WEEK AHEAD: How would rezoning proposal affect tree canopy in West Seattle?

CarDriver November 18, 2024 (6:28 am)

Pretty easy to figure out. More homes/apartments/condos equals fewer trees. Question will be if the city will change their current tree cutting/pruning rules or just let developers ignore them.

I love trees November 18, 2024 (6:42 am)

Whatever you think of this rezoning, it is always so important to plant trees. Do it today if you have any space.

Friend O'Dinghus November 18, 2024 (8:25 am)

I totally agree. Also, improve your odds of success by learning all the specifics of tree planting (different in some key ways ) before heading out with your shovel. Fall is the best tree planting time too. Pick yourself the perfect variety for your space/needs for optimal results. I guarantee that you will be happy with the results.

K November 18, 2024 (8:15 am)

Hopefully this will examine overall tree canopy, and not the individual lot-level addition or removal of trees. You can add 2-3 units by removing a single tree in the city. Adding those units in the suburbs requires removal of numerous trees per unit. I would also love to see presentations on how road and parking projects impact tree canopy. There would be lots of room to add trees along roads everywhere if street parking were removed on one side (if not both).

Jethro Marx November 18, 2024 (12:28 pm)

There’s a whole batch of similar nonsense parading as fact in these comments but K seems to have been the most flagrant: what can you possibly be basing this on? You have many assumptions with no basis in reality in your suburbs vs. city tree scenarios. I get it, you think cars are the worst and housing density is the best; it would be more honest to just come out and say it rather than make up junk numbers and hint at scientific bases that are not supported by actual science.
- walkerws November 18, 2024 (1:45 pm)
  
  Fun fact: cars actually are the worst and housing density actually is the best. Tree canopies also rule.
Sandy November 18, 2024 (2:02 pm)

Most of Seattle’s new housing is built on lots that previously had houses on them. Most big trees are growing on the edges of lots, so are naturally in the setbacks already required by code. They can be saved with very little effort, but it’s more profitable for construction companies to scrape the lot–mainly to avoid the annoyance of working around a tree. A tree that is an annoyance for a construction company is actually of very great value to the community and future residents of the new homes. It’s not a lot to ask that trees outside the building footprint be saved. A well-known developer who often builds in West Seattle said this: “I need to double my money every three years” or pass on a project: Saving Seattle’s Heritage Trees (But at the Expense of Losing Many Others?) | Post Alley
The King November 18, 2024 (3:15 pm)

Adding trees to where parking used to be sounds all green and everything. But it’s getting cold and I enjoy having power to heat the house. My parents were here during the 1962 Columbus Day storm, I vividly remember the 1993 Inauguration Day storm. Trees are great in the right areas. Next to power lines doesn’t seem like a good idea.
David M November 19, 2024 (8:24 am)

Yes, this program is considering the big picture… similar to the recent work with the City of Portland, as Oregon adopted increased urban density a few years before Washington, then went back and prepared legislation to accommodate their urban forest goals.It is a simple task of mathematics looking at the 2021 Seattle Tree Canopy Assessment. How? If we mathematically remove the measured acreage of existing tree canopy from private residential property, the long-term citywide average canopy would drop to roughly 12% to 13%. Then let us assume doubling the canopy acreage within available spaces within the street right-of-way, then the long-term citywide average canopy be estimated to be roughly 17% to 18%. Those scenarios are significantly less than the 2021 measured 28.1% average canopy cover inequitably distributed within the City.Public records request currently show Seattle is losing more trees from Right-of-Ways than trees being planted. This problem is further compounded when we learn that one out of every three new trees planted do not survive past the first five years without watering and care.

anonyme November 18, 2024 (9:08 am)

Even if weren’t obvious from current development projects, common sense would dictate that unlimited density requires tree removal. On one block in my neighborhood, there are two such developments on one block. The lots were clearcut, and several significant trees were removed, including a Doug fir that was one of the tallest in the neighborhood. Planting some scraggly little saplings that probably won’t survive (given the damage to the soil during construction and lack of aftercare) doesn’t come close to replacing century-old trees. Three large trees per lot per year is way too many, even without taking into consideration the many trees that are being cut illegally.

30%! November 18, 2024 (10:15 am)

What block are you referring to ‘anonyme’?
The Sisko November 18, 2024 (5:44 pm)

The alternative to increasing density, increasing sprawl, leads to even greater loss of trees. It also damages intact habitats, eats up farmland, adds to congestion, and creates impossible infrastructure maintenance costs for cities. Let’s preserve trees by building smart density in the city where it belongs.
- Jethro Marx November 18, 2024 (8:15 pm)
  
  Yes, we all know this is the status quo propaganda. But how do you show that it’s true? Not in heartrending anecdotes from the past but real proof that this is the current state of things under our area’s current law?
  
  You will first have to acknowledge that a 150 year-old fir among others on Cougar Mountain is a different thing than that one super-tall tree on your city block.

30%! November 18, 2024 (9:51 am)

Many of us agree on the importance of trees, but these anti-housing groups that keep popping up focus solely on the individual tree in an infill, not the overall health of trees in our public lands and parks.
This group with just a few members lists an architect who seems to specialize in critiquing other projects and telling designers how to compromise their project(s) for a single tree.
Although demonizing development is certainly popular, it does nothing for our tree canopy, or the shortage of housing.
Even if these zealots could prevent all tree removal for development, Seattle would still not come close to its canopy goals.
The only way to increase canopy is through massive street tree plantings and pouring millions into our neglected green ways, parks and public lands.
Providing homeowners for tree expensive maintenance would be also make a difference.

This meeting will no doubt provide a template for opposition letters.
There will be no discussion on how to actually increase our tree canopy, unless I attend and ask those questions.

Treelessinseattle November 18, 2024 (2:06 pm)

What you just shared is also not based on fact. You sound like a bitter developer who wasn’t allowed to clear cut a lot to sell one of your many McMansions. Either that or just an informed density zealot who could care less about the livability and health of our city. If you don’t like the mission of the group stay home. At least they are trying to inform the public of upcoming changes – what are you doing?

Shawn November 18, 2024 (10:13 am)

I sincerely hope that there is no artificial conflict created here. Tree canopy is critically important for both mental health and keeping the heat island effect in check, but it need not come at the cost of housing density. For example, you could rip up all the street parking asphalt and use the space for trees. Or expand the building lot out further to make room for a tree filled courtyard. Or do green roofs (not trees but a similar result). There’s lots of options.

Joe Z November 18, 2024 (12:01 pm)

I would like to see more trees planted as part of traffic calming projects and stormwater management. I also wish SDOT had a more organized plan to add tree canopy in unimproved ROW in areas that are currently overrun by blackberry and other invasives.

Rhonda November 18, 2024 (12:42 pm)

It’s basic Geometry: less bare earth = less room for trees. Higher density in Seattle means less tree canopy in Seattle, period. There’s far more trees per square mile in West Seattle than in Belltown because there’s more dirt. Increased density will destroy trees and the wildlife that lives in/among them, make West Seattle hotter in our summers, and make soil more unstable.

Bbron November 18, 2024 (9:47 pm)

cool, yeah… however if you want to consider actual data instead of what feels right to you, you’d see that what’s actually substantially reducing our tree canopy is removal of trees from neighborhood residential plots for purposes other than development (https://www.seattle.gov/trees/management/canopy-cover#:~:text=2021%20Canopy%20Cover%20Study,down%20from%2028.6%25%20in%202016.). Our tree canopy is most at risk due to the whims of whether a homeowner wants to stop dealing with raking leaves each winter. Turns out that, empirically, the morale homeowner will not safeguard trees for everyone’s benefit. Also missing from the conversation: trees die, especially when they are isolated like the one or 2 a plot you champion. Turns out our trees survive best as a collective, i.e. a forest which you can’t have if you’re spawling people all over the place because you need 1000 sqft of lawn per home to grow your single tree. Everyone talks about how “Lincoln Park is a gem 💎!” yet we could’ve had a whole stash of those diamonds if density was a priority and not owning a lil fiefdom.
- David M November 19, 2024 (9:20 am)
  
  Yes, ‘Bbron’, the quantity of loss is summed up is higher in the non-developed areas, but that is not the trend. The 2021 data from the City shows an average canopy loss of 39.8% per developed lot. This is significantly higher than the average canopy loss of just 1.4% per parcel where no new development occurs.

Isla November 18, 2024 (1:22 pm)

46% of Seattle’s current tree canopy is in single family yards. It is not a minor part of our climate protection ecosystem. Also, to focus on individual trees exclusively is to forget that around these trees is drainage, shrubbery, bird and bee habitat and gardens. These are all vanishing at an alarming rate as three and four units of housing are built on these former SF garden lots. Street trees’ benefit to the environment is negligible when they are small deciduous trees as is often planted. Developer-planted “replacement” trees rarely make it past year one, as they are not watered or properly planted. Trees that have been growing in yards for 30-150 years provide a level of climate benefit far greater than new trees. This is the reason the removal is being protested. People trying to preserve trees are not trying to prevent housing. They want a level of development that is livable and provides protection from climate change. They also want to maintain the beauty and the psychological-emotional benefits of having nature in the city and not just in a few isolated parks or a 10 mile drive outside of the city limits. These large trees, and particularly groves of trees, have an interconnected root system that is vital to the health of our drainage. Our city water and drainage infrastructure has not kept up with the level of development to date and is alarmingly unprepared for the 300,000+ houses being proposed in the upzones. We have seen the effect of this in Ballard with the flooding that has caused enormous damage to buildings like the Salty Dog studios. When everything is paved, and there is no underground root system to retain water in our new torrential downpours, water has to go somewhere.The architect who has been providing alternate development plans is an expert. There is no reason to allow developers to cut corners and do the least environmentally sensitive plan, which sacrifices more trees than necessary. We urgently need a new tree ordinance that prioritizes the importance of neighborhood trees and their retention. Portland already made our mistake in upzone regulations, realized it as their tree canopy vanished, and has now put in the sensible protections needed. We should follow their lead.

KT November 18, 2024 (2:16 pm)

YES!!!! I agree 1,000%! The preservation of established trees in Seattle and all a cross the NW is vital. I’m 6th generation Seattle native. It’s the NW way. We are not above nature. We will learn the hard way if we don’t respect it!
30%! November 18, 2024 (2:29 pm)

That is quite a discourse ‘Isla.’
But we all have been made aware of how important trees are.

The question remains how to fix and enhance our canopy.

Understanding that SFRs contribute 47% of canopy, you focus solely on development restrictions and costly tree requirements.

What about the other 53% of our canopy?

The same attributes Isla makes for tree preservation apply to our public lands, why not address the elephant trampling the forest?
After all, the same survey listed public lands as losing the most tree canopy, ahead of the loss from construction and backyard lumberjacks combined.

No one will address just how we will reach our 30% canopy goal with our public lands deterioration of trees.

Claims about trees and their roots systems preventing events like the flooding in Ballard are nonsense.
The argument about water and drainage infrastructure is a red herring because new housing uses a fraction of that of established homes. The hard-surface runoff must now be calculated and an infiltration system required, as opposed to a drainpipe hard-lined to the sewer of old houses.
The sewer overflows are the legacy and result of thousands of old combined sewers.

Suggesting that an “expert” architect should come in and tell other architects and their clients what to do (with alternative plans!) is questionable at best.
- Isla November 18, 2024 (5:16 pm)
  
  The drainage points that I made are not nonsense. We are not talking about a new house versus an old house: the up zones are calling for block upon block of massive apartment complexes and townhouses. The Ballard density that affected the water system south of Market was the blocks upon blocks of apartments. When Ravenna was facing an up zone in the HALA era, the community hired a water and drainage specialist to testify on their behalf against the upzones. He presented scientific data on the importance of tree roots to retaining water in the land and allowing slow manageable flow in heavy rainfall. He explained how intense development and massed impermeable surfaces, as far as a half mile away from Ravenna Park, could affect the solidity of the Ravenna Park ravine and cause it to slide. Yes: tree roots matter. Massed impermeable surface at the levels proposed in the comp plan cannot manage our rainfall with current infrastructure.I am puzzled that you present the brutalist architects’ plans for clear cuts and development as somehow sacrosanct, and seem to suggest it is improper to challenge them. The vast majority of the infill we are seeing, done with a formulaic set of 3 to 4 structures, is barely “designed”. It is a template spit out by the build teams at Legacy Group Capital and a few other large companies and rubber stamped at SDCI. The sole purpose of these plans is to extract profit for investors.As to the diversion of the conversation to loss on other parts of the city’s public lands, the most recent commenter is correct: The City says canopy was at 28.1% in 2021 and 28.6% in 2016 and that most of the decline was due to development
  - 30%! November 18, 2024 (6:03 pm)
    
    Isla,
    I see that you truly didn’t understand when you use a hired gun to generate a soft weak quote “could affect the solidity of the Ravenna Park ravine and cause it to slide.”
    Has that slide happened?
    The “formulaic set of three or four structures” are the exact type referred to.
    They are not mainlined to the combined sewer like all the old houses.
    Speaking of cookie cutter design, many of those lauded ‘craftsman bungalows’ were ordered from Sears catalog and in their day, detested as much as anything today.
    The new housing has infiltration systems designed by civil engineers to Seattle requirements.
    Brutalist architect?
    Please google?
    
    Also please read the report.
    We can at least agree on its words, “The highest net losses were in Parks Natural Areas” https://seattle.gov/documents/Departments/OSE/Urban%20Forestry/2021%20Tree%20Canopy%20Assessment%20Report_FINAL_230227.pdf
    I am confused about your charge that I present any plans, clear cuts and sacrosanct development?
    Did I?
    No but I would present that we have a housing shortage that is inhuman.
    - Isla November 18, 2024 (9:46 pm)
      
      The Ravenna community held off the upzones, in part because of the expert testimony. The levels of development that could have affected Ravenna Park did not happen as a result, and so the park infrastructure still stands.
Bbron November 18, 2024 (9:57 pm)

A critical mistake in your post is pinning the tree canopy loss on developing residential plots into higher density. If you look at the actual tree surveys, the majority of that loss is due to removal for non development reasons, e.g. a homeowner cutting down their tree because they want to. You can easily see a single plot get clear cut, but what’s actually destroying the canopy is the decisions of individual at homeowners with no benefit to density. So trees aren’t being lost to density; it’s an empirically false concern (as of right now).

Steph November 18, 2024 (1:59 pm)

I drove north on 39th ave NE to Lake City last month and the street tree canopy there was incredibly beautiful. I felt like I was immersed in an impressionist painting. I wish every street could be like that!! I got up today and bought trees and shrubs at the King County Conservation website. Started today. They sell out quickly. They don’t offer as many as previously. I’m also reading up on cuttings, seeds, acorns, etc. But many of those I would be fortunate to live to see grow up. It’s too bad trees have gotten expensive. I have kept many of mine and would plant more if I could afford it.

Alex November 18, 2024 (2:02 pm)

Half of Seattle’s tree canopy comes from the residential neighborhoods. Under the current rules, you can build on 35% of the lot. Under the proposed Seattle One Plan, most lots in residential neighborhoods will be zoned NR Neighborhood Residential or LR Lowrise Residential. LR has 3 height levels: LR1 means 3 stories, LR2 means 4 stories and LR3 means 5 stories. (If you live in Fauntleroy, the bulk of the rezoning is to replace homes with 5 story apartment buildings.)The proposed zoning will allow building on 50% of lots zoned for NR and 70% on lots zoned for LR. Mathematically, over time, with substantially more of the residential lot consumed with the building structure means something else has to change if Seattle wants to meet its 30% tree canopy goal. The City says it was at 28.1% in 2021 and 28.6% in 2016 and that most of the decline was due to development.

30%! November 18, 2024 (4:10 pm)

No, most of the decline was not due to development. From the study- “The highest net losses were in Parks Natural Areas” Because the majority is being lost on our city’s public lands, it is impossible to reach 30% while ignoring this dreadful decline.

Isla November 18, 2024 (8:15 pm)

Tree loss on private property can be tracked through the Tree Service Provider removal notices: it’s about 1850 removals so far in 2024. in 2023, there were 295 trees removed along streets, but in 2022 there were 450, and in previous years it has gone as high as 800. Often these street removals are related to construction.
- 30%! November 18, 2024 (10:38 pm)
  
  Remarkable pivot from the facts of the report, Isla!
  Of course those tracking numbers are skewed by the changes in codes and reporting.
  If anything, this surge in tracking numbers is a result of anticipated changes in the code that has homeowners realizing a last chance before draconian changes in what they can do in their own yard with their own trees.
  
  Again, none of this residential argument matters if we are actually trying to achieve 30% canopy which is unattainable without the Seattle public property canopy restoration (public property is experiencing far larger loss than the loss rough housing developments according to published data and studies).
  
  I want to reach that 30%, why don’t you?
  - Isla November 19, 2024 (6:45 am)
    
    Canopy percentage gosls are important, but not when percentages are divorced from their purpose: livability and sustainability. Nothing said in these comments by myself or others says we don’t support restoration of trees in parks and watersheds, but the focus of comments here is response to the article, which is about the effect of re-zoning housing on Trees. The article is not about tree restoration in parks. If we put all of our effort into making sure all the trees in Lincoln Park that have fallen or aged are replaced, yet allow the trees to be removed from residential areas, the practical result is more heat islands within West Seattle. Trees in the neighborhoods create cooler neighborhoods without artificial air conditioning. I have lived in apartment buildings surrounded by trees and I have lived in houses surrounded by trees and I have never needed air-conditioning. Neighborhoods that have natural tree canopy in yards and tall trees on streets have 10 to 15° lower temperature in heat waves than neighborhoods without neighborhood trees.I will leave it to others to continue the conversation with you.

Voter November 18, 2024 (5:30 pm)

The registration link for the online session on Saturday at noon is not available on the site. Any ideas how to participate in that or is it cancelled?

Isla November 18, 2024 (5:41 pm)

https://www.eventbrite.com/e/seattle-zoning-changes-are-coming-how-will-they-affect-you-tickets-1083261055979The link worked for me—?

Voter November 18, 2024 (5:41 pm)

You can cancel my last request/problem report about a missing link to the online session on Saturday. I re-read the instructions about the event and found my error!Thank you!

millie November 18, 2024 (10:12 pm)

The past several weeks The Seattle Times has photos on planned (urban villages) – one the Wedgewood area of North Seattle, the other the Issaquah Highlands. On both cases, the photos reflected house upon house. The Issaquah Highlands photo was completely void of any trees. We have new homes going up off of Roxhury driving down to the 1st Avenue Bridge. Most, if not all, the old growth trees have been removed. These examples are offered in response to the canopy discussion.

3-30-300 November 19, 2024 (9:27 am)

Several folks have referenced the 2021 Seattle Tree Canopy Report as evidence that development does not have a big impact on tree loss. And they encouraged us to “read the report.” Well, some of us have. In detail. Many times. I encourage you all to do so and to look specifically at the appendices. The report contains a lot of good information. AND here are some facts about its flaws:
The Vermont lab that provided the canopy study data did NOT write the
report. Instead, the narrative part of the report was written by City
planners, subject to their bias, which in our experience has favored development and fostered lax
enforcement of tree codes. The data tables in the
appendix tell the real story.

Two truths revealed by the canopy study’s own data:

Tree loss was greatest on residential land (not parks): Appendix A
on Page 44 shows that 1,005 acres of trees were lost on residential
land (870 in Neighborhood Residential + 135 in Multifamily) and 242
acres of trees in parks were lost (182 in Natural
Areas + 60 in Developed Parks). 1,005 in residential is a lot more
than 242 in parks! But there is much more residential land than
parkland, so the relative loss on residential land (% of total acres lost) is lower. The report writers chose to focus on loss relative to the unit
size rather than on the absolute size of the loss. This is an example of analyzing and reporting the data to support their desired conclusion.

Trees on parcels undergoing development are 20X more likely to be removed than non-development parcels: Table 4 on page 46 shows that “redeveloped” parcels had 33-49% losses, depending on zone. The report writers also
cherry-picked projects—including only those that started and
finished from 2017-2021, a narrower time frame than the canopy study
data, and excluding all the projects whose final sign-offs were delayed
by the pandemic.

The canopy study’s statement that development has “little
or nothing” to do with tree loss is belied by its own data. The timing
of its release is also suspect, as it was followed within a month
by a new tree ordinance which loosened or
eliminated tree removal restrictions for development.Please read the report, including the appendices, and see for yourself.

30%! November 19, 2024 (11:09 am)

Whoops!
I did read the report and see that you have cherry picked data from the chart you reference.
The right side of the chart shows the net change which shows 87 acres residential and 18 acres multifamily net change, while natural areas lost 111 and developed parks 5 acres.
The result is that Seattle public parks and land lost more acres of canopy than all tree loss from homeowners and development.
Net change is all that matters.
This is what the report states, “The highest net losses were in Parks Natural Areas.”
Claiming the report is biased towards developers is clearly false considering the DEI context of it.

Jason November 19, 2024 (9:34 am)

Concern trolling trees is not going to get homeless off the streets anytime soon. We NEED HOUSING first. Trees second. Homelessness leads to more destructive environments than lack of housing. It is high time we become a real big boy city. Density NOW.

3-30-300 November 19, 2024 (12:36 pm)

I don’t see the argument as being about whether Seattle needs more housing and more density. It’s how we achieve that that is the issue. We can have density AND trees. Other cities like Portland have shown ways to do that. Otherwise, we will have lots of housing that becomes unlivable over time because of heat islands. See this article. Evidence shows that urban heat islands are deadly and take a heavier toll on communities of color and communities with more low-income folks. Do you care about that? See this article for the toll from the June 2021 heat wave. More to come, much worse over time.And: saying that you want Seattle to be a “real big boy city” is a tell. Seattle is already a “real big boy city.” The big boys are the developers who have outsized influence in the Mayor’s office. See this article.

Jason November 19, 2024 (3:54 pm)

Portland is almost all single family homes and have terrible tree protections… it is literally called Stumptown

3-30-300 November 19, 2024 (1:07 pm)

About your “whoops” comment above: In absolute terms, NR zones lost 105 acres of trees vs Parks lost 117. That’s around a 10% difference. Note that the report emphasizes, not that difference, but the difference between 1.2% loss in NR vs 5.1% loss in Parks. A much more dramatic contrast. So my comment about biased presentation of data stands. And about all of these data: Did the City really measure trees? The LIDAR study was done at an 8 foot level. How many rhododendron shrubs are there in NR zones that are at least 8 feet tall? We recommend a more accurate 10 foot level for us to know more about tree losses and gains. A tree inventory would be even more accurate, because a mature 30″ DSH tree does a lot more environmental work than 3 10″ DSH trees.

30%! November 19, 2024 (1:55 pm)

I read the article,
down the rabbit hole to find in the end it said heat island could be mitigated by trees a maximum of up to 1.5 degrees celsius.

Although it is laudable to address tree inequity in some areas, increased tree canopy will not prevent health issues when the difference is 103F vs 107F, with increasing global climate swings the heat will still be a killer.

Newer buildings with tight energy construction, green roofs with solar panels and flexible efficient electric heat pumps are a realistic solution.