VIDEO: Washington Tree Equity Collaborative launched with Roxhill Park event

By Tracy Record
West Seattle Blog editor

17 years ago, Seattle’s then-mayor Greg Nickels announced a tree-planting plan to keep the city from losing more of its tree canopy.

Several mayors later, the city is still struggling with stopping canopy loss.

The city is working on a new tree policy. Separate from that – and yet an offshoot of sorts – Mayor Bruce Harrell was among a group of officials and advocates who gathered at West Seattle’s Roxhill Park this morning to announce a new statewide tree initiative: The Washington Tree Equity Collaborative.

This one is a “statewide effort to create tree equity in Washington,” as described by Jad Daley of American Forests, who emceed the event. Daley said his group has studied canopy cover in neighborhoods nationwide – creating this “scoring” tool as a result – and found less of it in neighborhoods where a majority of residents are low-income and/or BIPOC. “This is not just scenery we’re talking about – this is critical green infrastructure,” Daley declared. Before our summary continues, here’s video of the five speakers:

Daley said that getting every neighborhood in the state to even a 75 tree-equity score would take 2.6 million more trees. An even more ambitious goal, getting to 100, would take 13 million trees.

Right now, though, said state Public-Lands Commissioner Hilary Franz, the state’s trees are declining in number and health: “Washington is known as the Evergreen State, yet our trees are truly in trouble. … Access to greenspace and shade should be a fundamental right.” Less tree canopy means more heat, and that’s the weather extreme that’s deadlier than catastrophic storms, Franz said. “The answer is so simple – plant more trees and plant them in the right places.” That costs money, she noted, mentioning an $8 million request before the Legislature, and $6 million already secured from the federal government.

Then it was on to the city’s role. Seattle’s Office of Sustainability and Environment director Jessyn Farrell acknowledged that the most recent canopy assessment showed Seattle had lost 255 acres of trees, 1.7% of its canopy, since the previous assessment six years earlier. And relevant to today’s topic, the loss is happening inequitably. She added that addressing the problem means not just planting trees but taking better care of the existing ones.

Speaking next, Mayor Harrell acknowledged that the latest tree-canopy assessment showed that canopy loss on public property is a major problem, noting that he’s ordered that every tree lost on city land be replaced by three new ones.

Bringing it home to the specific piece of public property on which everyone was gathered this morning, Delridge community advocate Willard Brown (above with the mayor) pointed out the plight of Roxhill Park’s bog, a historic wetland that’s been drying out. The area’s status as Longfellow Creek‘s headwaters is priceless, he said – “it’s vital that the creek remains healthy.” Some work is planned later this year, Brown said. He also gently dinged the city for big talk and no followthrough on another West Seattle site, the Myers Way Parcels, which the city promised X years ago would be transferred to Seattle Parks – which has yet to happen.

After the speeches, one question was asked: Local greenspace activist and arborist Michael Oxman asked how the talk of increasing canopy matches with what’s happening in Olympia, with legislators approving upzoning for much of the state, opening the door to more densification. Farrell – a former state legislator – tackled the question, declaring, “There is no conflict between increasing tree canopy and increasing housing.” She said the biggest trouble spots even now are public lands and “neighborhood residential” (formerly “single-family”) zoning, “not so much because of development as because of age and health.” Franz echoed that “we have to address both our housing crisis and our tree crisis,” also contending they aren’t in conflict.

Then it was off to a photo op, mulching trees in the park’s southwest corner. The mayor had moved on by then but Farrell dug in:

P.S. You can check your neighborhood’s Tree Equity Score via the American Forests map here. You can read the Memorandum of Understanding that’s at the heart of the new collaborative by going here.

21 Replies to "VIDEO: Washington Tree Equity Collaborative launched with Roxhill Park event"

  • Kim April 13, 2023 (7:00 pm)

    This is an issue in many white center neighborhoods right now! Some people are buying older homes and flipping them and I have noticed that they are cutting down healthy old trees 🌲 that are very tall  and because of this there are less trees in certain areas in white center. I wish people who buy older houses in white center to flip and sell would stop chopping down perfectly healthy trees and developers who buy land to build apartments building would also stop chopping down trees.  

  • SlimJim April 13, 2023 (9:37 pm)

    Farrell is full of crap when she says there is no conflict between increasing tree canopy and increasing housing. The fact that she works on the environment for the city and can’t even figure out that buildings take space often currently occupied by trees shows why we are still losing green canopy. Just look around your neighborhood people and you can see what more development does. We will still have continuing increases in housing so it’s time to get serious about tree preservation and planting and that means dealing with the truth and then getting creative. Not trying to dodge the truth. Shame on you Farrell.

  • K April 13, 2023 (9:50 pm)

    Harrell is so full of it.  If he cared about canopy, he wouldn’t be cutting down trees to make room for more parking (looking at you, Pike street).  We should be reclaiming the public spaces currently used for private car storage and creating parklets and other opportunities to increase tree canopy, not the other way around.

    • Dooh April 13, 2023 (11:29 pm)

      Not sure how you think Harrell has anything to do with allowing parking lots,  buildings, etc. These are building codes that have been around for years.  He doesn’t control who does what or where. It says he wants to replace trees, not cut them down. I just had 2 huge houses go in next door to me.  25 years it has been a green belt.  Huge 130′ evergreens,  taken out by the contractor to get the houses in.  They took out more trees then they put back. They pay fines instead of asking if they can remove them. The one tree they left,  was encroached on at the base,  and i doubt it will recover. 

      • Canopee? April 14, 2023 (8:04 am)

        That 25 year old “green belt” you claim is being developed is not yours, mine or the public’s.  It is private property that someone owns and pays ever increasing taxes on.  Landowners paying taxes on what others perceive as ‘their green belt’ should be provided tax breaks for keeping their property treed and vacant, not face outrageous tax increases.
        <These erroneously called "green belts" are not for us to decide their fate any more than me designating your developed lot and house to be 'scraped' and trees planted, restored to a "green belt."As I often do, I ask for specifics to these claims, (" I just had 2 huge houses go in next door to me.”).  If, “they pay fines instead of asking if they can remove them,” there will be records of such. Please share the location before being dismissed as a colorful but false anecdote?

  • Azimuth April 13, 2023 (10:07 pm)

    The city just let a lot near me cut down a healthy 40 foot tall cedar to build 3 NOT affordable town homes. If they are looking for about 1,200 sq ft of tree canopy that’s no longer there I can show them. Plus, their street tree program is also underwhelming. I’ve been signing up for 6 straight years and gotten nothing. I have a great spot waiting for some happy little trees.

  • BJG April 13, 2023 (10:36 pm)

    Living in the Junction neighborhood I watch as our small craftsman homes and surrounding trees and gardens are scraped clean to accommodate massive apartments and condos. These new builds don’t even pretend to offer a green spot for tree planting. Believe your own eyes, not those who say density is not impacting the tree canopy here. We are all concrete and hardscapes now. It’s discouraging and bleak, not to mention hotter as our climate changes.

    • Canopee April 14, 2023 (8:18 am)

      Now that the long awaited data is out, it is the City of Seattle. that is the causing the majority of canopy loss, next comes all of the private property and subsets of private property are established homes and new development.  

      Of all of the tree loss causes, the favorite boogeyman, development, has the smallest impact from loss of trees.
      When facts contradict opinions, we chose to “believe your own eyes.”  
      It is the forest, not the individual tree. 
      Once again a vague anecdote of development “scrape” as always,

      unverifiable.

  • Corla April 14, 2023 (6:15 am)

    There is so much new housing that they have come in and just cleared the whole lot. Then don’t even bother putting anything back. The house down the block from us had 4 mature trees and now its just squished together townhomes.  People just turn a blind eye to this especially in the low income areas.It is going to take many years for new  trees to even match what mature trees do in the environment. 

  • anonyme April 14, 2023 (6:30 am)

    This is a serious issue, but not a social justice issue.  Why must everything be skewed in that direction in order to be considered valid?  Street trees are often not cared for and are frequently vandalized. Tree loss is not a mystery; trees are being lost to development.  The cheap and fast development model is to clear-cut trees and then remove and compact all topsoil, making the site inhospitable to tree growth for decades to come.  Even trees that are ‘saved’ often sustain fatal damage in the construction process, especially by the removal of the root mass.  Sellers are encouraged to remove large trees from their property by interested developers as a condition of sale.  SDoT arborists plant inappropriate street trees in unsustainable locations that then (predictably) need to be removed and replaced at taxpayer expense.  There’s a lot of hypocrisy going on here, and the City of Seattle is responsible for a large portion of it.  Farrell’s ignorant and blatantly idiotic comment re: density vs. trees is a perfect example; this entire vaudeville act by local bureaucrats is a disgrace. Last, but not least, anyone with enough money and influence can get past tree regulations and cut down magnificent, old trees.

  • Christine April 14, 2023 (8:00 am)

    Developers are the kings around here and clearly maneuvered the Olympia densification rule. Like everyone here, I am appalled by the changing landscape of Seattle. We have two hideous developments on my block and in both cases all the trees were cleared first. The housing will be too expensive for low to middle income people. Developers have found multiple ways around the laws and government colludes with them. How can we stop this? 

  • lucy April 14, 2023 (8:46 am)

    There’s a new palm tree on Alki!

    • WSB April 14, 2023 (8:58 am)

      Another one? Somebody brought up the discussion of the last one in sideline chat while we waited for yesterday’s event to start.

  • Honey April 14, 2023 (9:05 am)

    Many years and “several mayors later, the city is still struggling with stopping canopy loss.”  So … the city is working on a new tree policy!  Meanwhile, the city continues to allow developers to ravage what is left of West Seattle’s tree canopy! 
    Farrell’s comments that  “There is no conflict between increasing tree canopy and increasing housing” and that we are losing trees “not so much because of development as because of age and health,”are inaccurate, and hypocritical.
    The City of Seattle is complicit, also, by supporting the Sound Transit West Seattle Ballard Link Extension fiasco. According to Sound Transit’s DEIS –  4.2.9.3.1: 
    The West Seattle Link Extension would have long- term impacts on ecosystem resources in the study area. In some areas, the guideway would be within or near existing forested habitat. Vegetation and wildlife habitat within and 15 feet beyond the footprint of the guideway would be permanently converted from forested or scrub/shrub vegetation to light rail. During operation, Sound Transit During operation, Sound Transit would continue to remove “hazard trees” (trees that might cause a hazard to light rail operations) throughout project operations as needed.”
    West Seattle houses up to one-third of Seattle’s urban canopy.  The city is destroying the very thing that makes life not only livable – but possible.

    • Canopee April 14, 2023 (11:51 am)

      Farrell’s comments that  “There is no conflict between increasing tree canopy and increasing housing” and that we are losing trees “not so much because of development as because of age and health,”are inaccurate, and hypocritical. ”  Honey

      Honey has clearly not read the report ! 

      Data from the newly released study clearly shows that canopy loss from development is far less than canopy loss from the city’s neglect and established home properties.
      The development is a small part but easily demonized by false claims. 
      And it is true that Seattle can increase its tree canopy while increasing development capacity. 

      We could do this by demanding and funding the city to maintain its declining canopy as the report highlights.
       
      We could all ask the Question, “Am I living in a ‘glass house while throwing stones’ in regard trees?
       
      We could start by looking inward, around our own yard, our friendly neighbors’ also who may not have any trees because that the way West Seattle was developed 100 years ago, originally lots scraped, houses built, lawn installed, shrubs around the border.  
      As common as the lamented cottages are their often lack of significant trees, for their century of existence, while maintaining a Seattle style grass lawn front yard.  
      At least the new construction is not installing environmentally irresponsible lawns and despite the claims here (none verified!), trees are required to be replaced.

      • An Ent April 14, 2023 (2:32 pm)

        People do not live in City “parks’ natural areas.” It’s important to reverse the decline there but that won’t stop the problem of loss of trees to development in residential zones. In residential areas, the loss to infill/redevelopment in multi-family zones (“MF”) is almost twice the rate as in formerly single family areas (“neighborhood residential” or “NR”).

        Changes in zoning from NR to MF will result in a doubling of the rate of loss in those areas. Currently the city has about eight times as much acres in NR as in MF.

        As density increases, including as a result of “missing middle” legislation about to become law, the rate of canopy loss in residential areas will increase, unless the City adopts a tree ordinance that requires some space for trees in the MF zones when they are (re)developed.

  • K April 14, 2023 (9:37 am)

    Are we only supposed to complain about developers and new construction  or is it okay to complain about the older single family homes devoid of trees on their lot? I’m new here and want to fit in.

  • jayspeidell April 14, 2023 (9:39 am)

    Stop cutting down trees and building on undeveloped land. Ease up on zoning regulations and allow for multifamily developments in residential neighborhoods. Require developers to build underground parking so that we don’t have to subsidize the properties with surface parking. (Surface parking in a city is unacceptable. I used to live in Seoul, which has more parks and tree cover than Seattle in large part due to all parking being underground.) Two previously undeveloped lots in Puget Ridge are currently being
    developed into single family homes, which remove trees while only adding
    housing for two families. The hundreds of new units going up in Alaska Junction with zero
    underground parking are going to put a lot of strain on the neighborhood
    and eventually require more surface parking lots, more residential
    parking, and more trees lost for car storage. Solutions are here. They are easy. But NIMBYs won’t allow it.

  • BJG April 14, 2023 (10:04 am)

    Who are you kidding? Neighbors or NIMBYs as you call us have had no say in the density or type of development that’s been going on here. Did you just show up? The fix was is when our neighborhood became an “Urban Village.” The rest is our sad history and developers and the City have been writing it. We just watch it happen. Geesh!

    • Canopee! April 14, 2023 (12:45 pm)

      Actually it is just the reverse of that scenario that a recent UW Study published.  
      The study links the rise of, ironically liberal leaning, neighborhood activism that rose forty years ago.  
      This coincided with rapid rise in home values, leading to speculation and expectations of high returns for homeowners.  
      Those with homes became concerned about their home investment with the still cited (but rarely proven), “What will this do to my home’s value?” whenever some change occurs in the neighborhood.  
      Established homes and their titled owners opposed and suppressed new housing through their activism.  
      The city council and mayor advanced restrictions proposed by the neighborhoods.  

      This is the heart of Seattle rising lack of  housing, lack of affordable housing and skyrocketing cost of rents.

  • BJG April 14, 2023 (1:45 pm)

    My response was to the poster’s lack of undestanding about the Junction’s increasing density and lack of undeground or any parking. You are raving about something else entirely. My nearby Junction home was built in 1926. It is not large. The lot is forty feet. Our family bought it from the builder/owner in 1945 and we have lived here continuously since then. We are not speculators. We do keep it up, but we are not wealthy.  We are simply  Seattle homeowners. Much like our neighbors, we would like a safe and pleasant place to live…with our two trees. That’s it, no dark, ulterior motives. You and many who love to hate just carry on so ignorantly. It makes me tired.

Sorry, comment time is over.