Questions regarding One Seattle Comprehensive Plan draft EIS – May 6, 2024
- What is your estimation of planting needs and time frame to replace canopy lost during development (over 5 year periods as tracked by the city’s canopy study)? The Tree Protection Ordinance refers to “tree replacement required shall be designed to result, upon maturity, in a canopy cover that is at least roughly proportional to the canopy cover prior to tree replacement.” Would you agree that in most cases removing an 80 year old tree will take probably 80 years to replace?
- Is canopy replacement equivalence even possible with replanting since removed trees, which if not removed, would have increased growing according to scientific articles? It would appear that you’ve lost any canopy growth that would have occurred if the tree had not been removed.
How many acres are available and suitable for planting trees in each of the following public areas – the city’s right of ways, Natural Areas and Developed Parks?
- How many trees and what size (small, medium and large size) will need to be planted in the city every year to make up for trees and canopy removed during development on lots?
- What is acreage is needed and available to plant trees on private property?
- When will it be possible to reach the 30% citywide goal?
- What potential is there for more than 30% tree canopy in Seattle over time?
- Is up to 40% canopy coverage, over time, as proposed in the previous Comprehensive Plan possible with intense planting?
- What is the projected loss in canopy volume over the next 20 years as big conifer trees and others are removed?
- Canopy volume, especially of coniferous trees during our rainy season, is a critical factor in reducing stormwater runoff, particularly in the rainy season in Seattle. Is their loss really possible to replace in a reasonable amount of time?
- What is the projected increase in stormwater runoff and what costs are associated with on site and alternative city water management policies of stormwater and pollutant runoff as a result?
As to commenting on other tree potential mitigation measures, add:
- Amend the Tree Protection Ordinance to require developers to maximize the retention of existing trees 6″ DSH and larger through the whole development process, not just platting and short platting as required now. Existing trees are the survivors and are providing ecosystem services now.
- Give the SCCI Director the ability to ask for alternative site designs to save trees.
- Support building higher and building attached units to allow for tree retention and planting areas like Portland, Oregon has with 20% areas for multifamily and 40% for its 1-4 unit family zone. Zones like the industrial zone are allowed to remove all trees during development under the current ordinance.
- Amend the Tree Protection Ordinance to require the ordinance to apply to all city land use zones.
- Remove the “basic tree protection area” loophole in the current Tree Protection Ordinance that allows developers to unnecessarily remove almost all large trees on lots. It is not standard arboriculture practice according to the Northwest Chapter of The American Arboriculture Society.
Steve Zemke for TreePAC and Friends of Seattle’s Urban Forest