TreePAC 2019 General Election Seattle City Council Candidate Questionnaire

1. SUPPORT FOR COUNCIL ORDINANCE RESOLUTION 31870 As part of the MHA Ordinance passage in March 2019 the Seattle City Council passed Resolution 31870. Section 6 of that Resolution called for updating Seattle’s Tree Protection Ordinance. Do you support that provision?

Yes     x        No           

Optional Comment:

2. SUPPORT FOR COUNCIL RESOLUTION 31902 The Seattle City Council on Sept. 16, 2019 passed Resolution 31902 “declaring the City Council’s and the Mayor’s intent to consider strategies to protect trees and increase Seattle’s tree canopy cover.” The resolution calls for the city to update Seattle’s Tree Protection Ordinance in 2020 . Do you support this resolution for updating Seattle’s Tree Protection Ordinance?

Yes     x                No           

Optional Comment:

3. PERMITS FOR TREE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT Seattle’s current Tree Protection Ordinance SMC 25.11 is a complaint-based system for developed property. It is not working according to the 2017 Tree Regulations Research Project Report done by DCI and OSE. The report states that Exceptional trees and groves were being lost. Trees were being removed from Environmental Critical Areas. Large conifers were being replaced with deciduous and dwarf species. Do you support updating the ordinance to require permits to remove and replace trees, like SDOT does for street trees and like Portland, Lake Forest Park and other cities do for all trees removed?

Yes     x        No           

Optional Comment:

4. POSTING OF TREE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT PERMITS

The Seattle Department of Transportation requires the posting on site of all tree removal and replacement permit applications for two weeks prior to trees Do you support requiring Tree Removal and Replacement Permit Applications being posted on site and on-line?

Yes_x___No____

Optional Comments:

1. Do you support a Tree Removal and Replacement Permit being posted on site for a week after the tree is removed so that neighbors know it was taken down legally?

Yes     x        No          

Optional Comments

5.  REQUIRE TREE REPLACEMENT ON SITE or PAY FEE-IN-LIEU

REPLACEMENT OF TREES CUT DOWN – Many other cities require that trees removed, whether on developed property or property being developed, must be All trees 6” DBH and larger are currently required to be on development site plans. In the single-family zone, trees 6 inches DBH and larger represent about 48 % of the trees. Do you support requiring tree replacement when trees larger than 6 inches DBH are removed?

Yes     x        No          

Optional Comments

FEE-IN-LIEU OF REPLACEMENT – Portland, OR and other cities allow for a fee to be paid to replace trees elsewhere if they cannot be replaced on the property where they were cut down. Seattle is considering an option to allow a fee in lieu to be paid to plant a new tree elsewhere and maintain it for 5 years. Replacement of trees in other areas can be sited based on race and social justice considerations. Do you support this option?

Yes     x        No          

Optional Comments:  The details matter. If the fee is too small, it will not fully replace the lost trees. If the fees are large enough, this can be an excellent policy, because with it, trees that are cut without a permit can be replaced. The biggest problem with Seattle’s tree protection programs is enforcement. People routinely call my office to report that a developer had removed trees they found inconvenient without permission or a permit. Those developers had clearly chosen to accept a slap on the wrist if the are caught, rather than sacrificing potential profits to maintaining Seattle’s tree canopy.

6. PROTECTION OF EXCEPTIONAL TREES

EXCEPTIONAL TREES are defined as “a tree or group of trees that because of its unique historical, ecological, or aesthetic value constitutes an important community resource”, including large trees, heritage trees and tree groves. They are protected by the current ordinance. Do you support continuing the protection of exceptional trees?

Yes     x        No          

Optional Comments: While they are nominally protected by the current ordinance, far too often exceptional trees are removed by developers in violation of the law.

LOWER LARGE TREE EXCEPTIONAL THRESHOLD The Urban Forestry Commission has recommended that the upper limit to declare a large tree exceptional be lowered from 30 inches diameter at breast height (DBH) to 24 inches DBH to save more large trees. Do you support this protection of more large trees?

Yes     x        No          

Optional Comments

7. DATABASE TRACKING OF TREE REMOVALS The Seattle Urban Forestry Commission has repeatedly recommended that the city use its database system to track all tree loss and replacement, both on developed property and property being developed. Such data will help the city monitor the changes occurring in the urban forest over time. This data would be collected through Tree Removal and Replacement Permits being entered into one system for both trees removed during development and trees removed on developed property. This data will help guide the City’s Urban Forest Management Plans. Do you support the implementation of the database program as directed by Mayor Burgess’s Executive Order 2017-11 Tree Protection?

Yes     x        No           

Optional Comment:

8. ARBORIST REGISTRATION The Seattle Department of Transportation currently requires registration and certification for Tree Care Providers, like arborists, to help ensure they understand and comply with Seattle’s Tree Code and Regulations. Do you support requiring all Tree Care Providers working in Seattle to be registered and certified by the city as Portland already does?

Yes     x        No           

Optional Comment:

9. INVASIVE PLANT CONTROL – Removal of invasive vegetation in our city parks has been a long and expensive project for the city under the Green Seattle Partnership. To protect this investment, it is important that invasive species like English ivy and holly trees not get re-introduced from plants in other parts of the Would you support all building project landscape plans requiring the removal of all invasive plant species on the property?

Yes     x        No           

Optional Comment:

10. CITY AUDITOR REVIEW OF COMPLIANCE – SMC 11.090 currently says “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.”

This provision, in the Tree Protection Ordinance since 2001, has apparently not been enforced by DCI or its predecessors with any consistency. No funds appear to have been collected by the City to plant off site trees nor does there appear to have been any cumulative record kept of trees removed or total trees replaced either on site or off site to meet the requirements of this provision. Would you support a review by the Seattle City Auditor of the city’s compliance with SMC 25.11.090?

Yes     x        No           

Optional Comment:

11. URBAN FORESTRY COMMISSION INVOLVEMENT – The Seattle Urban Forestry Commission at the request Of Councilmembers Bagshaw and Herbold submitted to the Seattle City Council and Mayor Jenny Durkan a draft Tree and Urban Forest Protection Ordinance. The draft started with the last draft by the Seattle City Council staff requested by Councilmember Rob It addresses all the issues in the recent City Council resolutions. It represents ten years of positions established by the Seattle Urban Forestry Commission regarding efforts to update the existing Tree Protection Ordinance. Many of the issues in that draft are topics in questions above.

The City Council passed Ordinance 123052 in August 2009 establishing the Urban Forestry Commission (UFC) “to advise the Mayor and City Council concerning the establishment of policy and regulations governing the protection, management, and conservation of trees and vegetation in the City of Seattle.” One of the responsibilities of the Urban Forestry Commission in that legislation is “To provide recommendations on legislation concerning urban forestry management, sustainability and protection of associated trees and understory vegetation and related habitat on public or private property prior to its introduction and referral to any Council committee” Will you agree to continue to work with the Seattle Urban Forestry Commission in producing the final update to the Tree Protection Ordinance?

Yes     x        No           

Optional Comment:  I support the Urban Forestry Commission’s Tree Protection Ordinance. I am concerned that the Council resolution sponsored by Councilmember Bagshaw last month, which purported to support tree canopy, is infact an attempt to delay taking meaningful action protecting Seattle’s trees. Rather than putting forward the UFC’s ordinance, this resolution says that, “The City Council is ready to consider strategies recommended by the Mayor that would: protect existing trees, particularly exceptional trees, and trees at least 2 feet in diameter at breast height; increase Seattle’s tree canopy; and balance City goals to support future growth and density as provided in the City’s Comprehensive Plan.” If this resolution in fact results in a tree protection ordinance substantively similar to the ordinance produced by the Urban Forestry Commission, than that will be good news, but we have to be sober about the power big developers have in City Hall. We have to be prepared for a tree ordinance in 2020, that lacks accountability and enforcement.

12. Some people believe there is a conflict between preserving and planting trees in Seattle and building more housing, particularly affordable and low – income housing. What measures or proposals do you think we could put in place to have more affordable and low-income housing as well as achieve our urban forest and tree canopy goals to keep Seattle a healthy and vibrant city for all?

Comment:  Most of those who claim that tree protections are a cause of unaffordable housing in Seattle are willfully attempting to deflect attention from the real causes of housing crisis. The best answer to such obfuscation is to focus on the policies that are necessary to solve the affordable housing crisis in Seattle. We need a massive expansion of publicly funded social housing, paid for with progressive taxes on big business, and we need rent control to stop the hemorrhage of even moderately affordable housing.

However, to directly answer people who may genuinely believe there is a conflict between affordable housing and trees, there is simply no economic data to suggest that is true. The cost of preserving and planting trees is a negligible fraction of the total development costs, but even if it were not, the notion that this is in any way related to affordable housing stems from absurd notion that developers pass on cost savings to their tenants out of the kindness of their hearts. In reality, high rents in Seattle have been inflated far faster than the inflation of other costs in society because they are driven by the profits of the speculative real estate market. When big developers lower their costs, they use those savings to increase their profits, not to lower rents.

In the rare cases when a non-profit affordable housing provider could be impacted by the costs of preserving and planting trees, I would support the city maintaining a fund to cover those marginal costs so there is no loss at all of tree canopy.

However, we need to be crystal clear about the subtext of the false assertion that affordable housing and protecting trees are in conflict. It is the same argument we have been hearing since the housing crisis began in Seattle; that if only we allow big developers to do as they please, the private market will build our way out of the housing crisis. As a result, Seattle has been the crane capital of the world for four years running, the biggest developers have made billions, and the affordable housing crisis and homelessness keep getting worse. Cutting developer costs does not result in affordable housing; public social housing does. The market does not control the rents; rent control does.

13. Do you have a story or experience regarding trees that you could share with us?

 Comment:  My husband, our dogs and I spent a lot of our spare time walking through the Arboretum, Seward Park, Volunteer Park and other Seattle park grounds. We feel lucky to be able to enjoy such spectacular parks as Seattle has, including a few with old growth trees, though we are well aware of the ongoing grassroots struggle to protect and expand parks and the tree canopy in Seattle. The frustrating tree-related experiences I have are the many calls my office has received from neighbors upset to see an exceptional tree next door illegally removed by a big developer, without concern for the community, often willfully done to capture a few more dollars in profit. Once an exceptional tree is cut down, it cannot be uncut, even when the City Departments take action to enforce the tree ordinance. I strongly support passing the Urban Forestry Commission’s Tree Protection Ordinance, as well as strongly enforcing the current tree protection laws.