Needed Tree Protection Still Lacking in MHA Legislation

Posted on by March 31, 2019

Seattle Still Has Not Passed Needed Tree Protection After Ten Years

For 10 years Seattle has been saying it is going to update its Tree Protection Ordinance. While the Seattle City Council’s proposed goals on passing an updated Tree Protection Ordinance in its Concurrent Resolution 31870 to CB 119444 (see below) are laudable, in 2009 it passed a similar resolution, Resolution 31138, but after 10 years has not acted to follow through with passing new legislation.

Resolutions do not protect our urban forest as development continues to remove trees. While the City Council resolution proposes significant changes, the Seattle City Council needs to act to actually update its current Tree Protection Ordinance SMC 25.11, not just pass another resolution.

Seattle also continues to flagrantly ignore its existing requirement in SMC 25.11.090 since 2001, mandating developers replace all trees 24 ” DBH and larger and all exceptional trees removed during development.The MHA Ordinance does not address the issue of tree replacement not occurring.

SMC  25.11.090 – Tree replacement and site restoration.

  1. 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.
  2. No tree replacement is required if the (1) tree is hazardous, dead, diseased, injured or in a declining condition with no reasonable assurance of regaining vigor as determined by a tree care professional, or (2) the tree is proposed to be relocated to another suitable planting site as approved by the Director

 

One only needs to ask 2 questions to determine that most large or exceptional trees removed during development have not been replaced as required by SMC 25.11.090:

“Where are the replacement trees that were required to be planted the last 18 years.”

“If the developers did not replant the trees, how much money did the city get from the developers to replant the trees and where are they?”

Council Concurrent Resolution 31870 to MHA Ordinance CB 119444 – section 6 on trees:

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. Potential measures may include, but are not limited to, the following:

  1. Retaining protections for exceptional trees and expanding the definition of exceptional trees.
  2. Creating a permitting process for the removal of significant trees, defined as trees 6 inches in diameter at breast height or larger.
  3. Adding replacement requirements for significant tree removal.
  4. Simplifying tree planting and replacement requirements.
  5. Maintaining tree removal limits in single-family zones.
  6. Exploring the feasibility of establishing a in-lieu fee option for tree planting.
  7. Tracking tree removal and replacement throughout Seattle.
  8. Providing adequate funding to administer and enforce tree regulations.

 

Seattle City Council Resolution Number: 31138

Title
A RESOLUTION concerning policies for the protection of trees on public and private property within the City of Seattle, stating the Council’s priorities for legislative and Departmental actions to increase the overall health, quality and the extent of trees within the City of Seattle.

Status: Adopted as Amended
Date adopted by Full Council: August 3, 2009
Vote: 8-0 (Excused: Clark)

Urge Seattle City Council to Add Tree Mitigation Amendment to MHA Ordinance Draft

Posted on by February 7, 2019
Coalition for a Stronger Tree Ordinance
Action Message from Steve Zemke – Chair – Coalition for a Stronger Tree Ordinance

Dear Tree Protection Advocates,
The Seattle City Council will be considering amendments to the proposed Mandatory Housing Affordability (MHA) Ordinance this Friday May 8, 2019. We need your help to urge the Seattle City Council to support and adopt an amendment proposed by the Seattle Urban Forestry Commission to help mitigate for trees lost during development. They will be holding a public hearing Feb thursday Feb 21 and take a fianl vote on Feb 25, 2019.  Click here to see schedule.

This amendment would  increase tree mitigation for trees lost during MHA implementation as proposed in Executive Order 2017-11 – Tree Protection by Mayor Burgess in 2017 and addressed as mitigation to be implemented in the final MHA Environmental Impact Statement. Unfortunately, both  the language to require a replacement fee for trees removed  during development and not replanted on site, and language to track tree loss and replacement as proposed by Mayor Burgess, have not been incorporated in the current MHA ordinance draft.

Please e-mail the following message to the Seattle City Council and the Mayor to support and pass this amendment. You can cut and paste the following text in an e-mail, add your name and your own message. Mail to Council@seattle.gov and jenny.durkan@seattle.gov Thanks.

Dear Seattle City Council,

Please add the following amendment proposed by the Seattle Urban Forestry Commission to the proposed Mandatory Housing Affordability Ordinance   The language proposed is within the scope of the final Environmental Impact Statement as discussed in section 3.6.3 MITIGATION MEASURES. To sustain our urban forest it is essential that trees removed during development be replaced. The proposed amendment addresses that issue.

SMC 25.11.090 – Tree replacement and site restoration (A)
“Each exceptional significant tree (six inches DBH and larger) and over two (2) feet 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 20 years, in a canopy cover volume that is at least equal to the canopy cover volume 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 a fee-in-lieu shall be paid to the City to replace and maintain the tree or trees in the neighborhood where they were removed or elsewhere as needed in the city. The City shall enter all significant trees on site, trees removed, and trees replaced into SDCI’s current database system; noting tree species, common name, DBH, height, condition and location.“

Please add this amendment to the final Mandatory Housing Affordability Ordinance. Tree replacement is important to not lose tree canopy.  Can we count on you to support and vote for this amendment?  Thank you.

Sincerely,

Continuing the Fight to Update Seattle’s Tree Protection Ordinance – Coalition Meeting Feb 2nd

Posted on by January 30, 2019
Coalition for a Stronger Tree Ordinance
Dear Tree Protection Advocates,

We ended last year in a stalemate as the Seattle City Council put off action once again on moving ahead with updating Seattle’s Tree Protection Ordinance. They say they will start again after they pass the MHA (Mandatory Housing Affordability) Ordinance in March. However we are now into year 10 since the City Council first passed a resolution in 2009 to update the current tree protection ordinance and are again put on the back burner.

We need to step up our  efforts and we will discuss options this Saturday at our next meeting. Unfortunately while the last Seattle City Council draft D7 had some good components, like permits for removing trees and requiring replacement, at the same time it removed protections for exceptional trees, including tree groves, limits on number of trees that can be removed per year and prohibitions on removing trees over 6 inches DBH on vacant lots Please attend our next meeting as we discuss plans for moving forward.

Coalition for a Stronger Tree Ordinance Meeting
Saturday Feb. 2, 2019   10 AM – 12 Noon
Northgate Public Library. 10548 5th Ave NE, Seattle

Agenda
introductions
status of current ordinance
basic provisions that need to be in updated ordinance
status of amendments to MHA ordinance
City Council support
schedule moving forward:
outreach efforts
Mayor
City Council
City Council Elections
community support
media outreach
next steps

This should keep us busy for our scheduled time. Looking forward to seeing you there.

Donations made to TreePAC will be earmarked for this effort. Click here to go to the TreePAC donation page  .
Steve Zemke
Chair – Coalition for a Stronger Tree Ordinance – a Project of Friends of Seattle’s Urban Forest and TreePAC.

www.Friends.UrbanForests.org and www.TreePAC.org

facebook – Friends of Seattle’s Urban Forest  and facebook – Tree PAC

Seattle Urban Forestry Commission Letter to City Council on MHA Legislation Regarding Mitigation for Tree Loss.

Posted on by January 29, 2019

January 9, 2019.
MHA Council Committee
City Hall
600 4th Ave
Seattle, WA 98124
RE: Amendments to MHA Ordinance
Dear Councilmembers,
The Urban Forestry Commission (UFC) would like to provide additional input as you undertake amendments for the Mandatory Housing Affordability (MHA) Ordinance.

The UFC is concerned about the feedback loop between all the different pieces of tree
protection legislation currently being considered. The Tree Protection Ordinance (currently on hold) affects Green Factor, its Director’s Rule, and the MHA Ordinance.

The UFC still feels mitigation measures proposed on the MHA EIS are not enough, especially being that the Tree Protection Ordinance is on hold. Available space for trees is being significantly reduced as part of MHA. The UFC believes the City needs to be more intent in protecting existing trees and requiring tree replacement. Other efforts that would support successful tree protection would include:
1. Clearly defining what a tree is (as done in version D7 of the Draft Tree Protection
Ordinance).
2. Including protection for all significant trees 6” in diameter and larger (not just
exceptional trees) removed during development in all zones.
3. Establishing a fee-in-lieu option to fund tree replacement when it’s not possible to do
on site.
4. Replacing significant trees removed on site or paying an in-lieu fee to the City to
cover replacement and maintenance costs in the neighborhood or elsewhere in the city
as needed (SMC 25.11.090).
5. Establishing the tree replacement requirement to be calculated based on canopy
volume lost and tree species and size at maturity (in 20 years).
6. Setting a minimum canopy cover requirement per property, including Residential Small
Lots.
7. Capturing all data on significant tree retention, loss, and replacement into the City’s
database.
8. Properly funding enforcement for tree protection to be effective.
9. Considering previous input provided by the UFC on the Green Factor Director’s Rule
letter of recommendation and Draft MHA Ordinance recommendations, which was
based on the current draft DR and additional changes might be warranted.

The UFC would like to propose specific language changes to SMC 25.11.090 (A), as follows:

Each exceptional significant tree (six inches DBH and larger) and tree over two (2) feet 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 20 years in a canopy cover volume that is at least equal to the canopy cover volume 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 a fee-in-lieu shall be paid to the City to replace and maintain the tree or trees in the neighborhood where they were removed or elsewhere as needed in the city. The City shall enter all significant trees on site, trees removed, and trees replaced into SDCI’s current database system; noting tree species, common name, DBH, height, condition and location,

The UFC would be happy to work with Council to help explore creative ideas and solutions to support Seattle’s urban trees as our city grows and gets denser as well as coordinating the different elements to tree protection regulation currently being considered by the City.

Sincerely,

Weston Brinkley, Chair                   Steve Zemke

cc: Mayor Durkan, Nathan Torgelson, Samuel Assefa, Jessica Finn Coven, Michelle Caulfield, David Driskell, Mi Podowski, Maggie Glowacki, Chanda Emery, Brennon Staley, Vera Giampietro, Urban Forestry Management Team, Urban Forestry Core Team, Sara Maxana, Aaron Blumenthal, Eric McConaghy, Yolanda Ho, Amanda Hohlfeld

see original document here – Re: Amendments to MHA Ordinance 

Tree Mitigation Amendment to MHA Ordinance is Within Scope of EIS

Posted on by January 29, 2019

The following email was sent to the Seattle City Council urging they add a tree 

mitigation amendment to their proposed MHA Ordinance.

To Seattle City Council:

Last week the Seattle Urban Forestry Commission  adopted and sent to the Seattle City Council and Mayor  a letter entitled Re:Amendments to the MHA Ordinance Jan 9, 2019.  In the letter was a specific recommended amendment regarding tree mitigation to add to the draft MHA ordinance 119184. It is within the scope of the MHA EIS. TreePAC and others support this amendment and need your help to sponsor it and get it considered by the full MHA Committee. Can you help us? 

 Proposed amendment:   SMC 25.11.090 – Tree replacement and site restoration (A)
“Each exceptional significant tree (six inches DBH and larger) and over two (2) feet 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 20 years, in a canopy cover volume that is at least equal to the canopy cover volume 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 a fee-in-lieu shall be paid to the City to replace and maintain the tree or trees in the neighborhood where they were removed or elsewhere as needed in the city. The City shall enter all significant trees on site, trees removed, and trees replaced into SDCI’s current database system; noting tree species, common name, DBH, height, condition and location.”

References as to why this amendment is within the scope of the MHA EIS:
Under Section 3.6.3 Mitigation Measures in the MHA Final EIS Nov. 2017 Biological Resources Section it states “The following mitigation measures are provided which would reduce impacts.”…

“Executive Order 2017-11: Tree Protection: 
In October of 2017, the Mayor signed executive order 2017-11 directing City departments to improve departmental coordination, strengthen enforcement and adopt new regulations to improve and expand protections for Seattle’s urban trees and canopy cover. …The order also calls for expansion of compliance options to include in-lieu payment options for tree mitigation. Fees from any in-lieu payment will be used for mitigating the loss of canopy cover through replanting and reforestation while prioritizing addressing racial and economic disparities in accessing and enjoying the benefits of urban trees.”  

Burgess’s executive order 20-17 in  “Section 1. Enforcement Adjustment and Procedural Improvements” says “(B) SDCI will require consistent documentation for required tree removal review on private property including mitigating canopy cover loss of trees removed, and monitoring of planted trees for survival. Informational materials and resources for developers, property owners, and the public related to trees and vegetation management shall be updated to reflect this emphasis”

Thanks for your consideration. We are also contacting other Council members asking for their support as we know 5 votes are needed to pass it.

Steve Zemke -Chair Friends of Seattle’s Urban Forest

Seattle City Council Again Delays Updating Tree Protection Ordinance

Posted on by December 31, 2018

Update – Coalition for a Stronger Tree Ordinance

Seattle City Council Again Delays Tree Protection Ordinance

Regretfully we end 2018 without an update to Seattle’s Tree Protection Ordinance. The Seattle City Council’s Planning, Land Use and Zoning Committee (PLUZ) had announced in Nov 2017 that they were going to once again attempt to update Seattle’s Tree protection Ordinance.  In December of 2017 TreePAC and Friends of Seattle’s Urban Forest again joined with other community groups to coordinate a renewed effort to update Seattle’s Tree ordinance.

By August of 2018 the PLUZ Committee had produced 2 public drafts of  a new ordinance and an least 8 internal drafts.

In late September, the Seattle City Council Planning, Land Use and Zoning Committee agreed with the Seattle Urban Forestry Commission and with TreePAC and other community groups and individuals  that the city needed to slow down and draft a new Tree Ordinance that actually protected existing trees as well as requiring trees that were removed be replaced.

In October and November of 2018 the Seattle City Council dedicated its time and effort to drafting and passing  the City Budget. Unfortunately after this was completed, the Planning, Land Use and Zoning Committee decided to shift their attention and staff to other legislation and delay further action on the Tree Protection Ordinance until after they pass their Mandatory Housing Affordability Ordinance. They have now tentatively said they would again work on the tree ordinance in the second quarter of 2019.

The Seattle City Council is now entering its tenth year since they passed  Council Resolution 31138 urging an update of SMC 25.11 – the Tree Protection Ordinance. The Coalition for a Stronger tree Ordinance will continue to meet as an organization to build support across Seattle for a stronger tree ordinance as well as work with the City Council, Mayor and the Seattle Urban Forest Commission on specific language.

The Coalition continues to urge supporters to continue to contact the Mayor’s office and the City Council on a regular basis to urge they finally enact a strong tree protection ordinance and enforce it.

You can contact the Seattle Mayor at jenny.durkan@seattle.gov and the Seattle City Council  at council@seattle.gov.

The main points to emphasize to them is that an updated ordinance must:

  1. Maintain protections for Exceptional Trees –  “An exceptional tree is a tree that: 1. Is designated as a heritage tree by the City of Seattle; or 2. Is rare or exceptional by virtue of its size, species, condition, cultural/historic importance, age, and/or contribution as part of grove of trees “. 
  2.  Lower the threshold for large exceptional trees to 24 inches diameter at 54 inches high (DBH).
  3. Require removal permits for all trees 6″DBH and larger in all  property zones across the city for both developed lots and lots undergoing development. 
  4. Base tree permits on diameter and species of trees, not tree canopy measurements.
  5. Require all trees 6″ DBH and larger that are  removed to be replaced on site or  a replacement and maintenancefee be paid to the city.
  6. Require 2 week posting and yellow ribbons on trees on site for all permit applications for removal. Include on line public posting of applications and permit approvals.
  7. Limit removal of significant trees non-exceptional trees to no more than 2 per year on developed property.
  8. Maintain the prohibition on cutting down trees greater than 6″ DBH on undeveloped lots.

ReVisioning Northgate Sends Recommendations on Tree Code Update to Seattle City Council

Posted on by December 11, 2018

From: ReVisioning Northgate <aldnorthgate@gmail.com> 
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2018 5:33 PM
To: rob.johnson@seattlegov.org; mike.o’brien@seattlegov.org; lisa.herbold@seattlegov.org; lorena.gonzález@seattlegov.org; Juarez, Debora <Debora.Juarez@seattle.gov>; teresa.mosqueda@seattlegov.org
Subject: Tree Code: SMC 25.11 and Council’s proposed changes

December 6, 2018

Dear Councilmembers Johnson, Herbold, O’Brien, and González,

City Council Planning, Land Use & Zoning Committee

ReVisioning Northgate is a community group dedicated to advocating for a healthy, safe, and livable Northgate with its surrounding neighborhoods.  We applaud the effort to build a stronger and more enforceable, city-wide Tree Code, SMC 25.11, and of expanding protections to trees on private land.  We urge the Council to keep tree preservation as the uppermost goal in each step of revising the Code, and to make this goal explicit in the final ordinance language.

RVN strongly supports the following:

  • Greater emphasis must be given to protecting large trees and groves of trees
  • The category of “Exceptional Trees” should be maintained, with modifications specified by the Seattle Urban Forestry Commission on November 18, 2018    
  • New legislation require developers and builders work with City tree experts to adjust plans that would  require tree removal, with the goal of preserving trees
  • Tree service providers must be made liable for violations of protections 
  • Removed trees should be replaced on or near the original site, in the same block or neighborhood when possible 
  • Better definitions of hazardous trees should be written, with review of these claims provided by the City
  • A City corps of tree experts should be funded to enforce protections, review claims, and work with builders towards the preservation of existing trees.

We urge adoption of several of the Seattle Urban Forestry Commission’s suggested revisions from its letter to you dated August 31, 2018, and its responses to questions from the Council on November 18, 2018, especially that:

  • The prohibition on cutting Exceptional trees be maintained: RVN also urges limiting exceptions to the prohibition, such as that of “precluding full development potential”
  • The measurement unit for permitting be based on size and species, not on canopy cover
  • Exceptional trees include all those greater than 24” DBH , with the exception of invasive non-native species
  • “Habitat value and and ecosystem service provided” be added to protection criteria 
  • All trees removed a year prior to a property’s sale be considered to be under the ordinance, to discourage cutting prior to the new protections taking effect
  • The ratio of replacement be greater than 1:1, to better ensure survival of at least one replacement, and depend on species, increasing with size of the tree removed
  • Best-management practices of fall/winter planting and 5 year watering of replacement trees be mandated
  • No more than 2 trees per year be removed from a developed lot
  • Require a longer posting period: RVN suggests 3 weeks
  • On a single family lot where a unit is to be constructed, the minimum number of trees required by SMC 23.44.008 be maintained, and this requirement be extended to other zones. 

We agree with Councilmember O’Brien that preservation of and replacement with native hardwoods and conifers should be prioritized.  We also urge that if trees are to be removed, they will be replaced by trees that will reach the same size or greater. 

The reduction in diameter (DBH) of protected trees from 12” to 6” is greatly appreciated.  As is the requirement to make tree service providers sign a statement affirming they know the rules. 

We urge that new legislation require developers and builders work with City experts to adjust plans that would require tree removal, with the goal of preserving trees.

The removal of invasive, habitat-threatening trees should not require fees for permitting.  These should be listed as exempt, and should include such species as Ilex aquifolium (English holly) and Laburnum anagyroides (chain tree).

And finally, RVN questions whether the fee to be charged for removing non-hazardous trees is a sufficient deterrent, or if it should be increased. At the same time, we question whether property owners should be charged for removing a truly hazardous tree, if experts agree it should be removed. The rules should be reasonable, and not simply a mechanism to generate fees and encourage non-compliance.

Trees are one of our city’s greatest resources.  They are our allies in cleaning the air, cooling our increasingly warm, dry summers, controlling storm run-off,  and soothing our collective and individual souls.  They are indispensable to our streets and neighborhoods. They define the character of Seattle. 

Thank you.

ReVisioning Northgate     

Susan Ward, Chair 

Seattle Tree Protection Ordinance Update Issues

Posted on by July 1, 2019

Proposed revisions to Draft D7 for discussion – Nov 2018

Require permits to remove any tree over 6 inches DBH. Base permits on measuring tree diameter and species identification, not canopy area as proposed in the draft.

Limit the number of significant, non-exceptional trees that can be removed per yr on developed property. to 2 trees/year. Alternative is to allow x diameter inches per year e.g. 10 inches/year.

Adopt a policy of no net loss of canopy/year and a goal to increase canopy.

 No exemption on replacement for trees removed on lots over zone goal for canopy as this over time results in a net loss of canopy. The zone goal is an average, with lots above and below this average in tree cover.

Simplify replacement by requiring that all trees removed over 6” DBH, both on developed lots and lots being developed, in all zones, must be replaced, either on site, or by paying a replacement and maintenance fee to the city.

The permit should be called the tree removal and replacement permit. Current draft would let homeowner or developer plant trees off site. Consider removing the provision that a homeowner or developer plant trees off site as this gets very hard to track. Instead pay the city to do this with a fee in lieu to ensure proper trees are planted and maintained.

Current draft requires homeowners and developers removing a tree/trees below canopy zone goal having to bring canopy up to zone goal. Apply this to developers, not homeowners.

Draft starts with 2:1 replacement at 6″ DBH as the city does but has no increase in numbers as the tree removed gets larger. There are two reasons for increasing the number of trees for replacement increasing as the size of the tree increases – many newly planted trees do not survive and the larger DBH trees are older trees that take much longer to replace in equivalency.

The number of trees required as replacement increases as the size of the tree removed is increased. This is what other cities like Portland OR, Medina WA, and Mercer Island do. Medina 6-10 inches – replant 1 tree,10-24 inches -replant 2 trees, 24 inches and larger – replant 3 trees; Mercer island adds over 36 inches – replant 6 trees.

Target for tree replacement numbers to reach equivalency in 20 years per arboriculture standards. Draft says 25 years.

Target replacement to increase conifers, native trees and trees determined to respond best to climate changes

All replaced trees shall be considered significant when planted. (draft provision 25.11.122E)

Protect larger and older trees by reinstating the current exceptional tree protections.  Use the definition given in Director’s  Rule 2008-16.   ”An exceptional tree is a tree that Is designated as a heritage tree by the City of Seattle; or Is rare or exceptional by virtue of its size, species, condition, cultural/historic importance, age, and/or contribution as part of grove of trees.”

Add the words “habitat value, ecological and environmental services” to the definition.

Lower the upper threshold for exceptional trees as recommended by the UFC  to 24″ DBH from 30″ DBH to protect more older. larger trees.

Continue existing protection that exceptional trees on developed property cannot be removed unless they are hazardous.

Require hazard trees to be replaced. (Maybe 1 for 1)

Put back prohibition on removing trees greater than 6” DBH on undeveloped lots.

Set up database system to track all tree loss and replacement in one database for all property, both developed and developing. Not “Maybe included with another SDCI permit” – must be tracked).

Minor permit – 1 or 2 significant non-exceptional trees outside development, hazard tree .  Major permit – trees during development

Application and permit posted on public city website Sign up list for people and neighborhoods to be notified when applications are filed.

Permit application with tree species and diameter DBH shall be posted on site and available for public to see as SDOT currently does. Yellow ribbon must be visibly placed around tree proposed to be removed.  Two weeks posting for application, then 1 week posting for trees approved to be removed. Applies to both minor and major tree removal permits, including during development. (Current draft only has posting for “approved permits”)

Time of tree planting in fall/winter – Mercer Island – “Timing.  Replacement trees shall be planted in the wet season (October 1 through April 1) following the applicable tree removal or in the case of a development project, completion of the development work, provided the city arborist may authorize an extension to ensure optimal planting conditions for tree survival”

Lots undergoing development shall be free of invasive plant species prior to approval of final landscape and tree planting approvals.

Determination of trees and tree canopy on a development site shall be that which has existed for 2 years prior to the development application being submitted as determined by LIDAR, Google Earth, or Google Street maps or other means by the city.

For purposes of this chapter and it’s enforcement by the city, the city shall have the power to access any property, public or private, as it may reasonably deem necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter.

Performance Evaluation of ordinance – “The tree program manager shall collect and maintain all records and data necessary to objectively evaluate whether progress is being made toward the stated goals of this ordinance. An annual summary and analysis of the evaluation, and recommendations for action shall be prepared at the direction of the tree program manager and presented to the City Council. The City Council shall consider the report and recommendations and take all actions deemed necessary to accomplish the goals of this ordinance. These actions may include, but are not limited to, revision or amendment of this ordinance or the adoption of other resolutions or ordinance.”  www.Phytosphere.com

Send your comments to jenny.durkan@seattle.gov and Council@seattle.gov

 

Coalition for a Stronger Tree Ordinance                                                                                    SteveZemke – Chair              www.friends.urbanforests.org                                                                                       SteveZemke@Friends.UrbanForests.org

Seattle Tree Ordinance Update – Next Steps

Posted on by October 24, 2018

Coalition for a Stronger Tree Ordinance
Join other tree protection advocates this Saturday October 27th for a public coalition meeting to discuss and review proposed changes needed to strengthen the current Tree Ordinance draft proposed by the Seattle City Council. 

We will be working on developing a coordinated community response to their proposal  – a united front is our best way to enact a strong ordinance. The Seattle City Council Planning, Land Use and Zoning Committee will take up amendments to their draft in December after the Council will has adopted their Budget for next year.

The Coalition for a Stronger Tree Ordinance

will be meeting

Saturday, October 27, 2018 from 11 AM to 1 PM
at the Montlake Public Library, 2404 24th Ave E in Seattle

Read more here:
What’s Next for Seattle’s Tree Ordinance?
current draft Tree Ordinance – version D7

Looking forward to seeing you on Saturday.

Steve Zemke

Chair – Coalition for a Stronger Tree Ordinance – a Joint Project of the Friends of Seattle’s Urban Forest and Tree PAC.

www.Friends.UrbanForests.org and www.TreePAC.org

facebook – Friends of Seattle’s Urban Forest  and facebook – Tree PAC

Donations are needed to support the efforts to update the Tree Ordinance and can be made through TreePAC. Click on the following link –  Donate Here

J

What’s Next for Seattle’s Tree Ordinance Update?

Posted on by October 13, 2018

The Seattle City Council heeded public input and has decided to slow down their rush to update SMC 25.11 – Seattle’s Tree Protection Ordinance by the end of September . This will give more time for public input and scrutiny. The public needs to continue to send in their concerns and suggestions on how to make the ordinance more effective. The Seattle City Council and the Mayor are currently focused this month and next month on adopting their 2019 Budget. They will again take up the Tree Protection Ordinance after the Budget is adopted.

You can help us get a stronger ordinance by continuing to contact the Mayor and the SeattleCity Council with your concerns and suggestions. Their e-mails are:

jenny.durkan@seattle.gov and Council@seattle.gov

Below are our  suggestions  of changes needed in the current draft they are working with labeled as version D7 that we believe would significantly strengthen the draft ordinance.

Major changes to draft Ordinance being proposed:

Retain the emphasis in the current ordinance by adding back to the draft ordinance the  priority of saving existing trees rather than concentrating on how to remove trees and replace them. This means protecting exceptional trees from being removed unless they are  hazard trees.

Exceptional trees are the largest trees of their species and the survivors over time. Exceptional trees should be defined as trees that are exceptional because they are a Heritage tree as defined by the city or rare or exceptional by virtue of their  species, condition, cultural/historical importance, age, habitat value, environmental or ecological services provided to the city and/or are part of a grove of trees.The upper threshold for becoming exceptional should be 24 inches DBH.

Use a tree diameter and tree species criteria for issuing a tree removal and replacement permit. The tree canopy approach proposed in Draft D7 requiring property owners not just to measure the canopy of the tree to be removed but all the trees on your lot is a time consuming process that ignores property lines, the size and importance of the tree involved, and would result in the loss of many exceptional trees over time.

Limit removal to a maximum of two significant trees, non-exceptional trees per year. Prohibit the removal of any trees over 6 inches DBH on an undeveloped lot. Allow any exceptional tree that is determined to be a hazard tree to be removed.

All significant trees (trees greater than 6 inches DBH), including hazard trees, that are removed on any lot, whether  a developed lot or a lot undergoing development, in any zone in the city must be replaced either on site, off site or a fee in lieu paid for the city to replace the tree. 

The goal is not just to have no less loss of canopy but to increase it. Tree replacement requirements shall increase as the diameter and canopy volume of the tree removed increases. An example of such a system would be would be 1 tree for a 6-12 inch diameter tree, 2 trees for 12 -24 inch trees,  3 trees for 24 -36 inch trees and 4 trees for trees greater than 36 inch DBH. The reason for the number of trees increasing is that the goal is to try to replace the lost canopy volume over a 20 year cycle and also that all trees do not survive over time. Replacement trees should be targeted to increase conifers, native tree species and trees determined to respond best to climate change.

Property owners outside development should be able to apply for a minor Tree removal and replacement permit for the removal of 1 or significant non-exceptional trees or a hazard tree. Developers will have to apply for a major tree removal and replacement permit which includes preparing a detailed tree inventory for  the site and a replacement landscaping plan. Developers shall, like homeowner be required to replace all trees they removed, either on site, off site or pay a fee in lieu system. If the lot canopy cover is below the goal for that zone, developers shall, at a minimum,  be required to retain and  plant sufficient trees to ensure that the lot reaches the zone canopy goal.

These are some of the major changes under consideration by tree advocates. Feel free to contact us with your suggestions. Send to steve@friends.urbanforests.org.

See reference material below:

Draft D7 of the “Tree Regulations Update Ordinance” 

Policy considerations regarding proposed tree regulation bill 
Council memo -September 19, 2018 the Planning, Land Use, and Zoning Committee

Adopted letter  – Re: Draft Tree protection ordinance update – Seattle Urban Forestry Commission – August 31, 2018