9/21/17 – followup on CB 119057 comments sent:
Esteemed City Councilmembers – This is a quick followup on my previous comments from earlier this week:
1) as you may have heard, Mercer Island passed far tougher restrictions on McMansions and tree cutting this past Tuesday Sept 19 – you can learn more here:
http://www.mercergov.org/Page.asp?NavID=2811
2) second, there is an ongoing dispute in my own neighborhood that encapsulates the precise issue at stake here. The developer (who actually sadly has a history of disregarding public input and tree protection) keeps saying ‘I’m just helping address the housing crisis in Seattle’.
However, this is FALSE, plain and simple. When you replace a single-family home with an even bigger, more ridiculous single-family home – you are doing NOTHING to alleviate any ‘housing crisis’ – you are simply profiteering, plain and simple. There is a BIG difference between 1 for 1 house replacement (almost always ‘old home -> McMansion’ these days) and clearing a lot to put in an apartment building, BIG difference!
In short, these developers are complete hypocrites!
Please read the articles and judge for yourself:
http://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/the-greenwood-cedar-trees-are-our-lungs/
Thank you again for your continued consideration of implementing a REAL Tree Ordinance in Seattle that is NOT administered by DCI moving forward, as noted in the previous email (and other feedback from Friends of Seattle’s Urban Forest, TreePAC and similar groups).
If we don’t protect NOW, there’s not going to ‘be’ a Seattle as we know it in near future.
kevin orme
Board Member, TreePAC
Greenwood
9/19/17 – comments sent to SeaCC:
To all Seattle City Councilmembers and members of the Planning, Land Use and Zoning Committee:
I am submitting these comments in light of revisions being considered for CB 119057, governing several key activities of the Department of Construction and Inspection as it attempts to oversee the current overwhelming amount of construction now going on throughout our city.
Specifically, these points:
1) The 2009 Tree Ordinance is considerably out of date and was only intended to be ‘interim’ when created back then – it is long, long past time to update this to truly protect trees (large and small) and preserve our urban forest BEFORE it is too late.
This would also create potential opportunities to actually expand our forest canopy, if done correctly. But we simply cannot wait any longer while private enterprise runs rampant and DCI does next to nothing to stop them (a simple look at how these decisions have come out over the past few years will provide MORE than ample evidence of what I’m talking about);
2) DCI’s mission is to approve buildling things – it’s no wonder that they rarely, if ever, stop or circumscribe developers to protect the forest – they simply don’t care in the end and it’s arguably not their job anyway. And the ‘arborists’ used here are hardly objective, they are merely rubber stamps due to a technical requirement – they almost never stop or limit this cutting, period!?!
We need TRUE oversight from a SINGLE, independent, science-based committee or agendy with the power to truly protect and objectively evaluate these situations – it’s simply NOT being done now, nor with any ‘accelerated’ hearing potential will it get anything but worse. Besides DCI’s ‘last word’ in most cases, there are over 10 other city agencies that have at least some input into managing the urban forest in some way or another – this is simply ridiculous and it’s no wonder why things have gotten as bad as they have.
3) We need track tree and canopy removal per project. Specifically, this should include tracking significant tree removals, exceptional tree removals, and removed canopy coverage, in square feet, as part of a complete application.
Without this data, the City cannot accurately quantify tree and canopy removal and implement appropriate tree planting efforts. And the current wholesale cutting of trees will motor on without limit or reason.
4) At BARE minimum, there should be a fee-in-lieu option for projects unable to replace trees equal to the number of trees and amount of canopy removed by a project.
There is a lost public benefit associated with the removal of public and private trees which impacts human psychology, ecosystem services, public health, and neighborhood character. A tree removal fee-in-lieu option should be similar to the alternative compliance option for stormwater mitigation yet deposited in an Urban Forestry Account to fund planting and maintaining for long-term, healthy trees in Seattle. SDOT already does a form of this (besides having an actual tree replacement policy that they largely follow) – but this needs to be implemented for EVERY agency with any say in tree removal, period.
5) there is little to no control over lots equal to or smaller than 10,000 feet in size. this is pretty egregious as many, many Seattle lots are small with trees and you know what happens when a developer wants to build ‘bigger’ with no oversight – the trees are the first to go. Or, they make the arguably worse scenario of forcing the previous (or upcoming) home buyer to cut them down to escape liability or any hassles themselves, which is much WORSE in the end as they point the finger at the landowner instead! protecting trees should NOT depend on lot size!?!?!
6) Finally, rest assured you are not the only local govt confronting this issue – literally as we speak the Mercer Island City Council is adopting a tree protection ordinance this evening (Sept 19) in addition to limiting McMansion proliferation – This is an important issue nearly every local govt in the area will be facing soon if not already.
http://www.kiro7.com/news/local/mercer-island-to-vote-on-tight-home-building-controls/611485918
please do the right thing and rein in DCI, unify tree protection under a new, objective, science-based agency or committee, and PROTECT our urban forest!
thanks in advance for your consideration and time in this matter.
Kevin Orme
Board member, TreePAC
Greenwood