TreePAC 2019 General Election Seattle City Council Candidate Questionnaire
- 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
Optional Comment:
- 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
Optional Comment: We would be happy to support the resolution to update the Tree Protection Ordinance, if not only for efficiency but also for accuracy. However, to our understanding, Seattle has also already met its goals of having 30% tree canopy coverage. At the same time, we also agree there’s certainly more room for improvement in just how we go about both creating and preserving trees and equitable green space.
- 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
Optional Comment:
- 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
Optional Comments:
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
Optional Comments: We would support this so long as it does not impede legal privacy concerns attached to property as well as the permit requests and subsequent public approvals (or not) have the supplemented decided actionable item, should there be one also publicly available with them.
- 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
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?
N/A
Optional Comments: More research needs to be done before we can support a fee-in-lieu, especially as how this fee would impact low-income communities.
- 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
Optional Comments
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?
N/A
Optional Comments: More research has to be done on our end, but lean yes.
- 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
Optional Comment: We’d be happy to create a citywide database, as long as it is not superfluous to new developments the City already has as of 2015 like LiDAR and MIT’s Green View Index.
- 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?
Maybe
Optional Comment: Expanding SDOT’s tree service provider registration is an item with unclear implications to us at the moment and so more research needs to be done on it. We cannot give a hard-stance commitment but are certainly open to it.
- 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
Optional Comment:
- 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
Optional Comment:
- 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
Optional Comment:
- Some people believe here 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 the places removing trees are unexpectedly the places banning apartments, zoned for only single-detached houses, (source) and then also institutional areas (like the UW). Statistically speaking, Seattle has overall lost 6% of its trees since 2007, but 3% is in single-detached house zones and 2% in institutional areas. This is to say we have lost 1% of trees in the areas we’re even allowed to build multifamily units or offices over a 8+ year period.
Green space is often inequitably distributed geographically–that is, it’s often located closer to or within wealthy neighborhoods. We do believe we should be building more green space (like community areas, rooftop gardens and trees, “living” offices and buildings and repurposing of cast-away infrastructure like Battery Street) when we create things like affordable housing, new offices, and new MFTEs. This would address some equity issues in the built environment. Another way to address green inequity is to also make the off-limit neighborhoods actually accessible to more housing types that accommodate more people of all different incomes–we can’t pick up and move a park, but we can allow greater access to the spaces near it WHILE creating even more green infrastructure and green space in the process.
Coming from an urbanist background, something that I do see overlap between my campaign and the Tree PAC’s is our mutual concern for environmental justice. Our campaign has led on addressing the climate crisis, and has consequently earned the endorsement of every environmental organization that has endorsed in this race. That’s why our Seattle Green New Deal platform, which we happily saw become a movement from 350Seattle after we announced the plan, wants to improve our infrastructures, transportation, and environment ASAP (by 2025).
13. Do you have a story or experience regarding trees that you could share with us?
Comment: