Category Archives: urban trees

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

Send a Be My Valentine E-Mail to State Senators- Add urban and community forestry amendments to E2Shb 1099

Posted on by

Dear Friends of Tree PAC

E2SHB 1099 is in the WA State Senate Housing and Land Use Committee. The bill would add a climate resiliency element that cities and counties need to consider when they update their Comprehensive Plans under the state’s Growth Management Act. They are considering amendments to the bill in Executive Session on Thursday before it is voted on in Committee.

Please help strengthen the bill by sending the Washington State Senators a Valentine Day email urging that they adopt the purposed urban forest amendments below.

 

We have a pre-written e-mail you can quickly sent them. Feel free to add your own comments.

Here are our proposed amendments we are asking for:

In Sec. 4 (1) – Page 7 line 14 – Add underlined words – “A land use element designating the proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of land, where appropriate, for agriculture, timber production, housing, commerce, industry, recreation, open spaces, general aviation, airports, public utilities, public facilities, urban and community forests, and other land uses.”
In Sec. 4 (1) – Page 7 line 22 – Insert following sentence – “The land use element must evaluate urban and community forestry canopy cover and its preservation and enhancement to mitigate heat impacts and associated health impacts on humans and the natural environment,”
In Sec. 4 (9) (b) (i) (A) – Page 17 line 30 – Add following words (bolded only to designate they are new words to add to current new sentence in bill) to the following – “Identify, protect, and enhance urban and community forests and other natural areas to foster resiliency to climate impacts, as well as areas of vital habitat for plant and animal diversity, safe passage and species migration; and”

Thanks for your help!

Steve Zemke

TreePAC – Chair

www.TreePAC.org

Contributions to support TreePAC are always welcome. Click here to donate.

Add two Arborist Positions to Seattle City Budget for SDCI

Posted on by

Councilmember Dan Strauss proposed doubling the number of arborists in  Seattle’s  Department of Construction and Inspections (SDCI) from two to four to increase tree protection and enforcement now.

From Dan Strauss’s newsletter:

“Tree Protection Staff: As we await a new, stronger tree protection ordinance, I am proposing to hire two additional arborists in the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspection to immediately enhance the City’s ability to enforce the tree code and review permit applications to ensure compliance with tree protections. While the bigger changes we need will come with a new ordinance, we can start by adequately enforcing the laws we currently have.”

Unfortunately, the Nov 10th City Council Budget reconciliation proposal did not include this amendment.

On Tuesday, November 9th, Budget Chair Councilmember Mosqueda released her Initial Balancing Package. You can watch the high-level overview for the public here. If you would like to address the council to provide feedback on the balancing package, the next public hearing will be on November 18th at 9:30 AM.
 Public Hearing Thursday Nov 18, 2021  9:30 AM 
Each Budget Committee Meeting allows space for public comment at the beginning of each meeting. To provide public comment, you must register ahead of time. Signup opens 2 hours in advance of the meeting.

Please sign up to testify and/or send an e-mail to the Seattle City Council  urging they add 2 arborist positions to SDCI’s budget now to help protect more existing trees. Send e-mails to council@seattle.gov 

Funding keeps getting put off until later as trees keep getting cut down now across the city. Twelve years without adequately responding to tree loss and updating Seattle’s Tree Protection Ordinance continues to be delayed by the Council and Mayor. The Climate Crisis is now, and tree equity is a matter of climate justice and public health now.

Steve Zemke
Chair – TreePAC
www.TreePAC.org

Comments by Maria Batayola, Beacon Hill Council Chair, on NPI/TreePAC Tree Poll

Posted on by

 

 

Maria Batayola

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.”

Comments by Tina Cohen Certified Arborist on the NPI/Tree PAC Tree Poll

Posted on by

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:  

  • During development permitting, the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspection, SDCI, must require design modifications to allow adequate root and canopy space for saved trees. This is already allowed in the Directors Rule. Otherwise the trees will not survive long term. 
  • The Seattle Department of Transportation currently requires credentials for arborists working on Right of Way trees. The City should adopt the same.  
  • Replacement trees should be required if there’s adequate space for the roots and canopy at maturity (50 years). Otherwise change the design or add trees elsewhere.  
  • I agree with the Urban Forestry Commission that Seattle needs a central tree portal or department for permits and inspections. Currently it’s spread among several departments.  
  • We can have development AND trees, however McMansions and other projects that cover an entire lot are not compatible with tree retention. The Code should be changed to require more open space (less lot coverage) to allow for large trees.  

 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 by Josh Morris of Seattle Audubon on NPI/Tree PAC Tree Protection Poll

Posted on by

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. 

 Please send questions to Joshua Morris, urban conservation manager: joshm@seattleaudubon.org 

 

Comments by Steve Zemke – Tree PAC Chair on NPI/Tree PAC Seattle Tree Poll

Posted on by

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.”

Jessica Dixon, Plant Amnesty Board member, at NPI/TreePAC press conference on Seattle Tree Poll

Posted on by

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.

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.