City Hall
Tree Loss Worst In Southeast Seattle
City staffers will host an open house next month to discuss a proposal aimed at increasing the number of trees in Seattle, particularly in low-income areas.
The proposal---an update of the city's existing tree regulations---are aimed at increasing Seattle's total tree cover ("tree canopy," in the argot of Seattle land-use planners) from 22.9 percent to 30 percent by 2037. (American Forests, a tree advocacy group, recommends tree cover of 40 percent.)
Tree loss has been especially bad in predominantly low-income areas like Southeast Seattle, as you can see from this map (red: loss; green: gain). In other words, in poor communities, which already lack the green space enjoyed by other neighborhoods, the problem of tree loss is getting worse.
Specifically, the proposal would:
Require people who tear down existing houses or build new ones to get a specific number of "tree credits" by preserving existing trees or planting new ones. (Read all about the confusing formula for determining how many tree credits are required on a lot---which, incidentally, makes me believe Seattle's tree-protection policy is to cause homeowners to throw up their hands in frustration---here). The tree credit system would also apply to institutional buildings in single-family zones.
Require land owners in multifamily and commercial zones to meet so-called Green Factor requirements for planting or keeping trees (another complicated formula, this one aimed at retaining trees, which you can read about here).
Make it easier for developers to get exceptions to land-use rules if it means preserving an exceptional (very old or large) tree. Currently, getting land-use exemptions to save old trees can add as much as six months to permitting for a project.
Eliminate the requirement that land owners preserve all exceptional trees. A "permanent exceptional tree protection requirement would be extremely burdensome for the few people who actually have exceptional trees because it would allow no flexibility to manage trees that may outgrow their space or prevent light access, gardens, or other uses and would be a major incentive to cut trees before they grow to become exceptional," the city's tree report says.
Additionally, the city is considering: Requiring developers to get a "maintenance bond" to ensure that they actually plant trees at new developments, and allowing homeowners to contribute to a new tree fund instead of planting or keeping trees.
The proposal---an update of the city's existing tree regulations---are aimed at increasing Seattle's total tree cover ("tree canopy," in the argot of Seattle land-use planners) from 22.9 percent to 30 percent by 2037. (American Forests, a tree advocacy group, recommends tree cover of 40 percent.)
Tree loss has been especially bad in predominantly low-income areas like Southeast Seattle, as you can see from this map (red: loss; green: gain). In other words, in poor communities, which already lack the green space enjoyed by other neighborhoods, the problem of tree loss is getting worse.
Specifically, the proposal would:
Require people who tear down existing houses or build new ones to get a specific number of "tree credits" by preserving existing trees or planting new ones. (Read all about the confusing formula for determining how many tree credits are required on a lot---which, incidentally, makes me believe Seattle's tree-protection policy is to cause homeowners to throw up their hands in frustration---here). The tree credit system would also apply to institutional buildings in single-family zones.
Require land owners in multifamily and commercial zones to meet so-called Green Factor requirements for planting or keeping trees (another complicated formula, this one aimed at retaining trees, which you can read about here).
Make it easier for developers to get exceptions to land-use rules if it means preserving an exceptional (very old or large) tree. Currently, getting land-use exemptions to save old trees can add as much as six months to permitting for a project.
Eliminate the requirement that land owners preserve all exceptional trees. A "permanent exceptional tree protection requirement would be extremely burdensome for the few people who actually have exceptional trees because it would allow no flexibility to manage trees that may outgrow their space or prevent light access, gardens, or other uses and would be a major incentive to cut trees before they grow to become exceptional," the city's tree report says.
Additionally, the city is considering: Requiring developers to get a "maintenance bond" to ensure that they actually plant trees at new developments, and allowing homeowners to contribute to a new tree fund instead of planting or keeping trees.
Filed under
Share
Show Comments
