Save The Trees

Shoreline Area News: For the Birds: Fox Sparrows Need Himalayan Blackberries

2011-04-19T07:15:00.000-07:00

Shoreline Area News: For the Birds: Fox Sparrows Need Himalayan Blackberries

Current Decision regarding Ingraham High School in Seattle

2010-12-02T21:34:00.000-08:00

December 2, 2010

It is with great sadness we report that the Ingraham Trees LUPA case in Superior Court was decided, the result being that the Ingraham Trees may be removed. We have until December 9, 2010 to appeal this decision to the Court of Appeals. We would greatly appreciate letters be sent to the following groups to express why the trees should remain. This includes educational value, filtration vaue for water and air and social value for the neighborhood and the City.

The following links will help to get our message out.

The Seattle City Council contact site:http://www.seattle.gov/council/councilcontact.htm

The Seattle School Board:http://www.seattleschools.org/area/board/contact.xml

The City of Seattle Department of Planning and Development:

Diane Sugimura, Directormailto:Directordiane.sugimura@seattle.gov

And the Mayor's office:http://www.seattle.gov/mayor/contact.htm

At this point phone calls (all the phone numbers are at each of the above links) may be more effective than email, but either way the message is to save the Ingraham Northwest Grove. Move the addition to another place on campus. And request they be better stewards for our environment here in the Northwest.

Tell Your Friends.

August 9, 2010

Latest Battle is for an effective Tree Ordinance for the City of Seattle. One way to accomplish this is by participating in comments to the Urban Forestry Commission, and by emailing City Council:Here is the current Meeting where the Department of Planning and Development version of a tree ordinance was discussed by the Urban Forestry Commission plus comment by Michael Oxman: First the DPD proposal: City of Seattle Proposed Tree Regulations -full text at DPD website.Second The Urban Forestry Commission comments: Video of the 8-4-2010 Urban Forestry Commission meeting attached here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-V8lv-XnPk
Finally Michael Oxman comments:
7 of the 9 commissioners gave the proposal an emphatic thumbs down last Wednesday.

The proposal incorrectly refers to a meeting of Environmental & Tree Advocates I attended on March 12, 2008, as having somehow endorsed this proposal. http://www.seattle.gov/trees/docs/Commission_docs/Tree_Advocate_Meeting_Summary.pdf

The Interim Tree Ordinance is designed to sunset after introduction of a comprehensive proposal, which this is not.

It does not address the 5 problems with our municipal tree program found by the Seattle Auditor on May 15th, 2009 http://www.cityofseattle.net/audit/docs/PublishedReport20090515.pdf

The proposal seeks to implement the Green Factor, featured on page 47 of the 2007 Urban Forest Management Plan, which the City Council has repeatedly refused to adopt.

The proposal does not discuss the discrepancy of 40% of the city that should be covered by tree canopy cover, according to the Comp Plan, as opposed to the 30% canopy cover goal adopted by staff.

We are rather far apart, thousands of acres of tree canopy apart. The real issue is fear by elected officials that they will get voted out by folks who feel tree ownership is a private property right.

The reality is that tree removal permits are required in all the communities around Seattle. Our antique tree ordinance was weak when it was adopted in 2001. It's time to get code compliance, and a Mayor that can stand up to the department heads who hold the real power in this town.

The Seattle corporate welfare program is to give the gift of tree root zones contained in setbacks to developers. Constructing valuable buildings where roots are now growing is a misguided way to stimulate the economy.

Arboreally yours,

Michael Oxman
(206) 949-8733
http://www.saveseattlestrees.com/
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, 2009This 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 ProgrammingJune 2009, Washington State Department of CommerceEvergreen Communities Partnership Task Force Urban Tree Conservation: A White Paper on Local OrdinancesSept 2007, Montgomery Tree Committee. 68 pagesThis 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 OrdinancesInternational 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.pdfDo 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 MillerMemberMaple Leaf Community Council Executive Boardhttp://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 ChairSave the Trees - Seattlestevezemke@msn.com206-366-0811
__._,_.___

April 28, 2009 The Environment, Emergency Management and Utilities Committee of the Seattle City Council met on April 28th. The agenda included an update of the Urban Forest Management Plan. A new Satellite imagery of the City Tree Canopy was performed in 2007, and is discussed. The importance for retaining our current tree canopy is brought up as compared to an overemphasis on planting trees. To find out more about this very important topic go to: Urban Forestry Management Plan Tree Canopy Assessment Briefing.
Save the Trees welcomes information regarding Tree Battles throughout the Emerald City. Our goal is to Save Trees where ever it can be done. We recognize the need for housing, and look for alternatives to clear cutting a lot. We recognize the need for education, yet ask for a reasonable alternative to destroying trees to building and increased lot coverage. We do not want to control the property rights of others, we want to educate the public and allow for informed decisions to be made. Seattle has lost canopy coverage. And it continues to. We are concerned that this continual loss without recognition of the perils that come with it, will cause the death of a City. Not in a way we often consider death. But a death of heritage, tourism, health, vibrancy, and our souls ..our uniqueness as part of the Northwest is built upon our heritage as having Evergreen Trees, and plenty of them--of being the Emerald City. Our heritage is not built on looking like Chicago, San Diego, Denver, or New York...each individual, each with their own reputation and heritage. With every mature tree removal, so goes our heritage. It takes time to build a name... It takes only minutes to destroy it. We look for realistic answers. We see the world with trees now.We want those trees for the future.What about the heritage?Grandpa planted this tree when he was 5,Dad played in and around it.Will Grand child?Will Great Grandchild?A Douglas Fir can live past 4 generations. Our City has lived past 4 generations with trees...but since the 1980's has lost 40% of its trees. We haven't replaced them. In 29 years we haven't replaced them, 1/4 of a century. We are still reducing our canopy--it will take over 20 years for the "replacements" of today's loss to even begin to look like a tree with a canopy. 1/2 Century. Where are we going? Tree loss is growing, tree canopy is declining, keeping is easier than replanting, yet we consistently remove.
Many TREE BATTLES involve comments to the Department of Planning and Development (DPD), below are the Tips on Making Effective Comments, as suggested by the DPD themselves.Although the quantity of letters DPD receives regarding land use activities may indicate the extent of neighborhood or agency interest, it is the relevance of the comments—the information they contain—that will most affect a project’soutcome. Here are some tips on making your comments effective:
Briefly explain who you are and why you are interested in the project.
State your concerns clearly and succinctly using objective language.
Comment only on issues relevant to the decision being made.
State opinions and preferences, ask questions, and propose alternative solutions to particular issues. State informed opinions and, where possible, include data to support your opinion.
Review the project’s technical reports or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) data, comment on conclusions, assumptions and the data collecting methods.
Keep focused on your objective. You want DPD to hear your concerns and be compelled enough to investigate further.
Identify the topics you want to include in your letter and how you want to organize them.
Ask for studies that you think are important but have not been provided.
If the proposed project is subject to SEPA and you think it will have significant environmental impact, request that an EIS be prepared.
Provide your own information.
Identify project features that you like and think should not be changed.
Provide any comments about the project’s compliance with the Land Use Code.
Ask to be added to the project mailing list and request a copy of the notice of decision. (Copies are sent via U.S. mail, so please provide your mailing address when making request.)
ALWAYS PLACE THE PROJECT NUMBER ON ALL CORRESPONDENCE! ADD THE ADDRESS TO THE PROJECT IF KNOWN. ALWAYS KEEP COPIES OF YOUR CORRESPONDENCE.
The New Story on BIG RED
6/8/09 Great news about BIG RED
by Michael Oxman
http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/AppDocs/GroupMeetings/DRProposal3004423AgendaID2732.pdf

Next Monday nite at the University Heights Center is the Big Red review for a Recommendation at the Design Review Board meeting. The above web link to the DPD website shows the building setback from the tree at 30' away from the trunk. As recently as the May 4th meeting (report), the tree was invisible on these blueprints.

This is a tremendous victory handed to the appellants by the Hearing Examiner. The Order to Remand the project back to the DRB in response to a pre-appeal motion has resulted in the developer caving in to the pressure applied by the neighbors' appeal to save this Western Red Cedar with a 4 foot diameter trunk.

If any of us can attend to support the appellants, it would help a lot to have a big crowd speak during the Public Comment period.

Try to keep from chortling with glee too loudly, as the developers scurry headlong back to their drawing boards. Wear earplugs or iPod headphones to drown out the grumbling as the developers lament their lost profit from selling out the rootzones of the trees they thought they had nearly converted into cash. Congratulate the members of the Design Review Board, as they thwart yet another failed attempt at a land grab of the urban forest heartland of America.

I don't know what time the agenda item will come up.

Arboreally yours,

Michael Oxman
Big Red's Battle, is coming to an end.Not the end we had hoped for or desired. The Big Red Cedar is to meet the doom of the Chainsaw. A warrior's comment:
Big Red's RANT

What was most intriguing to me about the meeting last night [Note from 10 March 2009: this meeting took place at University Heights Community Center on 6 October 2008] was the fear I could smell from the Design Review Board. They were clearly worried that some people would become unpleasant regarding the tree. They went out of their way to address "the tree issue" as soon as they could, to wipe it off the table as quickly as possible. The one woman who spoke out about the tree said she was angry but was letting it go, as it had clearly already been decided. My experience in the past (with the old DCLU) was similar: once they make up their minds, it's a done deal. The fact that this great old tree is partially on public property is simply not an issue. Sigh. Very sad. Very Business as Usual.

I was also struck, listening to the reported recommendations of an arborist associated with the development (he was not present last night), which seem to indicate he hasn't actually looked at the property. Has he? Does he really think that putting in a couple incense cedars will "replace" a 100+ year old western red cedar? [Note from 10 March 2009: I now believe Big Red to be "only" about 80 years old, based on an archival photo from 1937. JHT]

Listening to various comments from neighbors, it became clear that many people are looking forward to this building being constructed. It's a typical, mediocre new building, though the architect and landscape architects went to great lengths to explain how great it will be. Not much permeable surface, generic landscaping where they can fit in a few green things, and a large fence separating the building from the south side neighbors. Of course, it is likely that at some point in the not-so-distant future, the south side will be developed similarly, which will leave no room whatsoever for all the "landscaping" that's being put in on the south side - and will also effectively remove any view of people in this current building. Another aspect is the "common space" planned for the northwest corner. Do they really think that will be anything other than a gathering place for students, taggers, and drug dealers? Call me cynical, but I've lived near the high school for a long time.

It's extremely sad that Seattle developers and architects have so little imagination in their designs and are (in this case) so focused on maximizing their profits at the expense of a wonderful old arboreal member of the community.

Julia Helen Tracy

June 10, 2009
One of many responses from DPD sent to Warriors;
From: Diane Sugimura Subject: Tree at 6515 Brooklyn Ave NE Date: Wednesday, October 22, 2008, 2:48 PM October 22, 2008 Dear Ms. Cox: Thank you for your correspondence and phone messages regarding your concerns about the tree at 6515 Brooklyn Avenue Northeast.
Mayor Nickels also received a copy of your letter and asked me to respond on his behalf.
For nearly a year, we have studied the preservation requirements for the tree through three separate arborist reports. We have thoroughly explored potential changes to the project to accommodate co-existence with the tree. Departures from development standards through the Design Review process have been evaluated. Our conclusion and that of a third party arborist review of the situation is that the tree requires a minimum of 49 feet for a development-free protection zone if it is to survive in the long term.
The proposed project is located in a designated Urban Village, an area zoned for higher density residential development, and is in close proximity to the Roosevelt light rail station. A re-design to protect the tree would reduce the project significantly in terms of the number of residential units possible. After a careful evaluation of all the factors, we have determined that the project cannot proceed consistent with the intent of its zoned potential and designation as an Urban Village, and reasonably retain the tree in a manner that would ensure its long term survival. While this particular situation does not offer a reasonable opportunity for tree preservation, an extensive re-planting phase is part of this proposal, and the addition of extra new trees will partially mitigate the impact of the cedars removal. Thank you. Sincerely, Diiane M. Sugimura, Director City of Seattle Department of Planning and Development 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000 P O Box 34019 Seattle, WA 98124-4019READ ALL ABOUT IT:
Fate of stately cedar has neighborhood divided
Development planned near 90-foot tree
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/388015_TREE15.htmlBy DEBERA CARLTON HARRELLMore information about Big Red, email T. Walton at woscaj@yahoo.com, or visit http://saveseattlestrees.org/.

(1/10/09) Michael Oxman took a tree tour with Council member Tom Rasmussen of the proposed bulldozing site of the grove of 36 Exceptional Trees at Piper Village at 85th St. & Greenwood AV N. He has asked DPD Director Diane Sugimura to explain how these rare Aspen trees could be condemned with no notice to the public, in spite of 3 complaints in the last year.Speaking up for trees, takes time and effort. Michael took time to call the Council Member, invite Him and take Him on a tour.If you know of places that need to be exposed call or write to Council Members, and bring it to their attention. If you are able, take the time and show the Council Member the trees. This helps the Council to see how really important it is to protect our trees. Thanks Michael for your great example and leadership in Saving Trees. If anyone else has ideas, or knows of Battles, please let us know where. Or write us a description so we can let our readers know. Letters to the City Council and DPD help to expose the huge loss of tree canopy and the number of citizens who realize this is happening. As many of our readers know, tree battles have many facets. One of the biggest and most difficult portion regarding the Battle for Trees in Seattle is to forge a new, accurate, strong, no loopholes, tree ordinance that will protect the Mature and Majestic Trees in this City. For some this battle has been long and seems to be stuck in the quagmire of mud often found in politics. For others, it is new and hopeful. Where ever you may be in this spectrum of warriors, realize there is a battle, and the fight is on. There may seem at this time to be an appeasement from the City Council and Mayor to quiet the "tree huggers' by giving them an Interim Tree Ordinance. But the Tree People know different, because deep down, the real fight is for the REAL THING, the REAL, and MEATY ORDINANCE that PROTECTS the TREES, the PERMANENT ORDINANCE. Representative of the Desire for a Permanent Tree Ordinance and all that is involved with the process is the following ideas from Michael Oxman.
1) Appoint a citizen advisory board, give them reports by staff and set them to work educating the citizens about tree values to build funding support;

2) Develop a clear set of value statements that come from the people, rather than staff creating them for us;

3) Assess our current personnel, equipment and tree program resources;

4) Inventory our tree population, on both public and private land;

5) Determine appropriate treatment of publicly owned trees, and implement programmed planting, maintenance and removal of trees per optimal schedule;

6) Determine acceptance by public of enhanced tree protection measures;

7) Reward well treed private properties with discounts on utility bills and other incentives;

8) Celebrate doing the right thing with Arbor Day ceremonies and other recognition activities, and rewards for nurturing a healthy urban forest.

A climate of teamwork is needed within the municipal government to work with the community. The adversarial tone should be addressed with leadership to streamline our public process. Until now the public input process has been subverted by reluctance to participate in a transparent effort to accomplish a worthy goal in an inclusive way.

Arboreally yours,

Michael OxmanComments and letters like Michaels are encouraged at this website, as a community with the common goal to SAVE TREES ideas on how to accomplish the goal, need a place for expression. I encourage readers to write to savethetrees@live.com, with your ideas and goals for the Emerald City. Thanks, Shelly-web master
Another Way to SAVE TREES:Dear Mr. Oxman,Thank you for notifying the Department of Planning and Development (DPD) of the tree cutting issues at 12301 5th Avenue NE. Although the applicant had a permit application under review for this site, a permit has not been issued. Current regulations prohibit the removal of trees over 6-inches in diameter on undeveloped lots unless a building permit has been issued allowing removal of specific trees. In coordination with City Arborists, DPD issued a Stop-Work Order on Monday. Unfortunately, it appears many of the trees may have been removed over the weekend. Our enforcement staff will be following up on this issue to prevent this from occurring on the applicant's adjacent parcels to the north. In addition to the Stop-Work Order, we will be seeking a civil penalty in an amount equal to the appraised value of the trees removed and may require a restoration plan as a result of this action.If you happen to notice an illegal action such as this in the future, please call our complaint line at 615-0808. DPD enforcement staff are able to respond to these issues expeditiously when notified. Thank you for your continued interest in tree regulations and alerting us of this issue.Bryan StevensCustomer Service Manager &Seattle's Industrial Permit LiaisonCity of SeattleDepartment of Planning and DevelopmentT 206.684.5045F 206.233.7883http:///

For Information about Discover Park please call Duff Badgley: 206-283-0621. BLOG:http://treesfortoday-tomorrow-eternity.blogspot.com/

2010-08-10T00:29:00.000-07:00

Urban Forestry--What will make a difference?

Hi Friends,

At the Urban Forestry Commission meeting , the Office of Sustainability & Environment said a letter had been sent to the City Council, explaining the tardiness of the dozen or so reports required by Resolution 31138. Are all these reports excused?

On Tuesday, a Determination of Non Significance was issued by DPD for adding the Green Factor landscaping requirements to electrical substations & solid waste transfer stations in Industrial Zones, so that takes care of one of the reports, right?

When are we going to find out about parking lot shading, planting under powerlines, pruning for housemoving, and the PR campaign for Seattle ReLeaf, etc.? When will the lists of Exceptional Trees and Heritage Trees be published? When will the 5 recommendations by the Seattle City Auditor's report be addressed? All of these thing were supposed to be done by Spring, 2010.

BTW, I am a co-appellant in the lowrise multifamily appeal of the DNS. The city attorney said twice during the 5-day hearing that the Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) has not been officially adopted by the city. Due to the city attorney's month long vacation, final arguments are not due till September, and a decision is expected by the Hearing Examiner around October 23rd.

The Urban Forestry Commission does not have on its work plan a process for examining the UFMP. The Commission also has declined to address the discrepancy between the Council's 40% canopy cover goal and the UFMP's goal of 30%. Which is it? Perhaps the 2 upcoming meetings with the facilitator can get the Commission out of reactive mode, and back towards a goal oriented process.

What is the bigger picture?

The problem with the UFMP is it primarily concerns itself with only 1 of the 4 criteria of tree assessment, Location. The other 3 tree components of a tree are its Species; its Size (expressed in trunk diameter); and its Condition. These 3 skimmed-over factors simply cannot be seen from a satellite orbiting in space. Satellite photos also completely miss the understory layer of canopy. Our cheapo tree inventory is based on locational criteria in these satellite photos, so we actually need to get out there & catalog each tree in a database to obtain truly effective tree management capability.

It took several follow up questions by Urban Forestry Commissioners at yesterdays meeting to get staff to reveal that the initial statement that ground truthing is only a proposal, and NOT a part of the 2007 canopy survey. This 2007 survey is partly based on satellite images that were taken on a foggy day, yet it is being misconstrued as being definitive, which it is not. It is merely an apples and oranges comparison, yet it is being pawned off as an actual increase in canopy, as can be seen in the video of the DPD presentation I shot yesterday.

If the city had a tree inventory, it would become instantly obvious that a budget would be necessary to correct problems with defective trees. I believe the city would have a severe case of sticker shock at the number of tree crews needed to address maintenance issues of our 1.3 million tree urban forest. We currently have 15 field arborists, arranged in 5 crews of 3 city employees each. That's 6 arborists to handle the 150,000 trees between the sidewalk & the curb, and 9 arborists to deal with 150,000 trees in developed parklands. This is a skeleton crew handling a very valuable resource. We need to triple this number of staff arborfists, according to a 2009 editorial by PlantAmnesty.

How do other cities obtain their tree maintenance funding? Stormwater fees. Seattle conveniently wrote its 2009 stormwater ordinance prior to the appointment of the Urban Forestry Commission. We could have offered a drainage discount to properties with a large proportion of exposed soil and planted trees. Such properties soak up water, and do not tax our drainage facilities, and they should pay less. Remaining properties with extensive lot coverage by impervious roofs & slabs should pay more to deal with the trees that intercept, transpire, and infiltrate up to 30% of the rainwater falling on Seattle.

Problem solved. What's wrong with our city government? What's right is that we now have an active citizen advisory board sending recommendations to the Mayor. Still absent, however, is a citizen non profit organization unencumbered by the bureaucracy.

Save The Trees Seattle has recently expanded focus from the battle to save the forest from construction of new classrooms at Ingraham High School. Save The Trees Seattle is a registered non profit dedicated to completing the tripartite formula of successful partnership with the city government. The current staff and citizen advisory board will now be complemented with a true representative organization of the grassroots citizens.

Arboreally yours,

Michael Oxman
(206) 949-8733
www.SaveSeattlesTrees.com

Majority Rules Blog: Seattle Urban Forestry Commission Needs to Concentrate on New Tree Ordinance

2010-06-06T15:54:00.000-07:00

Majority Rules Blog: Seattle Urban Forestry Commission Needs to Concentrate on New Tree Ordinance

All this unfunded mandate would be great if the municipal government allocated resources to care for the trees.

With 2/3 of the 1.3 million trees in the city on private property, the 400,000 trees lining our streets, in parks, and at city facilities are being left to rot.

Over half of the city tree budget pays for administrators to discuss the issue.

The 2009 Audit says the budget should match the scope of the job. Lack of a tree inventory leaves us without the ability to convince the city council that the problem is serious.

A bunch of trees planted after WWII are just about shot, after receiving a half century of neglect. The budget for tree removal is about to skyrocket, while what is really needed is to start pruning to increase tree longevity. Pruning young trees is the best way to save money, because it reduces future need for tree services.

Arboreally yours,
Michael Oxman
www.SaveSeattlesTrees.com

Happenings

2010-02-06T15:04:00.000-08:00

February 6, 2010

Today, as I walked through the open gate. I realized that spring had brought new plants, young plants to the NW Grove. I also realized that once more Madrone had been destroyed….my heart was saddened at this discovery. I took pictures, carefully stepped through the grass and recorded the plants that are alive and well. My picture album of this long journey will not be published until after the final hearing and decision regarding the Northwest Grove. As it has been developing…It has told and interesting tale.
As time has passed my anger comes and goes. It is always sparked anew when I realize that the tactics of the School District to win an argument is to cheat. Destroying any form of evidence, removing any of the markings for protecting rare and uncommon plant growth is cheating. And if those who are in high places who have the power to protect do not protect the NW Grove until a hearing can happen, how can it be judged fairly? It should not take going to court on a regular basis or calling an attorney to ask that the grove be protected. Even walking through a gate and recording the conditions of the grove should not need to be a regular process. But without that process, plants are not shown to be alive or even present before mowing occurs or a truck backs in or some other permanent damage is done. It is also a costly drag on our courts, our school budget and our personal budget to deal with protection on a day to day basis.
It brings about a question in my mind, for whom is the Temporary Restraining Order pertaining to? …thinking for a moment I realized the School District is who is to stay out of the Grove. I can go in and not violate the order, but the School District violates the order every time it enters the Northwest Grove. But truly the real answer is the gate should not be left open. Recording by pictures should be permitted, but not trucks, mowers, and destructive actions…tennis balls were found meaning others had been in there also, the general public. Some of the neighbors have spoken freely about the area being used as a park, it had places to walk areas to rest and things to learn. It also was connected to a large area where people and their dogs could go without disturbing others. But there were defined trails for that activity. So I must again ask myself: with a 6 foot high cyclone fence, opened to the most traveled side of the school, and especially open to students…why is it there? Who is it protecting the Northwest Grove from…the District or the Neighbors who want to save the Northwest Grove and the rare plant habitat? Since the fence is open to the Field, Track and Parking lot and the doors to the school I can only determine, it is not the School District that the NW Grove is being protected from. The School District has full access at anytime.
Has the School District the “right” to say no one can enter school grounds? The Board believes it can declare this. Thus all schools can be closed to the public. What about the area surrounding the school? The area where there is grass and trees, football fields and track are these also “NO TRESPASSING” areas? Or is this a reserved status when the District wants to have their own way and make it difficult for others to present truth?
Oh, so many questions came to mind today as I was taking pictures and the Fire Truck drove by and honked. I don’t know what that means…but I am sure I will find out.

NOVEMBER? ALREADY?

2009-11-05T01:27:00.000-08:00

Ingraham Trees..still growing

WOW!
IT IS NOVEMBER!!!!

October started with fire:
A pre-hearing conference, dates for a new appeal hearing,
Lining up witnesses, finding $$$, all an uproar…

SWOOSH…a ruling, a surprise ruling
The City Hearing Examiner sent the entire project back to the Department of Planning and Development…heads spun…smiles appeared, hearts beat normal.

The Seattle School District and the Department of Planning and Development had NOT allowed or provided for an OFFICIAL COMMENT PERIOD on the new proposal. The new proposal called the “west compressed version” had not been publicized on a Land Use Notice, nor was it given the standard comment period as required by CITY LAWS…
The School District and DPD tried to be sneaky, but it didn’t work!

NOW, it is NOVEMBER, and the LAND USE NOTICE (MUP board) has appeared. The Permit # is 3009549, the project appears to be the same one as was presented in August/September to the DPD and uses the same SEPA Checklist and Addendum.

Sooo, for those who are the Ingraham Trees Faithful Guardians, it is once more time to write to the DPD to express the multitude of reasons to keep the Northwest Grove.
I would argue that it is a habitat area for local wildlife, year round and migrating, I would also argue that it is a rare plant association less than 2% of the trees in the City are Conifer—and native plants attract native wildlife. It is a pocket park for the neighborhood, adding a green space in an area rapidly being overtaken by developers. These trees are a natural filtration system for air and water…saving the City $$$ when it comes to drainage costs..(cleaning water and taking stress off of the drainage system); healthcare costs (filtering pollutants from air), recreational (to turn a 3 acre parking lot into a park will cost the City over 8 Million in Northgate).

There is one more point to be made in this long journey. The Seattle School District starts with the belief, and statement that the Northwest Grove of Trees, on the Ingraham High School Campus is not Environmentally Important. The official Designation given by the School District is “Designation of Non-Significance”. The Seattle School Districts Definition and Designation is accepted by the DPD as accurate. Because of this, it MUST be emphatically emphasized that the Northwest Grove of Trees, known as the Ingraham Trees IS Environmentally Important, and should be given a “Designation of Significance”. The plant association and the wildlife it supports was recognized as important, and protected by City Code in the City Hearing Examiners ruling listed below.

The more City rules you can quote, the better….

The DPD on their website gives the following suggestions for making comments:
http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/Notices/Public_Comment/How_To_Comment/default.asp#Tips

Here is the permit website:http://web1.seattle.gov/DPD/permitstatus/Project.aspx?id=3009549.
Here is the Hearing Examiners Decision from the City of Seattle Remanding the project back to DPD for evaluation of the Environment: http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/~scripts/nph-brs.exe?s1=&s2=ingraham&s3=&S4=&Sect4=AND&l=20&Sect3=PLURON&Sect5=HEAR1&Sect6=HITOFF&d=HEAR&p=1&u=/%7Epublic/HEAR1.htm&r=1&f=G
Here is the environmental checklist for the project:
http://www.seattleschools.org/area/facilities/BEXIII/Ingraham/2nd_revision_IngrahamSEPAChecklist.pdf
Here is the addendum to the environmental checklist:
http://bex.seattleschools.org/docs/ingraham/Ingraham_SEPA_Addendum_06102009_Checklist.pdf
Here is the environmental policies and SEPA laws for Seattle:
http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/~scripts/nph-brs.exe?s1=25.05&s2=&S3=&Sect4=AND&l=20&Sect1=IMAGE&Sect3=PLURON&Sect5=CODE1&d=CODE&p=1&u=/%7Epublic/code1.htm&r=1&Sect6=HITOFF&f=G

The Design Team Guidelines for Seattle Public Schools:
http://www.seattleschools.org/area/facilities/DesignStandards/SchoolDesignManual.pdf

Happenings

2009-09-16T22:39:00.000-07:00

September is almost gone.
Trees are being pruned, leaves are turning color.
Summer hasn't left, but fall isn't far.

Ingraham has surfaced once more.
The School District has supplied a new "plan".
The Department of Planning and Development approved the plan.
Save the Trees-Seattle, once more appealed the decision.
An Attorney, Keith Scully of Gendler and Mann defended the trees. He questioned the Department of Planning and Developments decision to NOT have a comment period from the public on the School Districts "West compressed version".

The Hearing Examiner for the City of Seattle once more found the
Department of Planning and Development in error.

Again, the District must post signs, the Department of Planning and Development must allow a comment period from the public and then decide.

When Save the Trees- Seattle, finds out more details, they will be published here.

So stay in touch, more info will be on the way soon.
In this hot and cold saga of the District vx. Ingraham Trees.

Fireworks in the Ingraham Trees

2009-07-04T18:03:00.000-07:00

This past month has been long…
June has had no rest for the Save The Trees-Seattle crew.
There was an Urban Forestry Workshop (video)
There have been meetings for a Tree Commission with the City Council,
More meetings and comments for a permanent Tree Ordinance,
Town Hall gatherings with City Council Leaders and some School Board Directors,
All of this is to save the trees in Seattle.

And then there is the Seattle School District, and the Seattle School Board.
Where we travel back to the beginning…how Save The Trees-Seattle came into existence.

Yep, that good ole School Board is at it again. When Save the Trees-Seattle takes a deep breath and thinks there is light at the end of the long tunnel for Ingraham High School the School District tries to blow up the tunnel.

In May of 2009 the City of Seattle’s Hearing Examiner remanded the decision to build in the grove back to the Department of Planning and Development. With the express definition of the Northwest Grove of trees as being a rare plant association that must be saved under the Seattle City Municipal code (SMC’s).

We at Save the Trees-Seattle had a glimmer of hope. But the SMC allows for mitigation. And the Seattle School Board has asked for the mitigation of reducing the footprint into the Northwest Grove and removing 29 trees + Madrone…supposedly dead.

Save The Trees-Seattle, and other appellants went back to the keyboards, the computers, and the Seattle Municipal Codes to express to the Department of Planning and Development why the correct and most appropriate mitigation is to move the proposed addition to the North Lawn where very little damage will occur to the Environment. We await DPD's 2nd decision.

IN THE MEAN TIME:

On July 1 the School District, Save The Trees-Seattle, Urban Forest Stakeholders, neighbors, Seattle Department of Transportation Arborist, BEX Manager, DKA representative, School District arborist, and 2 Facilities (maintenance) staff, went into the Northwest Grove.

Why did we go? Because someone in the infinite wisdom of the School District decided that the way to get rid of the rare plant association was to declare it a fire hazard…and have it mowed. So the Fire Department accommodated the School Districts request and sent out the order…oddly specifying only the Northwest Grove as needing to be mowed. Nothing was said about the North Lawn which was just as tall with grass or the Ditch surrounding the Grove. An entire afternoon was spent marking and taking pictures of the rare plants in the Northwest Grove…we also found a young flicker in a nest…

And of course, being in proximity to each other…the School District reps and the Tree Advocates got into some Fireworks of their own---relatively only sparklers compared to what awaits in court.

The end results were…no mowing under the Trees, mowing around areas of native rare plants inside the 6 foot fence and leaving the 3 foot high grass surrounding the OUTSIDE of the fence NEXT TO THE ROAD not mowed. Why the Seattle Fire Department didn’t want the ditch mowed, where cigarettes, fireworks and other flammables are easily thrown from moving cars is beyond me. But the rare plants inside the 6 foot fence had to be mowed???? The Plants and Trees that are protected by a Temporary Restraining Order had to be mowed due to a fire hazard? What is with that? Makes you wonder what is really happening at City Hall.

Tree Ordinance

2009-02-23T15:26:00.000-08:00

Today is an Exciting, Amazing and Important day.
The work isn't finished, only begun.

The Seattle City Council passed an Interim Emergency Tree Ordinance. With a 8-1 vote. http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/~scripts/nph-brs.exe?d=CBOR&s1=116404.cbn.&Sect6=HITOFF&l=20&p=1&u=/~public/cbor2.htm&r=1&f=G

This is only a beginning, a band aid in the big picture, but it is a step.
More than what was in the Seattle Codes, and a step in the right direction.
We applaud the Council for their decision, vote and work.

We also want to make note, that the Council is willing once the dollars are available to do a TREE INVENTORY for the City. This is also very important. We understand the current economical times may put this on the back burner, but we cannot, must not allow this to be forgotten.

The TREE INVENTORY is essential to understanding and moving ahead with a full and comprehensive plan to SAVE THE TREES in the Seattle City limits.

AS FOR INGRAHAM, Will the Interim Emergency Tree Ordinance be helpful? WE don't know.

On January 22 the DPD determined it would allow the removal of 72 of the Douglas Fir, Western Red Cedar and Madrone trees in the Northwest Forest. This was not a surprise to the SAVE THE TREES-Seattle group. On February 5, 2009 4 appeals were filed to change this decision. On February 26th will be a pre-hearing with the City Hearing Examiner, and on April 1, is scheduled the Hearing with the City Hearing Examiner. The April 1 hearing is open to the Public. All tree hugger's are invited. (Neighborhood groups who have dealt with parking overflow, street narrowing, and other non-tree items are invited also).

The Hearing will be held at: Office of the Hearing Examiner,
Suite 4000, 700 Fifth Avenue (Seattle Municipal Tower, 40th Floor), Seattle Washington.

If you have a few extra dollars, Save The Trees-Seattle is raising funds for legal expenses (currently the funds go to the Ingraham Trees battle). It truly is a worthy cause, and unfortunately, the court system is still the most viable and fair system for saving trees. Our past expenses, and consultations are $4000, future legal expense will range into the $20,000 mark (this is the Ingraham bill only). Any assistance is greatly appreciated.

Steve Zemke,
2131 N 132nd Street
Seattle WA 98133

2009-01-11T02:40:00.000-08:00

The Cascade is the Student Newspaper At Ingraham High School.
After the Public Meeting, and wanting to set the record straight with the Students the following letter was received. I have decided to post it here in reply to some of the new happenings at the High School.

To the Cascade staff,

i am saddened that the staff of the Cascade has failed in realizing the Ingraham trees are NOT an issue regarding the need to replace the portables and math modular.

In fact the portables and math modular buildings have continually been placed as a "later" project in the planning of the School Board/District for years.

The portables and math modular needed replacing when the fields were built and the lights were installed, why didn't the student body find the conditions in the portables and math modular so deplorable then as to stand up and say NO we need NEW Educational facilities before we need athletic facilities?

I am saddened at the lack of respect given to neighbors who PAY the salaries of the instructors, and for the athletic field and the lights, and the science building and the library, and even Mr. Foe's salary. The Tax payers of the City pay for the grounds that the School is on.

I am also saddened at the lack of respect, and the lack of understanding as to the health of the neighbors and future students. For the neighbors, future students and the instructors health will be at stake when the trees are removed.

The answer is to move the addition elsewhere on campus AND keep the trees. It is NOT addition OR trees.

The issue with the neighbors has never been addition or trees. It has always been MOVE the ADDITION and LEAVE the TREES.
Oh, and were any of the students listening when the Department of Planning and Development person stated how many trees would be removed? 73, Were they listening when the Department of Planning and Development person said ONLY 187 trees would be planted? Perhaps your math instructor could explain how the ratio of 73 to 187 is equivalent to 1 to 3?

It is the wasting of a Natural Resource like trees that is wrong. The North Lawn has NO trees. The places where the Portables and Math modular are don't have trees, why not build there?Why weren't the library and science construction built in a manner where a second story could be added? And why is there a future plan to build on the north lawn? Why not build on the north lawn NOW and make that addition strong enough for a 2nd story later? Why are only 20 people in ONE design team considered to have the Right answer? After all the Terrorist who attacked on 9/11 had 20 people were they correct? Or Japan at Pearl harbor? It isn't the number of people that make a project correct. Or even the professionals on the project's team. Mistakes were made when the Narrow's Bridge was built the first time. As were the mistakes when the I-90 bridge was under construction. Engineers and Architects were on those projects and were absolutely sure the plan's that had been produced were correct. How long will it take for I-90 and The Narrow's Bridge to reach Capacity Or I-5 under the convention center? How long did it take for 520? All projects done by professionals who were sure they would last for decades, with no capacity problems.

The sad part about this new addition at Ingraham, this new addition that will waste a resource that can not be replaced in the lifetime of the students or the neighbors is IT WILL NOT GIVE THE SCHOOL ANY ADDITIONAL CAPACITY. It only replaces the number of classrooms it removes. What is the current problems with the School District? Where are the Capacity issues?
Does the High School need more Capacity for the future or less? Does the School need the addition or is there away to rearrange classroom space inside the building and not have the portables now? Has anyone investigated this? Not by asking biased people, but by researching documents? Demographic studies? If the Portables and Math Modular are so horrendous, then why hasn't some one reported them to the Health Department? Force the School District to bring in new ones?

What about maintenance cost? Is a full daylight basement more costly than a traditional class room? How has the School District payed for maintenance, what is their "track" record in taking care of their property? The math modular and the portables, the current landscaping and the trees? Something so simple as Who rakes the leaves from the gutters? The students or the neighbors? Who picks up the trash along the road now, students or neighbors--that will be who more than likely will rake the leaves and pay for the disposal of the leaves, just like they do the garbage.

There are so many more questions.
This is not something about trees vs an addition. It involves counting true costs: Health for students and neighbors now and in the future, drainage-are the students aware of the abandoned landfill and methane gas?, education, dollar value, future costs both environmental and maintenance. It involves where our City wants to be in the future..40% green not 18% not 14% or 8%. And by the way it way the attitude toward trees in the 60's that removed an entire forest to build Ingraham. It was that attitude that has taken our City from over 40% green down near 8%. Why would any one want to continue that type of attitude for future building? This is what the District and Architects are doing when they say, the school was designed back in the 60's to have a west addition. The 60's Environmental awareness and 2008 is quite different. Is the District saying it is OK to live in the past?
How far can the research into this topic go? I have been researching since March 2008, and every day I find more questions, more secrets and more things to be concerned about, not just for the neighbors, but also for the students and the staff of Ingraham High School. Sometimes closing our eyes and believing an authority figure is the easiest way to go, but it can also be the most dangerous and costly.

Biting the Nails

2008-12-31T03:26:00.000-08:00

Snow has fallen,
Winds have blown,

News is slow in coming.

Soon it will be time.
And decisions will be made.

Will the Ingraham Forest Stand?
What will DPD* decide?

What will the School District do?

We at Save the Trees, know what we will do.

We wait for the decision, we wait for our move.

Snow has gone,
Winds have blown,

A New Year awaits;
Resolutions made.

*City of Seattle Department of Planning and Development

Help Pass Seattle's Interim Tree Protection Ordinance - email City Council & Attend Dec. 15th Hearing!‏

2008-12-11T21:17:00.000-08:00

On Monday, December 15, 2008 at 5:30 p.m., the Seattle City Council Environment, Emergency Management, and Utilities Committee will hold a public hearing at Seattle City Hall, 600 4th Ave, on an emergency tree protection ordinance for the City of Seattle. The proposal would provide for interim protection for most trees for a period of six months to a year while Seattle develops a long-range solution to increase the tree canopy and stop the loss of healthy, mature trees. For more information, see the following links:

Public Notice of Hearing
http://www.seattle.gov/council/attachments/2008hearing_notice_luib.pdf

Briefing Memo
http://www.seattle.gov/council/attachments/2008hearing_briefing_memo.pdf

Council Bill 116404
http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/~scripts/nph-brs.exe?s1=&s2=&s3=116404

Your input is vital to helping to pass this interim piece of legislation to protect trees in the City of Seattle. This bill was drafted as the result of our efforts to protect the trees at Ingraham High School from being needlessly cut down when alternatives existed to the proposed construction site. When the Seattle School District withdrew their construction permits in August of 2008, we went to King County Superior Court and got an injunction to stop the trees from being cut down. The Seattle School District’s attempted clear cutting of the trees without further environmental review by the city of Seattle exposed a loophole in Seattle’s tree protection ordinances. Other tree battles like trying to save trees at Waldo Woods in North Seattle also are driving this legislation.

If you cannot attend the Hearing on Monday at 5:30 PM it is critical that you send emails to all the City Council members urging their support for Council bill 116404 to provide interim tree protection until strong permanent protections can be put in place. You can write one e-mail and send copies to all the council members by cutting and pasting the e-mails below.

Emails are: richard.conlin@seattle.gov; tim.burgess@seattle.gov; sally.clark@seattle.gov; jan.drago@seattle.gov; jean.godden@seattle.gov; bruce.harrell@seattle.gov; nick.licata@seattle.gov; richard.mciver@seattle.gov; tom.rasmussem@seattle.gov

This legislation is a first step towards strengthening tree protection laws in the City of Seattle. It is being attacked by so called “property rights advocates” who oppose efforts to protect trees. They are contacting members of the Seattle City Council with their opposition and we need to counter their efforts.

We need you to add your voice in support of the city stepping up and providing stronger protection for both individual trees and tree groves and our green urban habitat. Seattle’s urban tree canopy according to the city had decreased from 40% in 1973 to 18%. Unless we speak out our remaining urban trees are in danger of being lost because Seattle existing tree ordinance only provides protection to 1% total of all the trees through a very limited “exceptional tree” provision. Other cities in the region and in the US have much stronger protection measures.

Urge that the proposed legislation be amended to strengthen SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act) provisions, that permits be required to cut down any tree over 6” in diameter, that tree grove protections are vital to protecting unique urban habitats and that the exemption for “additions to existing buildings” be dropped or clarified as limited to a certain size.

Passing Council bill 116404 is only a first step but we need to take it to protect trees while permanent legislation is being drafted up. We need to generate strong citizen support via e-mails and people attending the hearing on Monday as a show of support for protecting trees in Seattle. Please help. Thanks.

Steve Zemke

Save the Trees – Seattle

stevezemke@msn.com

206-366-0811

P.S. The Seattle City Council noted the following:

1. “The public hearing on the tree protections is taking place in the Seattle Council Chambers (one floor above the 5th Ave entrance to City Hall) on the second floor. A different hearing will be taking place at the same time in the Bertha Knight Landes room on the first floor of City Hall (one floor below Council Chambers). This hearing is on the Mayor's proposed gun ban and also begins at 5:30. “

2.” The sign up sheet to make public comments will be available at 5:00 pm on the December 15, 2008 right outside of Council Chambers. People will be called in the order in which they sign up.”

3. The City Council also suggests that you provide “your comments in written form either to all Council members via email, in hard copy when you come to the hearing, or via the USPS. This is important because comments are normally limited to two minutes and many people have more than can be said in that time. Submitting your comments in writing will ensure that the Council hears what you have to say.”

Plausible deniability?

2008-12-08T23:12:00.000-08:00

mary.bass@seattleschools.org; sherry.carr@seattleschools.org; cheryl.chow@seattleschools.org; michael.debell@seattleschools.org; peter.maier@seattleschools.org; harium.martin-morris@seattleschools.org; steve.sundquist@seattleschools.org; superintendant@seattleschools.org

Howdy,

Thanks for listening to our concerns about needlessly cutting down ninety-some trees at Ingraham High School.

I attended the SEPA hearing where I recall school district officials denying under oath the existence of any supporting information about a long range campus master plan. A few days ago our Public Disclosure request has revealed several such documents.

I believe the transcript of the SEPA Appeal Hearing will support this statement. Perhaps the transcript should be read by the school board so you can see for yourself what we appellants heard your staff & contractors say during those four days. They repeatedly said the one page drawing showing 4 options for potential construction sites was the ONLY written documentation, but this is not borne out by the facts.

Arboreally yours,

Michael Oxman
saveseattlestrees.com

2008-11-21T23:40:00.000-08:00

The DPD Public meeting was Tuesday November 18th, 2008

2008-11-21T21:03:00.000-08:00

Last night at Ingraham High School, the DPD held a public meeting on the Ingraham construction project. As you know Save the Trees – Seattle and others in the community are opposed to the Seattle School District cutting down 68 trees on the west side of the High School when other locations exist on the campus where the addition can be built without cutting down any large trees.

Many neighbors and others turned out to support the trees and to urge that the project be moved. There was also a very large contingent of vocal students and parents and teachers frustrated by their long standing grievance of classes being held in rundown mold infested portables for too many years. The Principal at Ingraham stated that he made a concerted effort to turn out students and parents and teachers to support the project. With his encouragement the students basically staged a pep rally for the project. This was not unexpected considering what they have had to put up with in a substandard learning environment. The meeting comments basically turned out to be a rehash of both sides positions with little new emerging.

Those of us opposed to needlessly cutting down the trees on a campus that at 28 acres is the largest in the Seattle School District, sympathized with the frustration of the students and parents and teachers that for many years have been forced to take classes in substandard portables that are in terrible shape and have mold. Teachers and students complained of getting sick. Some of the portables house special needs students but do not have running water or bathrooms.

The Seattle School District has let the situation get out of control and is now trying to make the neighbors the villains for their negligence. The Seattle School District’s approach has been to deny they have any responsibility for delaying the project and blame neighbors who love trees more than students as what is preventing the project from going forward

But Save the Trees – Seattle and the neighbors support the long overdue upgrading of the classrooms. We are not, however, the villains just because we also don’t want to needlessly destroy a unique urban forest when viable alternatives exist on the campus for building elsewhere. One location we suggested was the North lawn area which Ingraham actually picked as the site if a future addition was to be built after the current project. It is rather ironic that the Ingraham Master Plan produced as part of this project can propose building on this North lawn location in the future but it is somehow not possible to build there now and spare the grove of trees. They are serious enough about retaining the North lawn area for a future addition that in the current proposal it is the only area on campus where they do not propose planting trees.

Two wrongs do not make a right. Not upgrading or maintaining the school in a responsible way for students and teachers in the past and proposing to cut down 68 Douglas fir, Western red cedar and Pacific madrone trees to now do the upgrade is only compounding the past mistakes by avoiding responsible stewardship of both our schools and our natural urban habitat.

The Principal testified that he went around to different student groups to recruit them to come to the public meeting to support the project as is. It is very hard for any students to take on the Principal publicly and say they opposed cutting down the trees. I have spoken with both students and teachers who opposed cutting down the trees. At least one teacher was told to stop any efforts to get students to oppose cutting down the trees because that was political and not education. The teacher felt threatened and that her job was at stake.

The Principal is the authority figure at the school. Student recommendations for college frequently come from the Principal. Is it any wonder that teachers and students who oppose cutting down the trees might feel intimidated or threatened if they spoke out. I remember when I contacted Martin Floe about our arborist looking at the trees he personally told me to not talk to the students. I guess he was afraid of them hearing anything contrary to his position. So much for an open dialogue at Ingraham.

What Floe has forgotten is that he is acting in a capacity of public trustee for the school. He has tried to make us NIMBY’s which means he doesn’t even understand the term. We are not opposed to renovating the school and in fact believe it is long overdue. I am aware of no one in our group or neighbors and other tree advocates that are opposed to the renovation. We voted for the BEX bond issue. Our tax dollars are paying for the project and we have the right to express our views as much as anyone else.

Unfortunately the process set up by Martin Floe excluded the community and neighbors from the initial selection of the site and design of the project. Meetings of the School Design Team were held in secret with a few parents and teachers personally selected by Martin Floe. The public’s only chance to comment on the proposed project was earlier this year after the building site had been chosen and the design done. And we were then told we could not comment on the site anymore since that decision was already made.

At last night’s meeting as I publicly stated, I do not think anyone there opposed the decaying portables being torn down and replaced with modern classrooms. Unfortunately it was obvious that the only option given to students and others to get new classrooms is to build in the tree grove. And blame the neighbors, rather than the School District for its inadequate review and closed review process, for preventing them from getting new classrooms.

The issue at this point is a legal one, whether or not the project is in compliance with city and state SEPA laws. We are pursing the legal process afforded the public to review the project.
The meeting was part of the public process for approval of land use permits for building in the City of Seattle and is proceeding on the normal timetable, except for the delay caused by the School District withdrawing their permit application in August in an attempt to just cut the trees down. The King County Superior Court issued an injunction to stop the trees from being cut down without any review by the City of Seattle.. The City of Seattle is expected to make a decision in the next few weeks. The City does have the authority under the city’s SEPA laws to move the project to save the trees. We will let you know when that happens.

2008-11-20T01:57:00.000-08:00

News for the Few
The DPD Public Meeting Survivors.

A Big Warm Thank You to ALL who attended
the Department of Planning and Developments public meeting regarding the renovation and addition project at Ingraham High School.

This was to be the night to publicly discuss the Ingraham plans, to try to get answers as to why the 60-90 mature trees had to be killed to make room for an addition to Ingraham High School. A public meeting to create an open space to discuss issues. It never happened.

It was a night where the School District played the card of cards: "it is for the students". Not an unexpected move for the District to take, since it is the fall back, and often only explanation for any of the decisions it makes.

The meeting was to discuss Environmental issues that pertained to the renovation, demolition and addition at Ingraham High School. These issues could include: Tree removal, landscaping, drainage, parking, traffic, air quality, and other pertinent topics.

It became a meeting of the staff, teachers parents and students at Ingraham High School complaining about how cold the portables are, how moldy the math modular building is and how the neighbors are wasting taxpayer dollars. The battle cry of this project was : move on before we all die from the poison of mold and cold. All topics that I believe are the responsibility of the School District regarding the maintenance procedures, and the pulling of the Department of Planning and Developments permits. None of which the neighbors have or had control over.

Of course facts land on deaf ears when the propaganda ends with "it's for the students" "it is for student education". Who can resist the cries of innocent children for education, comfort and health? Who is going to figure out who the responsible party is that put the education, comfort and health in danger?

Due to the dominance of students it often sounded as a Pep Rally. "YES, YES WE NEED MATH. STUDENTS BEFORE TREES. And there was nothing the Department of Planning and Development representatives could do but allow the Rally to run its course. I applaud the DPD's patience and wise decision.

I question the way the School District has "passed the Buck " of maintenance, and bad decision's (pulling building permits) onto the Neighbors Shoulders.

I await the Department of Planning and Developments decision in regards to the placing of the Addition on the Ingraham High School Campus. Will the Trees Stay or will they Die?

WRITE TO THE DPD!

2008-10-14T00:58:00.000-07:00

Seattle School District has been halted for the time being from killing an Urban Forest.

To continue to hold the Chain-saws at bay, Save The Trees-Seattle needs help.

What to do?

Write to the:
Department of Planning and Development.
700 5th Avenue, Suite 2000, P.O. Box 34019, Seattle WA 98124-4019
Attention: Tamara Garrett, Permit #3009549 Ingraham High School Renovation.

What to say:

With passion write of the importance of trees to the City of Seattle, to Education and to the Citizens of Seattle.

Things that are important to include:

FACTS:

Air pollution and Smog in Seattle, and that trees are a natural filter. (IF YOU KNOW PERCENTAGES PLEASE INCLUDE THEM)

Drains overflowing and landslides in areas where trees have been removed; PLEASE NAME SPECIFIC AREAS.

Current trend to remove trees leaves less green space, again give examples and if possible before and after pictures.

Note the aesthetic quality of mature trees instead of small saplings that die out.

The following are places to find facts and figures to write what you are most passionate about. We do not want every letter to sound the same, a form letter will not do here. Each letter must point out specific's about the Ingraham project that are important in regards to Why the TREES SHOULD BE SAVED AND THE PROJECT MOVED ELSEWHERE ON SITE. There are other issues you may also note, (piece meal projects, parking problems etc.) but our PRIMARY CONCERN is to keep the TREES.

To find out more about the project itself go here:

http://www.seattleschools.org/area/facilities/BEXIII/Ingraham/2nd_revision_IngrahamSEPAChecklist.pdf

http://www.seattleschools.org/area/bex/ingraham/IHS_SEPA_Decision_080723.pdf

To find out what the Mayor's Urban Forestry Management Plan says go here:

http://www.seattle.gov/environment/documents/Final_UFMP.pdf

To find other info:

Benefits of Trees:
http://www.seattle.gov/environment/documents/UrbanTreeBenefits.pdf

http://www.scenic.org/tree

Tree Regulations in Seattle:
http://www.seattlechannel.org/videos/video.asp?ID=2010840
http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/codes/Tree_Landscaping_Regulations/Overview/default.asp

Check things out, write a knowledgable letter and help SAVE THE TREES.

Thanks.

THE MUP OF MUP's

2008-09-25T00:46:00.000-07:00

It is up, the new MUP Board.

What is a MUP you ask?

A MUP is a Master Use Permit from the Department of Planning and Development (DPD). They appear anytime a project is going to be huge and effect the Environment. Developer's hate them.

Why you ask?

Because they tell the public to pay attention, something is about to happen. And the MUP Board tells the public they can comment on what is happening. There is only a short time to comment, but the PUBLIC can REGISTER a COMMENT.

That is where you, the reader of this blog can help.
Look around your neighborhood.
Watch for the BIG WHITE PLYWOOD SIZE SIGNS.
These signs will give a brief description of what is to happen, the Permit # and the address of where to send comments.

Remember your comments do count. Write them, send them and do it today. Make sure the Permit # is on the Comment.

This is how trees are to be saved. By caring Citizens, willing to take time and write and express concerns regarding the environment and the effects the Developer will have to that environment.

That is what the neighbors at WALDO WOODS are doing. That is what the neighbors of INGRAHAM TREES are doing.

Are there MUP boards in your neighborhood? Have you commented?

INGRAHAM has a new MUP Board and a NEW PERMIT #3009549, It is time to comment again. Want to help?

Write: DPD, 700 5th Avenue, Suite 2000, P.O. Box 34019, Seattle WA 98124-4910 Permit #3009549.

School District is on the Move

2008-09-17T02:12:00.000-07:00

Once more the Seattle School District has set its sights on the West Forest at Ingraham High School, now commonly called the Ingraham trees.

The NEW SIGN for the Master Use Permit went up today. I must ask all who care to stop by and read it. If you can find it!

Yes, I said if you can find it, they have done a good job at trying to hide it at the corner of 135th and Ashworth. But if you know what you are looking for, and you now have the corner to look on...you will find it.

A lot has happened since my last post. Save The Trees-Seattle has been officially recognized as a non-profit group by the State of Washington. Which means they can finally take donations to defray some of the legal costs. If you can help please contact Steve Zemke at 206-366-0811.

An injunction was given to Save The Trees-Seattle to keep the Ingraham trees intact until the School District finishes the Department of Planning and Development phase.

And the Biggest move of all: The CITY COUNCIL finally sent an Interim Emergency Tree Ordinance to the Department of Planning and Development.

Will this ordinance help Ingraham? We don't know. Is it in time to help? We don't know.

What we do know is that the pressure on the City Council and the Mayor's office must continue!
Letters, emails, phone calls to the City Council to make the Interim Ordinance have real teeth, Is what we are asking for people to do. Express yourself!

So here is the challenge:

Take time to read the New Sign about the addition and then make comments to DPD.

Take time to write City Council, continue to urge a new TREE LAW.

Addresses can be found on the http://saveingrahamstrees.info or http://saveseattlestrees.com

Thanks for your support and help to keep us focused on the Ingraham trees, and to help pay for the legal fund.

We have exceptionally great supporters.

Ingarham In the News

2008-08-16T04:37:00.000-07:00

It has been a long week for the Ingraham Trees Crew.

Press has flowed from ground to sky, print to air waves.

Trees are important!

The pictures speak louder than words,

When a T.V. camera

catches the lace of a Cedar,

The majesty of a Fir,

and the glisten of the Forest trail,

words are no longer necessary to

Express the importance of the Ingraham Trees.

The true test of the Ingraham Crew,

The Seattle Tree advocate groups

The Citizens of Seattle

The Seattle City Council,

The Department of Planning and Development,

The Mayor and

The Seattle School District has yet to come.

Who will stand for the beauty of the Fir and the

Grace of the Cedar?

The Ingraham Crew will.

The Tree Advocate groups of Seattle Will

But who else will stand?

As the time for hearings draws near,

We wait...hope...

Appeal Decision for Ingraham Trees

2008-07-28T22:10:00.000-07:00

The Appeal to the School District Hearing Examiner for the Seattle School District regarding the Designation of Non-Significance for the Ingraham trees has been decided. True to all expectations the decision was in favor of the School District. The Designation of Non-Significance was upheld. This decision was then sent as a recommendation to the Superintendent of Schools. She upheld it too.

The reason this was not a surprise is that the School District has an advantage called a "weighted advantage", their experts and professionals are automatically assumed to be correct. The Appellants are automatically assumed to be wrong.

The reality is, the School District can call any piece of land that it desires to "develop" Environmentally Non Significant. By doing this, the School District then has the advantage in an appeal of being right. It is automatically assumed that the School District is RIGHT. The Ingraham appeal decision stated a more than Moderate Significant Environmental Impact to the neighborhood around Ingraham. 75+% Significant Environmental Impact. In the real world, that means the School District only had a Designation of 25% Non-Significance (an F). In the fair, Democratic world the Appellants won. In the SCHOOL DISTRICT world the Appellants lost.

Anyone, brave enough or brash enough to appeal a Decision of Hon-Significance must prove beyond a doubt twice that the School District is wrong.

The numbers look like this: Opening : School District 100% correct---The appealants 0 correct. The decision: School District 125%, Appealants 75%.

The scales of Justice began as unbalanced then ended as though they were in a kangaroo court.

We wait to see what the Department of Planning and Development will say.

New Resolution, What about a LAW?

2008-07-19T02:20:00.001-07:00

The new tree resolution has passed and is going to help give clarification to past laws and regulations. The next step, is to get a NEW tree law that will be stronger, and will be able to protect groves of trees. The way for this law to become a part of our city, and our future is for the Public to become involved. HOW DO YOU BECOME INVOLVED? YOU SIMPLY JOIN THE CREATE AN EMAIL CAMPAIGN. Write to the Mayor at seattle.gov; the City Council at city.council@seattle.gov and the Department of Planning and Development. Let them all know that trees are important! And that our lives, and environment need them! All the Urban Forest in Seattle are needed to sustain a healthy environment for all the people residing and visiting Seattle. Large conifers will never be replaced by 25 foot high deciduous trees. So send the emails and let the City leaders know that TREES, ESPECIALLY CONIFERS ARE NECESSARY AND VITAL TO THE EMERALD CITIES YEAR ROUND GREEN CANOPY!

Birder's Beware

2008-07-08T21:59:00.001-07:00

Recently spotted in the Ingraham Trees was a baby Hawk. Mom is watching over the fledgling. Be quiet and careful, and you may get a glimpse of this little one eating or resting in the trees.

Also recently the Flickers were seen with two new family members in flight. This little group seems to be doing well in spite of all the predatory Ravens.

The Ingraham Trees are alive with Wild Life so stop in and take a look and a listen. Surprises abound.

More news from Ingraham Trees

2008-07-08T21:49:00.000-07:00

The appeal hearing ended on June 30th. Currently all are waiting for the Hearing Examiners decision/verdict as to Designation of Nonsignificance or if there will be a Designation of Significance in regards to the Ingraham trees. This decision could take up to 20 days.

Other news The CITY COUNCIL passed the Tree Resolution to better define and interpret the Directors Directive 6-2001, in short; the Resolution passed to help protect more trees. How this may or may not effect the Ingraham trees remains to be seen.

Douglas Fir

2008-06-19T17:22:00.000-07:00

Douglas Fir

Majestically Beautiful
Warm and comforting
in a cement filled land

Towering in green
above industry crawl

Resilent against urban sprawl
the developers saw

Tall and Majestic
Let us help them stand

On June 17th the City council began work on a Resolution to help the Douglas Fir Stand.
We applaud their efforts, and ask them to quickly move on this desperately needed, revamping of the Seattle Tree Ordinance. It is time for Urban Forest to be included, not just single trees.