larger trees. SEPA does not discuss numbers or percentage of trees that would cover at 6’DBH and larger versus those 12″ DBH and larger It’s 18% at 12″ BH versus 45% at 6 inches
  • does not discuss or define what normal and routine pruning is and its impact on tree canopy
  • does not discuss problems and costs with city entering data from site plans into Accela database versus requiring developers to enter data via Excel spreadsheets as Portland, Oregon does. Accompanying documents claim it is hugely expensive to process tree permits without discussing what costs are elsewhere for other cities
  •  Does not note that many other cities locally require permits to remove 6″ DBH trees.
  • does not mention or provide evaluation of data collected from last several years on tree retention, tree loss and replacement and entered into Seattle Accela database system
  • does not evaluate current or proposed ordinance’s impact on reaching 2037 30% tree canopy cover or aspirational 40% in current comprehensive plan.
  • Does not note there is no plan on how to reach 30% canopy goal by 2037 in place
  • removes black cottonwood, bitter cherry, and Lombardy popular, from tree grove protection but does not discuss how this will impact canopy goals or wildlife.
  • Does not discuss impact removing trees during bird’s nesting season
  •  does not mention or evaluate impact of up zoning in Seattle for light rail as present and future plans will affect tree loss retention
  • does not evaluate pacific flyways for migrating birds or other habitat or trailways for wildlife that are affected by tree loss
  • item 7 does not mention preparation of comprehensive plan and possible middle housing legislation which would severely impact tree canopy.
  • item 11 says there is no specific proposal site or development proposal. Should state history of development in Seattle and expected growth of housing and other development as it impacts tree loss and replacement
  • Study cited on “DBH Distribution in America’s Urban Forests: An Overview of Structural Integrity{” noted in its text that it included no cities in the Pacific Northwest footnote page 19
  • table on page 19 and reference to number of trees affected by proposals does not include total number of trees in city The estimate of 175,000 trees -for single family, multiple family and commercial does not really match up with statement on OSE website and Seattle’s Forest Ecosystem Values, which says Seattle has 4.35 million trees and treelike shrubs. Some 60% of Seattle’s tree canopy is currently in single family zones.
  • Does not mention 2 statistically valid polls each of whom with over 600 respondents,  showing strong support for updating Seattle Tree Ordinance while citing their input from 29 listening session participants (8 of whom were from the building community and 2 additional homeowners who were architects)   and feedback from 6 representatives of BIPOC and low-income groups.
Pick and choose from the above. Feel free to write in your own words what to send in.
Note as above that they did not adequately analyze many issues and possible impacts of the draft ordinance
Urge they do an Environmental Impact Statement for the draft ordance.to better research and explain the impacts.
Send comments to gordon.clowers@seattle.gov as soon as you can for the DNS on the SEPA
Steve Zemke
Chair – Tree PAC
Help us move this effort forward.      Donate here      thank you