Hello Fellow Tree Advocates,

The Seattle Department of Planning and Development (DPD)  has released it's proposed revisions to Seattle's urban forestry protection laws.  It's most regressive step would be the elimination of any protection for exceptional trees and tree groves and would essentially rescind Director's Rule 16-2008.  It opposes a permit system, which would help stop the current loss of trees by requiring review before trees could be cut down. A permit system is vital to tracking what trees and how many are being cut down. DPD's overall proposal represents a major step backwards in efforts to protect our trees and urban forest.
 
We need to get organized now to advocate a citizen's alternative to DPD's proposal, one that puts emphasis on protecting our urban forest. Unless we do, DPD's proposal or a slightly modified version of it will go before the Seattle City Council for a vote.  
 
Save the Trees-Seattle, which has led the fight to save the trees at Ingraham High School, supported the interim ordinance to protect trees and habitat, and which advocated for the successful creation of an Urban Forestry Commission, along with the Maple Leaf Community Council which lead the effort to save Waldo Woods and took a lead in drafting the interim tree ordinance, are taking the lead on organizing the creation of a coalition effort to draft a citizens version of a new urban forest and tree  ordinance. You are invited to attend an organizing meeting for the formation of this coalition effort which will include a workshop on key elements needed for a successful urban forest and tree protection ordinance.
 
The meeting will be held Sunday, August 8, 2010 from 1:30 PM to 4:30 PM at the Broadview Public Library at 12755 Greenwood Ave N.
 
Please let us know if you will be able to attend. It is vital that we get strong community representation from a number of groups but concerned individuals are also urged to attend.  Please recommend others that you think should be invited. Please rsvp to Steve Zemke at stevezemke@msn.comto let us know if you will be able to attend. Please review the material below and also send suggested items you would like to see considered in a new tree ordinance. We will discuss these provisions at the organizing meeting.
 
Below is a list of documents relevant to Seattle urban forest, DPD's proposal and various articles on creating an effective urban forest and tree protection resolution. Also there are links to other cities ordinances and a beginning list of basic provisions for discussion purposes regarding any new tree ordinance for Seattle.

Here is the summary of the "City of Seattle's Proposed Tree Regulations" report as prepared by DPD 

Here is the full proposal entitled "City of Seattle Proposed Tree Regulations"    from the DPD's website: 

Here is the "Summary of Pacific Northwest Municipal Tree Regulations"  prepared by consulting arborist Elizabeth Walker of Sound Tree Solutions & DPD. This summary includes a matrix of some of the various components of tree regulations in place in other cities.

 
"Management of City Trees Can be Improved"
Office of City Auditor of Seattle, May 15, 2009
This report details many of the problems regarding how Seattle currently regulates trees and our urban forests, including the fact that "The City's management is decentralized among 9 City Departments with tree management or regulatory responsibilities" 
 
A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming
June 2009, Washington State Department of Commerce
Evergreen Communities Partnership Task Force
 
Urban Tree Conservation: A White Paper on Local Ordinances
Sept 2007, Montgomery Tree Committee. 68 pages
This paper deals with ”conservation of urban forests on private land” and is one of the best overviews I have found. It discusses and compares many different ordinances and approaches it from a holistic viewpoint, looking not just at trees but also biodiversity and ecosystem concerns.
 
Tree Ordinance Development Guidebook 
Sept 2005 by the Georgia Forestry Commission, Urban and Community Forestry Program. 25 pages 
This Guidebook is not very long but it has a good overview, including a Tree Board/Tree Ordinance Evaluation, and a Resource List. 

Guideline for Developing and Evaluating Tree Ordinances
International Society of Arboriculture, Oct 2001. 181 pages
 a real compendium of information on tree ordinance issues 
 

 
Here is a quick list of items of provisions that Save the Trees-Seattle thinks should be included in a new urban forestry and tree protection ordinance for Seattle:
 
1. It needs to be comprehensive - cover both public and private sector. DPD proposal only deals with private sector.
 
2. It must protect exceptional trees and groves of trees.  DPD's proposal eliminates these protections and substitutes incentive approach without any specifics.
 
3. It must have a permit system to remove any tree 6 inches or larger in diameter on public or private property.
 
4.  Tree management needs to be consolidated in the Department of Sustainability and Environment.  Currently 9 city agencies deal with trees and tree protection is not a priority for some agencies like DPD whose mission is to help development occur.
 
5. All arborists and tree cutting operations must be licensed by the city and undergo training before being able to cut trees. Violation of the urban forestry and  tree ordinance's protection for exceptional trees would result in fines and/or revocation of their license to do business in the city.
 
6.  Canopy cover needs to be defined as canopy volume not just area. The actual size of trees matters.
 
7. Native trees and vegetation need to be given a priority to help preserve native animal, bird and insect life as well as native plants..
 
8.  Habitat, wildlife and ecological processes and their protection need to be emphasized.
 
9  Requests for permits to remove trees must be posted on the internet; and in a  physical  location visible to the public and near the tree for one one week prior to cutting and for one week after a tree is cut.
 
Here is another list produced by David Miller of the Maple Leaf Community Council 
 
I've made my first read through the tree regulations proposed by DPD. 
Here are some intitial thoughts...

Tree advocates knew the 2007 canopy review was going to be trouble. This report proves it. I encourage you to look at the neighborhood specific data at the following two links and give them a gut-check analysis:
http://www.seattle.gov/trees/docs/canopy_cover_all_zones.pdf
http://www.seattle.gov/trees/docs/neighborhoodcanopycovertable.pdf

Do you think these changes accurately reflect the net amount of tree planting and tree cutting in your neighborhood?

We need to understand how the 1987 18% number was calculated and make certain we're comparing apples to apples. I do not believe that to be the case, and solving this question is an absolutely priority to the entire conversation about a tree regulations.

Why? Fundamentally, DPD focused on streamlining regulations instead of increasing protection for trees. The reason for this is stated several times in the proposal document -- We increased our canopy from 18% to 22.9% so our current regulations are doing just fine. While we've done a great job on street tree planting, and the report acknowledges effectively all canopy growth came from street tree planting, I think most tree watchers would agree we've lost far more trees on parcels  than the 18% -> 22% analysis would suggest.

Here are some other thoughts on the proposal:

1. Abandonment of all protections for exceptional trees is unacceptable.

2. The approach by DPD of a tree credit system is interesting, and might have merit moving forward in combination with other strategies.

3. The abandonment of tree regulations in anything other than single-family zones in favor of substitution of the "green factor" is a real problem because the green factor rules are largely ineffective at tree canopy use.

4. Allowing single family homeowners to pay out of planting trees is so problematic and inequitable it should 
be removed from consideration.

5. There is a complete disregard for systems due to no mention of tree groves. Interestingly, it is not even mentioned in the report as something currently protected under city rules, so there is no analysis of the impact of removing this hard-won feature of tree protection regulations.

6. The entire proposal is written on the assumption that anything we build has priority over anything that grows. This is problematic.

7. The analysis of tree permitting and subsequent disposal of a cut permit idea ignores the potential benefit of making tree cutting companies liable for removal of trees without a permit. Nearly all of the objections concerning enforcement listed are solved if the company removing the trees is the one held financially liable if no permit is obtained.

8. The city continues to make recommendations to move design-based development decisions out of a public and into an administrative process. This works only if the administrators are especially enlightened and well trained. This is not the current case in Seattle and effectively makes the fox in charge of the henhouse.

9. It appears none of the experiences of surrounding communities, almost all of which have stronger tree rules, were taken into consideration.

10. Rule changes are too often rationalized by claims the current rules are cumbersome and not working. As any of us who have tried to fight bad development know, the current rules are not regularly followed by DPD personnel. Lack of training and proper enforcement is not justification for removing protections.

11. The native/non-native designation is wholly inadequate in addressing the fundamental qualitative differences between coniferous and deciduous trees. Replacing Seattle's coniferous canopy with a deciduous one is unacceptable and damaging. It is expensive in its deleterious effect on storm water retention and harmful to threatened species in our midst.

Fortunately, there are some great tree people on the UFC. Combined with the expertise here and in Seattle's broader tree community I think we can make modifications to the proposal that make sense for our tree canopy. I'll repeat, however, the first thing we need to do is get to the bottom of how an 18% tree canopy cover turned into a 22.9% cover despite widespread lack of enforcement of canopy goals.
=============================================
David Miller
Member
Maple Leaf Community Council Executive Board
http://www.MapleLeafCommunity.org
 
continued by Steve Zemke:
 
I know this is a lot of stuff but I wanted to put it in one place rather than a series of e-mails.
  
Wed. August 11, 2010, from 3-5 PM the Urban Forestry Commission will meet as a whole and discuss their comments they will make on the proposal.  This meeting will also be in the Seattle Municipal Tower, 700 5th Ave  

Rm 2240. 
 
Steve Zemke Chair
Save the Trees - Seattle
stevezemke@msn.com
206-366-0811

__._,_.___