|
||
|
||
|
Category Archives: TreePAC
Comments Needed Now on Draft Seattle 2020 Urban Forest Management Plan
Quick response needed – Deadline Monday Nov 30th.
The City of Seattle is seeking comments (via Survey Monkey) on their draft Urban Forest Management Plan. Comments are due now with a Nov 30th deadline.
Information on the draft plan is here: Urban Forest Management Plan Update. Here is a direct link to the survey: 2020 Urban Forest Management Plan Public Comment.
You will be asked to rank 18 proposed actions by the city.
We urge you to rank “Update the City’s Tree protection regulations” and “Focus tree planting in environmental equity priority communities” as the top 1 and 2 priorities respectively. The tree regulation updates are critical and have been postponed for 11 years. Low tree canopy in the historically under-resourced areas of Seattle has resulted in health and other related disparities for BIPOC and low-income communities.
There will be a section following the priority ranking for entering comments. Please add your own comments and/or cut and paste from our comments below that address issues with the draft Plan. Thank you for your quick response.
Please note: if you can’t make the Nov 30th deadline email your comments to Sandra.PintoUrrutia@seattle.gov to get added to public comments at the Seattle urban Forest Commission
For more background, here are some suggested comments. Feel free to copy and paste.
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.
- Priority Action – “Preserve existing trees. Because it takes decades for most trees to reach their ultimate size, trees already growing in Seattle generally provide immediate and ongoing benefits that cannot be matched by small/younger placement trees.” …Focus especially on Evergreen Trees…Mid-large trees…Forests, woodlands and tree groves…Unique wildlife habitat. Priority Action -Maintain existing trees…
- Priority Action – “Restore…”
- Priority Action – Plant new trees…”
- Priority Action – Increase awareness of the value and proper care of trees.
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
- no permits are required to remove most trees on private property,
- tree replacement by developers of exceptional trees and trees over 24 inches DBH even when required by law since 2001 are usually not replaced,
- no in lieu fee is in place if trees cannot be replaced on site; significant trees removed are not required to be replaced,
- maximizing retention of existing trees during development is not required,
- arborists are not required to be licensed and sign off on knowledge of tree regulations,
- a separate detailed tree inventory prior to any development is not required and the list goes on and on.
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.
Portland, Oregon Again Leading the Way on Stronger Tree Protection
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
Please support following items in the city budget that support protecting trees
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.
- SLI – MO-001-A-002 – Requests that the executive recommends strategies for consolidating urban forestry functions
- CBA – OSE- 002-A-003 – Add $132,000 to OSE for the Green New Deal Advisor Position
- CBA – OSE-004-A-003 – Add $140,000 to the Climate Advisory Position
- SLI – SPU-002-A-003 – request SPU to explore an expansion of the Tree Ambassador program
Tree PAC urges you add these 2 items to the budget.
- CBA – SDCI-002-A-001- Add 1 FTE arborist and 1 FTE Housing and Zoning inspector to SDCI and $275,237 General Fund to fund the positions to improve enforcement of tree regulations
- CBA – SDCI-011-A-001 – Provisio $758,563 be withheld from SDCI until they present an updated Tree Protection Ordinance to the Council by the end of Sept 2021
Steve Zemke
Chair – Tree PAC
stevezemke@TreePAC.org
Save this 100 year old Tree in Madrona!
ACTION ALERT! –QUICK DEADLINE
Action needed now – call or email today – Tue. Oct 6, 2020 deadline at the latest!
SAVE THIS 100-YEAR OLD TREE
A two-week notice has been posted for an application to remove this tree. Help save this exceptional big leaf maple tree!
Located at 35th Ave and Spring 1 block east of Madrona Park
The Heart of Madrona in Seattle
TREE 59973 is a 48” diameter big leaf maple, well over the criteria for an “exceptional tree”.
It is adjacent to a playground, on a key pedestrian route to Lake Washington, storing lots of carbon, cleaning the air and fighting global warming. David Kirske, Chief Financial Officer of CTI Biopharma Corp. seeks to cut down this gem to build a better driveway and sidewalk. (Yes, seriously). And he refuses to talk to the community about collaborative approaches to save the tree.
Contact Nolan Rundquist, head of SDOT’s Urban Forestry Division to help save this tree.
call (206) 684-TREE (8733).
email at Seattle.Trees@Seattle.gov
Reference # SDOTTREE0000252 (tree removal permit number)
Message: FIX THE SIDEWALK; DON’T KILL THE TREE! BIG TREES ARE CRITICAL TO OUR COMMUNITIES AND ENVIRONMENT.
E-mails should also be cc’ed to Jenny.Durkan@Seattle.gov and Council@Seattle.gov
Thanks for your help.
Tree PAC urges Seattle City Council to Update Seattle’s 2035 Comprehensive Plan
To Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee Members – Seattle City Council
Dan Strauss – Chair
My name is Steve Zemke. I am speaking as the Chair of Tree PAC in support of Council Resolution 31970.
Tree PAC supports amending Seattle’s 2035 Comprehensive Plan to “identify opportunities to better support the urban tree canopy”
We also support the provision to consider “impact fee amendments to public owned parks, open space and recreation facilities and school facilities”
In addition to considering amendments proposed by 5(C) and 5(I) –
We also ask that the provision of “no net loss of tree canopy” in the previous Comprehensive Plan be added back to the current Plan. The Seattle Urban Forestry Commission in 2018 urged that this be added back as part of Seattle’s Tree Regulations.
Another provision to add is “maximizing the retention of existing trees” during development as in the Land Use Code SMC 23 to help stop unnecessary clearcutting of lots and a significant loss of existing tree canopy.
To help meet race and social justice goals and climate crisis impacts and help implement the Green New Deal step up the 30% tree canopy goal in the Comprehensive Plan from 2037 to 2030.
And please make the Seattle Urban Forestry Commission part of the process by adding that OPCD submit to the UFC any draft language they propose on tree canopy opportunities and ask for the UFC’s comments and these comments also be submitted to the Seattle City Council.
Public Comments Needed Now to Increase Seattle’s Protection of Trees
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!
TreePAC Recommends Shoreline Study Alternative Sidewalk Designs to Save Trees
Dear Shoreline City Council and Shoreline Manager,
We are respectfully proposing that the Shoreline City Council strongly consider asking the Parks/Tree Board to appoint a special committee to study Alternative Sidewalk Designs. Potential losses of large numbers of mature trees such as that proposed on Dayton Ave N with the WSDOT project are of great concern.
The special committee would deal with considering ways to resolve existing conflicts that naturally occur when new sidewalks are proposed, and large trees are impacted or slated to be removed. These conflicts are likely to continue and escalate if this issue is not more proactively dealt with. Shoreline needs to work to alleviate the problems with creative solutions instead of relying on exceptions. Maintaining existing trees and the urban forest has to be a high priority for Shoreline as the city grows and becomes more dense.
Shoreline has already deployed such designs in many cases over the last decade for the purpose of more sustainability and practicality. For instance, at Southwoods Park a sidewalk was required when the new park was created. It included a 3 ft ADA path, winding through the trees along NE 150th Street, alongside a natural drainage swale planted with natives. The path had 3 different treatment, including 1/3 of it being permeable pavement. There are many other examples that Shoreline has utilized as well around town. There are also many other examples deployed in Seattle and other neighboring cities.
This committee at Parks would be best if it included several Parks Board members and some members of the community. It could devote a few months to come up with a portfolio of potential alternative solutions for the Council to consider as amendments to the Development Code and Engineering Code.
We hope you will seriously consider this suggestion offered in good faith as a solution to some inevitable tree loss conflicts which are likely to persist otherwise.
TreePAC is an all volunteer organization that works to promote protection of Trees and Urban Forests and promote quality of life for all cities in the Seattle Area.
Sincerely,
Steve Zemke – TreePAC Chair
2131 N 132nd St
Seattle, WA 98133
Letter and recommendation adopted Feb 26, 2020 by Tree PAC Board.
Questionnaires returned to TreePAC show Strong Support for Updating Seattle’s Tree Protection Ordinance
Questionnaires returned to TreePAC show Strong Support for Updating Seattle’s Tree Protection Ordinance
Thirteen of the fourteen candidates running for the Seattle City Council District elections in the 2019 General Election have returned questionnaires to Tree PAC. Overwhelmingly, the responses were positive for supporting key provisions to strengthen the existing Tree Protection Ordinance. You can see our TreePAC endorsements and questionnaires on this link. These questionnaires were weighted heavily, but were not our sole criteria for endorsement.
Earlier this year, the Seattle City Council unanimously passed the following two resolutions that support the updating of Seattle’s Tree Protection Ordinance.
3/18/19 Seattle City Council Resolution 31870 Section 6 deals 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:
- Retaining protections for exceptional trees and expanding the definition of exceptional trees.
- Creating a permitting process for the removal of significant trees, defined as trees 6 inches in diameter at breast height or larger.
- Adding replacement requirements for significant tree removal.
- Simplifying tree planting and replacement requirements.
- Maintaining tree removal limits in single-family zones.
- Exploring the feasibility of establishing a in-lieu fee option for tree planting.
- Tracking tree removal and replacement throughout Seattle.H. Providing adequate funding to administer and enforce tree regulations
- Requiring that all tree service providers operating in Seattle meet the minimum certification and training requirements and register with the city.
9/17/2019 Seattle City Council Resolution 31902 – A resolution declaring the City Council and the Mayor’s intent to consider strategies to protect trees and increase Seattle’s tree canopy cover
All of the candidates (13 out of 14) who responded to the TreePAC questionnaire indicated that they support these two resolutions.
The Seattle Urban Forestry Commission on June 15, 2019, at the request of Councilmembers Bagshaw and Herbold, submitted to the Mayor and City Council a draft Tree and Urban Forest Protection Ordinance. Council action on an updated Tree Protection Ordinance is expected next year. TreePAC is encouraged by the strong response of the city council candidates in support of updating the current Tree Protection Ordinance.
Shoreline, WA Clearcut of Large Mature Trees for Development Near Light Rail Station
TreePAC and Neighborhood Treekeepers
Protest Clearcut of 14 lots for Townhouse Development.
Tuesday, October 15, 2019
N 145th St and 1st Ave NE, Shoreline (just north of Lakeside School)
Tree PAC and Neighborhood Treekeepers held a protest and press conference after a developer clearcut many large trees and a grove of large mature tress on a 12 lot townhouse development in Shoreline
Shoreline, WA recently passed an up zone for development near the proposed NE 145th St light rail station. Shoreline’s new ordinance “does not require that any trees be protected” in this upzone area and so allows 100% removal of existing trees. The disastrous result of this policy can be clearly seen on the 14 lot development of townhouses planned at the corner of 1st Ave NE and N 145th in Shoreline. The 12 lot development spreads north to 147th and then east along the north side of the block.
Although much of the 12 lot property did not have many trees, those that were there were large The developers removed almost all the trees on the project as well as a grove of large Douglas Fir trees.
These trees would have provided great benefits for the new residents as well as the community at large. Rather than save some trees, the developers choose to “remove almost all of the trees” on the lots to maximize their profit, given the loosening of development requirements by the city of Shoreline.
Bulldozers and construction equipment were visible on the lots. Bulldozers were removing stumps of the cut trees. Other machines were stacking logs and a huge pile of branches and stumps to be removed.
The cut trees were 80 – 100 years old. It takes 80 years to replace an 80 year old tree. The neighbors and Shoreline just lost a lot of natural environmental services in that old trees accumulate more much carbon sequestration than young trees. Also lost is the air cleaning and pollution removal benefits of trees and reduction in stormwater runoff.
This tree removal is in addition to the massive clearcutting of trees along I-5 for the construction of light rail heading north. That project will remove some 5300 trees along the I-5 corridor.
Bulldozers and construction equipment and workers are on the lots now. Stacks of trees logged and stumps are visible but are being removed,